Darwinian Evolution Vs. Global Warming: Extreme Faiths?

Here is something I noticed lately: The same processes that people use to account for evolution are the same logical processes that people use to account for global warming. What do I mean by that? Keep reading for some interesting examples.

Lately, you might have heard of "climate change." This is how it works. In the 1970's and early 1980's we were taught in school that the earth was cooling and, in fact, was going into an global ice age. I remember being taught it in elementary school and being worried about it - not realizing at the time the span of years that was being talked about. Then in the 1990's and 2000's we heard a lot about how human's were pumping pollutants into the atmosphere which results in global warming. And lastly, who can forget the in between time when the ozone was being depleted and we were going to all die of skin cancer? Now, in the late 2000's we are again hearing about global cooling.

So what does climate change have to do with this? Here is what it is: Any evidence now can be considered as evidence that human's are messing with the environment. Is it getting cooler? Climate change. Warmer? Climate Change. More snowy? Climate change. You name the weather condition and the cause is climate change.

Why is it this way? It is because the global warming community has adopted the scientific foundations of evolutionary-ism.

It has long been known that Charles Darwin considered that the lack of transitional fossil records one of the number one failings of his theory of evolution. He wrote in the Origin of Species the fossil record "does not reveal any such finely-graduated organic chain...the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory. " According to Darwin's own words, the most serious defect in the theory is the fact that the fossil record evidence does not exist.

Has it gotten better since Darwin's time? Maybe a little. You will find the occasional potential transitional form, but it often is very sketchy on whether or not is is a transitional form or not. That is why it is such a big deal when a new potential transitional form is found - they make appears on the covers of magazines such as Time (April 26^th, 1993 issue).

Here is another example, in the 1970's the was a theory called punctuated equilibrium. This is the idea that - most of the time - a species undergoes very little change and then due to some factor (such as geographic isolation) a species undergoes very quick mutation, natural selection, and evolution. Fossils are not recorded because it happens in a such small geographic area. So under this theory, the lack of fossils count of evidence and would be just what you expect.

Both scientific theories degraded to such a point that all evidence is read to support the theory. That is not science at all at work. That is called faith. Faith is a framework by which data is interpreted. Since most evolutionists and most global warming theorist believe that their theories are happening, the evidence must support the theory. Otherwise, the faith based framework breaks down.

And losing faith is a traumatic experience for anyone.