For an example, see this wonderful article: What Do Darwinism and 'Climate Change' Have in Common? Correct answer: they're both true and the best explanation of the evidence.
It's one thing to be invested in creationism and reject modern evolutionary theory because of it. But their slip is showing: they're just movement conservatives coming to their predetermined conclusion rather than following the evidence. The confirmation bias is strong here. This is not the only such article from them trying to cast aspersions on global warming.
One may object that here they're only comparing the rhetoric of the two rather than claiming global warming isn't happening. But... why? This isn't some isolated thought exercise or examination of rhetoric in a neutral setting. They disagree with Darwinism, their audience disagrees with Darwinism, they're comparing anthropogenic climate change to Darwinism, and their audience is already inclined to disagree with anthropogenic climate change. As a matter of rhetoric - which is what they're looking at - the implication is clear: "Maybe you shouldn't trust these science-talking guys on this as much, either."
No comments:
Post a Comment