Nah, Darwinism is just a scientific theory; it is neutral in regards to god, and works by the scientific method: observation, hypothesis, theory. The other two, well...
For instance, if global warming were real, the question would be what we should do about it. But first, before that question arises, we need to establish that global warming is real.
Actually global warming is real. The current episode started about 15,000 years ago, and the seas have risen between 325 and 425 feet (depending on who you listen to). Most of that was prior to 5,000 years ago.
What is the equivalent of "the sky is falling" with the oceans? "The tide's coming in" doesn't have quite as nice a ring to it.
Absolutely. We've been on a slow temperature rise through the whole of the holocene period. Anthropogenic global warming is what that guy meant, I guess.
>Nah, Darwinism is just a scientific theory; it is neutral in regards to god, and works by the scientific method: observation, hypothesis, theory. The other two, well...<
So is intelligent design. Creationists like to point to it as proof of the existence of God, but the actual hypothesis is neutral in regards to god.
By the way, you left out the most important part of the scientific method: experiment, the step TOE and its proponents turn a blind eye to.
For example, I have heard many arguments against irreducible complexity by Darwinists, but have yet to have ONE of them present an actual experiment to support their hypothesis.
In the real sciences (physics and chemistry), the very first thing you do is design the experiment to test your hypothesis. Otherwise, you're just another Aristotle presenting nothing more than sophistry and pretending it's science.
If someone comes up with a theory that explains away IC (like the arch), then be a real scientist and design the experiment. Otherwise just be honest about it and stop pretending that what you're practicing is actual science or that you are following the scientific method.
On the contrary, Darwinism posits as its underlying axiom that God never intervenes in any way in the universe and that divine providence plays no role in nature or history. You could, if you liked, believe in some sort of Deist clockmaker God, if you liked, but nothing more than that.
You can make a pretty good Freudian case, if you believe that Freud was still worth mentioning, that Darwin was motivated by his desire to revolt against his religious, authoritarian father, as indeed many of Darwin's biographers have suggested. Samuel Butler paints a very similar picture in his autobiographical novel, "The Way of All Flesh." Darwin certainly had an agenda--which would be perfectly fine, as I've suggested, if his facts all checked. But they really don't. The odds against General Evolution, as opposed to limited evolution, are worse than astronomical.
The question was "IS there global warming", not "Has there been global warming".