Monday, February 04, 2008

Once Again: Dubious Assertion Used To Updraft Flailing Scientific Albatross


An unidentified Nigerian man takes a break from marauding the planet.
Axe overhauls may break him before he can plunder his daily 200,000th acre quota.

The whole "global warming" fiasco--one I've always personally believed is a socialist agenda hiding behind a mute constituency--has personally become a favorite subject for me.

I think this is the case primarily because of how the subject allows for its proponents to utilize the most malleable rhetoric required to keep the panic at fever pitch. This week, it how we're foresting ourselves out of our carbon dioxide defences.

Of course, this comes on the heels of the oft-repeated "acre a second" pablum (along with its permutations)brought forth daily in the public school classrooms. Try arguing against this with questions like "If that's the case, how come I can't hit my refresh button on Google Earth and see Brazil looking like a time-lapse shaving documentary?"

This, of course, ends up with me being castagated as a religious fanatic. Interesting. A group of environmental glad-handlers, notifying me that my indifference to changing my ways will cause the earth to burn.

Yep. They sure know how to distance themselves from religion, don't they?

And for those that love rhetorical red-meat for purely gratifying means, I give you the following:

Why should I, who supposedly arrived here by Darwinistic means be concerned that I am eliminated by Darwinistic means?

4 comments:

aahrens said...

Ron,
On that final Darwin quote, all I have to say is: rimshot.

AA

Steve said...

“Why should I, who supposedly arrived here by Darwinistic means be concerned that I am eliminated by Darwinistic means?”


I did a post for a class of mine last semester (biological psychology) that dealt with this. We were on the chapter dealing with hormones and sexuality when I came across the inevitable discussion on homosexuality. So I decided to point out that if a genetic cause was found for homosexuality it didn’t bode well for them according to evolutionary theory since they could not reproduce. Not one of my classmates commented on that post and the only comments were by my instructor who did not disagree with me. She mentioned that “there are some people who think homosexuals serve a ‘helping role’ in evolution, but the evidence is not convincing.”

I find it interesting, as one who has studied the scientific method on the college level that evolutionists, et al., depart from the scientific method and try to present their theory as “fact.” The burden of proof for causal relationships is extremely high in the scientific method, but somehow that never seems to get communicated down to the public school level, or even for many college students. Given the large amounts of time (millions of years) needed to support evolutionary theory there is no way to generate testable hypotheses. Who’s going to be around to observe an experiment for a million years? It’s hard for humans to figure out what happened 1000 years ago with any kind of accuracy, let alone 1000 times 1000 years.

One of the great disservices of the public education system has been a failure to promote critical thinking. The universities and colleges across the country don’t do much better as far as I can see.

Josh said...

Ron,
I think you are playing a dangerously unbiblical game with such rhetorical polarization. I'm not really sure what evolution has to do with global warming, or why you insist on placing both of these theories solely in the camp of those who don't believe in God.

Regarding global warming and environmental concerns, remember that the Bible has instructed us to be stewards of God's creation, not careless plunderers. Does a socialist agenda have to be advanced in order to take care of the planet God gave us? How much does it really cost you to recycle or use energy saving light bulbs?

You seem to be looking for points to argue, and i'm not sure why.

Ron Giesecke said...

Josh,

It isn't at all "dangerously unbiblical" to merely drive home the unifying theme here; that extreme environmentalism is nearly always walking in conjunction with those that would deny me the educational position to argue explicitly that the earth IS God's creation.

I just find the whole "change your ways before you burn" matrix a bit entertaining from those that believe in the christian=fanatic construct as well.

And as far as me advocating trashing the planet . . . well, I'm sorry if the transparency of my rhetorical question isn't apparent to you.

-R