Science and Culture Today | Page 1248 | Discovering Design in Nature

You can often tell who won a debate by the plausibility of an account. In that regard, Donald Prothero made many dubious claims about his debate yesterday with Michael Shermer against Steve Meyer and Richard Sternberg. Let’s hone in on a couple short comments. Prothero writes: “I know I caught [Meyer] off-guard, since I have degrees in both biology and geology, and know most of their arguments better than they do.” Prothero later felt it was appropriate to boast about his following question: “I asked Meyer if he needed the ‘Designer’ to make every glop of mud.” Of course anyone with a cursory knowledge of ID would be aware that ID fully allows for the action of natural processes, and Read More ›

This is not a parody. I swear this is not a parody. From the NEWS.scotsman.com; date November 30, 2009 (post-ClimateGate):

Warming will ‘wipe out billions’

MOST of the world’s population will be wiped out if political leaders fail to agree a method of stopping current rates of global warming, one of the UK’s most senior climate scientists has warned.

Professor Kevin Anderson, director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change, believes only around 10 per cent of the planet’s population — around half a billion people — will survive if global temperatures rise by 4C.

I’m speechless. I’m really trying to think of something to say.

From the Sunday Times in London:

SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.

It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years.

The UEA’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) was forced to reveal the loss following requests for the data under Freedom of Information legislation.

Last week National Geographic published an article, “Evolution vs. Intelligent Design: 6 Bones of Contention,” that did a mixed job of conveying the pro-intelligent design (ID) viewpoint. When the article actually provided quotes from me (or other ID proponents) about ID–which I very much appreciated–it was accurate. When the article purported to convey the views of ID proponents, sometimes it went badly astray. The article also provided the views of ID-critics, namely Donald Prothero. That’s fine, but unfortunately in each case, the pro-ID viewpoint was immediately rebutted by Prothero with zero sur-rebuttals defending ID. Dr. Prothero, who is a geology professor at Occidental College, is debating with Michael Shermer against Stephen Meyer and Richard Sternberg today in Los Angeles on Read More ›

Most of us know that President Eisenhower, in his farewell speech, warned of the danger of the “military-industrial complex”. Regardless of your particular stand on military spending, there is no doubt that he was substantially right about the enormous abuse of power and fraud in the defense industry. Less known is the Eisenhower’s second warning in the speech. Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual Read More ›

There’s a totalitarian subtext to scientism. Scientism entails a militant certainty of truth, and an utter intolerance for dissent that is remarkably akin to totalitarian political movements. Scientism is increasingly a spawn of the political left, which has been the primary source of totalitarianism in the past century.

The reaction of Darwinists or of global warming scientists to even the most mild skepticism is remarkably vicious. They hunt down skeptics and suppress differing opinions using practically any means at their disposal. If a school district attaches a sticker to a textbook that says “Darwin’s theory is a theory, not a fact, and evidence for and against it should be considered.” it will find itself in federal court, facing financial ruin, with jail a possibility for individuals who don’t comply. Who would have imagined, a few decades ago, that scientists would use courts to settle scientific disputes?

As the ClimateGate emails amply demonstrate, scientists who believe in global warming systematically exclude and professionally destroy scientists who express skepticism. The emails show a remarkable demand for doctrinal purity in climate science. These pro-global warming scientists manufacture a “consensus” using strong-arm tactics, and enforce it with singular purpose. And when asked why scientists use such brutal tactics, they reply ‘because it’s consensus science!”

Particularly disturbing to me is the appellation “denialism” applied to mere questioning of scientific orthodoxy. It’s an effort to drive anyone who questions orthodoxy out of acceptable society. Bourgeoisie, reactionaries, revisionists, denialists. It fits well in the Leninist lexicon.

Melanie Phillips at the British Spectator has a fine essay on this totalitarian current in the global warming movement. It applies as well to other encroachments of scientism in our civilization.

Green Totalitarianism

Although this year has been widely touted as the “Year of Darwin” because of its big Darwin-related anniversaries, the book reviewers at the Times Literary Supplement (TLS) in London seem less than enthralled with the year’s crop of pro-Darwin retreads from the publishing industry. Indeed, the TLS’s “Books of the Year” issue just released last Friday fails to include any of the year’s big pro-Darwin tomes such as Jerry Coyne’s Why Evolution Is True or even Richard Dawkins’ The Greatest Show on Earth among its “Books of the Year.” Instead, the only book so honored that focuses on the Darwin-ID debate is Stephen Meyer’s Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design, which was selected by noted Read More ›

Discovery Institute President Bruce Chapman has written an insightful essay examining the broader significance of the ClimateGate scandal, including its implications for the Darwin-ID debate. Noting that certain major media outlets have tried to spike the ClimateGate story, Chapman observes that “the story is just too compelling to suppress in other outlets and on the Internet.” But he goes on to ask: what will it take for the media to take up the exactly parallel case of scientists who question the ability of Darwinian natural selection to explain the origin of life and the development of species? In several instances (the Richard Sternberg case, the Guillermo Gonzalez case), email trails have shown a similar attitude of entitlement and coercion. And Read More ›