Oh, but it does...
The consensus among scientists (and others) is that a continually growing body of physical evidence from biology, palaeontology and genetics supports the theory of evolution -- and conversely, that the theory of evolution is the best explanation for the evidence.
The consensus among scientists (at least according to Oreskes' meta-analysis of recent published papers) is that a continually growing body of physical evidence supports the theory that mass human activity is capable of affecting global climate -- and conversely, that measured changes in the global climate have, at least in part, mass human activity as their cause.
In both cases, dissent from the consensus is based on faith and denial, using reinterpretation of the evidence in a piecemeal fashion only when it suits. Against evolution, it is the faith that only one of many creation myths that have ever been devised in human history is The Truth. Against anthropogenic climate change, it is the faith that the atmosphere and oceans are a bottomless sink into which can be poured the waste (solids, gases and heat) of human activity without effect.
As to the denial, I refer you to our mutual favorite chapter of The Ascent of Man.
Current Events » in reply to Nice try, people.
re: "The comparison with the creationism flap doesn't stand up for a second."
The whole thread (56 posts)
- Global warming, a small update.
- To paraphrase Will Rogers...
- How does one become a science "authority"?
- BTW...
- ...a small warm pile...
- When other opinions are not allowed...
- Science versus dogma
- re: When other opinions are not allowed...
- Science isn't about "opinions". Especially those poorly supported by emperical evidence.
- When other opinions are not allowed...
- The Sky is falling! The sky is falling!
