In an illuminating and eloquently-written commentary in the Huffington Post, Southern Louisiana University Professor Matt Rossano highlights the folly of today’s anti-intellectual approach to religious faith [Rossano2010]: . . . → Read More: Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it]]> George Santayana’s quote (often misquoted and mis-ascribed) in the title of this post is as relevant today as when the great philosopher first wrote it more than a century ago.

In an illuminating and eloquently-written commentary in the Huffington Post, Southern Louisiana University Professor Matt Rossano highlights the folly of today’s anti-intellectual approach to religious faith [Rossano2010]: “Creationists, ‘intelligent-designers,’ and Biblical literalists seem hell-bent on wearing ignorance as a badge of piety.” And, he adds, “History repeats itself.”

Rossano notes that the “tug of war” between religion and science should have been settled 1600 years ago by Augustine of Hippo (354-430 CE), who even today is held in high regard both by religious theologians and by secular philosophers. British philosopher Bertrand Russell did not think much of Aquinas or Anselm, but he had deep respect for Augustine.

The background of Augustine’s writings was, like today, an increasing tension between the early Christian Church on one hand, and the world of classical secular learning on the other. Some theologians had been arguing that it was pointless to ground faith in reason. Tertullian, for example, had declared “What has Athens to do with Jerusalem, the Academy with the Church? … We have no need for curiosity since Jesus Christ, nor for inquiry since the Evangel.” Bishop Consentius, a contemporary of Augustine, wrote, “God is not to be sought after by reason but followed through authority.” Augustine countered Consentius by writing:

You say that truth is to be grasped more by faith than by reason … Heaven forbid that God should hate in us that by which he made us superior to the animals! Heaven forbid that we should believe in such a way as not to accept or seek reasons, since we could not believe if we did not have rational souls.

In the specific arena of science and religion, Augustine was just as direct, often anticipating science-religion debates of the 20th and 21st centuries. With regards to the question of whether Noah’s ark could have held specimens of each and every species on earth (which after the flood quickly repopulated all corners of the globe, even distant islands), Augustine wrote (in The City of God):

[I]t is asked how they [various wild animals] could be found in the islands after the deluge … It might, indeed, be said that they crossed to the islands by swimming, but this could only be true of those very near the mainland; whereas there are some so distant that we fancy no animal could swim to them … they were produced out of the earth as at their first creation. … [T]his makes it more evident that all kinds of animals were preserved in the ark, not so much for the sake of renewing the stock, as of prefiguring the various nations that were to be saved in the Church.

In other words, Augustine is saying “let’s be reasonable” — the story of Noah’s flood has great symbolic value (e.g., to represent the universal saving of mankind from the grasp of evil), but it was never intended as a technically precise historical account of the literal rescue of all life on earth from a global deluge.

In The Literal Meaning of Genesis, Augustine comments more directly about foolish Christians who believe that, armed only with a few verses of scripture, they can overturn the work of knowledgable scientists on questions of the creation and the natural world:

Now, it is a disgraceful and a dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics [of the natural world]; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. …

If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason?

Rossano’s article concludes his analysis by saying that “the best of the Christian intellectual tradition offers no comfort or cover to today’s foolish Christians who ignore science and reason in a misguided effort to guard the faith. Their timidity and intellectual cowardice soil the proud edifice great Christian thinkers of the past toiled so hard to erect.” Amen.

References

1. Matt J. Rossano, “Augustine of Hippo: A Role Model for Intelligent Faith,” Huffington Post, 28 Jul 2010, available at Online article.

Both creationist and intelligent design writers argue that science has yet to understand the origin of life, and that this is a fatal flaw in evolutionary theory [Behe1996; Dembski1998]. It is true that scientists don’t yet understand the origin of life, in particular the origin of the first self-replicating biomolecules. What’s more, unlike bony . . . → Read More: Scientists announce creation of synthetic bacteria]]>

Both creationist and intelligent design writers argue that science has yet to understand the origin of life, and that this is a fatal flaw in evolutionary theory [Behe1996; Dembski1998]. It is true that scientists don’t yet understand the origin of life, in particular the origin of the first self-replicating biomolecules. What’s more, unlike bony structures that leave fossil records, the early stages of chemical evolution on the planet very likely have been completely erased, so that we may never know for sure exactly what transpired. Nonetheless, numerous intriguing results have recently been obtained.

