Another good example of the ‘perversion of scientific debate’ to which Professor Brooks referred is the idea that evolutionary theory refutes God’s existence. Many atheists have suggested this, and so they provoked the intellectual cul-de-sac of intelligent design.

This is all so unnecessary. Evolutionary theory has nothing to say about God. It’s a scientific theory. It does not speculate about spiritual questions. If people insist on interpreting the science as being evidence for or against the existence of God, then such interpretations are by definition unscientific.

My advice to intelligent design proponents: stop pretending that biological sciences have anything to do with God and just get on with being scientists. Or go and be priests. When you try to do both, you debase both scientific and theological knowledge.

If you want to have an intelligent conversation, let’s talk about God. Or science. They’re both important and useful discussions. But not together. That way lies madness. Let’s play along for sh**s and giggles and you’ll see what I mean:

Can anyone tell me what is so intelligent about the design of a human that:

a) Lives for three-score years and ten, but whose teeth only last 35, eyesight 45, hearing 55 and knees 65 years?
b) Has a spine that is poorly suited to bipedal walking, but is well-suited to walking on all fours, or swinging through trees, and which compresses the lumbar discs to the point that they fail?
c) Has such a narrow birth canal that women frequently die in childbirth under natural conditions? A 200-pound gorilla female bears a 5-pound baby, whereas a 120-pound human female has to squeeze out an 8-9 pound whopper.
d) Has a digestive appendix that serves no purpose and which harbours so many bacteria that it frequently becomes fatally infected unless surgically removed?

And are there any ‘Answers in Genesis’ as to why God blessed the children of father-daughter incest? (Genesis 19:30-38). It’s not a good look to have your intelligent designer pimping for Josef Fritzl.

Outstanding post at 2.09, Mercurius. Eventually you'll stop trying to reason with runner - he's wrapped up in fundamentalist death anxiety and can't come out - but it's a good one to refer to for the next (inevitable) assault on civilisation by fundamentalist quasi-scientists.

Candide, you ask who is credible on AGW or generally on science, or how to determine this? That's a very very good question. I have thoughts on this, but i'll leave off answering for now. as long as barry brook is defending/clarifying his post (largely in response to silly interpretations), i think it's best just to pay attention to his offerings. i presume one thing is clear to you: those who bluster the most are going to inform you the least.

davidf, i know you're fully occupied with other posters, but a quick comment. you write:

"Good science does not invariably win if winning means convincing the audience. One can be good scientist advancing one's thesis with rigour but not be as skilled in debating techniques as the denialist."

obviously this i true, but i have little sympathy with the scientific community in this regard. if they want to educate the community about scientific method, to convince people of the true state of play on a given issue, then they should stop whining and get their hands dirty and go engage with the public. (which is pretty much what brook's article is calling for).

if truth and integrity and the weight of numbers are on the scientists' side (and i believe they usually are), these are powerful weapons: a few hucksters and a few less than principled media men should be no threat whatsoever. i chalk up any failure to arrogance and laziness.

I wrote "In science proof is never established we merely have plausible explanations which can be overthrown by new evidence or new insights."

trade215 wrote:

"Thusly you have defined proof."

Writing that proof is not established in science is not defining proof. A plausible explanation is not a proof.

trade215 also wrote:

"If you are saying there is no objectivity, thus no inherent proofs, then l agree. All things are causal and conditional."

I don't appreciate your statements being put in my mouth. Proof is hard edged and is completely objective. It does not exist in experimental science, but it exists in mathematics.

trade215 also wrote:

"l would suggest that proof is subject to the conditions of the environment in which it arises, namely consciousness. Consciousness may be possibly defined as subjective (the subject who possesses it), propelled by experience (the basis of knowing and knowledge). As experience and knowledge (consciousness) operate on a coninuous feedback loop, its 'proofs' are in a persistent state of flux or evolution."

