Intelligent Design

Climate Alarmists Caught Lying (Again)

Spread the love

See Here

The Mail on Sunday today reveals astonishing evidence that the organisation that is the world’s leading source of climate data rushed to publish a landmark paper that exaggerated global warming and was timed to influence the historic Paris Agreement on climate change.

Which leads me to wonder yet again, if the evidence is really so overwhelming, why do they feel compelled to exaggerate, mislead and outright lie about it?

30 Replies to “Climate Alarmists Caught Lying (Again)

  1. 1
    OldArmy94 says:

    “Which leads me to wonder yet again, if the evidence is really so overwhelming, why do they feel compelled to exaggerate, mislead and outright lie about it?”

    Why? Because all of us deniers make it so hard for them to share the gospel of climate change. Remember Dan Rather’s “fake, but accurate” spin?

  2. 2
    asauber says:

    We are in Baghdad Bob territory now with “believers.”

    Andrew

  3. 3
    News says:

    They probably don’t see themselves as lying. They say what they say for the good of the planet and inconvenient facts are not in the planet’s best interests. So those facts are squelched or windowdressed. nd t people who bring them up are basket cases anyway.

  4. 4
    Tom Robbins says:

    Oh they know they are lying, some rationalize, but most just want to keep their jobs. Now the true lay believe is a true believer. Now that the political climate has changed, I would look for the hysterics to be stopped in their tracks – yes the media will still keep pushing stories, but eventually, it will just be a little echo chamber that dies with a whimper as years come and go. And like so many incredibly embarrassing chapters in our history, it will just fade away, nobody will be held accountable for all the wasted treasure, our children’s inheritance. But US Science may be unsalvageable if big money is not removed, somehow – or our focus will become sharp again, and science will bring new technologies of energy and information to truely help the poorest and most vulnerable among us, and not kill them off.

  5. 5
    DillyGill says:

    Perhaps they have been studying evolution and understand how it works, take an observation, run it through your belief system and the answer that pops out is a fact. Then demand everyone believes you and any one who doesn’t is a denier of science.

  6. 6
    bornagain77 says:

    Of related note:

    “[O]ur beautiful, complex biosphere could never have occurred if Earth had not enjoyed billions of years of reasonably good weather.”2
    There are many processes that keep Earth’s environment habitable, “which [in] the Earth’s case may be special rather than universal.” ,,,

    Long Term Stable, Fine Tuned, and Rare, Atmosphere of Earth contradicts claims for Catastrophic Global Warming (December 2016)
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ent-622196

  7. 7
    Seversky says:

    Climate Alarmists Caught Lying (Again)

    No, more like the Daily Mail is caught lying (again). You really shouldn’t rely on a shoddy tabloid like the Mail to give a fair and accurate account of the controversy. If anyone is actually interested in a different perspective, you should look here.

  8. 8
    asauber says:

    You really shouldn’t rely on a shoddy tabloid like the Mail to give a fair and accurate account of the controversy.

    No one is relying on the Mail.

    Andrew

  9. 9
    EvilSnack says:

    It’s looking like another case of Argument by Moral Evaluation:

    Premise: Lying is bad.
    Premise: We’re not bad people.
    Conclusion: Therefore, what we said wasn’t a lie.

  10. 10
    bornagain77 says:

    Global warming alarmists want to take draconian measures to shut down industry so as to avert a supposed impending climate catastrophe. The presupposition behind their desire is the belief that industry is ‘unnatural’ and that by eliminating, or severely curtailing, industry it will restore the earth to its ‘natural balance’. Implicit in this assumption is the belief that it is ‘unnatural’ for man to build industries.

    Yet, when looking at the evidence objectively, we find that the earth was prepared in advance, i.e. ‘terraformed’ for billions of years, for a technologically advanced civilization to appear, and that man is gifted, apart from all other creatures on earth, with a unique ability to ‘master the planet’ by infusing information into the proper material substrates in order to create industry, as well as to create all other manner of other tools for his benefit and pleasure.

    None of this makes any sense on atheistic materialism and, in fact, this line of evidence directly undermines the hidden atheistic assumption behind the global warming hysteria. i.e. the hidden assumption that man, and particularly the technologically advanced civilization that he enjoys and benefits greatly from, was unintended and is therefore ‘unnatural’ and should be all but eliminated.

