Skip to main content
Message Font: Serif | Sans-Serif
No. of Recommendations: 7
If the consensus on GW is wrong, it is just a current reminder that ANY scientific consensus can be wrong (like natural selection).

That's a very simplistic view, and one that I don't believe can be supported.

The problem with global warming is that because of the enormous consequences, the science community is being asked to form an opinion based on incomplete data and preliminary models. The scientific "consensus" is that climatogy is poorly understood and the current data inadequate, but if forced to make a conclusion, most scientists believe that carbon levels in air and water is trending upward, that human activity contributes significantly to those levels, and that this has potentially severe climatic repercussions.

In comparison, there is far more physical evidence supporting "scientific consensus" such as relativity, quantum mechanices, and evolution. So much so that evolution has scientific credibilty at least as high as the other two theories.

I don't see the same significance if the theories you mention are wrong, compared to the significance of the prevailing naturalistic explanation of biodiversity being wrong.

Suppose the prevailing naturalistic explanations for biodiversity are wrong. They will simply be replaced by other naturalistic speculations or simply be given a "we don't know" by the scientific community. It would not make IDism any more credible in the scientific community, any more than a refutation of quantum mechanics would increase the validity of astrology.

But I can sure evaluate the logic behind many of them, and I can tell in many cases when a scientific article gives testable detail or only Dawkinesque story-telling-as-science.

I don't think you can if the bulk of your information is coming from web sites that are promoting a particular point of view. No offense, but I think you let other people do your thinking for you.

And if you are referring to ID ("assuming stuff for which there is no evidence"), we disagree on the "no evidence" part. The genetic code looks designed. It may well be.

"The genetic code looks designed" is not what one would call strong evidence.

The striped pattern of colors and great red spot observed in the atmosphere of Jupitor also "looks designed". Do you consider that evidence of an intelligent Jovian art group?
Print the post  


When Life Gives You Lemons
We all have had hardships and made poor decisions. The important thing is how we respond and grow. Read the story of a Fool who started from nothing, and looks to gain everything.
Contact Us
Contact Customer Service and other Fool departments here.
What was Your Dumbest Investment?
Share it with us -- and learn from others' stories of flubs.
Work for Fools?
Winner of the Washingtonian great places to work, and Glassdoor #1 Company to Work For 2015! Have access to all of TMF's online and email products for FREE, and be paid for your contributions to TMF! Click the link and start your Fool career.