Evoution Science vs. AGW Science

Perusing the Little Shop of the Horrors of Religion (aka PZ Meyer’s blog), I came across a reference to an analysis by an Atheist who comments on the nastiness of creationism and its unwarranted comparison of the AGW scam to evolution science.

The article is here, and it takes the creationists to task for demanding an accounting of the AGW fraud, openness and transparency, and quelles horreurs, a different method of funding science that actually requires openness and transparency rather than preventing it.

The perversion of the words of the creationists is there for anyone to see. Requiring a “new method of science funding” becomes, “Yes! Defund all of science!”

And the final quotation, followed by the Atheists comments:

It may well be that the public will be forced to protect itself from organized science, as we now protect ourselves from organized crime.

That’s the Discoveroid fantasy — scientists treated like Mafia dons, subjected to congressional hearings, courtroom inquisitions, expulsions from universities, purges from the peer-reviewed journals — it’s their sick dream of a Dark Ages restoration. Bring on the theocracy! Burn the witches!

Scientists as Mafia dons; Dark Ages; theocracy; Burn the witches! Yes, Atheism is the font of rational discourse, isn’t it? Well, of course it is not.

The comparison between the science of AGW and evolution is not an easy one to make. Especially if one is to eschew the jumping to conclusions and Ad Hominems and general false premises that swamp the above tracts.

The AGW flap is about several things, mostly discrepancies to the proper use or rather disuse of the scientific method (ignoring the illegalities of several other procedures).

First, in the REAL scientific method data is open, not secret. This is not a choice, it is mandated by the method. And not just the data, all the circumstances surrounding the acquisition of the data are to be open and challengeable.

Second, independent replication of the data gathering procedure is expected, and is also mandated by the method.

Third, if data is to be manipulated, the reason and the method must be open.

Fourth, results that vary from the expected must be reported.

Fifth, dissent must be honored when it is accompanied by science as determined by items one through four, above.

These are not a complete description of the scientific method, but they form a list of (some of) the current major deficiencies that are known to exist in the CRU mis-use of science.

However, when it comes to evolution, those defiencies cannot even exist, because the science is non-existant at that level. For example, there is no data showing evolution at the macro level (new, non-preexisting, beneficial features arriving in a population due to selection). So items 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 do not even exist for evolution.

The fifth, honoring dissent, is not possible given the religious nature of the story telling and myth-creation nature of evolution. Being a religion itself, evolution and its adherents would be expected, under their own Atheist definitions of religion, to demonstrate intolerance toward dissent.

So, any comparison of AGWgate and evolution as comparable sciences is highly likely to be flawed for the reasons above. But it is also likely that the comparisons will be made due to their similarities in terms of intellectual dishonesty and subliminal Leftist political agendas. Not to mention attempting to destroy any and all dissent. They are in many ways comparable scams.