Posted on 03/19/2015 7:32:13 AM PDT by fishtank
National Geographic claims creationists are at war with science
by Lita Cosner and Keaton Halley
Published: 19 March 2015 (GMT+10)
National Geographic (NG) is a respected popular science magazine with millions of subscribers. So it is unfortunate when they use that platform to promote anti-creation propaganda under the guise of science. The cover of the March 2015 issue is “The War on Science”, and the featured article by science writer Joel Achenbach, “The age of disbelief”, intends to explain why so many people doubt the scientific establishment on a range of issues—from global warming to vaccines to the Apollo moon landings. And, of course, no ‘war on science’ article would be complete without a reference to creationists. But rather than shed light on these controversies, NG has only managed to spread more confusion.........
(Excerpt) Read more at creation.com ...
The face of science by consensus.
National Geographic went to hell years ago.
Agreed, I’ve not subscribed in many years.
Notice they threw the moon landing in there as if doubting manmade global climate change were the equivalent of doubting the moon landing.
What creationists think can and will do nothing to science concerned with evolution.
What climate change clowns think can and will do a great deal of harm to real science.
Q: What’s the diff between a Starbucks barista and a climate scientist?
Ans: the barista had a higher GPA.
Science is merely man’s methodology for trying to analyzed, understand and categorize what God has created.
Do they mean the old science that meant something or the new, goofy “whatever” type of “science” that retarded former college kids use to apply for government grants?
ROMANS 1:18-21
18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.
21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.
Well said!
NG has become just another leftist yellow sheet.
I pretend I’m a theoretical physicist too. But just sometimes.
Thanks, but that was a rare bit of inspiration that I won’t take credit for. God created my brain and lets me use it for awhile.
The war on politicized science.
For aging granola munching Birkenstock hippies of both sexes with grey ponytails who regard Western Civ as the scourge of the Earth.
Alas, “creationism” is a wide spectrum but is pigeonholed as a narrow view. There are creationists who study what actually exists and seek sensible understanding of what & why things are, attributing the ultimate initiation & guidance of everything to God. There are creationists who take a couple pages written by an inspired sheepherder and declare their absolute perfect understanding while denying the plain reality of what physically exists and creating inane explanations for what is. Of course, it’s the latter group which gets all the press, because insulting the wantonly ignorant is fun.
Would that “creationists” would realize
- they don’t know everything
- science works
- what actually happened actually happened regardless of what one says happened
- there are legitimate differing interpretations of both scripture and science
- declaring “God made it _look_ old to test your faith” makes a god of “truth” out as a liar.
I’m fundamentally a creationist, and acknowledge fossils & starlight only make sense in an “old universe”.
(Now where did I put that Nomex suit...)
It’s the Strawman narrative.
Why we doubt...
******************************
“Climate Change”
Claim Jan. 1970: “By 1985, air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half.” Life Magazine, January 1970. Life Magazine also noted that some people disagree, “but scientists have solid experimental and historical evidence to support each of the predictions.”
Data: Air quality has actually improved since 1970. Studies find that sunlight reaching the Earth fell by somewhere between 3 and 5 percent over the period in question.
Claim April 1970: “If present trends continue, the world will be … eleven degrees colder by the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us in an ice age.” Kenneth E.F. Watt, in Earth Day, 1970.
Data: According to NASA, global temperature has increased by about 1 degree Fahrenheit since 1970.
Claim 1970: “In ten years all important animal life in the sea will be extinct. Large areas of coastline will have to be evacuated because of the stench of dead fish.” Paul Ehrlich, speech during Earth Day, 1970.
Claim 1972: “Artic specialist Bernt Balchen says a general warming trend over the North Pole is melting the polar ice cap and may produce an ice-free Arctic Ocean by the year 2000.” Christian Science Monitor, June 8, 1972. Data: Ice coverage has fallen, though as of last month, the Arctic Ocean had 3.82 million square miles of ice cover — an area larger than the continental United States — according to The National Snow and Ice Data Center.
