Creationists don’t understand science, but they are not stupid. According to the NYTimes [link below], they are now latching on to the controversy over global warming to promote their faith-based agenda. The AGW folks brought it on themselves.
I have often said that one of the worst effects of the polticization of the science by the AGW backers is that they setting us all up for a massive backlash against science. Perhaps it has begun here. Once you get evolution and religion mixed into it, there’s no way out.
The IPCC fans have helped bring this on by turning a scientific debate into a battle between “science” and deniers, flat-earthers, and so-called conspiracy theorists. This view is tacitly accepted by the NYTimes as well, as evidenced by the article yesterday about the rear guard protective action the IPCC/AGW folks are trying to ginn up. (Such know-nothing attitudes are part of the screaming, but not the substantive debate.)
For the record:
- Creationism and Intelligent Design do not meet any criteria for consideration as scientific hypotheses. They are notions rooted in religious faith.
- Evolution by mutation and natural selection is a well-founded scientific hypothesis that has been so well supported over generations that it is dignified with the designation of “Theory.” (Theory does not mean guess, or hypothesis! More at this post.)
- Antropogenic global warming (AGW) is a plausible scientific hypothesis that has, I think, a very weak supporting body of evidence.
- The sceptical view on AGW is not a theory or competing hypothesis: It is simply a recognition that one should not be convinced by the AGW case. The null hypothesis, that our climate system is very complex and shows many historical examples of rather wide variation remains in force. In addition I would say that humans probably do have a noticeable impact on regional climate, but not necessarily or principally as a result of CO2 discharges. This is a long-standing view of many climatologists and geographers.
Critics of evolution are gaining ground by linking the issue to climate change, arguing that dissenting views on both should be taught in public schools.