I find your suggestion unacceptable. Proof is a determination of validity in all cases. It is not in a state of flux or dependent on consciousness. It exists in mathematics, Fermat's theorem has been proven and was not dependent on the consciousness of the person who proved it or the environment in which it has been proven. It proceeded by a series of logical steps from the basic premises.

Hypotheses validated by experimental results which are reproducible independently of the state of consciousness of the experimenter or the environment characterise experimental science. The only relevant part of the environment is the experimental parameters. Your definition is New Age rather than science. Validity is determined by reproducible results. If an experiment does not yield reproducible results and the procedure is not faulty the hypothesis is invalid and must be abandoned.

Your definition of proof makes proof like a will of the wisp.

You may define terms any way you like, but your definition of 'proof' is not related to any definition I understand as proof.

Anamele, you clearly didn't read my follow up posts, esp. the 2nd one.

Don Aitken, my point holds - you dismiss over a century of progress with a wave of your finger over your keyboard. "we barely understand ‘climate’. It is too vast a domain" - barely understand relative to what? The world is riddled with complex systems for which we have incomplete understanding, but sufficient grasp of (and evidence for processes) to make informed conjecture about cause and effect - and hence (in this context) predictions of response to climate forcing. I maintain that your stand is but one step away from anti-science, because progress in any field can conveniently be characterised as mostly incomplete and therefore unreliable. Following this logic, you'd best switch off that electronic device you are typing on - after all, we really actually understand so little about the quantum dynamics of the circuit board and the behaviour of those electrons.

Time will tell for global warming in one sense - evidence will continue to accumulate, uncertainties will continue to be examined and debated, CO2 will continue to build. Unexpected things may happen that either amplify or negate the change (models suggest the former is more likely, but models are simply caricatures of our understanding of the real world, and are therefore always limited and simplified). An expectation of absolute proof on the other hand is not science. In only the most trivial issues can there ever be proof. The issue of global risk management of the Earth System will be heightened whilst more and more uncertainties are ironed out, or refuted, or re-formulated.

The concern is that at some point - perhaps soon - positive feedbacks and hysteresis takes the problem forever out of our hands. At that point, there is no chance for re-evaluation of policy or reparations via drastic counter-action. That is what is meant when it is said that we are are running out of time. How long are we willing to "risk it" before we take some serious insurance? That is the core argument for current policy, nationally and globally.

Three items have predominated on this string - the Big-Bang, AGW (anthropogenic global warming) and evolution. Most scientific opinion favours the Big-Bang. Fred Hoyle coined the term 'Big Bang' seeking to belittle the theory. However, the discovery of the cosmic microwave background in 1964 was taken as almost undeniable support for the Big Bang. Whether we accept it or not it will make little difference in our lives. I lack the knowledge to judge whether it is a valid theory or not.

I regard AGW as a bad term. It is bad because it ignores other anthropogenic effects of changing atmospheric conditions. One effect is increasing acidification of the oceans due to increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide in the air. The ocean absorbs carbon dioxide at a greater rate due to increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide in the air. Carbon dioxide together with water molecules forms carbonic acid which makes the ocean more acidic. Most if not all life in the ocean finds it more difficult and sometimes impossible to live with lower ph levels. Food production to a large extent is dependent on plant fertilization by bees. In the US in many places bee colonies have been dying out. Apparently this is due to increasing air pollution which interferes with bees' keen sense of smell and cuts down the range in which they can detect flowers. Whether AGW is a valid concept or not we need to curb emissions since they interfere with food production on land and on sea. With increasing global population we need to curb emissions. Increasing population is another issue.

Evolution is a fact. The disappearance of species and the emergence of new species is shown by the evidence of fossils. Darwinian theory is the only reasonable theory to show how this process has come about. Even if Darwinian theory could be disproved evolution would remain a fact. However, if we discarded Darwinian theory we would have to discard much of the biological, medical and geologic sciences which support and are supported by Darwinian theory.