ABC's Stossel Takes on Gore Movie, Talks to Dissenting Scientists

  • Bookmark and Share

On Friday's "20/20," ABC's John Stossel presented the views of scientists who dissent from the Al Gore view of global warming, including two former members of the IPCC – the committee which shared the Nobel Peace Prize with Gore. These scientists disagreed with the selection process of the committee's members and some of its conclusions. The ABC host disputed some of the claims in "An Inconvenient Truth," and even presented the view that increased carbon dioxide levels are the result of global warming, rather than the cause, as he took on Gore's famous graph from the movie. Stossel: "But the real inconvenient truth is that carbon increases came after temperature rose -- usually hundreds of years later. Temperature went up first. I wanted to ask Mr. Gore about that and other things, but he wouldn't agree to talk about this." Video of the segment can be seen here. (Transcript follows)

The ABC host introduced his regular "Give Me a Break" segment: "You've heard the reports. The globe is warming. And it's our fault. And the consequences will be terrible. But you should know there is another side to this story. And scientists who've tried to tell it are often threatened. Which makes me say, 'Give Me a Break.'"

Then came a number of clips of journalists relaying the purported danger of global warming, and clips of children expressing their fears of the future. After arguing that "An Inconvenient Truth" was incorrect or misleading in the way it presented the dangers of rising sea levels and the plight of polar bears in the Arctic, the ABC host then got to the movie's famous graph that the former Vice President used to argue that higher carbon dioxide levels cause temperatures to increase. Stossel: "I knew that carbon dioxide's thought to amplify temperature increases, but this shows a clear cause an effect. For 600,000 years, when carbon rose, so did temperature. It suggests that carbon levels control temperature. But the real inconvenient truth is that carbon increases came after temperature rose -- usually hundreds of years later. Temperature went up first. I wanted to ask Mr. Gore about that and other things, but he wouldn't agree to talk about this."

Stossel presented several scientists who dispute contentions by Gore and others that "the debate is over" on global warming. These scientists included Paul Reiter of the Pasteur Institute, Tim Ball of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project, and John Christy and Roy Spencer of the University of Alabama. Stossel relayed their contentions that global warming and cooling trends have happened in the past, and related that the media had "fretted about that then, too." Stossel: "Climate changes, they point out. It always has -- with or without man. Early last century, even without today's big output of carbon dioxide, the Arctic went through a warm period. The media fretted about that then, too. And Greenland's temperatures rose 50 percent faster in the 1920s than they're rising now. Some scientists say the warming may be caused by changes in the sun or ocean currents or changes in cloud cover. Or other things we don't understand. The debate is not over."

More on the media's history of reporting on warming and cooling trends over the last century can be found in a May 2005 report by the MRC's Business and Media Institute.

Reiter and Christy had notably been members of the IPCC, and they were critical of the way governments chose the members of the committee, some of whom were merely activists instead of scientists, suggesting that politics had played too great a role.

STOSSEL: Paul Reiter of the Pasteur Institute and John Christy say they were members of the IPCC. That so-called group of scientists, they say, is not what people think it is.

REITER: The IPCC is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. It is governments who nominate people. You'll find in many chapters that there are people who are not scientists at all.

STOSSEL: Who are they?

REITER: They were essentially activists.

STOSSEL: Members of groups like Greenpeace were involved. And when the IPCC report came out, not all its members agreed with what was said.

Reiter further said that he had resigned from the committee in protest because he disagreed with some of the report's findings, and had to threaten a lawsuit against the IPCC to have his name removed from the report, although, according to Stossel, the IPCC disputes this account.

Stossel then dealt with the issue of these types of global warming dissenters being "smeared as deniers," as those who support the more liberal view of global warming seek to compare their way of thinking to that of Holocaust deniers.

STOSSEL: Today, scientists like these are often smeared as "deniers."

UNIDENTIFIED MAN: We have Holocaust deniers, we have climate change deniers. And to be honest, I don't think there's a great deal of difference.

LINDA DOUGLAS, ABC News: Deniers are confusing the issue and delaying solutions.

Last August, "Newsweek" ran a cover story attacking the global warming "denial machine," and the "NBC Nightly News" soon ran its own story with the same theme.

