Creationist Wisdom #1,056: Don’t Trust Science

We learned about today’s letter-to-the-editor from one of our clandestine operatives who is so well-placed and valuable that he doesn’t even have a code name. It appears in the West Central Tribune of Willmar, Minnesota — the site of a bank robbery by the Machine Gun Kelly gang on July 15, 1930. The title of the letter is We cannot trust ‘authoritative sources’ in science, and the newspaper doesn’t have a comments feature.

Because the writer isn’t a politician, preacher, or other public figure, we won’t embarrass or promote him by using his full name. He writes a lot of letters, but that doesn’t qualify for full-name treatment. We’ve written about his letters before, for example: #792: The No-Brainer. His first name is Phil. Excerpts from his letter will be enhanced with our Curmudgeonly commentary, some bold font for emphasis, and occasional Curmudgeonly interjections that look [like this]. Here we go!

I’ve been writing letters to the editor in opposition to the notion of “man-made” global warming for about a dozen years.

We rarely blog about global warming, so we’re skipping a few paragraphs about that. (You’re not missing anything.) Then he says:

You cannot always trust “authoritative sources” in science. [Gasp!] I’ve been subscribing to the prestigious AAAS “Science” weekly magazine for about 8 years. It’s a fanatically pro-evolution, pro-Man-made global warming, pro-old age of the earth, pro-heliocentric publication.

Egad, heliocentrism! Why does Phil subscribe to a publication like that? He tells us:

Part of its mission statement (in small fine print) says it publishes material on which a consensus is reached, as well as presenting minority or conflicting points of view. Presentations of material opposing the four “pros” above [pro-evolution, etc.], are essentially non-existent. This is why you can’t just cite sources for your point of view.

Good thinking, Phil! He continues:

No one can defend evolution, old age of the earth and heliocentricity decisively [Hooray for Phil!]; but that doesn’t matter to our higher education system; theirs is a “My way or the highway” attitude.

Egad, our higher education system is totally messed up! Let’s read on:

So if you’re going to cite names of supporters of man-made CO2 causing global warming; then please follow up with brief, basic science principles explaining how man’s tiny contribution of CO2 forces the entire globe to heat up.

Do you have the courage to accept Phil’s challenge, dear reader? Of course you don’t! He ends his letter with this:

I still like the magazine, lots of neat science in it, especially regarding the bottomless pit of new discoveries in the field of structural and molecular biology, which is vindicating Intelligent Design to the max [Hee hee!]; in spite of evolutionists tenaciously clinging to their evolution fantasyland precepts.

You didn’t know that Science magazine is vindicating intelligent design, did you? Well, now you do. Thanks, Phil — great letter!

Copyright © 2020. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

14 responses to “Creationist Wisdom #1,056: Don’t Trust Science

  1. A recent and relevant article which perhaps explains why Phil thinks as he does: How the oil industry made us doubt climate change

  2. Note once again the association of creationism with AGW denial

  3. Egad, heliocentrism!
    Coincidentally, I just read an article about the first observational support for heliocentrism: https://thonyc.wordpress.com/2020/09/23/the-emergence-of-modern-astronomy-a-complex-mosaic-part-xlv/

  4. As “We cannot trust ‘authoritative sources’ in science” obviously also applies to our dear SC I decided to click over and see if we don’t miss anything indeed.

    “I try to illustrate by comparing relative quantities of man-made CO2 versus natural CO2 in the atmosphere, oceans and land.”
    Philly unfortunately doesn’t tell us how he measures those relative quantities and how he decides when CO2 is manmade and when it’s natural. We have to take in on his, ahum, authority.

    It’s sad though to notice that Philly hasn’t moved on – he hasn’t criticized the idea that the galaxy we’re part of (it’s named Milky Way) has a centre too! Those pesky astronomers say our beloved planet is very, very far away from it and that our Solar System revolves around it.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galactic_Center

    Heliocentrism is wrong. Convert, you heathens! Become a Galactic Centrist like me. Or become a geocentrist. For one this is sure: heliocentrism is wrong.