In May 2010 a team led by human genome entrepreneur Craig Venter succeeded in synthesizing the entire genome of a bacteria and using it to take over a cell. Based on a computer-designed sequence, the team ordered DNA in sections of 1000 base pairs from a commercial DNA synthesis firm, then assembled them into a single piece with 1,080,000 bases. In a second step, they directed the synthetic DNA to take over control of a bacterial cell, generating proteins according to the new DNA instead of its own. Venter characterizes the converted cell as “the first self-replicating species we’ve had on the planet whose parent is a computer” [Wade2010a].

Scientists are quick to emphasize that Venter’s team has not created life from scratch, since bacteria and yeast were used to combine and duplicate over million base pairs in the synthetic genome. But the demonstration is undeniably a landmark achievement along the path to completely synthetic life, and underscores the progress modern science has achieved in understanding life. As physicist Richard Feynman once quipped (as one of several quotes that have been encoded in the new genome), “What I cannot build I cannot understand.” [Callaway2010].

There are numerous other examples as well [Bailey2010a]. Here is a brief summary:

• Researchers recently found that certain RNA molecules can greatly increase the rate of specific chemical reactions, including, remarkably, the replication of parts of other RNA molecules. Thus if a molecule like RNA could “self-catalyze” itself in this manner, perhaps with the assistance of some related molecules, RNA could form the basis for a very simple and primitive organism [NAS2008, pg. 22]. Along this line, Alexander Vlassov, a scientist working at a biotech company in Santa Cruz, California, recently found that if he cooled certain RNA segments down below freezing, the RNA chain spontaneously joined its ends into a circle. These findings suggested that the first, very inefficient RNA enzyme molecules may have been aided by ice, which permitted short segments to combine and behave as a much larger molecule [Fox2008].
• In a related development, in February 2010 scientists at the Scripps Research Institute in San Diego announced that they have synthesized RNA enzymes, known as ribozymes, that can replicate themselves without the help of any proteins or other cellular components. What’s more, these simple molecules can act as catalysts and continue the process indefinitely. As researcher Gerald Joyce noted, “The key thing is it replicates itself, and passes information from parent to progeny down the line. … Some functions are more fit than others, and those that are more fit ‘breed’ more, and are perpetuated more efficiently, and so it goes Darwinian.” [daSilva2010].
• Also in February 2010, researchers at the University of Colorado showed that a very simple RNA molecule can catalyze chemical reactions, without any other proteins present. Their form of RNA involved only five nucleotides. As researcher Michael Yarus noted, “This work shows that RNA enzymes could have been far smaller, and therefore far easier to make under primitive conditions, than anyone has expected.” [Colorado2010].

Whatever the outcome of these lines of research, it must be kept in mind that the process of evolution after the origin of the first biomolecules is very well attested in fossils, radiometric measurements, DNA, and numerous other lines of evidence, completely independent of how the first biomolecules formed. In other words, the remaining uncertainties in the biogenesis arena have no bearing on the central hypothesis of evolution, namely that species are related in a family tree, having proliferated and adapted over the eons under the influence of natural forces. What’s more, to the extent that creationist and intelligent design writers continue to emphasize the biogenesis issue, they risk being discredited, even in the public eye, as new and ever-more-remarkable developments are announced.

References

1. [Bailey2010a] David H. Bailey, “Do scientists understand the origin of life? What is the impact of this on evolutionary theory?”, 21 May 2010, available at Online article.
2. [Behe1996] Michael J. Behe, Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution, Simon and Schuster, New York, 1996.
3. [Callaway2010] Ewen Callaway, “Immaculate creation: birth of the first synthetic cell,” New Scientist, 20 May 2010, available at Online article.
4. [Colorado2010] “Scientists Create Tiny RNA Molecule With Big Implications for Life’s Origins,” ScienceDaily, 24 Feb 2010, available at Online article.
5. [daSilva2010] Wilson da Silva, “Life-like evolution in a test tube,” Cosmos, 21 Feb 2010, available at Online article.
6. [Dembski1998] William A. Dembski, The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance through Small Probabilities, Cambridge University Press, 1998.
7. [Fox2008] Douglas Fox, “Funky Properties of Frozen Water May Have Made Life Possible,” 1 Feb 2008, available at Online article.
8. [NAS2008] National Academy of Sciences, Institute of Medicine, Science, Evolution, and Creationism, National Academies Press, Washington, 2008.
9. [Wade2010a] Nicholas Wade, “Researchers Say They Created a ‘Synthetic Cell’,” New York Times, 20 May 2010, available at Online article.