    Notes to that effect:

    Anthropic Principle: A Precise Plan for Humanity By Hugh Ross
    Excerpt: Brandon Carter, the British mathematician who coined the term “anthropic principle” (1974), noted the strange inequity of a universe that spends about 15 billion years “preparing” for the existence of a creature that has the potential to survive no more than 10 million years (optimistically).,, Carter and (later) astrophysicists John Barrow and Frank Tipler demonstrated that the inequality exists for virtually any conceivable intelligent species under any conceivable life-support conditions. Roughly 15 billion years represents a minimum preparation time for advanced life: 11 billion toward formation of a stable planetary system, one with the right chemical and physical conditions for primitive life, and four billion more years toward preparation of a planet within that system, one richly layered with the biodeposits necessary for civilized intelligent life. Even this long time and convergence of “just right” conditions reflect miraculous efficiency.
    Moreover the physical and biological conditions necessary to support an intelligent civilized species do not last indefinitely. They are subject to continuous change: the Sun continues to brighten, Earth’s rotation period lengthens, Earth’s plate tectonic activity declines, and Earth’s atmospheric composition varies. In just 10 million years or less, Earth will lose its ability to sustain human life. In fact, this estimate of the human habitability time window may be grossly optimistic. In all likelihood, a nearby supernova eruption, a climatic perturbation, a social or environmental upheaval, or the genetic accumulation of negative mutations will doom the species to extinction sometime sooner than twenty thousand years from now.
    http://christiangodblog.blogsp.....chive.html

    Life and Earth History Reveal God’s Miraculous Preparation for Humans – Hugh Ross, PhD – video (2015)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n2Y496NYnm8

    A Reasonable, but Incomplete, Account of How Humans Mastered Fire – Michael Denton – August 4, 2016
    In short, the discovery of fire, our subsequent mastery of it, and the road it opened up to an advanced technology were only possible because of our inhabiting a world almost exactly like planet earth, complete with atmospheric conditions exactly as they are, along with the properties of carbon and oxygen atoms (and indeed many of the other atoms of the periodic table), and because we possessed a unique anatomical design (including the hand) uniquely fit for fire-making.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....03048.html

    Fire-Maker – Michael Denton – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=an98jVCyApo

    Leading Evolutionary Scientists Admit We Have No Evolutionary Explanation of Human Language – December 19, 2014
    Excerpt: Understanding the evolution of language requires evidence regarding origins and processes that led to change. In the last 40 years, there has been an explosion of research on this problem as well as a sense that considerable progress has been made. We argue instead that the richness of ideas is accompanied by a poverty of evidence, with essentially no explanation of how and why our linguistic computations and representations evolved.,,,
    (Marc Hauser, Charles Yang, Robert Berwick, Ian Tattersall, Michael J. Ryan, Jeffrey Watumull, Noam Chomsky and Richard C. Lewontin, “The mystery of language evolution,” Frontiers in Psychology, Vol 5:401 (May 7, 2014).)
    Casey Luskin added: “It’s difficult to imagine much stronger words from a more prestigious collection of experts.”
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....92141.html

    January 2017 – Leading Evolutionary Scientists Admit We Have No Evolutionary Explanation of Human Language,,, Best Selling author Tom Wolfe was so taken aback by this honest confession by leading Darwinists that he wrote a book on the subject.,,,
    It is hard to imagine a more convincing scientific proof that we are made ‘in the image of God’ than finding both the universe, and life itself, are both ‘information theoretic’ in their foundational basis, and that we, of all the creatures on earth, uniquely possess an ability to understand and create information, and, moreover, have come to ‘master the planet’ precisely because of our unique ability infuse information into material substrates.
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ent-623446

    Thus basically, the atheistic belief behind the global warming hysteria, i.e. the belief that man, or more particularly the technologically advanced civilization of man, is ‘unnatural’ and therefore should be eliminated for the good of the world so as to avert global catastrophe is a fallacious belief that has no evidential basis in reality.
    Having no actual basis for their beliefs is not really all that surprising since all other atheistic claims also suffer the same fate when faced with the actual scientific evidence.

    The scientific evidence itself clearly indicates that man, and his technologically advanced civilization, were indeed intended, and prepared for, by God.

    Verse:

    Genesis 1:26
    And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

  11. 11
    john_a_designer says:

    The only truly global temperature measurements are from weather satellites in polar orbits.

    Dr. Judith Curry, a former AGW believer now turned skeptic, posted an article on her website in Dec. 2015 which includes an interesting graph.

    https://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2015/12/christy_dec8.jpg

    The red line represents what the average of 104 IPCC* computer generated climate models was predicting or forecasting.

    The blue and green lines represent actual data from actual global measurements. The blue is balloon data. The green is satellite data. The real data does show some global warming (the sceptics DO NOT DENY this) however it does not show the runaway, catastrophic warming the alarmists are predicting with their models. Who is being more rational here? The alarmists who cling to their predictions even though they have been proven wrong time and time again by real world data? Or those who analyse the real data to reach a tentative conclusion?

    Here is the full article:

    https://judithcurry.com/2015/12/17/climate-models-versus-climate-reality/

    footnote: *The U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

  12. 12
    asauber says:

    There are so many things wrong with climate science, to present any of it without qualifying it as speculation, is to lie about it.

    We can go to the concept of climate itself, if someone needs a starting place in evaluating what going on:

    What is climate and how is it scientifically determined/identified?

    Andrew

  13. 13
    Barry Arrington says:

    Andrew:

    “We are in Baghdad Bob territory now with ‘believers.'”

    Seversky confirms this observation at 7. Sev is the Captain Renault of the climate controversy.

    “I’m shocked, shocked to find out that after they massaged the numbers the temps went up. You know it really could have gone either way.”

  14. 14
    PaV says:

    Can you say “Piltdown Man”?

  15. 15
    asauber says:

    Also,

    Some people think the graphs that make the headlines are temperature graphs.

    No. They are data “products”. They are graphical representations of analyses of adjusted temperature data.

    And there’s a problem with the concept of “adjusted temperature data”. When you post hoc change the value of data, is it still data?

    Andrew

  16. 16
    john_a_designer says:

    Seversky lives in his own little world.

  17. 17
    Darwins_downfall says:

    Pav: “Can you say “Piltdown Man”?”

    To be fair, wasn’t it the evolutionists who identified the fact that Piltdown was a hoax?

  18. 18
    DATCG says:

    #15 Asauber,
    confirming your remarks about Data Products.

    Below link to article and charts of Software output in 3 states: CA, MI, and ME.

    Note interesting discussion on conservation of original DATA in 4th comment down by TC in the OC.

    It is well known adjustments are made due to change over time. With Urban Heat Island growth in cities, highways, concrete jungles and populations.

    The debate is how accurate, trustworthy are these adjustments? Good reason for a healthy skepticism of what is cause among different variables.

    After ClimateGate lies, manipulation and propaganda being exposed, there’s no wonder people become suspicious. Does not help IPCC predictions were wrong.

    “In each state, zero or very slight warming was converted to pronounced warming.”

    From new software installs, upgrades, etc….

    NOAA Software Spins the AGW game

  19. 19
    rvb8 says:

    Oh Dear,

    Wikipedia has ‘Banned’ the Daily Mail as a source for information about, well, anything.

    Wikipedia notes the Daily Mail’s poor history of sourcing facts, and fact checking facts. Kind of like UD I suppose.

    What really hurts is that Wikipedia still allows information from Russia Today, and Fox News, just not the Daily Mail.

    My advice to UD is to follow this ban, and abide by its findings. If you do publish findings from this egregious news organisation it could, might, possibly, reflect poorly upon your own talent for finding pertinent information defending the ID position: Just a thought, up to you!

    Apparently you can still link to the, ‘Daily’, just not referance it as a reliable source; ‘reliable source’. Heh:) Kind of like saying, ‘I got my science from Klinghoffer.’

  20. 20
    kairosfocus says:

    RVB8, Wikipedia, on political correctness tinged subjects has long since lost all credibility. It is notorious for hack jobs and even outright slander as well as for the destructive agenda driven pattern of editing including resistance to correction and good sources. We have no good reason to regard Wikipedia’s notions or behaviours as any guidelines whatsoever. Regardless of our views of Daily Mail, which also has its problems. For that matter, BBC, as well as any number of major media which in our time have spectacularly failed, willfully in many cases, in their duties of care to truth, fairness, responsibility. And, the rise of evolutionary materialism with its inherent amorality and undermining of responsible, rational freedom is a big part of the problem. One, which you would do well to address. KF

  21. 21
    bornagain77 says:

    Larry Sanger, Co-founder of Wikipedia, Agrees That it Does not Follow its Own Neutrality Policy. – December 1, 2016
    Excerpt: Mr. Sanger posted an article today about media bias in which he alluded to the neutrality policy he drafted.
    I replied (see the combox of the article):“Wikipedia’s neutrality policy.” I’ve been reading Wikipedia articles for years, and from the evidence I would not have thought such a thing exists, or, if it does, the name is somewhat misleading, because the policy would read something like: “On all matters cultural and political, Wikipedia will endeavor to crush conservative viewpoints. Neutrality will not be tolerated.” Just read the post on, for example, intelligent design theory. It is written by the theory’s antagonists, and all efforts to correct the post to reflect the real theory, as opposed to the straw man caricature presented by its opponents, are ruthlessly suppressed.”
    In a response Mr. Sanger stated:
    “For the record, I agree with this. Wikipedia doesn’t live up to its policy and in fact deliberately misinterprets it on some issues. Although I founded Wikipedia, I’m also long gone from the organization and am now probably its biggest critic, so…”
    There you go folks. We ain’t making it up. The co-founder of Wiki agrees with us.
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ty-policy/

  22. 22
    bornagain77 says:

    Even Wikipedia itself says that Wikipedia is not a credible source for information due to the fact ‘anyone can edit the information given at any time’ i.e. censorship by trolls:

    Wikipedia: Academic use
    Excerpt: Wikipedia is not considered a credible source. Wikipedia is increasingly used by people in the academic community, from freshman students to professors, as an easily accessible tertiary source for information about anything and everything. However, citation of Wikipedia in research papers may be considered unacceptable, because Wikipedia is not considered a credible or authoritative source.[1][2]
    This is especially true considering anyone can edit the information given at any time.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W.....ademic_use

  23. 23
    john_a_designer says:

    There has been an overall world-wide politicization and corruption of the media. This is especially evident with the so-called 24/7 news outlets like CNN and MSNBC. What is behind the corruption? Money. The problem is there isn’t always enough interesting news for a 24/7 news cycle. How do you pay super star level salaries (recently a former Fox News’ prime time star turned down a 20+ million dollar annual salary to go to work for NBC) and make a profit unless you draw an audience? You have to make the news interesting, push an agenda or even make up some news.

    Money also corrupts “climate science.” Governments are pouring billions of dollars into climate science to come up with a preordained result– mankind is causing climate change/ global warming. Dr. Judith Curry’s premature (forced?) retirement is but one example of this kind of corruption.

    Of course there is nothing new here. The apostle Paul warned early Christians: “The time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine [the truth]. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear” (2 Tim. 4:3)

  24. 24
    bornagain77 says:

    Astroturf and manipulation of media messages | Sharyl Attkisson |
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-bYAQ-ZZtEU
    Former CBS Reporter and Media Professional exposes the mind manipulation used by special interest groups, media, wikipedia, and medical.

  25. 25
    asauber says:

    And I suspect if you asked random believer on the street to explain what climate change is, they wouldn’t be able to.

    Global Warming/Climate Change is a religion of the ignorant.

    Andrew

  26. 26
    john_a_designer says:

    Whether or not the Daily Mail is the best journalistic source, if the following is true then it does not reflect well on NOAA’s so-called research on man caused climate change.

    In an interview with the Daily Mail, Bates said Karl was “insisting on decisions and scientific choices that maximized warming and minimized documentation… in an effort to discredit the notion of a global warming pause, rushed so that he could time publication to influence national and international deliberations on climate policy.”

    For example, Karl allegedly adjusted temperature data collected by robot buoys upward to match earlier data from ocean-going ships. That was problematic, Bates said, because ships generate heat and could cause readings to vary.

    “They had good data from buoys,” Bates told the Daily Mail. “And they threw it out and ‘corrected’ it by using the bad data from ships. You never change good data to agree with bad, but that’s what they did – so as to make it look as if the sea was warmer.”

    http://www.foxnews.com/science.....arges.html

    So-called tabloids do sometimes scoop the mainstream media. For example:

    When the Enquirer first reported in 2007 that Edwards had had an affair with Hunter, the former North Carolina senator dismissed the account as tabloid trash. The rest of the media, having no independent proof, steered clear of the story, even as Edwards, aided by his cancer-stricken wife Elizabeth, was mounting an aggressive campaign for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination.

    In August 2008, after being knocked out of the campaign, Edwards admitted to ABC’s “Nightline” that he had been lying about the affair. But he didn’t come entirely clean. Asked about the Enquirer cover that showed him with the baby during a late-night visit to a Beverly Hills hotel, Edwards denied paternity, saying: “Published in a supermarket tabloid. That is absolutely not true. . . . I know that it’s not possible that this child could be mine because of the timing of events.” He claimed he wasn’t sure if the man in the blurry photo was him.

    Edwards acknowledged that Frances Quinn Hunter is in fact his child in a statement first aired Thursday by NBC’s Lisa Myers. Once again, the Enquirer had been proved right.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/.....02670.html

    As it turned out the National Enquirer had done some top notch journalism on the story.

    The bottom line is that it is the facts– the evidence– which matter the most, not the source. Indeed, it is fallacious to dismiss a story or testimony, out of hand, because of the source. In logic this type of reasoning is known as the genetic fallacy.

  27. 27
    kairosfocus says:

    BA77, though some tabloids are notorious, we must remember that — strictly — it is a half broadsheet printing format. Of course in former days it was strongly associated with sensationalism and shoddiness, but that is not necessarily the case. For instance, I recently had occasion to see the Times of London (inventors of Times New Roman), and saw they had gone tabloid format. The proper approach is to look for indicators of spin [or worse, gaslighting] and pushing a narrative vs commitment to truth and fairness in the sound interests of the public. Far too many media houses are now failing this test and many are playing street theatre narrative pushing destructive agenda games through working to enable astroturf/front group using agit prop operations. KF

    PS: And yes, National Enquirer has in several cases done absolutely sterling work.

    PPS: Thanks for the reminder on Ms Atkisson’s TED talk.

  28. 28
    PaV says:

    Darwins_downfall:

    To be fair, wasn’t it the evolutionists who identified the fact that Piltdown was a hoax?

    From the History Channel:

    By the time of Dawson and Woodward’s historic announcement, the search for a missing link to prove Darwin’s still-controversial theory had grown intense.

    I suspect that it is going to be skeptical climate scientists who will prove that “global warming” is the biggest hoax mankind has ever seen.

    But that doesn’t take anything away from the fact that scientists will “find” what they’re looking for. And what are they “looking for”? Something, even made-up, that validates their “ideas”. Humankind’s ego can be immense.

  29. 29
    Darwins_downfall says:

    PaV: “

    I suspect that it is going to be skeptical climate scientists who will prove that “global warming” is the biggest hoax mankind has ever seen.”

    Isn’t calling it a hoax, in itself, an observational bias that leads to an expected conclusion? But if you are saying that if AGM is disproven that it will be climate scientists who will prove this, then I agree with you.

    But that doesn’t take anything away from the fact that scientists will “find” what they’re looking for. And what are they “looking for”? Something, even made-up, that validates their “ideas”. Humankind’s ego can be immense.

    I agree that scientists can be biased by what they think is true. This is true for everyone. Scientist, theist, atheist, politician, etc.. But science isn’t about developing a theory and then sticking to it regardless of the residence like most religions do. Theories are modified or overthrown as the result of evidence and testing. Evolution is no different. It has been modified many times since Darwin.

  30. 30
    bornagain77 says:

    Darwins_downfall, which is an interesting name for a Darwinian troll to take, states:

    But science isn’t about developing a theory and then sticking to it regardless of the residence (evidence) like most religions do. Theories are modified or overthrown as the result of evidence and testing. Evolution is no different. It has been modified many times since Darwin.

    Much like DD’s handle, there is much that is misleading in DD’s statement.

    Contrary to what DD believes. or what he is trying to falsely propagate, Darwinian evolution is very much a pseudo-scientific religion.

    But first before we get into that, let us be VERY clear that all of science, every discipline within science, is dependent on basic Theistic presuppositions about the rational intelligibility of the universe and the ability of our mind to comprehend that rational intelligibility. Modern science was born, and continues to be dependent on, those basic Theistic presuppositions:

    Science and Theism: Concord, not Conflict* – Robert C. Koons
    IV. The Dependency of Science Upon Theism (Page 21)
    Excerpt: Far from undermining the credibility of theism, the remarkable success of science in modern times is a remarkable confirmation of the truth of theism. It was from the perspective of Judeo-Christian theism—and from the perspective alone—that it was predictable that science would have succeeded as it has. Without the faith in the rational intelligibility of the world and the divine vocation of human beings to master it, modern science would never have been possible, and, even today, the continued rationality of the enterprise of science depends on convictions that can be reasonably grounded only in theistic metaphysics.
    http://www.robkoons.net/media/.....ffd524.pdf

