Occasionally, I check the internet to see how my posts are being distributed and potentially misused. I came across such misuse with a citation to my site posted on a website devoted to the religion of Humanism and
worship (URL withheld intentionally). The posters regularly refer to creationists as “cretards” and seem incapable of formulating an argument based upon logic or fact, preferring instead to find solace for their foolishness in ad hominem attacks. In this instance, they pondered why creationists also frequently “deny” anthropogenic global warming. Contrary to their prolifically foolish notions, evolution and anthropogenic global warming are discounted by creationists because they are examples of determinism and unscientific theorizing based upon unsubstantiated bias. Darwin
The America Heritage Dictionary defines science as (a) The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena, (b) Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena, and (c) Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study. Too often definition (b) is misinterpreted to imply that observations of natural phenomena can only be explained by natural phenomena, but this is a self-imposed assumption that has no basis in the laws of logic. We can most certainly observe natural phenomena to understand the effects of unnatural or supernatural phenomena. Humanists routinely dismiss creation science out of hand because they claim science is only valid within the parameters of naturalism; thereby, they conclude that creation is unscientific. However, this conclusion is purely out of contempt for creationists and in ignorance of science.
All but the most remedial areas of study require inductive logic (as opposed to deductive logic) for the formulation of conclusions. The scientific method provides an excellent methodology for induction. Evolutionists and Creationists both rely upon inductive reasoning to reach scientific conclusions via the application of the scientific method. However, conclusions derived through induction can only be based upon examination of particular instances or generalities determined through experience. Because it is impossible to examine every instance it is likewise impossible to justify inductively determined conclusions. The reliability of a conclusion can be bolstered (although not proven) by repeatability; for instance, if an experiment is repeated and the results are identical, then it is possible to have high confidence in the conclusion, especially if it is repeated numerous times and by many different people. It is impossible to test evolution, creation, or AGW; therefore, the conclusions relative to these theories are not reliable in a scientific sense.
Consequently, we must develop models based upon our presuppositions (e.g. Creation, Evolution, AGW) and determine if real-world observations confirm or deny the model. For example, soft tissues discovered in a T-Rex fossil in the Hells Creek Formation in Montana bolster the Creationist model that predicts recent (thousands instead of millions of years) dinosaur extinction. Yet a single data point is insufficient for arriving at reliable conclusions; the aggregate data must also fit the model. Additionally, our bias should not cloud our judgment: Dr. Schweitzer concluded the soft T-Rex tissue indicates there are processes, heretofore unknown, that preserve soft tissue for millions of years. Similarly, our biases can confound our ability to reason soundly. AGW supporters oft refer to melting glaciers or the rate of temperature changes as proof of their models, but this is the fallacy of affirming the consequent because other possible explanations cannot be ruled out.
Therefore, the creationist is not untowardly critical of evolution and AGW because they are theories espoused by unrepentant sinners (as some posters contended), but because they are theories that can only be supported when data is interpreted through biased lenses. Granted that creationists also interpret through their own bias, but the difference is that evolutionists and AGW proponents are increasing the number of peripheral theories that must be affirmed to explain the unknowns in their observations while creationists are reducing the number. In the case of the soft dinosaur tissues, another theory (with no observational evidence) was developed to “explain” soft tissue preservation over millions of years.
Most importantly is the derivation of biases. Creationists’ bias is based upon a historical account from an infallible source which is repeatedly confirmed through evidence, for example: 1) anthropologists research historical accounts in the Bible and consistently find the Bible is accurate, and 2) geologic evidence is resoundingly consistent with the global flood described in Genesis. Furthermore, the premise of inductive reasoning is that the physical laws in effect today must have been, be, and continue to be consistent; otherwise, inductive scientific conclusions are useless as there would be no repeatability. Creationists rely upon the Biblical promise of the omnipotent God to maintain the laws of our universe, which he put in place, when they assess the reliability and cogency of their scientific knowledge. Humanists’ only assurance of consistent natural laws is that they haven’t changed within the span of recorded history. While this may seem cogent inductive reasoning, i.e. ample documentation of its repeatability, it is highly unreliable given their own assumptions: 1) if the universe is 14.5 Billion years old then their observed repeatability spans less than 0.0000003% of all time, 2) if the universe and everything in it came into being through entirely naturalistic (random) means there is absolutely no reason to believe the natural laws in effect today will not randomly change in the future, and 3) number two is bolstered by considering that for the universe to form per humanistic theories would require a decrease in entropy (taking the Universe as a closed system) between its emergence and now, thereby indicating the second law of thermodynamics, as it is understood in present time, has not always been consistent – clearly refuting their claim to repeatability. Therefore, humanists must rely upon a Biblical framework in order to successfully conduct scientific inquiry; yet, they routinely insist upon denying Biblical truths when drawing conclusions – which are often in stark opposition to the Bible.
AGW is deeply rooted in humanism, but it is not the reason it is largely discredited by creationists. Creationists are accustomed to recognizing fallacious reasoning and the illogical defenses for it. The fallacies of ad hominem, appeal to authority, false dilemma, affirming the consequent, and the complex question are rampant in rationalizations put forth by evolutionists; thus, when they appear in defenses for AGW, creationists easily recognize them and are suspicious. Humanists think nothing of arriving at conclusions by developing far-reaching assumptions with the pretense of investigating them later. AGW is no exception. Personally, I have analyzed the data and read the IPCC reports concerning AGW and found them to be rife with unfounded personal bias and unsubstantiated claims. The entirety of AGW rests upon the poor correlation between CO2 emissions and global average temperatures (which are reported only after absurd amounts of data reduction and without standard deviations) and the predictions of un-validated computer models which are programmed by persons with a bias towards believing that CO2 is the primary driver of global temperature anomalies and which have already been shown incapable of predicting temperatures.
In conclusion, I first base my decisions and opinions on logic and common sense – neither of which apply to humanism. Second, I recognize I have a bias based upon faith in an infallible God while simultaneously realizing humanists have a bias based upon faith in randomness. Third, my bias is logically defensible while humanism breaks down under simple reasoning. Forth, as more evidence is collected and analyzed, both evolution and AGW have a divergence of proof with a geometrically expanding list of unknowns requiring immense amounts of unfounded faith in the hope that someday the evidence will reverse course and begin to converge. Suggesting that my disregard for evolution and AGW is based upon religious fanaticism is both inaccurate and sophomoric. The real reason creationists dispute both evolution and AGW is because of their common element: spurious logic.