[This article has also been posted Here.]

A large fraction of the public still does not accept the most basic facts of modern geology, such as the notion that the earth is many millions of years old. For example, fully 45 percent of Americans insist that the earth was created at some time within the past . . . → Read More: How reliable are measurements of the age of the earth?]]>

[This article has also been posted Here.]

A large fraction of the public still does not accept the most basic facts of modern geology, such as the notion that the earth is many millions of years old. For example, fully 45 percent of Americans insist that the earth was created at some time within the past 10,000 years [Gallup2004].

Much of this skepticism stems from the creationist movement, which has gone to great lengths to criticize the radiometric methods used to date rocks and fossils, such as Carbon-14, Rb-Sr and the K-Ar methods. Creationists cite “anomalies” that have been noted in the scientific literature as evidence that these methods are “unreliable.” As a single example, creationist Henry Morris [Morris2000, pg. 147] has highlighted the fact that K-Ar measurements of rocks from a 1801 lava flow near a volcano in Hualalai, Hawaii give apparent ages ranging from 160 million to 2.96 billion years, citing a 1968 study [Funkhouser1968].

So what are the facts here? How reliable are these measurements?

Indeed, geological dating methods, like the vast majority of scientific measurement techniques in many disciplines, are subject to anomalies. But such anomalies are hardly a secret in the field — they have been studied extensively in the literature, and most are well understood as due to various known phenomena — e.g., selective leaching of certain minerals from rocks, remelting of the specimen in the interim, or, in the case of Carbon-14 dates, historical variations in the rate of formation of Carbon-14. Modern dating procedures include steps to avoid such problems, and to cross-check results.

Along this line, because of its relatively short half-life, Carbon-14 measurements can only be used to date relatively recent items — i.e., less than about 50,000 years old. Thus any “anomalies” that Carbon-14 dating schemes may be subject to are completely irrelevant to the question of whether the earth is many millions of years old. With regards to the Hualalai lava mentioned above, this is unusual because it includes numerous xenoliths, typically consisting of olivine, an iron-magnesium silicate material, that are foreign to the lava, having been carried from deep within the mantle (as the authors of the 1968 study were careful to explain). These and other “anomalies” are analyzed in exhaustive detail in [Dalrymple2006].

Most recent radiometric measurements are very convincingly self-checked via “isochrons” — multiple data points from a single sample or rock layer are plotted, and the best straight-line fit is used to calculate the age. If the data points do not line on a very nearly straight line — if some lie far from the line — that indicates that the sample has been subjected to “anomalies” (for whatever reason), and the resulting dates are not reliable. If however they do all lie very nearly on a straight line (which nowadays happens most of the time), then this is compelling evidence that the data are reliable [Bailey2010; Dalrymple2006; Stassen1998; Stassen2005].

New, high-tech equipment has eliminated many of the difficulties that afflicted earlier measurements. For example, the “SHRIMP” ion microprobe now in use in numerous laboratories around the world can reliably measure U-Pb and Pb-Pb ages from spots only 0.02 mm (i.e., 20 micrometers) in size within a zircon crystal [Dalrymple2004, pg. 60-62]. New dating schemes have been developed, such as the Argon-40-Argon-39 method, that are not vulnerable to some of the difficulties that potentially can afflict other schemes. Often it is possible to use completely independent dating methods on the same samples, thus providing some very strong cross-checking.