After recounting that many global warming activists, like Al Gore and Robert F. Kennedy Jr., try to discredit skeptics by accusing them of "being purchased by a 'well-funded denial machine,'"  these scientists were shown denying that they receive any money because of their views, as they contended that, rather than being rewarded for their views, they have faced harassment and threats.

Stossel summed up his report: "Is this what the global warming debate has come to? One side saying, 'Shut up, dissent must not be heard'? The truth is that, while everyone agrees the earth has warmed, lots of good scientists don't agree that it's mostly our fault, and don't agree that it's going to be a catastrophe."

Below is a complete transcript of Stossel's "Give Me a Break" segment from the Friday October 19 "20/20":

JOHN STOSSEL: You've heard the reports. The globe is warming. And it's our fault. And the consequences will be terrible. But you should know there is another side to this story. And scientists who've tried to tell it are often threatened. Which makes me say, "Give Me a Break."

MATT LAUER, Today Show: -the world is heating up fast, and we have ourselves to blame.

DAWNA FRIESEN, Today Show: -global warming is real, and we humans are almost certainly the cause.

STOSSEL: Books warn that the earth is under fire, a suicidal planet's approaching a boiling point and a toxic burn. Children are frightened.

UNIDENTIFIED GIRL #1: I worry. My mom worries.

UNIDENTIFIED GIRL #2: The water might rise, and it might flood the whole town.

UNIDENTIFIED BOY #1: We won't be able to survive for long.

STOSSEL: And people say since global warming is because of man, it must be fixed by man now.

UNIDENTIFIED MAN in ad, standing in front of a moving train: Some say irreversible consequences are 30 years away.

STOSSEL: This Ad Council PSA says ignoring the coming crisis is like putting our kids in front of a train.

MAN: That won't affect me.

[The man steps off the track and leaves his daughter in front of the moving train.]

STOSSEL: What do you most worry will happen?

UNIDENTIFIED BOY #2: We'll all die.

STOSSEL: Are there some people who say this isn't true?

[Several children who are gathered say, "Yes."]

STOSSEL: Might they be right?

[Nearly all the children gathered say, "No."]

STOSSEL: How do you know they're not right?

UNIDENTIFIED GIRL #3: Well, because the Earth is getting hotter.

STOSSEL: Where do you learn this?

UNIDENTIFIED BOY #1: I saw the Al Gore video.

JERRY SEINFELD, at the Academy Awards: And the Oscar goes to An Inconvenient Truth.

STOSSEL: The global warming documentary featuring Vice President Al Gore has been seen by millions. People have proclaimed him a prophet, a cultural icon, a conquering hero.

LEONARDO DICAPRIO: You are a true champion for the cause, Mr. Gore.

STOSSEL: And last week, he won a Nobel Peace Prize. The Oscars were followed by other worldwide media events.

GORE: You are Live Earth.

STOSSEL: With all this hoopla, it's no surprise that 86 percent of Americans say global warming is a serious problem.

JOHN EDWARDS: Global warming is now, by anybody's measure, a crisis.

STOSSEL: But is it a crisis? Yes, the globe is warming, but is it really all our fault? And is it true that the debate is over? No. What you think you know, may not be so. For example, in An Inconvenient Truth, Gore says if we allow the globe to warm, terrible things will happen. And:

AL GORE: Sea level worldwide would go up 20 feet.

UNIDENTIFIED BOY #3: Yeah, maybe like the height of this building.

UNIDENTIFIED GIRL #4: We'll probably just, like, drown, and we'll die.

GORE: This is what would happen to the sea level in Florida. This is what would happen to San Francisco Bay.

STOSSEL: Maybe. Maybe in thousands of years, says the IPCC, the group that shared last week's Nobel Prize with the Vice President. But in 100 years, the oceans might rise 7 to 24 inches, not 20 feet.

GORE: A faster buildup of heat here.

STOSSEL: Mr. Gore also talks about melting ice caps.

GORE: That's not good for creatures like polar bears-

STOSSEL: They show this heart-rending cartoon.

[Cartoon of a polar bear swimming to floating ice and trying to get on, but it breaks leaving the bear in the water.]