    The Great Debate: Does God Exist? – Justin Holcomb – audio of the 1985 Greg Bahnsen debate available at the bottom of the site
    Excerpt: When we go to look at the different world views that atheists and theists have, I suggest we can prove the existence of God from the impossibility of the contrary.
    The transcendental proof for God’s existence is that without Him it is impossible to prove anything. The atheist worldview is irrational and cannot consistently provide the preconditions of intelligible experience, science, logic, or morality. The atheist worldview cannot allow for laws of logic, the uniformity of nature, the ability for the mind to understand the world, and moral absolutes. In that sense the atheist worldview cannot account for our debate tonight.,,,
    http://justinholcomb.com/2012/.....god-exist/

    Moreover, if we cast aside those basic Theistic presuppositions of the rational intelligibility of the universe and the ability of our mind to comprehend that rational intelligibility, and try to use Atheistic Materialism, i.e. methodological naturalism, as our basis for understanding the universe, and for practicing science, then everything within that atheistic/naturalistic worldview, (i.e. supposed evidence for Darwinian evolution, observations of reality, beliefs about reality, sense of self, free will, even reality itself), collapses into self refuting, unrestrained, flights of fantasy and imagination.

    Darwinian evolution, and atheism/naturalism in general, are built entirely upon a framework of illusions and fantasy
    Excerpt: Thus, basically, without God, everything within the atheistic/naturalistic worldview, (i.e. supposed evidence for Darwinian evolution, observations of reality, beliefs about reality, sense of self, free will, even reality itself), collapses into self refuting, unrestrained, flights of fantasy and imagination.
    It would be hard to fathom a more unscientific worldview than Darwinian evolution and Atheistic materialism/naturalism in general have turned out to be.
    Scientists should definitely stick with the worldview that brought them to the dance! i.e Christianity!
    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Q94y-QgZZGF0Q7HdcE-qdFcVGErhWxsVKP7GOmpKD6o/edit

    To reiterate, it would be hard to fathom a worldview that is more antagonistic to modern science than Darwinian evolution, and Atheistic naturalism in general, have turned out to be.

    Where Darwinian evolution goes off the rails, theologically speaking, as far as science itself is concerned, is that it uses bad liberal theology to try to establish the legitimacy of its atheistic claims, all the while forgetting that it itself is absolutely dependent on basic Theistic presuppositions about the rational intelligibility of the universe and of our minds to comprehend it.

    In fact, Darwin’s book, ‘Origin’, instead of being based on math and experimental evidence, is replete with bad liberal theology. Which should not really be all that surprising since Darwin’s college degree was in (liberal) theology and not in math,, (in fact Darwin found math to be ‘repugnant’):

    Charles Darwin, Theologian: Major New Article on Darwin’s Use of Theology in the Origin of Species – May 2011
    Excerpt: The Origin supplies abundant evidence of theology in action; as Dilley observes:
    I have argued that, in the first edition of the Origin, Darwin drew upon at least the following positiva theological claims in his case for descent with modification (and against special creation):
    1. Human beings are not justified in believing that God creates in ways analogous to the intellectual powers of the human mind.
    2. A God who is free to create as He wishes would create new biological limbs de novo rather than from a common pattern.
    3. A respectable deity would create biological structures in accord with a human conception of the ‘simplest mode’ to accomplish the functions of these structures.
    4. God would only create the minimum structure required for a given part’s function.
    5. God does not provide false empirical information about the origins of organisms.
    6. God impressed the laws of nature on matter.
    7. God directly created the first ‘primordial’ life.
    8. God did not perform miracles within organic history subsequent to the creation of the first life.
    9. A ‘distant’ God is not morally culpable for natural pain and suffering.
    10. The God of special creation, who allegedly performed miracles in organic history, is not plausible given the presence of natural pain and suffering.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....46391.html

    To this day, since Darwinists have no empirical evidence that their theory is remotely feasible, Darwinists are still very much dependent on bad liberal theology in order to try to establish the supposedly ‘scientific’ legitimacy of Darwinian claims:

    Methodological Naturalism: A Rule That No One Needs or Obeys – Paul Nelson – September 22, 2014
    Excerpt: It is a little-remarked but nonetheless deeply significant irony that evolutionary biology is the most theologically entangled science going. Open a book like Jerry Coyne’s Why Evolution is True (2009) or John Avise’s Inside the Human Genome (2010), and the theology leaps off the page. A wise creator, say Coyne, Avise, and many other evolutionary biologists, would not have made this or that structure; therefore, the structure evolved by undirected processes. Coyne and Avise, like many other evolutionary theorists going back to Darwin himself, make numerous “God-wouldn’t-have-done-it-that-way” arguments, thus predicating their arguments for the creative power of natural selection and random mutation on implicit theological assumptions about the character of God and what such an agent (if He existed) would or would not be likely to do.,,,
    ,,,with respect to one of the most famous texts in 20th-century biology, Theodosius Dobzhansky’s essay “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution” (1973).
    Although its title is widely cited as an aphorism, the text of Dobzhansky’s essay is rarely read. It is, in fact, a theological treatise. As Dilley (2013, p. 774) observes:
    “Strikingly, all seven of Dobzhansky’s arguments hinge upon claims about God’s nature, actions, purposes, or duties. In fact, without God-talk, the geneticist’s arguments for evolution are logically invalid. In short, theology is essential to Dobzhansky’s arguments.”,,
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....89971.html

    Nothing in biology makes sense except in light of theology? – Dilley S. – 2013
    Abstract
    This essay analyzes Theodosius Dobzhansky’s famous article, “Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution,” in which he presents some of his best arguments for evolution. I contend that all of Dobzhansky’s arguments hinge upon sectarian claims about God’s nature, actions, purposes, or duties. Moreover, Dobzhansky’s theology manifests several tensions, both in the epistemic justification of his theological claims and in their collective coherence. I note that other prominent biologists–such as Mayr, Dawkins, Eldredge, Ayala, de Beer, Futuyma, and Gould–also use theology-laden arguments. I recommend increased analysis of the justification, complexity, and coherence of this theology.
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23890740

    But the fact that Darwinian evolution is a just (bad liberal) religion masquerading as science is not what makes it a pseudo-science. What makes Darwinian evolution a pseudo-science is that it has, among other failings, no falsification criteria.

    “There are five standard tests for a scientific hypothesis. Has anyone observed the phenomenon — in this case, Evolution — as it occurred and recorded it? Could other scientists replicate it? Could any of them come up with a set of facts that, if true, would contradict the theory (Karl Popper’s “falsifiability” tests)? Could scientists make predictions based on it? Did it illuminate hitherto unknown or baffling areas of science? In the case of Evolution… well… no… no… no… no… and no.”
    – Tom Wolfe – The Kingdom of Speech – page 17

    The failure of Darwinism to meet these five standard tests is fleshed out in a bit more detail here:
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ent-622875

    Whereas Darwinists simply do not let any observation or empirical testing falsify their theory, the theory of Intelligent Design very much subjects itself to testing and potential falsification.

    “It is our contention that if ‘random’ is given a serious and crucial interpretation from a probabilistic point of view, the randomness postulate is highly implausible and that an adequate scientific theory of evolution must await the discovery and elucidation of new natural laws—physical, physico-chemical, and biological.”
    Murray Eden, “Inadequacies of Neo-Darwinian Evolution as a Scientific Theory,” Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution, editors Paul S. Moorhead and Martin M. Kaplan, June 1967, p. 109.

    And whereas Darwinian evolution has no known law of nature to appeal to so as to establish itself as a proper, testable, science, Intelligent Design does not suffer from such a disconnect from physical reality. In other words, Intelligent Design can appeal directly to ‘the laws of conservation of information’ (Dembski, Marks, etc..) in order to establish itself as a proper, testable, and rigorous science.
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ent-609504

    Thus, if Darwinists were truly concerned about keeping pseudo-scientific religion out of science classes then they would demand their own theory be removed from science classes.

    But alas, as Darwin’s theological treatise ‘Origin’ makes clear, it never was about the science for Darwinists in the first place. it was about establishing the supposed scientific legitimacy of their atheistic desires.,,, Darwin, and his modern day followers, have failed big time in their quest to make atheism ‘scientific’!

    Verse:

    1 Thessalonians 5:21
    but test everything; hold fast what is good.

Leave a Reply