So what is the best explanation of the “anomalies”: (a) that every one of tens of thousands of careful, recent measurements, made using the latest high-tech equipment, self-checked with isochrons or the equivalent, are all simultaneously in error by nearly six orders of magnitude? or (b) that the handful of remaining anomalies that have not yet been fully explained are subject to some reasonable natural phenomenon that in time will be well understood? Obviously the second explanation is overwhelmingly more credible. Those who try to sweep enormous mounds of high-quality, consistent data under the rug are guilty of what is often referred to as the “forest fallacy” — i.e., someone who picks faults with the bark of a handful of trees, and then tries to claim that the forest doesn’t exist.

Overall, the picture painted by the large body of studies that have been published in the field is an extremely consistent one — when the same fossil layer is tested, anywhere in the world, the date is the same. As biologist Kenneth Miller notes, “The consistency of the data … is nothing short of stunning.” [Miller1999, pg. 76]. Of course none of this matters much for those who have no wish to be convinced by the geological record. But for the rest of us, there is no room for doubt.

1. [Bailey2010] David H. Bailey, “How are the dates of various geologic ages and fossil layers calculated? How accurate and reliable are they?”, available at Online article.
2. [Dalrymple1991] G. Brent Dalrymple, The Age of the Earth, Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA, 1991.
3. [Dalrymple2004] G. Brent Dalrymple, Ancient Earth, Ancient Skies: The Age of Earth and its Cosmic Surroundings, Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA, 2004.
4. [Dalrymple2006] G. Brent Dalrymple, “Radiometric Dating,” available at Online article.
5. [Funkhouser1968] J. G. Funkhouser and J. J. Naughton, “Radiogenic helium and argon in ultramafic inclusions from Hawaii,” Geophysical Research Journal, vol. 73 (1968), pg. 4601-4607.
6. [Gallup2004] Gallup poll, available at Online article.
7. [Miller1999] Kenneth R. Miller, Finding Darwin’s God: A Scientist’s Search for Common Ground Between God and Evolution, Cliff Street Books, New York, 1999.
8. [Morris2000] Henry M. Morris, Scientific Creationism, Creation-Life Publishers, El Cajon, CA, 1985, reprinted 2000.
9. [Stassen1998] Chris Stassen, “Isochron Dating,” available at Online article.
10. [Stassen2005] Chris Stassen, “The Age of the Earth,” available at Online article.

The specimens had relatively small teeth and a face like Homo, the genus that includes modern humans, but a brain size . . . → Read More: New Hominin Species Found in South Africa]]> In one of the most dramatic fossil finds of recent decades, scientists have found partial skeletons of a boy and a woman, both in surprisingly good condition, that represent a new hominin species named Australopithecus sediba.

The specimens had relatively small teeth and a face like Homo, the genus that includes modern humans, but a brain size more typical of known Australopithecus species. The individuals lived 1.78 to 1.95 million years ago, during a period when Australopithecines and early species of Homo were contemporaries.

Lee Berger and his colleagues of the University of the Witwatersrand in Johannesburg, who discovered the fossils, suggest that this species descended from Australopithecus africanus, but is ancestral to Homo erectus, which in turn is widely believed to be the ancestor of Homo sapiens [Dugger2010, Wong 2010b].

However, other paleontologists are not so sure. Meave Leakey of the National Museums of Kenya, for example, does not think that this species is ancestral to Homo or has anything to do with Homo. Additional studies will be required to resolve the issue [Wong2010b].

These finds are certain to cause even more consternation among creationists, who firmly deny that anyone has ever found any “missing links” between ape and man (see Prehuman fossils). Creationist writers typically respond to new discoveries of hominin fossils by labeling them as either “ape” or “human.” This is shown in the following table, which is based on a similar table (including references) available here: Table.

The utter disagreement in this table as to whether fossils are “ape” or “human” is moot testimony to the fact that there is no clear delineation — all are related in a family tree. As biologist Kenneth Miller observes, “Ironically, validation of our common ancestry with other primates comes directly from those who are most critical of the idea.” [Miller2008, pg. 95].

