Evolution Is Stupid!

Climate Change : My Two Cents

Let's talk about Global Warming. Oh, I mean "Climate Change." You know, the whole "save Mother Earth" thing and all. That notion that, if I drive a hybrid car, I'm being "green" and saving our forests.

Being an eternal skeptic, and just a bit cynical, I've always seen the whole "green movement" as more about "the green stuff" (money, at least in the USA) than any sincere attempt to save the world from self-annihilation. Let's face it: Plenty of people are making plenty of money off of being "green." Hybrid cars? Ok, so maybe they don't pollute the air so much. But wait a minute! You need entire INDUSTRIES to create hybrid cars, many of them NEW INDUSTRIES that produce the parts for hybrid cars. You have BATTERIES that have potentially dangerous chemicals in them, and have to be disposed of with caution (we won't mention - ok, we will - POWER PLANTS to charge them). You need PAVED ROADS and everything else that goes with them (signs, lights, stripes, snow plows, etc., etc.) just as you do with gas autos. You need TIRES. You need OIL. You need spare parts. You need... INDUSTRIES. And many of them will end up in a DUMP just like old-fashioned gasoline-powered cars.

So, as Bugs Bunny might ask, "Eh, just WHAT are you SAVING, Doc?" But it does make you "FEEL" like you're saving the Earth, so you drive a Prius, or whatever.

Ok, back to Climate Change. There are a number of similarities between that and "evolutionary change." You see, after Darwin's time, when it was clearly demostrated in the last century that there is no mechanism whatsoever in nature that necessitates the formation of complex living things out of nothing, despite the never-ending echo in scientific circles that we all came from stardust, the concept of evolution "changed." It was no longer considered an upward progress from simple to more complex, but rather the term "descent with modification" was employed. And only a FOOL would argue that descendants are not "modified" in some way compared to their antecedents. In other words, we change! Now, isn't that eye-opening "proof" of evolution? We change! We evolve! Presto! There you have it. Only problem is, there are thankfully still people who question just HOW particles can turn themselves into people, but most people would rather not have to think about it, and just accept that the "experts" know what they're talking about, and they said particles turned into people, so that does it. Now, what's for lunch?

But guess what? CLIMATE CHANGES TOO! So now you have a whole new field, where people can be employed and make good money, just by telling us that climate changes. We didn't know that, after all.

Cynicism aside, yes, I know what the real argument is, so let's pick it apart. The trouble is, most people DON'T know the real argument, and they're being taken advantage of. The argument is NOT that climate is changing. Depending on where you look, some of it's getting hotter, some cooler, but overall there does seem to be a warming trend. The bottom line question is, "How much of that is being caused by human activity?" THAT IS THE QUESTION. Not whether climate is changing. It is. Just like living things are changing. They're just not "evolving."

I just watched a series of lectures given by three scientists to the Howard Hughes Medical Institute. It was entitled, "Changing Planet : Past, Present, Future." And it was a classic presentation of what to me appeared to be skewed "facts" and statistics, allegedly proving that man's activities are dramatically altering our climate. I'll admit I did not watch every minute of the long lectures, as much of it was evolutionary bunk that I've heard a thoustand times, but a few things really stood out for me in what I did watch. There were times when the scientists, at least one of them, tried to be fair and honest, and admit that (this is a paraphrase, not verbatim), "We really DON'T KNOW what the outcome of all this will be hundreds or thousands of years from now. The Earth may adapt and adjust just fine."

But one speaker likened what she termed the "climate change deniers and skeptics" (we have to ID the enemy, after all) to those who still smoke cigarettes and ignore the facts, despite all the scientific evidence that they are really bad for you. A classic case of apples and oranges, similar to evolutionists saying that "deniers and skeptics" don't believe in gravity, because gravity is as demonstrable a scientific fact as that we all came from stardust. Umm, I don't think so. I feel the effects of gravity daily. I don't see stardust turning into complex living things daily. At least not today I haven't. Sure, the effects of cigarette smoking are demonstrable NOW, and the harmful results of that habit can be unequivocally tied to cigarettes. On the other hand, "climate change" CANNOT be DIRECTLY attributed to man's activities. There are so many variables that ANY "facts and statistics" can be called into question, as they well are.