  5. For instance JimR links to an article written by ignorants:

    “relied on a heap of assumptions”
    One of those assumptions was that the centre of rotation was to be found in our Solar System. That assumption was and is dead wrong.

    (Technical: another assumption was that you can find an absolute center of rotation in a system that’s relative, ie allows us to pick freely any Inertial Frame of Reference – an assumption that’s incoherent).
    (The Renaissance Mathematicus openly admits he hasn’t studied cosmology and apparently isn’t aware of the meaning of Galilean Transformations for the rotational mechanica ).

  6. The Gaia probe is measuring the parallaxes of stars without, as I understand it, without the assumption of the motion of the Earth. Gaia is in an orbit of the Sun, not of the Earth. Yet Gaia’s results are in agreement with the
    Earth-based results. For example, there are changes in the rotation of the Earth, which a geocentrist would say that they are really changes in the rotation of the sphere of the stars. But the Gaia probe is not attached to, and is not orbiting, the Earth. Thus Gaia is not detecting the supposed (on the geocentric model) changes of the rotation of the sphere of the stars.
    But I am not a scientist, and I would like to hear from an astronomer whether my understanding of Gaia is correct. I am asking for an astronomer to take geocentrism seriously enough to bother to refute it. I am afraid that any astronomer would react to a cold call from me as if I were a geocentrist – as best misunderstand what I was saying as if it were an arguement for geocentrism. No, I really do not have any doubt about the heliocentric model of the Solar System – nothing in astronomy makes sense in a geocentric model. (And please – yes, I know that the Sun is in motion relative to the galaxy.)

  7. Michael Fugate

    Phil is certainly a case in point about defending science decisively; he has decided not to defend it. He has picked out things he doesn’t want to be true and decided no matter the evidence he will never agree they true. As FrankB points out, cosmology is often a matter of perspective, but it is almost impossible to reject selection in living systems and yet he does. Why? Because he believes evolution isn’t true. He objects to words and nothing more.

  8. @PaulB: thanks, but call me unsurprised.
    You probably have guessed that my intention was the exact opposite – what stupid arguments Philly has, so that I could have some more laughs at his expense.
    Just in case: my son is very active in XR. He participated here:

    I believe he wasn’t arrested this year like last year.

    I myself participate in my region now and then.

  9. Phil is a liar. He hasn’t subscribed to Science for 8 years. I doubt he could comprehend the cover pictures. I doubt he’s forked over the $80-100 bucks a year for a magazine he couldn’t possibly understand. If he did understand the articles in Science he wouldn’t hold his Troglodyte views. Just this week do you think Phil read about “Cryo-EM structures reveal the full-length SARS-CoV-2 spike protein in its prefusion and postfusion conformations” or “Consciousness markers in the covid brain?” I don’t think so.

    I’m also quite sure that Phil has never taken a deep dive into the molecular orbital calculation papers ’cause that’s not his … MO.

    (sorry)

  10. @FrankB, I never imagined that you questioned the reality of AGW, and the fossil fuel origin of the excess CO2. I just thought itmight be helpful to remind everyone how firmly established that origin is.

  11. Michael Fugate

    I am sure he believes it takes more faith to be naturalist than to be supernaturalist, but couldn’t tell you why.

  12. @FrankB: “For instance JimR links to an article written by ignorants”
    First: don’t call me JimR. “Jim Roberts” is a more recent commenter here whose opinions I likely don’t share. The name “Jim Roberts” is a very common one, almost up there with “John Smith” if you want to use an assumed name to check in to a hotel with your mistress, so I drop the capitals and the space to be a little different.
    Last: My link to The Renaissance Mathematicus’s article does not imply my unqualified agreement with everything that he has ever advocated; I will not here go into particulars. However, on the relevant theme of how best to understand the movements of the bodies of our solar system, his article is useful and contained information of which I was previously unaware.

  13. @jimr: “First: …”
    Yes sir. To your orders, sir. Pardon me for being too stupid to recognize the difference, sir.

    “his article is useful”
    Good for you. It’s still wrong for the reasons I gave. Sir.