Beam me to Planet Gore !
I have always said ..The same people that think all plants and animals evolved a in a changing environment...now think the environment is incapable of change.
Anthony Horvath, Athanatos Ministries
http://athanatosministries.org
Published 02/18/2010 - 6:28 a.m. CST
This is a quick response to a forum posting discussing my article a couple of days ago discussing how the global warming hysteria was foisted on the world population. I argued that it wasn't difficult to understand: global warming proponents merely needed to use the techniques that had already been shown to be effective in the promotion of evolutionary theory. This is a response and some clarification.
In the first place, I can see from a tactical point of view people wouldn't want to link the debate over 'climate change' with the debate over unguided macro-evolution. However, my bone is not with evolutionary theory, but with how it is promoted, as ought to have been clear by my statement in the original post:
"...my previous paragraph above should not be construed as saying that GW and evolutionary theory are incorrect. My objection could stand with both being entirely true."
As is often the case, readers often seize on key words and imagine caricatures in their heads. Very often they stop actually reading what is before their eyes and read from the script in their head. I'm pretty sure this is one of those cases, since this statement makes two things perfectly clear: 1., both GW and evolutionary theory may very well be completely true and 2., nonetheless, I object to how they are promoted.
None of the commentators bothered to comment on the actual examples that I gave. For example, I pointed out that GW had set itself up to be virtually unfalsifiable- whether it is hot, or cold, GW proponents insist both are evidence for GW. In evolutionary theory, we are led to believe that unguided macroevolution is plausible since there is so much time available for it- only to discover that most of it happened only in the last 500 million years, and that very suddenly- thus, whether we see evolution going fast or going slow, it is still evidence for evolution.
The basic point is that the American people have long been conditioned to accept such specious argumentation so it is really no surprise that they would accept it in regards to climate change.
I cite other examples on the empirical parallels but won't revisit those here. Instead, I'd like to draw attention to a very profound parallel that forces me to abandon 'tactical' considerations and state the important truth: namely, both evolutionary theory and global warming have historically dovetailed very nicely into the far left liberal paradigm.
As I pointed out in my original column, but no one bothered to address, the original 'science' text book at the center of the Scopes-Monkey trial openly connected evolutionary theory to eugenics. Within just a few decades, Hitler would be taking the eugenic program to its logical conclusion. But population control is also one of the central strategies proposed by Global Warming proponents. It should be a matter of grave concern that rabid pro-abortionists find themselves completely at home operating either on evolutionary theory or on climate change.
How can the founders of Planned Parenthood promote the eugenics philosophy that Hitler would eventually put into action and then decades later have the same kinds of folks so easily speak openly about instituting a global 'one child' policy like in China in order to 'save the planet'?
It is because in both cases, the liberals hid behind 'scientific consensus' and so bamboozled honest and fair citizens who have a deep respect for real science.
If there is any lesson to be learned from from the rapidly deteriorating case for global warming it is that whenever we ever hear in the future someone invoke 'scientific consensus,' watch out.
In the old days when someone wanted to prove their scientific point, they directed your attention to an actual experiment or two to support their contention. Today all they need to do is invoke 'scientific consensus' and then berate you if you are not satisfied with this.
Now, some of the commentators smugly presume that I must be ignorant about science, blah, blah, blah. This is really another example of the berating we have come to expect rather than the production of hard data that can be tested, re-tested, etc. Science is not supposed to be established by insult, and in real science it never is, because real science is observable, measurable, and repeatable.
Berating extends to professional sabotage: Global Warming proponents have been trying to derail the careers of scientists who disagree with them for years, but evolutionary proponents have been doing that for years, as Ben Stein's documentary Expelled helped show.
A free citizenry can only remain free when it constantly and openly questions the powers that be, wherever and whoever they are. When dissenters are punished by being ostracized and the chief argument for the orthodox position is that there is a 'scientific consensus' for it a free population must refuse to go along with it.
My point in invoking evolutionary theory was not to try to promote my Young Earth Creationism, which I thought it only fair and a matter of integrity to be up front about. The point was to show that the very same methods and techniques used to promote global warming have been and are still being used to promote evolutionary theory. This does not, as I said before, mean that either is false.
I will say that a third time: it does not mean that either is false. It does mean that we need to wake up and be much more skeptical than we have been. We must refuse to tolerate underhanded shots at dissenters and we must insist on only the very best empirically verifiable data being made available to the public at all times, especially amongst those bearing the responsibility that comes with the position of 'scientist.'
If this data cannot be produced without being accompanied by derision, then you should suspect that something might be fishy.
But the whole liberal platform is advanced by derision and the politics of personal destruction.
Thus, we should stand up to these kinds of tactics wherever we see them. Otherwise, after we're done cleaning up the mess left from the global warming hoax, we'll find ourselves neck deep in the next attempt to control and manipulate us under the cover of 'scientific consensus.'
A free society needs checks and balances or it will be co-opted and enslaved. The scientific community is composed of humans who like everyone else require checks and balances. Just like we hold our politicians accountable, so too should we hold the scientific community accountable. Both groups exert huge influence over public policy and they should be held to the highest possible standards.
If we don't do this, the 21st century will end up just as bloody as the 20th century was... and much of that bloodletting was perpetuated under the blessing of the 'scientific consensus.'
Lots of similarities between the attitudes of
Global Warmers and Evolutionary Warmers.
Settled Science comes to mind...
I have been referring to Evolution as “DarwinGate” - I agree with the writer!