Global Warming and the U.N.

A letter from skeptical scientists:

It is not possible to stop climate change, a natural phenomenon that has affected humanity through the ages. Geological, archaeological, oral and written histories all attest to the dramatic challenges posed to past societies from unanticipated changes in temperature, precipitation, winds and other climatic variables. We therefore need to equip nations to become resilient to the full range of these natural phenomena by promoting economic growth and wealth generation.
The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has issued increasingly alarming conclusions about the climatic influences of human-produced carbon dioxide (CO2), a non-polluting gas that is essential to plant photosynthesis.
[...]
The current UN focus on "fighting climate change," as illustrated in the Nov. 27 UN Development Programme's Human Development Report, is distracting governments from adapting to the threat of inevitable natural climate changes, whatever forms they may take. National and international planning for such changes is needed, with a focus on helping our most vulnerable citizens adapt to conditions that lie ahead. Attempts to prevent global climate change from occurring are ultimately futile, and constitute a tragic misallocation of resources that would be better spent on humanity's real and pressing problems.

(Emphasis added) (The full letter)

It seems to me that the environmentalists haven't dealt with the contradictions in their own philosophy. For example, on the one hand it's wrong to upset the balance of an anthropic principle apparently written into Nature while on the other man and technology are viewed as unnatural, causing "pollution" and misanthropic tendencies are allowed an outlet in this way. It's worth questioning, what is the basis for the judgments typical to environmentalists? Another example, many seem to be ignorant enough to believe in the Darwinian creation myth yet they object when one species causes the extinction of another. If all the diversity of Life has been created by random mutations being filtered by the process of natural selection then why object to more filtering?

Obviously you cannot create diversity or find the "origin" of specification of form and species in a process of filtration, which is why even Darwin noted that natural "selection" might more aptly be called natural preservation. Perhaps on some level even ignorant environmentalists know that their creation myth is false, therefore they know that species have value and are worth protecting because fundamentally different life forms do not and will not emerge based on processes of extinction or random mutation filtered by natural "selection"/preservation of form and information that already exists within a group of organisms. I.e. a group of organisms may be filtered through a process of natural selection all you like but all you can do is draw forth forms and adaptations already specified within the range of information already specified in the genome, perhaps even less given genetic entropy. Ironically this is the view that many environmentalists seem to adhere to in the real world of empirical facts. It's only in the imaginary world of Darwinism where one can cite their own hypothesis as the equivalent of empirical facts that they apparently believe that species or life forms emerge from natural selection filtering processes of death, extinction and so on.

Intelligent Design blog...

Intelligent Reasoning on ID type logic.

Comments

No biologist or biochemist argues we understand all the mechanisms of nature.
Clearly we don’t.
However, we need not look to intelligent design for the explanation of these puzzles, but rather await the stepwise progress of human technology and knowledge.

He seems to be summarizing how biologists train themselves to be blind based on myths about Progress and so on. Apparently biologists are indoctrinated, step by step, with imaginary notions of natural progress. They “need not look” or try to be aware of intelligence when simply imagining things about the mechanical tick and tock typical to technology, attributing their imaginings to the Blind Watchmaker is so much easier.

Ironically “stepwise” progress will never come if biologists sit around waiting for their Mommy Nature to make the type of selections that they imagine come naturally to her. Given their indoctrination it seems that generally they’ll never admit to the quantifiable impact of sight on things like intelligent selection and the progress typical to technology.[1] Indoctrination is not education, although those subject to it will fail to understand that. Sight is not blindness, although those who are blind may be confused on that point. Recognizing and seeing ID as a possible falsification of naturalism is only a science/knowledge stopper to those who want to act as if knowledge drawn mainly from their own imaginations is on a par with harder forms of science like physics which need not be propped up by or linked with philosophic naturalism.

Note that as knowledge tends towards progress “stepwise” based on the use of technology which tends to progress in such a way what is being found is that philosophic naturalism is less and less tenable the more that can be observed. Yet somehow progress towards something other a philosophy of naturalism is apparently interpreted as being based on “gaps” in knowledge, as many biologists want to fill all gaps with their own imaginations instead of admitting that the work of a mind can have effects which can be known as such. They seem to close their mind of the synaptic gaps as a supposed matter of principle and then imagine that opening it again will be the end of all progress towards knowledge as we know it. Every biologist that I’ve ever debated has been quite the fearful fellow as a result of the notion of Progress that seems to come naturally to them, yet putting aside all the fear and reading between their lines it still seems that they have a little mind left even if it is trying to crawl back into the womb of their Mother Nature, step by imaginary step.

_____

But surely the burden of proof lies with the challenger?