Claims 1974: “… when metereologists take an average of temperatures around the globe they find the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for the past three decades. The trend shows no indication of reversing. Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age. Telltale signs are everywhere–from the unexpected persistence and thickness of pack ice int eh waters around Iceland to the southward migration of a warmth-loving creature like the armadillo from the Midwest. When Climatologist George J. Kukla of Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory and his wife Helena analyzed satellite weather data fro the Northern Hemisphere, they found that the area of ice and snow cover had suddenly increased by 12% in 1971 and the increase has persisted ever since. Areas of Baffin Island in the Canadia Arctic, for example, were once totally free of any snow in summer; now they are covered year round.” Later in the article, “Whatever the cause of the cooling trend, its effects could be extremely serious, if not catastrophic. Scientists figure that only a 1% decrease in the amount of sunlight hitting the earth’s surface could tip teh climatic balance, and cool the planet enough to send it sliding down the road to another ice age within only a few hundred years.”
Source: “Another Ice Age,” Time Magazine, June 24, 1974. Claim 1989: “Using computer models, researchers concluded that global warming would raise average annual temperatures nationwide two degrees by 2010.” Associated Press, May 15, 1989.
Data: According to NASA, global temperature has increased by about 0.7 degrees Fahrenheit since 1989. And U.S. temperature has increased even less over the same period.
Claims: “Britain’s winter ends tomorrow with further indications of a striking environmental change: snow is starting to disappear from our lives.”
“Sledges, snowmen, snowballs and … are all a rapidly diminishing part of Britain’s culture, as warmer winters–which scientists are attributing to global climate change–produce not only fewer white Christmases, but fewer white Januaries and Februaries.”
“London’s last substantial snowfall was in February 1991.” “Global warming, the heating of the atmosphere by increased amounts of industrial gases, is now accepted as a reality by the international community.”
According to Dr. David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia, within a few years “children just aren’t going to know what snow is” and winter snowfall will be “a very rare and exciting event.” Interviewed by the UK Independent, March 20, 2000.
“David Parker, at the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research in Berkshire, says ultimately, British children could have only virtual experience of snow.” See “Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past.” The Independent. March 20, 2000.
Data: “Coldest December Since records began as temperatures plummet to minus 10 C bringing travel chaos across Britain.” Mailonline. Dec. 18, 2010.
Claim: “[By] 1995, the greenhouse effect would be desolating the heartlands of North America and Eurasia with horrific drought, causing crop failures and food riots … [By 1996] The Platte River of Nebraska would be dry, while a continent-wide black blizzard of prairie topsoil will stop traffic on interstates, strip paint from houses and shut down computers.” Michel Oppenheimer and Robert H. Boyle, Dead Heat, St. Martin’s Press, 1990. Oppenheimer is the Albert G. Milbank Professor of Geosciences and International Affairs in the Woodrow Wilson School and the Department of Geosciences at Princeton University. He is the Director of the Program in Science, Technology, and Environmental Policy at the Wilson School. He was formerly a senior scientist with the Environmental Defense Fund, the largest non-governmental organization in the U.S. that examines problems and solutions to greenhouse gases.
Data: When asked about these old predictions Oppenheimer stated, “On the whole I would stand by these predictions — not predictions, sorry, scenarios — as having at least in a general way actually come true,” he said. “There’s been extensive drought, devastating drought, in significant parts of the world. The fraction of the world that’s in drought has increased over that period.”
However, that claim is not obviously true. Data from NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center show that precipitation — rain and snow — has increased slightly over the century.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/19/great-moments-in-failed-predictions/
Modern takes on the sciences have forgotten the theistic roots of natural philosophy. The sciences have a valid theological basis in the scriptural command to subdue the earth.
It’s a symptom of the age. IMHO, and probably according to scripture too, Christians shouldn’t get all huffy over this. They know the score; they know the world is blind to God. Evolutionary theory is a particularly hot area of conflict, because life on earth is such a witness to God and secular science is trying to do the best it can godlessly.
“National Geographic (NG) is a respected popular science (?)magazine with millions of subscribers.”
“God is a respected Deity* with billions of followers.”
“The fool has said in his heart, “There is no God.”
~Psalm 14:1
In the battle between Science and Evolution, Science always wins.
*The only One, actually
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.