I'm from Missouri

This site is named for the famous statement of US Congressman Willard Duncan Vandiver from Missouri : "I`m from Missouri -- you'll have to show me." This site is dedicated to skepticism of official dogma in all subjects. Just-so stories are not accepted here. This is a site where controversial subjects such as evolution theory and the Holocaust may be freely debated.

Name:
Location: Los Angeles, California, United States

My biggest motivation for creating my own blogs was to avoid the arbitrary censorship practiced by other blogs and various other Internet forums. Censorship will be avoided in my blogs -- there will be no deletion of comments, no closing of comment threads, no holding up of comments for moderation, and no commenter registration hassles. Comments containing nothing but insults and/or ad hominem attacks are discouraged. My non-response to a particular comment should not be interpreted as agreement, approval, or inability to answer.

Thursday, November 02, 2006

Darwinism and global warming

It is unfortunate that the evolution controversy has become associated with the controversies over other scientific issues, notably global warming, stem cell research, and mercury pollution control, because the Bush administration and the Republican party unfortunately do give the appearance of being anti-science in dealing with these other issues. An AOL news article says,

WASHINGTON (Nov. 2) - Two federal agencies are investigating whether the Bush administration tried to block government scientists from speaking freely about global warming and censor their research, a senator said Wednesday.

Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., said he was informed that the inspectors general for the Commerce Department and NASA had begun "coordinated, sweeping investigations of the Bush administration's censorship and suppression" of federal research into global warming.

A major difference between the evolution and the global warming controversies is that being wrong on global warming could result in environmental and ecological disaster whereas being wrong on evolution could not cause any significant harm. For example, global warming could result in widespread loss of wildlife, flooding of low-lying coastal areas, and more hurricane activity. On the issue of global warming, I think it is better to be safe than sorry.

Another difference between evolution and global warming is that the former has religious implications whereas the latter does not.

It is well known that Bush endorses the teaching of criticisms of Darwinism alongside Darwinism and IMO his endorsement is definitely not helpful because of his administration's sad record on other scientific issues.

Labels:

5 Comments:

Blogger Dave Fafarman said...

Not sure which of these topic headings is best for these observations ...

This is about yesterday's election. While I regularly give the Creationists a hard time, and Senator Rick Santorum is one, I'm quite sorry to see him be defeated.

It is very disturbing when someone with courage and integrity like Santorum loses his seat, while the Queen of Corruption (name unnecessary) keeps hers.

As for the voters:

"The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity."
- William Butler Yeats

Wednesday, November 08, 2006 11:57:00 AM  
Anonymous James Martin said...

Dear Editor (Worth Magazine):

It is indeed a sad day when a seemingly august publication like Worth wastes its valuable cover space on Al Gore, the poster boy for the global warming zealots, trying to sell us on the investment potential of such alarmist blather ("Hot Opportunities", June 2006, page 52).

Perhaps next month you will consider giving equal time and space to Dr. Fred Singer, professor emeritus of the University of Virginia, or professor Bob Carter of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University in Australia, who have both published volumes debunking the specious conclusions of Mr. Gore and his minions of data miners. Or even any one of the 17,000 scientists who signed the petition circulated by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine stating: "There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate."

The global warming farce is nothing more than a giant wealth-transfer mechanism foisted upon an uninformed public by our envious detractors designed to tax the West, limit its progress and influence, and shift resources from the private sector to government control.

-- James Martin
Greystone Financial Group, Troy, MI

Wednesday, November 08, 2006 12:12:00 PM  
Blogger Dave Fafarman said...

Change your chromosomes ... retroactively!

Wednesday, November 08, 2006 12:29:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

James Martin said,

>>>>> The global warming farce is nothing more than a giant wealth-transfer mechanism . . . <<<<<

I think that there is no question that global warming is taking place. For example, glaciers and polar ice are shrinking and coral reefs are dying because of elevated ocean temperatures. We might not know exactly what is causing global warming. However, because of the dire consequences of global warming, I feel that those who claim that it is being caused by human release of greenhouse gases should be given the benefit of the doubt.

In contrast to global warming, there is no potential cost to being wrong about Darwinism.

Wednesday, November 08, 2006 12:55:00 PM  
Blogger Dave Fafarman said...

< I feel that those who claim that (global warming) is being caused by human release of greenhouse gases should be given the benefit of the doubt.

In contrast to global warming, there is no potential cost to being wrong ... >

Not just "potential" -- the one thing that's most clear about trying to tame greenhouse gases is that it'll cost $Billions (and probably won't help). Why not build pyramids instead? (Or, as has been often pointed out, the cost of significant greenhouse gas reductions would pay to provide safe drinking water for everyone on the planet.)

Giving the "benefit of the doubt" under such circumstances is a real non sequitur.

Also, there is indeed a potential cost to being "wrong about Darwinism" -- it could be the next medical miracle, forgone.

Saturday, November 11, 2006 12:43:00 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home