It seems to me that the burden of proof lies with those who claim that their theory is like the theory of gravity, claim that there is overwhelming evidence behind what they say, argue that the State must support their position and only their position, dictate that all parents must use their education dollars to teach their position and only their position, etc.

Also note that if someone is allowed to cite their own imagination as if it is evidence or proof then the burden of proof is itself imaginary. If ID types keep trying to specify a falsifiable definition and specification for Darwinism instead of joining Darwinists in blurring essential specifications then technology will naturally be on their side. Ironically, it will most likely keep evolving, step by step, to lift the burden for them with respect to revealing a number of highly essential specifications in the origin of the Cosmos, to the origin of life and perhaps even to the origin of specifications observed in many “species.”

By the evolution of technology I mean things like microscopes, telescopes, etc. I.e. it seems that technology will tend to reveal more specifications favorable to the ID hypothesis, naturally.
_______

[1] This was a reference to quantum mechanics. If you got it, then you're a bit of a geek. If you keep up with the debate there's a few layers of meaning here and there and probably some bad grammar as well.

A comment...

...if an infinite number of other possible universes exist then why is it not also infinitely possible for a infinitely powerful God to exist? Using the materialist same line of reasoning, if it is infinitely possible for a infinitely powerful God to exist then He, of 100% certainty, does exist no matter how small the probability is of his existence in one of the multiverses, and since he certainly does exist, according to the strict materialistic reasoning you gave me, Then all possibilities by default become subject to Him since He is by definition Omnipotent. As well logic dictates there can only be one infinitely powerful “Lord” of the multiverses. As well, the “recycling universe” conjecture suffers so many questions from the second law of thermodynamics (entropy) as to render it effectively implausible as a serious theory. The only hard evidence there is, the stunning precision found in the universal constants, points overwhelmingly to intelligent design by an infinitely powerful and transcendent Creator who originally established what the unchanging universal constants of physics could and would do at the creation of the universe. The hard evidence left no room for the blind chance of natural laws in this universe. Thus, naturalism was forced into appealing to an infinity of other untestable universes for it was left with no footing in this universe.

36
bornagain77, 11/30/2007 (Uncommon Descent)

If you like The Office...

...then you should probably see this movie:
The King of Kong

Occasionally I had to remind myself that it was a documentary and not an episode of The Office.

The Multiverse

Those who argue that science must methodically build a philosophy of naturalism seem to eventually conclude that an infinite number of universes can be proposed scientifically while an infinite Creator of numbers must always be denied, naturally. The little question of whether or not there actually is a Creator is excluded by stigma words and rules which naturally lead to philosophic naturalism, yet then those who begin to adhere to such a philosophy claim to have overwhelming evidence against that which they already decided that they must be blind to as a matter of principle.

That pattern of thinking is like saying that because your brain is all that seems to matter, therefore you must be blind to any notion of your mind governing it. Then you look at the evidence with that conclusion in mind and conclude that the mind is an illusion brought about by brain events in different regions and so on. The problem is this, the brain is all that you decided to see before looking at the evidence so the question of whether or not there actually is a mind actually wasn't even being dealt with in a reasonable manner, instead it will always be imagined away by definition. It was already excluded, yet if it was not then fact of the matter is that there might be a great deal of evidence that the brain is an interface between mind and body. No matter if there were a great deal of evidence it will not be seen as long as scholars studying the issue are systematically conditioned to be close-minded to any possibility of such evidence. If you cannot think of such evidence for your Self then there is nothing more that can be said. (But I may write a little about the evidence later for those who already know that they can think about it.)

Similarly multiverse hypotheses seem to be based on little more than the same type of conditioning through the use of negative stigma words like "magic" as opposed to positive words like "natural" and so on instead of facts, logic and evidence. After all, based on logic and reason one has to wonder just how natural the notion of many universes is, for couldn't one Nature be logically defined as unnatural to all the rest? Or isn't evidence for a multiverse excluded as a matter of principle given that any evidence has to be of this universe by definition? Etc.

Logically the notion may be defined as odd in other ways:

...I did not find the multiverse alternative very helpful. The postulation of multiple universes...is a truly desperate alternative. If the existence of one universe requires an explanation, multiple universes require a much bigger explanation: the problem is increased by the factor of whatever the total number of universes is. It seems a little like the case of a schoolboy whose teacher doesn’t believe his dog ate his homework, so he replaces the first version with the story that a pack of dogs—too many to count—ate his homework.

(There is a God: How the world's most notorious atheist changed his mind, by Antony Flew and Roy Abraham Varghese :136-137)


In the end it seems that those who dislike how the verses of the universe were written will always imagine that if only there were enough verses then they could write themselves.