Recently a reader accused the Atlanta Creationism Examiner of presenting a straw man argument against evolution by attacking global warming. He claimed that it confuses the issues surrounding the subject of creationism by attacking an unrelated science.
The discussion of global warming has been inspired in part by the criticisms that peer review is necessary.
My criticisms of global warming theory and the corruption of science seen in the Climategate scandal is not directly related to my argument in support of creationism. The whole point of mentioning global warming is to illustrate how scientists can be wrong using contemporary data, so trusting them completely to properly interpret data millions of years old seems a risky proposition. Especially when they are caught cheating.
But they’ve been exonerated! the reader proclaimed. The British House of Commons Science and Technology Committee and the “independent” University of East Anglia’s Science Assessment Panel (SAP — what an unfortunate acronym) both allegedly exonerated Phil Jones and Michael Mann, so the story goes.
Not so fast, my friend. The assertion of innocence is premature, claims of exoneration complete balderdash. The court battle over Climategate is far from over. After all, how independent can a group of politicians looking for an excuse to raise taxes be? Peers culled from the same university as one of the chief perpetrators of the fraud are supposed to be objective arbiters of the truth?
While their peers and politicians conspire to “hide the decline” in the quality of what passes for science, dissenting voices are finally being heard in spite of the best efforts of Jones, Mann, Schneider and company.
The Skeptical Environmentalist author Bjorn Lomborg is now prominently featured in the new movie titled Cool It, a documentary film that exposes the hysterical exaggeration of global warming presented in Al Gore’s movie An Inconvenient Truth. A preview of the movie Cool It may be seen here.
The reason for my criticism of global warming is simple. A central component of the global warming conspiracy was to create a false consensus through peer review. That is the real straw man in this debate — the false assertion that peer review is required for information about supernatural phenomena for that information to be deemed credible.
If evolution theory were being argued in a criminal court of law, conviction would require proof beyond a reasonable doubt. But the court of public opinion hears civil cases. As such, only a preponderance of the evidence is necessarry to support the argument in order to win the case.
My argument against evolution theory is rather simple and straightforward. The farther back one regresses in time, the more difficult the problem becomes of answering the existential questions.
Multiverses (or an incredibly precise set of coincidences) are needed to solve the problem of the origin of matter for the Big Bang. Panspermia or some other artificial means of seeding life on Earth has been devised to solve the time problem created by abiogenesis leading to the development of DNA.
Blind luck is never involved, except somehow life manages to wriggle through a number of mass extinctions and flourish in spite of the occasional catastrophe. Every biological law of reproduction that we know currently exists must have been broken for speciation to create the incredible diversity of life we observe on Earth.
My criticisms of the theory of evolution are direct and to the point…the theory of evolution most frequently alleged to offer conclusive evidence disproving the existence of a creator God has nothing to do with creation. As we have seen, the scientific theories of the Big Bang and abiogenesis directly address the creation issues from a scientific perspective. The following equation was offered as more accurately reflecting the relationship between the theories in question:
Creationism = Big Bang + abiogenesis + speciation + natural selection
The creation question is this: does a supernatural God represent the equal sign of the equation?
Climategate is only relevant to the discussion of creationism for two specific reasons.
- The gross distortion of factual evidence about climate change caused by carbon emissions can only be described as total incompetence or deliberate malfeasance on the part of the “experts” — take your pick. It certainly proves scientists can be wrong about contemporary science. So why trust them completely to decipher truth about incidents that happened eons ago, when they are even more likely to be wrong?
- The episode demonstrates that peer review only amounts to collaboration between like-minded people, not the establishment of a gold-standard for science.
The focus of this column shall remain on the following questions: is there evidence supporting the supernatural, and by extension the existence of a supernatural God? Can scientific evidence for evolution be reconciled with religious belief?
But articles revealing flaws in the methods and procedures demanded by those who wish to judge the evidence flawed will also remain relevant. Criticisms of global warming are justified because peer review is inappropriately demanded of eyewitness accounts and testimony. Therefore, the abuse of peer review in context of the Climategate scandal makes it an appropriate topic of discussion, only to expose the flaws in its application.
The requirement for peer review as part of the “scientific method” is inappropriate when applied to the search for a supernatural God. God has no peers.