Let’s stop conflating the creationist hoi polloi with skeptical climate scientists.
My friends on the left make much of the apparent correlation between creationism and skepticism about assured climate disaster. It is the “some–all fallacy” writ large. “Some” climate scientists who happen to believe in intelligent design, a variant of creationism, also question the high-sensitivity climate model. Therefore “all” who hypothesize that warming has been overblown must also question evolution; i.e., they are ignorant dolts.
Note to the Left on this one: No one — scientist or otherwise — has yet come up with the definitive explanation of the first life forms on earth. There is no conclusive bridge between self-replicating molecules capable of mutation (a definition of life) and the primordial, lifeless, dimly-lit planet Earth of some 3 billion years ago. So even the most erudite thinkers must resort to aliens, life-bearing comets, God — or, in my case, beats-the-heck-out-of-me.
My lefty friends are somewhat condescending towards skeptical climate scientists. Who hasn’t heard of Chris Mooney’s drivel that Republicans (in general), and those who think climate change isn’t horrible (in particular), are mentally ill? I guess it’s a good way to win an argument; after all, I think the people I disagree with are nuts, too.
The “some” of the fallacy is the University of Alabama’s Roy Spencer, a climate physicist who argues (as do I) that the “sensitivity” of climate to dreaded carbon dioxide has been overestimated in computer models. Spencer also believes in intelligent design.
Spencer’s chosen form of belief to explain the mystery of the first life on Earth is hardly germane to a rational discussion of his interpretation of climate findings. There are plenty of productive and successful scientists who go to church — most of which preach that God created man. And there are plenty of good scientists who don’t.
The worst of this conflation is saying someone is ‘anti-science’. Even flat-earthers make scientific claims. They simply use different data differently. At least their hypotheses are testable, which arguably makes them more pro-science than lots of warmists.
Flat-Earthers are trolls. One and all, aside from possibly a loony or two, none of them believe what they are spouting. However, they like railroading fools who come at them unprepared with basic debate techniques. A run-in with the Flat Earth Society is a humbling reminder about how well you can work with a premise that is completely false.
Patrick J. Michaels is as big a dingbat as Rush Limbaugh when it comes to evolution.
“There is no conclusive bridge between self-replicating molecules capable of mutation (a definition of life) and the primordial, lifeless, dimly-lit planet Earth of some 3 billion years ago. So even the most erudite thinkers must resort to aliens, life-bearing comets, God — or, in my case, beats-the-heck-out-of-me.”
It is self-evident from this that he doesn’t know what evolution is about. Just like Limbaugh. And the Sullivan Group. Rush spouts off about evolution and his alleged accuracy rating doesn’t go down.
Listen up: evolution explains the diversity of life on earth. Quite well. Life existed on earth with little change for 3 billion years. Around .5 billion years ago, evolution kicked into gear. The Cambrian Explosion. That evolution science can’t explain the origin of life on earth is of ABSOLUTELY NO INTEREST TO EVOLUTION SCIENCE. Events 3 billion years prior to the kickoff are a completely different subject, as foreign as gravity. Evolution can’t explain gravity, either, but so what?
BWTM . . . All that is necessary for evolution is
1. Reproduction
2. Inheritance of traits
3. Variability of traits.
We can see all of these. We have kids. They look like us. Some have blue eyes and some have brown eyes.
That’s it! All ingredients required for evolution.
For all conservatives that don’t believe in evolution, SHUT UP! You don’t know what you are talking about. Believe what you want, but when you start talking about evolution, you violate St. Augustine’s rule.
GC, there is still a very large gap in our understanding. While the basic framework is self-evident, the origin of life is a very murky question. Here are the two questions on which creationism rests
1: If entropy is finite and can only increase, there must be a beginning. What the heck happened to start the universe?
2: What happened to start a molecule into self-replicating? How did Life Begin?
In the creationist mind, the answer to those questions are that a sentient, all-powerful being created the universe and started life. There are more details that various sects have carved out, but that in itself does not contradict anything known to science
I think you miss my point. Abiogenisis and evolution are two separate subjects. Creationists have this gotcha attitude toward abiogenisis, when evolutionists simply don’t care. They are involved with change, not origins. By attacking abiogenisis, they show that they have no clue about evolution.
There is also a strong element of the ad hominem attack in this ‘argument.’ The basic idea is this: when you are losing a debate because you don’t have the facts and/or the logic to win irrefutably, then you attack the opponent. If you can convince the third parties present that your opponent is not worth listening to, then you have effectively won – for now.
This is a time-proven rhetorical device dating back at least as far as Aristotle. Aristotle cataloged what he called ‘fallacies’ – rhetorical devices used to persuade listeners regardless of the inherent value (if any) in the argument.
Of course, if you DO have the facts and logic to support your argument, you should just keep trotting them out. You may not persuade the gullible or the true believers, but newcomers to the debate, and the listeners with minds that are open will see the merit in your arguments. It is this that will build your numbers, but only attrition will reduce the numbers of your foes.
Remember, General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics were incontrovertibly demonstrated correct in the 1920′s, but the ‘Old Guard’ maintained their devotion to Galilean Relativity and Newtonian Mechanics well into the 1960′s.
We still have a few years to go.