GORE: A new scientific study shows that for the first time, they're finding polar bears that have actually drowned.

STOSSEL: But I bet you didn't know that polar bears appear to be doing all right. Future warming may hurt them, but right now, the World Conservation Union and the U.S. Geological Survey say most populations of polar bears are stable or increasing.

GORE: There is one relationship that is far more powerful than all the others-

STOSSEL: The most impressive demonstration in Mr. Gore's movie is the big graph of carbon dioxide levels.

GORE: Here's what the temperature has been on our Earth. Now, one thing that kind of jumps out at you is: Did they ever fit together?

STOSSEL: My goodness! I knew that carbon dioxide's thought to amplify temperature increases, but this shows a clear cause and effect. For 600,000 years, when carbon rose, so did temperature. It suggests that carbon levels control temperature. But the real inconvenient truth is that carbon increases came after temperature rose -- usually hundreds of years later. Temperature went up first. I wanted to ask Mr. Gore about that and other things, but he wouldn't agree to talk about this. Why should he when he and others say-

GORE: The debate's over.

UNIDENTIFIED MAN: The science is agreed upon.

Governor ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER (R-CA): The debate is over, and the science is in.

PAUL REITER, Pasteur Institute: It's absurd for people to say that sort of thing. It's really wrong.

STOSSEL: These scientists are among those who say the debate is by no means over. John Christie and Roy Spencer won NASA's Medal for Exceptional Achievement for figuring out how to get temperature data from satellites. They agree that the Earth has warmed.

JOHN CHRISTY, University of Alabama: We all agree that it's warmed, I think. The big question is, and the thing that we dispute, is: Is it because of mankind?

STOSSEL: Climate changes, they point out. It always has -- with or without man. Early last century, even without today's big output of carbon dioxide, the Arctic went through a warm period. The media fretted about that then, too. And Greenland's temperatures rose 50 percent faster in the 1920s than they're rising now. Some scientists say the warming may be caused by changes in the sun or ocean currents or changes in cloud cover. Or other things we don't understand. The debate is not over. And, anyway, who's to say that yesterday's temperature was the perfect one. If temperatures keep rising now, these scientists say we don't know that that will be all bad.

TIM BALL, Natural Resources Stewardship Project: The fact is, when the climate changes, there are gains and there are losses.

STOSSEL: But Tim Ball, who studies the history of climate change, points out that all we hear about is the bad news from the IPCC, that massive group of global warming scientists.

RICHARD BRANSON: 2,000 scientists.

LESTER HOLT, NBC News: 2,000 scientists.

FREDRICKA WHITFIELD, CNN: 2,500 scientists say the globe is getting warmer and we are to blame.

REITER: There's the most unmitigated rubbish talked about-

STOSSEL: Paul Reiter of the Pasteur Institute and John Christy say they were members of the IPCC. That so-called group of scientists, they say, is not what people think it is.

REITER: The IPCC is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. It is governments who nominate people. You'll find in many chapters that there are people who are not scientists at all.

STOSSEL: Who are they?

REITER: They were essentially activists.

STOSSEL: Members of groups like Greenpeace were involved. And when the IPCC report came out, not all its members agreed with what was said.

ROY SPENCER, University of Alabama: We were not asked to look at a particular statement and sign our names to it at all.

REITER: I got very frustrated, and I resigned.

STOSSEL: But the IPCC still listed Reiter as part of the so-called consensus.

REITER: I contacted the IPCC and said, "Look, I've resigned. I don't want to have anything more to do with this." And they said, "Well, you've been involved, so you're still on the list."

STOSSEL: Only when he threatened to sue, he says, did they take his name off the report. The IPCC denies that that happened. Today, scientists like these are often smeared as deniers.

UNIDENTIFIED MAN: We have Holocaust deniers, we have climate change deniers. And to be honest, I don't think there's a great deal of difference.

LINDA DOUGLAS, ABC News: Deniers are confusing the issue and delaying solutions.

STOSSEL: Often they're accused of being purchased by a "well-funded denial machine."

ROBERT F. KENNEDY JR.: These corporate toadies lying to you and telling you that global warming doesn't exist.

GORE: The illusion of a debate has been purchased with millions of dollars a year-

STOSSEL: Aren't you guys all on the take?

BALL: I wish I was. I wouldn't be driving a 1992 car and living in a leaky apartment.

STOSSEL: These scientists all say they don't get any money from business, yet some have been threatened. One email said, "You will not live long enough to see global warming."

BALL: And even more direct than that.

REITER: We stick our necks out. We do get hurt.

STOSSEL: Is this what the global warming debate has come to? One side saying, "Shut up, dissent must not be heard." The truth is that, while everyone agrees the earth has warmed, lots of good scientists don't agree that it's mostly our fault, and don't agree that it's going to be a catastrophe. So when the Nobel Prize winner says-

GORE: The debate's over. The debate's over.

STOSSEL: I say, "Give Me a Break."

—Brad Wilmouth is a news analyst at the Media Research Center.


Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

How DARE he dispute

How DARE he dispute this!

The debate is over!

The science is settled!

There is a concensus!

Suppose

Harry Reid will denounce him on the Senate floor? After all, Gore has a Nobel prize, and more importantly, an Oscar!

It's just a guess, mind...

...But after the hilarious boning Dingy Harry and the "Phony 41" got from "the Declaration of Incompetence" that Limbaugh sold on eBay, he's not going to denounce anyone for a while.

I don't imagine he'll survive what Hillary's going to do to him for involving her in the funniest Senatorial gaffe of the decade!

 

 

"funniest Senatorial gaffe of the decade"

Hey, they have three more years, and they're just getting warmed up.

AM I ALONE?

I noticed some nice word play here. I always hear these morons compare "global warming" skeptics to holocaust deniers, yeaaaah, nice try. I then noticed someone named Linda Douglas from ABCnews saying, "Deniers are confusing the issue & delaying solutions". The last time I heard of a solution on this grand of a scale it led toooo...THE HOLOCAUST.

These people are frauds of the 1st order, led by their main man, Al Gore. He leads the religion of "Global Warming", & like the all religious whack-jobs, he wants to use gov't to impliment his faith. He is no different then Oliver Cromwell in this regard. It's all about control of your life, by controling how much you drive or fly, how warm you home can be in winter & how cool it can be in the summer, & that is just for starters. Don't dare speak against them either, because then the "Global Warming" kooks will smear you to shut the hell up. So much for free speech then.

Come to think of it, Al Gore & the tactics of trying to silence people who dispute his BS with imtimidation, & remembering Tipper's glory days trying to cencor music through the PMRC back in the 80's, it got me thinking. The Gore's are the most dangerous couple in America in my lifetime when it comes to the right to free speech. I can't disagree with Al's "scientific" work, & I can't listen to rock music because it offends Tipper, an idea that is offensive on it's own. That folks, is Stalinism, pure & simple.

 

"Some of us are wise, some of us are otherwise"  Mark Levin

Brad

glad someone found this as a main story, i hope this is a first wave in a tide of information.

"The more I study science, the more I believe in God."     Einstein

-

Fabulous.  Thank you, John Stossel.

[... I'm sure, I'm absolutely certain, that we are all just too suspicious and that Al Gore had a really, really good reason for not appearing on this episode of 20/20.]

The "Dialog"

Scientist:  You silly Religious Nut, how can you say God created man?  You dare to teach in schools that man was created and that it is possible there is an all powerful God that created him.  Let's debate it...

Christian:  Ok, So the Fossil Record shows..

Scientist:  Nevermind, the debates over.  We will make moves that show we have proved Evolution and make all you right-wingers look like the facist nuts you are.  It will be the law of the land and taught without balance in our schools.   And if you say anything to the contrary you will be made fun of on TV News, Shows and in Newspapers.

Scientist again: How dare you Religious Nuts claim that the earth was created for man's enjoyment.  The earth survives DESPITE man's attempts to destory it.

Christian:  Well, we've had ice ages and warming trends in the pasts and the Bible does say...

Scientist:  Nevermind, the debates over.  We will make Movies, TV Shows and Newsreports saying the debates over and repeat it ad nauseum.  Then we'll go into the schools and teach it as FACT.  And you will deal with it, Holocaust Denier...

Christian: the Bible has things to say about Homosexuality

Scientist: Homophobe, it's proven in science.  The Debates over.

Christian: The Bible is clear, Abortion is murder

Scientist; That's over-the-top, name-calling of the highest order.  You shouldn't be allowed to speak, much less exist.  Science has shown they are "Fetuses" and if we didn't allow abortions millions of women would die having back-room abortions and if abortion is illegal women won't get to vote, become chattle and likely commit suicide rather than do what their husbands ask.

Well, there you have the state of 'debate'.

It's a good thing all the Liberals out there want to 'Debate' the issues.

exlib, you don't think like us

exlib, you don't think correctly and are obsolete. We will be coming to round you up and take care of you.  We don't want people thinking like you.

Sincerely

The State

"The Chancellor-the late chancellor-was only part correct.  He was obsolete.  But so was the State, the entity he worshiped. Any state, any entity, any ideology that fails to recognize the worth, the dignity, the rights of man, that state is obsolete. A case to filed under 'M' for Mankind in the Twilight Zone"  Rod Serling

A most excellence

A most excellence performance by Burgess Merideth and a fitting ending.  Lets get Al baby in a room like that and see how he sings.

Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.

"UNIDENTIFIED MAN: We have

"UNIDENTIFIED MAN: We have Holocaust deniers, we have climate change deniers. And to be honest, I don't think there's a great deal of difference. "

Unfreaking believable. I can just emagine what this guy was taught in History class.

wait

until the video is available

just so's ya can catch the nuance

"The more I study science, the more I believe in God."     Einstein

The nuance is that

there are only two kinds of people in the minds of liberals: those who agree with them, and idiots.

Gore movie

This was the only time I've seen any part of AlGore's movie. What struck me is that he talks to his audience as though they are a bunch of third graders. Speaking of polar bears he says something like, "This is not good for these creatures." The guy's an absolute moron who came within  a whisker of being president. God help us.

NEVER,NEVER trust a "liberal"

About The Goregoyle

QUOTE: "The guy's an absolute moron who came within a whisker of being president."

Funniest thing... I have exactly the same feeling about John Kerry.

In retrospect, we dodged TWO extremely silly and dangerous presidential bullets! Brrrr!

Pray that our luck holds.

Yep

It used to be, "History is written by the victors."  Now it's, "History is rewritten by liberal socialists with an agenda."

It's somethin'

Stossel's piece ran the same night as CNN's "Planet in Peril", the latter which will probably be repeated ad nauseam. Peril is lightweight--I hope the public realizes that what they present is merely a teeny-tiny portion of the information available on climate variability. But it's all the same stuff they've been parading around for months now. As far as I'm concerned, it's beyond "journalists" ability to report on anything beyond a 6th grade level. Shallow is their middle name.

As for Stossel's piece: Similarly lightweight but I guess you have to start somewhere. Many have never had the opportunity to hear an opposing view from the LMSM on the climate since they are so rare. I would have liked to have seen stressed this subversive politics going on behind the scenes in the scientific community, the threats on freedom of thought, freedom to express opposing views. Something is very, very wrong with that and Americans needs to know.

"We have to forget the destructive, but currently so fashionable dictate (if not tyrany) of political correctness. We should provide the same or comparable financial backing to those scientists who do not accept the global warming alarmism."--Vaclav Klaus, 10/7/07

 

I'm no scientist but isn't

I'm no scientist but isn't the scientific method all about probing,testing,and questioning truths,whether real or perceived.It's not a destination,but a never ending and constantly evolving process.These GW types are such absolutists.The "Divine Right of Liberal Scientists"...anyone?

Ummm....

You are trying to get "rational thought", "reasoned argument" and "liberalism" together.

That's like getting a good husband, a loving wife, and a burning, rabid porcupine into the same bed.

Tough... To say the least.

 

There are only a couple of

There are only a couple of journalists that I will watch at all on the drive by media networks.  John Stossel is one of them.

I have several of Stossel's books.  He is terrific.  I recommend that all of you pick up one or more. 

Well, I now see the true

Well, I now see the true reasoning in handing out birth control in the middle schools ...

They have those poor kids so wigged-out scared they probably figure, "Yeah, I'll have sex now because I ain't gonna be around as an adult because I'm gonna die from global warming ... Gimme my pills ..."

Thank G-d Gore was not elected president!

Heretic!

Those scientists and John Stossel are guilty of Herecy Against Doctrine! Man created Global Warming via evil Capitalism. Any dissent will result in a 20 year prison term in the Alaskan Gulag.

All hail Queen Hillary, and her Minister of Information (Al Gore). Resistence Is Futile.

Repeal, the Minister of

Repeal, the Minister of Information under President for Life Hillary Clinton is not Al Gore, but Pinch Sulzberger. Al Gore holds the portfolio for Minister of Science and Education.

You really have to study your government structure, Repeal. You will be quized on this at the next Party meeting. If you don't get it right, you will be sent for re-education in one of their labor camps. For something like this, a Camp of Strict Regime is unnecessary. A Camp of Light Regime should be sufficient for your lapse.

"A communist is someone who reads Marx. An anti-communist is someone who understands Marx." Ronald Reagan

Video

And in the Bureaucrats-R-US News Today...

ROBERT F. KENNEDY JR.: "These corporate toadies lying to you and telling you that global warming doesn't exist."

How 'bout this for conspiracy theory...  

"Maybe little Robbie, feeling a bit mischievous that day, decided to secret away for a joy-ride in Uncle Teddy's trunk...  To afraid of getting spanked by his slightly too inebriated bureaucratic toadie elder, what if he had (eventually) escaped and run away from the scene undetected?  Little would anyone have ever known."

Though he appeared unscathed... Indeed!  Perhaps he fell victim to a trifle much oxygen deprivation after all!!!

 ...or maybe it's just a severe case of chronic heat-stroke.  Far be it for the little (over-roasted) toad to consider the possiblity...

"It's the Sun Stupid!" 

[See article By Bill Steigerwald
FrontPageMagazine.com | Tuesday, August 07, 2007 http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=EC9E4823-2332-4ABB-8A9E-E31C01721369]

I heard a pro-global

I heard a pro-global warming caller yesterday on the Mark Levin show He told Mark that people are clueless when they call his show and say something like global isn't real because it was a cold day in Florida. He said "Mark, a cold day in Florida doesn't mean global warming isn't real". He then argued that global warming IS real because, drum roll please, of a hot day in Chicago.

So, just so we're clear: Cold day in Florida does not disprove global warming; hot day in Chicago proves beyond all doubt that global warming is real, and is man-made.

Does that pretty much catch everyone up on what passes for liberal logic these days?

ckc -- what the dimwit

ckc -- what the dimwit doesn't understand is that many of us started using that very trick of generalizing from the specific, PRECISLEY because that'ss exactly what the manmade global warmers did all the time.

"Uggghhh, wow it's hot outside, in summer... has to be global warming." What other explanation can there be?"

Oh wow yeah. It was NEVER that hot when I was a kid. Must be true!"

Check out my latest YouTube...but only if you support the troops and their mission: Better Men Than Me/The Battle For Fallujah

Keep ideology out of science ... COMPLETELY

Frankly, I am equally infuriated by BOTH left-wing and right-wing attempts to bend & twist science and the scientific method to fit their agendas. Science is about the evidence ... nothing more, nothing less.

Some here will use the uncertainty over global warming to argue that there needs to be a "debate" and "balance" in regard to evolution. Well, yeah, IF you can come up with a credible alternative to evolution. But sorry folks, ID is not it. All the evidence really does support evolution and no other explanation. There really is no evidence to support ID. Scientists are not avoiding addressing ID ... they've examined ID arguments at great length and depth and thoroughly dismantled them. They'd be glad to debate you IF you could come up with an idea that explains the available evidence better than evolution does, but again, ID does not.

What ID proponents do is point to things scientists haven't completely explained to their satisfaction (such as how a certain irreducibly complex structure evolved) and say, "See, science can't explain it, so God must have done it!" Then if the scientist comes up with a perfectly logical, common sense hypothetical for how the irreducibly complex structure might have evolved naturally, the ID proponent says, "But you have to PROVE it to me! Step by step! You need to show me fossils for every single one of these steps!" The ID proponent keeps moving the goalposts, setting impossible standards of evidence. And all the while, it doesn't even occur to him that he's turning God into a "God of the gaps," a lord of the ever-shrinking domain called the "unknown."

Then there was also the post where the person said, "I thought NOTHING in science was ever 'settled'" or something like that. Well, yes and no. Over time, the more and more evidence you gather that does supports or does not contradict a given theory, the more certain you can be that it's correct. If scientists were not reasonably certain about a number of theories, we would not have airplanes, radios, computers, and thousands of other modern inventions. Thus far, again, ALL the evidence supports evolution, NONE of the evidence contradicts it. If you want a debate about evolution, if you want to "balance" it with something else, then you need to come up with some real, solid evidence that contradicts evolution and supports some other explanation. You can't just have "debate" and "balance" simply for the sake of having debate and balance. If you ask me, that sounds like Leftist "fairness" crap. Science is not "fair," it is what it is.

What exactly needs "balancing," anyway? I don't see anyone asking for "balance" in other areas of scientific study that have nothing to say about God. Should chemistry teachers say, "Now, those elements may have reacted to each other that way because of their respective properties, but to balance things out, it's possible God made them react that way at that moment"? When teaching about lightning, should they give the scientific explanation but then add, "But in the interest of balance, God may shoot lightning from his fingertips"? When explaining why supernovas occur, should they say, "Of course, it may just be that God makes stars explode"? Evolution is simply a natural, scientific explanation for biodiversity, which is supported by the evidence (it does not try to explain where the universe came from ... that's cosmology ... nor does it try to explain how life developed in the first place ... that's abiogenesis). It doesn't say God doesn't exist. It doesn't say God has nothing to do with life or with us being here, any more than other scientific theories that explain natural phenomena with nary a reference to God or divine activity. But it's SCIENCE, not religion or theology. It doesn't have the tools to detect or measure the supernatural (if it could, the supernatural would be merely natural).

You might say, "Yeah, but surely it can see where there MUST have been intervention by some intelligence." Maybe so, but "irreducible complexity" arguments notwithstanding, it hasn't yet. Anyway, who says divine intervention has to be obvious or apparent? There have been, to use an unscientific word, zillions of genetic mutations since life came into being. If God caused some of these mutations, or even if God caused ALL of these mutations, how can we know, if it looks perfectly natural to us? IDers need to explain how we can detect divine intervention. IC does not do this.

IDers may have FAITH that there has been divine intervention, and that is fine. But it's not the job of science teachers to promote this faith unless IDers can provide hard EVIDENCE for it. Until then, debates over God's role in the universe and the development of life belong in philosophy and comparative religions classes, not in science classes.

 

I agree...except

What can I say other then I agree but do not lump all "right-wingers" in like this. You need to direct your complaints to "Fundamentalist" right wingers. You cannot prove faith via science which is why it is called faith. I am disappointed anytime anyone brings the evolution argument into the Global Warming debate or worse starts quoting the bible to disprove global warming - please that does not help and makes all the logical scientific arguments I am trying to make regarding the lack of scientific evidence that supports man-made global warming look silly.

If you try to break out the bible to debate global warming you have already lost. Not to mention is completely unnecessary.

The Anti "Man-Made" Global Warming Resource

Pop T

can you prove a materialism only presupposition using science?

How do you define science?

"The more I study science, the more I believe in God."     Einstein

With a degree in

With a degree in anthropology, I'd say I accept the theories around evolution. However I'm also secure enough with it to not feel a need to silence those who disagree with us.

Evolution remains a theory. There are way too many loose ends. Disagreement keeps us honest and working on it. Though to me the observations and data support the concept of evolution there will without doubt be changes in the theories of evolution as time goes on. What we consider the theory of evolution today will be different in 100 years. And different again in 200.

A feeling of knowing the answers perpetuated the fraud of Eoanthropus dawsoni (Piltdown man) for about 40 years. Even when many "sceptics" pointed to the problems with piltdown man. (A reminder of AGW.)

Science texts are not the bible. Science grows by openess. Discent. Testing and retesting. When we pretend that science is settled. And we know all there is to know. We've stepped from science to the relm of dogma.

However there are people who wish to silence discent.

"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT

Only one thing is settled.

Only one thing is settled. We are all going to die. 

Now I can understand why Christians want to share their belief that death is not the end.

They were asked to by Jesus, their savior. That is: literally their Christian duty. And let's face it... it is something to look forward to.

But I can't fathom why those who don't believe in God and life after death, waste so much of their time and energy constantly trying to convince others of their belief in what is a big negative. What's their gain?

I think deep down they must have a desire to hurt those of faith. Why bother otherwise?

Check out my latest YouTube...but only if you support the troops and their mission: Better Men Than Me/The Battle For Fallujah

thnx Danbo

wasn't Nebraska Man really a pigs tooth?

and the whole Haeckel's embryos being used as an indoctrination tool decades after it was discredited.

Let's look at evidence, examine new theories and falsify the ones which can't pass muster

"The more I study science, the more I believe in God."     Einstein

My own bias. Any so called

My own bias. Any so called scientist that is unwilling to let other disagree. And pretend the debate is over. Well isn't a scientist.

I'm not sure if Nebraska man was a error or fraud. Piltdown was a fraud.

The science we're sure about today may be laughed at tomorrow. 

"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT

Actually "science" is about

Actually "science" is about refutation and falsifiability.

As Sir Karl Popper stated: it is the absolute duty of any "scientist" to attempt to refute a hypothosis or theory.

That is the very foundation of scientific advance.

Now, while I agree that a biblical interpreation of the creation of mankind, and the planet is no basis for refutation of any scientific theory...

it is interesting to note that the theory of evolution in regard to mankind, in no way contradicts the Book of Genesis.

That is, it is widley believed by geneticists that the genus homo sapien sapien can be traced by to a single male and a single female.

Or, as those who believe in the literal truth of the bible call them: Adam and Eve.

Also the theory that the universe was created from nothing in total darkness following a cataclysmic explosion (the Big Bang) sound rather familiar. Oh yes... "Let there be light..."

Now to be an aethiest who accepts the theory of the Big Bang, one has to believe that something came from nothing, spontaneously.

Ah yes, one needs real faith to be an aethiest with a scientific explanation for everything.

Mmmm, kinda makes ya thunk, don't it? 

Check out my latest YouTube...but only if you support the troops and their mission: Better Men Than Me/The Battle For Fallujah

}}---> Today's science

Maybe I'm just dense when it comes to science, but I used to think there was a "scientific method" with certain steps to be followed in a specific order.

What I'm hearing a lot of lately is "How many of you scientists think it's this way?"  Yo, Al, we got ourselves a consensus.

I'm not seeing a lot of difference between the two faiths.

OK, one faith readily admits its faith.

~LYDSEXICS UNTIE!~

I learned a long time ago,

I learned a long time ago, there are things I'll never know. Some people people don't seem to be comfortable with not knowing. Or that in the year 2200 people will likely chuckle at some of the science today. Much as we laugh at the flat earth concept.

"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT

-

... now, can you please go talk to the 9/11 "truthers"?  They're as bad as the global warmingers when it comes to picking and choosing evidence.

}}---> Truthers

Then it's on to the "Infanticide deniers"

~LYDSEXICS UNTIE!~

tigger

you need to read Dembski's "The Design Inference" to get an overview on a testable model for discovering design.

Also you may try "Origins of Life" by Rana & Ross for an exposee on the problems of abiogenisis.

The debate is in the philosophy of science realm, all the Intelligent Design advocates are requesting is that the Scientific Method be used to follow the evidence where-ever it may lead.  If the best explanation of the evidence (via Occam's Razor) is to a design model than so be it; if the best explanation is to an evolutionary only model than so be it.  But it can't be decided before the analysis is done.  To say non-material causation is not science apriori is bad philosophy and bad science.  (Especially if God did create the universe)  Why would non-biased researchers exclude any possible solutions before doing the research? 

Finally Tig, is it not 'faith' to believe a materialism only definition of 'science'.  What experiments have been completed which prove that non-material realities do not exist?

"The more I study science, the more I believe in God."     Einstein