email - January 2010

Climategate and Evolution

The theory of evolution has ramifications for theories about other things, including global warming.

Through no planning on our part, last month’s article on Journalistic Credibility happened to be published at the same time as allegations that scientific data about global temperature observations had been ignored or fabricated. Alex expected us to make a connection.

Subj: Climategate 1
Date: 12/18/2009 11:36 AM

I came by your site today to see what you've been interacting with.  When I saw the article titled "Journalistic Credibility" I thought for certain that you would be addressing Climategate.  The Palin article was fine, but there is something more interesting and pertinent in the Climategate.

The point for you to pick up on is that this is an example of the mask coming off of the science-priests. The attempt to cover up shows a lack of sincere science, and instead shows an effort to make or coerce all "rational people" to tow the line, lest you be labeled "irrational, fundamentalist, conservative, etc." all words for "heretic." 

I figured that by pointing it out you might show that "science" isn't always honest with itself. Climate change is the topic du jour, and this instance simply demonstrates the inevitable drift toward ideological bias which undercuts the very essence of the scientific method. This can happen in a field of study that is relatively young and on which so little ideology depends relative to the vast sums of ideology entangled in the success of evolution. If people think it irrational to doubt the science-media-corporate combo, well, here is clear evidence to tell everyone to be more cautious and discerning.

However, I can see that introducing the topic may draw you and your site off your main focus. It would not help to be seen as also battling the popular climate change theories. I thought that the emails themselves (without bashing the theory itself) would give excellent examples of how those humans who do science are just as susceptible to bias as anyone.


He expected us to make the argument that since global warming is a hoax, it logically follows that evolution is also a hoax. We don’t make that argument for the following reasons.

First, Science Against Evolution takes no position on whether or not global warming is real or dangerous. As Alex correctly observes, it would draw us off topic.

Second, even if global warming is a hoax, it doesn’t prove evolution is a hoax.

Instead, we make a related observation, but from the opposite direction. Climategate is a symptom of the damage the theory of evolution has done to the scientific disciple.

In the glory days of science, truth was discovered using the scientific method. But since the theory of evolution cannot be confirmed by the scientific method, and since there was a fervent desire in some circles to declare the theory of evolution to be scientifically valid, the definition of science had to be changed. The definition of science became, “whatever scientists believe to be true, whether they can prove it or not.” Science moved from the realm of objective reality to dogmatic ideology.

Since the theory of evolution doesn’t stand up to objective analysis, any criticism of evolution had to be censored from the classroom. The rationale was that teaching both sides of the evolutionary controversy might “confuse” people.

A generation of scientists has been educated this way. So, it is certainly understandable why a climate scientist might feel justified in suppressing data that doesn’t support the prevailing consensus. If it is OK not to confuse people by presenting evidence for and against evolution, then it is also OK not to confuse people by presenting evidence for and against global warming. Once scientists have reached a consensus, facts don’t matter anymore.

We don’t know if any climate scientists actually suppressed data against global warming or not. We are simply saying that the one-sided teaching of the theory of evolution, and consequent suppression of data that does not support the theory, sets the stage for scientific dishonesty. If it is OK to ignore data that contradicts evolution, then it is OK to ignore data that contradicts global warming.

We can’t stress too much that we don’t know if there was any scientific misconduct regarding climate studies. What we do know, however, is that scientific credibility is at an all time low. We believe the dishonest presentation of the theory of evolution is largely to blame.

The Sky is Falling

A few years ago, scientists said millions of people were going to die from the bird flu. This year scientists are telling us millions of people are going to die from the swine flu. Scientists are always telling us that the sky is falling and crying wolf. Nothing assures Federal funding more than an imminent crisis. If the consensus of scientists is that there is an impending health crisis, who really needs data to back it up?

We remember the days when you could trust what scientists say. But since scientists have abandoned the scientific method, those days are apparently gone. This is due in great part to scientists insisting that the theory of evolution is true, ignoring all evidence to the contrary. Consensus trumps experiments. Opinions reign supreme, especially if they are financially or politically rewarding.

Quick links to
Science Against Evolution
Home Page
Back issues of
(our newsletter)
Web Site
of the Month
Topical Index


1 Ever since the Watergate break-in, any scandal (or perceived scandal) has been called “something-gate.” Hence, the controversy regarding the global temperature data has been called “climategate” by some people in America.