eagleseven
Quod Erat Demonstrandum
With the recent Climategate Scandal, a discussion of the differences and similarities between AGW and Evolution are warranted.
As far as scientific theory goes, evolution has proven itself particularly useful. Specifically, it explains why bacteria and viruses keep changing to defeat our medical technology. Without evolutionary theory, there's no reason why bacteria and viruses should change at all.
Unless God makes modern bacteria antibiotic-resistant, and creates new types of viruses like HIV, just to make our lives miserable? (although if you asked Pat Robertson, he'd argue God created HIV to punish the homosexuals).
How does evolution differ from Climategate? In several important ways:
1. Unlike AGW, Evolutionary theory is continually evolving, changing as new discoveries are made. The core of the theory is Darwin's principle of "Natural Selection", but his other ideas which were shown to be false have since been dropped.
Part of the problem with evolution-skeptics is that they argue against Darwin's version of the theory, not realizing that the theory has dramatically changed. There are now answers to many questions skeptics had 200 years ago.
2. Unlike AGW, scientists have and continue to aggressively argue over the details of evolutionary theory. Even Darwin, in his day, had arguments with rival evolutionary theorists (see Lamarck, Leibniz, Herder, Buffon, etc). Darwin's theory of Natural Selection is the only theory from that era which has survived nearly 200 years of peer-review.
3. AGW is a very new theory, established merely twenty years ago. In contrasts, evolutionary theory dates back to the natural philosophers of ancient Greece and China, although it wasn't until the 1700s that science had become advanced enough to generate convincing evidence to support or oppose the theory.
4. Evolution is only a theory, much like Einstein's Theory of Relativity. The deaths of 220,000 Japanese in 1945 are evidence supporting relativity, while the differentiation and fundamental change observed in bacteria, viruses, and some birds are evidence of Evolutionary Theory.
The reason why they are both considered scientific theory, is because they are falsifiable. That is to say, both Special Relativity and Modern Evolution can be proven false...and indeed, many early evolutionary theories have been shown to be false.
5. Last, but not least, there is the matter of scale. AGW was created and pushed by a small group of elite insiders, who went to great pains, even breaking the law, to keep outside scientists out of their research. Evolutionary theory is being studied by thousands of scientists acting independently around the world, and skeptics are actively encouraged to join in on the research.
What isn't tolerated, however, is using scientific publications to argue the validity of a particular religion (monotheism), as the Intelligent Design people do. This often causes the ID folks to scream "conspiracy," but rather, it is a matter of scientific integrity. The scientific community avoids any theories that involve supernatural deities, because there is no way to perform rigorous experiments upon said gods. How, pray tell, do the ID folks intend to prove that there is but one intelligent designer, and not a pantheon of intelligent designers? They cannot, and thus intelligent design stunts scientific discovery.
As far as scientific theory goes, evolution has proven itself particularly useful. Specifically, it explains why bacteria and viruses keep changing to defeat our medical technology. Without evolutionary theory, there's no reason why bacteria and viruses should change at all.
Unless God makes modern bacteria antibiotic-resistant, and creates new types of viruses like HIV, just to make our lives miserable? (although if you asked Pat Robertson, he'd argue God created HIV to punish the homosexuals).
How does evolution differ from Climategate? In several important ways:
1. Unlike AGW, Evolutionary theory is continually evolving, changing as new discoveries are made. The core of the theory is Darwin's principle of "Natural Selection", but his other ideas which were shown to be false have since been dropped.
Part of the problem with evolution-skeptics is that they argue against Darwin's version of the theory, not realizing that the theory has dramatically changed. There are now answers to many questions skeptics had 200 years ago.
2. Unlike AGW, scientists have and continue to aggressively argue over the details of evolutionary theory. Even Darwin, in his day, had arguments with rival evolutionary theorists (see Lamarck, Leibniz, Herder, Buffon, etc). Darwin's theory of Natural Selection is the only theory from that era which has survived nearly 200 years of peer-review.
3. AGW is a very new theory, established merely twenty years ago. In contrasts, evolutionary theory dates back to the natural philosophers of ancient Greece and China, although it wasn't until the 1700s that science had become advanced enough to generate convincing evidence to support or oppose the theory.
4. Evolution is only a theory, much like Einstein's Theory of Relativity. The deaths of 220,000 Japanese in 1945 are evidence supporting relativity, while the differentiation and fundamental change observed in bacteria, viruses, and some birds are evidence of Evolutionary Theory.
The reason why they are both considered scientific theory, is because they are falsifiable. That is to say, both Special Relativity and Modern Evolution can be proven false...and indeed, many early evolutionary theories have been shown to be false.
5. Last, but not least, there is the matter of scale. AGW was created and pushed by a small group of elite insiders, who went to great pains, even breaking the law, to keep outside scientists out of their research. Evolutionary theory is being studied by thousands of scientists acting independently around the world, and skeptics are actively encouraged to join in on the research.
What isn't tolerated, however, is using scientific publications to argue the validity of a particular religion (monotheism), as the Intelligent Design people do. This often causes the ID folks to scream "conspiracy," but rather, it is a matter of scientific integrity. The scientific community avoids any theories that involve supernatural deities, because there is no way to perform rigorous experiments upon said gods. How, pray tell, do the ID folks intend to prove that there is but one intelligent designer, and not a pantheon of intelligent designers? They cannot, and thus intelligent design stunts scientific discovery.
Last edited:
