Re: [asa] World sets ocean temperature record

On Aug 23, 2009, at 1:08 AM, Cameron Wybrow wrote:
>
> I won't reply to any further discussion on this thread, but in the
> meantime, if Richard and Burgy wish, they can comment on this web
> article and the scholarly literature that it links to:
>
> http://www.uncommondescent.com/off-topic/fewer-than-half-of-climate-scientists-endorse-anthropogenic-global-warming/
>
> If they use the search engine on Uncommon Descent, they can type in
> "global warming" and find many other UD articles on the subject.
> Even if they completely disagree with the UD "spin" on the subject,
> it would at least be responsible to check out the *sources* cited by
> the UD authors before automatically declaring them wrong.
>
> Cameron.
>

I've had checked out their sources and they are extremely wanting.
Marc Marano provides the worst kind of deceptive misinformation. If
you see his name attached to anything run far, far away. The reason
why you get such a strong response in different areas is because of
our expertise. You hear from the biologists that UD is lying about
biology. You hear from those of us who have expertise in the physical
sciences that UD is lying about global warming. Specifically, I am
talking about misrepresenting the absolutely huge consensus for both
the reality of anthropogenic global warming and common descent with
modification. You can disagree with these conclusions but at least
have the academic honesty to state that you are in the EXTREME
minority. There is a huge consensus in both areas and to state
otherwise is simply put, lying. For example, in January 2009 the AGU
surveyed those who publish peer-reviewed climatological papers and 97%
hold to anthropogenic global warming. The other reason why I react so
strongly is the high school level errors in their work. Many of us
have participated in the peer review process and recognize the
importance of it. The reason why so few get through is not some
conspiracy against Christians but their work is wanting. If I was peer
reviewing their work I would flunk it even though I am sympathetic to
their Christian views. As Christians, we ought to believe in the truth
and allowing false papers to go forward just because it was submitted
by a Christian is academically dishonest and thus at its core, anti-
Christian.

Even when the papers do get published UD misrepresents the import of
it. For example, Dembski's recent paper in IEEE Transactions on
Cybernetics has a concept of active information. What this "means" is
the search field can transfer information to the genotypes. If you
have a search problem that doesn't have a lot of potential wells and
has "active information" as Dembski coins, a search algorithm that is
undirected can find a solution. Evolution has such a search field.
Even though there are many, many mutations most of them don't
immediately turn us into a pile of goo. Problems also can be solved in
multiple fashions. That is, there isn't one right answer making the
search algorithm to work. So, could argue that God designed through
the evolutionary process by establishing the rules of biochemistry
that allows for evolution to proceed? I think you can. What you cannot
conclude, however, that evolution doesn't "work" but that's the warp
and woof of UD's argument.

UD is not a friendly place for TEs. Any time any of us try to present
a synthesis of intelligent design and theistic evolution we are
usually quickly banned. The same is the case if we don't buy into
their culture war agenda. (I suspect the latter is even more common.)
That's why the heat turns up here when UD is brought up here. It's not
that we are unsympathetic to the concept of intelligent design because
you if you are a Christian then it immediately follows there is an
intelligent designer. Rather, we have grown tired over the years of
the lies and deception done in the name of our Lord and Savior and we
grieve when young people reject Christianity because of it.

Rich Blinne
Member ASA

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sun Aug 23 10:12:42 2009