Tag Archives: Darwinism

News

Journal editor resigns after publishing paper critical of global warming

2 Comments

From Secondhand Smoke.

Excerpt:

This appears to me to be the scenario in the resignation of the editor of a journal that published a paper by warming skeptics claiming NASA measurements showed that the earth sheds more warming into space than models predicted.  From the BBC story:

The editor of a science journal has resigned after admitting that a recent paper casting doubt on man-made climate change should not have been published. The paper, by US scientists Roy Spencer and William Braswell, claimed that computer models of climate inflated projections of temperature increase. It was seized on by “sceptic” bloggers, but attacked by mainstream scientists.

Wolfgang Wagner, editor of Remote Sensing journal, says he agrees with their criticisms and is stepping down. “Peer-reviewed journals are a pillar of modern science,” he writesin a resignation note published in Remote Sensing. “Their aim is to achieve highest scientific standards by carrying out a rigorous peer review that is, as a minimum requirement, supposed to be able to identify fundamental methodological errors or false claims. “Unfortunately, as many climate researchers and engaged observers of the climate change debate pointed out in various internet discussion fora, the paper by Spencer and Braswell… is most likely problematic in both aspects and should therefore not have been published.”

Interestingly, the paper was not retracted, so I guess it still stands despite the resignation.  I mean, if the paper was really unworthy of publishing, it should be withdrawn.  Perhaps that is because the authors would sue and all the external pressure would come to light?  I’m just askin’.

Here’s what paper’s co-author, warming skeptic Roy Spencer, said about the brouhaha. From his blog:

But let’s look at the core reason for the Editor-in-Chief’s resignation, in his own words, because I want to strenuously object to it:

…In other words, the problem I see with the paper by Spencer and Braswell is not that it declared a minority view (which was later unfortunately much exaggerated by the public media) but that it essentially ignored the scientific arguments of its opponents. This latter point was missed in the review process, explaining why I perceive this paper to be fundamentally flawed and therefore wrongly accepted by the journal

But the paper WAS precisely addressing the scientific arguments made by our opponents, and showing why they are wrong! That was the paper’s starting point! We dealt with specifics, numbers, calculations…while our critics only use generalities and talking points. There is no contest, as far as I can see, in this debate.

All of this reminds me of what happened to my friend and colleague Richard Sternberg after he published an intelligent design peer reviewed paper while an editor at the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington.  Boy did “the scientists” pounce! The Smithsonian was pressured to punish him for his heresy–and even though Sternberg’s work for the Institute was not in question, he consequently came under terrible pressure, eventually resigning when it became clear that he would be allowed to do nothing useful there in the future. The U.S. Office of Special Council found that Sternberg was indeed punished politically. Read the whole letter.  It reveals vividly how politicized science destroys those whom it disdains for giving safe harbor to dissidents.

Global warming and Darwinism research seem to operate more like an academic theocracy, in which the twin religions of socialism and naturalism are protected from scientific inquiry by ensuring that dissenters are publicly shamed and excommunicated by a religious Inquisition.

See my previous post on the recent CERN research that two significant causes of global warming are related to humans. This should be obvious because of the Medieval Warming Period and the global warming on Mars which coincides with the warming cycles on Earth. But just think of all the taxpayer money that’s been wasted propping up these ideologies.

Commentary

Is evolution compatible with Christianity?

11 Comments

Denyse O’Leary found this article at the Washington Post about a Christian woman who discovered Darwinian evolution through the works of Richard Dawkins and Jerry Coyne. She found it to be incompatible with Christianity. (H/T Uncommon Descent)

Excerpt:

But of course evolution poses a problem for Christianity. That’s not to say it poses a problem for all Christians, since many Christians happily accept evolution: they see Genesis 1 as merely a metaphor, and declare that if God chose to create us using evolution, that’s fine by them. I used to be this kind of Christian myself; but I must confess that my blitheness was only possible because I had only the vaguest possible idea of how evolution works and certainly didn’t know enough about it to realize that unguided-ness is central to it.

While I welcome anyone who recognizes that the evidence for evolution is such that it cannot sensibly be denied, to attempt to co-opt evolution as part of a divine plan simply does not work, and suggests a highly superficial understanding of the subject.

And:

Evolution poses a further threat to Christianity, though, a threat that goes to the very heart of Christian teaching. … Evolution could not have produced a single mother and father of all future humans, so there was no Adam and no Eve. No Adam and Eve: no fall. No fall: no need for redemption. No need for redemption: no need for a redeemer. No need for a redeemer: no need for the crucifixion or the resurrection, and no need to believe in that redeemer in order to gain eternal life. And not the slightest reason to believe in eternal life in the first place.

That’s the understanding of evolution that she got from Richard Dawkins and Jerry Coyne.

Denyse O’Leary mentions that there is a group of “Christian” Darwinists who have no problem at all with the scientific claims made by atheistic Darwinists. They oppose intelligent design – the idea that science can detect effects in nature, like protein sequences, that are best explained as the result of intelligent causes. When it comes to what the science can show, atheists and “theistic evolutionists” agree: God didn’t do anything. So why are these “theistic evolutionists” pushing a theory that leads people to become atheists, when properly understood?

News

Rick Perry’s record on teaching the controversy is mixed

1 Comment

From Evolution News.

Excerpt:

It has to be challenging to be a presidential candidate. After all, you are expected to dispense wisdom (or at least comments) on almost everything under the sun, and you never know what question is going to come up next. Still, some questions should be easier to anticipate than others. For example, it has become pretty typical for candidates (especially Republican ones) to be grilled at some point about their views on evolution. So Governor Rick Perry shouldn’t have been surprised when asked earlier today about his own views on evolution, especially given all the controversy over the topic in his home state of Texas. What was a surprise was Perry’s answer. According to the New York Times, Perry claimed: “In Texas, we teach both creationism and evolution in our public schools.”

That’s news to me. In fact, Texas public schools do not teach creationism, at least not anywhere in the approved curriculum. But under science standards adopted in 2009, Texas students are asked to “analyze, evaluate, and critique scientific explanations… including examining all sides of scientific evidence of those scientific explanations, so as to encourage critical thinking by the student.” This sort of critical inquiry is supposed to apply to the discussion of Darwinian theory, and Texas students are also expected to “analyze and evaluate” the evidence for Darwinian claims about natural selection, mutations, cellular complexity, the fossil record, and more.

Alas, most Texas schools probably don’t engage in this sort of scientific weighing of the merits of Darwinian theory — due in large part to Perry’s own education appointees! Earlier this summer, Perry’s education commissioner recommended for use supplementary science curricula that fail to offer any critical analysis of Darwinian claims, contrary to the state’s own science standards. At the same time, Perry’s education commissioner allowed his staff to spike the one proposed curriculum that did try to follow the Texas science standards.

Perry will likely be excoriated for his comments by those on the left who think Perry is somehow a proponent of creationism. Ironically, the Texas Education Agency that Perry oversees has done its best to scuttle even a scientific discussion of the limits of Darwinian claims.

He’s not as good as Michele Bachmann on this education issue. I think that Bachmann would push control down to the state and local level, and abolish the federal Department of Education. She has had personal conflicts with the public school system – she’s hostile to them. She had conflicts with the school board, she homeschooled her own children, she started a charter school. I think she has had it with educational bureaucrats, and she would do more radical things to put control of children’s education in the hands of parents. She would be more likely to emphasize choice and competition, which is proven to lower costs and raise quality. She is more of a radical, and Perry isn’t radical enough.