Another example of skewing the facts came when one speaker was showing that there had been a large spike in atmospheric carbon within a few years' time. Now, he had just talked some about what natural causes of carbon emissions exist, and the largest natural cause is volcanoes. Ok, so where was the locaton where they measured this large carbon spike? Mauna Loa. My first thought was, Wait, did I miss something there? Is nobody going to question this? It reminded me immediately of an astronomy book in my collection, The Caldwell Objects, by Stephen James O'Meara. In that book the author recounts that he lives on Mount Kilauea in Hawaii, and because of sulphur emissions from the volcanic zone, the air contains sulphuric acid, which damages the optics of his telescope over a few years' time. So, I got to thinking, If I want to make a case that acid rain is destroying the Earth, what better place to take measurements than somewhere near where Stephen O'Meara lives?!

What, then, should we think about the "green" movement and "Climate Change?" First and foremost, let's face it, it's a money maker for lots of people. Second, ok, maybe man's activities are having an effect on climate. But so do lots of other things, from the Milankovitch cycle to cattle flatulence. Third, yes, we should ALL try to limit our polluting activities. That is not a bad thing. The bad thing is, a lot of those who pretend to be concerned about harmful climate change are waiting for everyone ELSE to actually DO something about it. Witness the recent Google Climate Change convention in Italy where those invited came in 114 private jets, fuel-guzzling yachts and autos, spent about $22 million on themselves, and stayed in $900+ per night accommodations. Yep, I'm SURE they're really concerned about climate change.

Finally, and this point I want to drive home: The majority of scientists who are "concerned" about so-called climate change are no doubt also evolutionists. Now, here's where the REAL hypocrisy comes into play. If we are to believe evolutionists, stars exploded and spewed a bunch of material out into the universe, and some of it turned into the Earth. Now, that early Earth was FULL of HOT noxious gases, poisonous chemicals, volcanic activity, and other things we'd consider harmful to life as we know it now. So, then, exactly what is the big deal if we as humans spew out noxious gases and harmful chemicals into the environment? Aren't we just planting the seed beds for the future of evolution? I mean, what fascinating creatures might arise out of the concoction we're mixing? Shouldn't we be looking for that - how evolution is at work in the environment we're creating - rather than worrying about what we're doing to Mother Earth? After all, supposedly She has survived numerous extinctions. So what if this is just an harbinger of one more?

I'll close with one last thought. From a Creationist perspective, we have an answer about climate change. It's valid. It can be demonstrated historically. After Noah's Flood, the Earth's climate was altered dramatically. We know that because we have found fossils of tropical plants in places like Antarctica. The whole world was, at one time, a temperate greenhouse. After the Flood, when there was a dramatic drop in living vegetation; before the Earth was repopulated with flora and fauna, there were great temperature differentials between the poles and the Equator. The geography and meteorology of Earth were completely altered. Because of that, there was an Ice Age. One. One Ice Age, not many. Yes, it ebbed and flowed, but overall it was ONE Ice Age, and slowly, as the Earth started regaining equilibrium, the ice began to melt. And it continues to do so. So, overall, in the few thousand years since Noah's Flood, the Earth has still not stabilized as it was pre-Flood, and it probably will not. Instead, we will have eras of overall colder climate, and eras of warmer. Certainly man has contributed some to the carbon content of the atmosphere, but he has also brought deserts to life where there was no vegetation (hence, photosynthesis) previously. So, in the long run, things seem to balance out and reach equilibrium.

The world will inevitably continue to decay and be more polluted. We can see that happening and it is not going to stop. Perhaps, rather than losing sleep over man putting more carbon into the atmosphere and how that's going to affect the Earth in 10,000 years or how it allegedly affected it a million years ago, a more important question might be, "If I were to die today, where would I spend eternity?" Science hasn't answered that one. And won't. The Bible has.