One has to admire the creationists for their determination. But theirs is truly a hopeless cause. Any remaining reasonable doubt regarding the age of the earth was extinguished at least 50 years ago with the development of radiometric dating (see Ages); and any reasonable doubt regarding common ancestry of primates and humans was extinguished at least 25 years ago with the analysis of protein sequence and DNA data (see DNA). Thus we can only hope one day that creationists will join with scientists in forging a new synthesis of science and religion, one that recognizes the meaning and value of religion, yet is realistic about the scientific evidence.

References:

1. [Dugger2010] Celia W. Dugger and John Noble Wilford, “New Hominid Species Discovered in South Africa,” New York Times, 8 Apr 2010, available at Online article.
2. [Miller2008] Kenneth R. Miller, Only a Theory: Evolution and the Battle for America’s Soul, Viking, New York, 2008.
3. [Wong2010b] Kate Wong, “Spectacular South African Skeletons Reveal New Species from Murky Period of Human Evolution,” Scientific American, 8 Apr 2010, available at Online article.

Recently considerable attention has been drawn to the fact that some errors were found in the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report, and the fact that, as revealed in a set of emails exchanged . . . → Read More: Creationism, Global Warming Denial and Scientific Integrity]]> [Note: This appeared earlier on the Math Drudge blog, which is edited by David H. Bailey and Jonathan M. Borwein.]

Recently considerable attention has been drawn to the fact that some errors were found in the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report, and the fact that, as revealed in a set of emails exchanged by some leading climate scientists in the U.K., the report had been “dressed” to some extent. Many now claim that there is a full-scale conspiracy of the scientific world to hide the “truth” from the public, a view now apparently held by 16% of Americans, according to a recent poll [Broder; Vanderhooft].

Similar claims have been made about modern evolutionary biology. The recent movie “Expelled” claimed that creationist and “intelligent design” writers have been systematically “shut out” due to a “conspiracy” among the scientific establishment. Now, the two movements have joined forces to some extent, as legislators in several U.S. states are introducing legislation to require that students be taught “all sides of evidence” on evolution and global warming [Kaufman].

We certainly do not intend, in this column, to launch into a full-scale analysis of the claims of either group. With regards to creationism and “intelligent design,” numerous scientists have amply demonstrated that their claims are either refuted by the findings of multiple peer-reviewed published studies, or, in any event, fail to rise to anywhere near the level needed to challenge existing theories of geology and biology [SMR-creationism; SMR-ID].

With regards to global warming, we see no reason not to accept the overall consensus of the climate science community, namely that the planet is warming, and that this warming is due, at least in part, to human causes and is likely to increase in the future. We note, for instance, the indisputable fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas (this can be confirmed in simple laboratory experiments), that levels of CO2 have increased significantly in the past few decades as compared with previous centuries (this is well-established from analyses of ice core samples), and that the decade 2000-2009 had the highest overall average temperature of any decade since accurate measurements began (confirmed by recently-announced NASA satellite data) [RealClimate; Revkin; NASA]. Further, human effects on climate have been confirmed in peer-reviewed studies for [Marshall]:

• The rise in global surface air temperature;
• The rise in surface air temperature over every continent, including Antarctica;
• The rise in atmospheric humidity (caused by the higher air temperatures);
• The rise in precipitation (rain, snow, etc) around the world, as a result of the higher humidities;
• Shifts in precipitation: dry tropical regions are getting drier while wet regions closer to the poles are getting wetter;
• The huge losses of Arctic summer sea ice;
• The rise in surface ocean temperature;
• Increasing salinity in the Atlantic Ocean.

It is important to keep an open mind, since future findings might draw some of these conclusions into question, but we see no reason to doubt that the process of peer review in the climate science field is capable of resolving whatever issues arise.

We also note that leading figures in the global warming denial community have ties to conservative research institutes funded in large measure by large corporations and oil companies [Sachs]. Fred Singer, arguably the leading figure of the community, has only six peer-reviewed publications in the climate science field, and none since 1997 [Singer]. In a similar vein, several of the leading writers in the “intelligent design” community are funded by conservative research institutes closely connected to the evangelical world, drawing into question their claims that they are merely doing objective, secular science. Philip Johnson, a leading intelligent design writer, is a retired law professor with no scientific credentials or peer-reviewed scientific publications [SMR-ID].

In any event, it is clear to us that those who lead the currently trendy movement to deny global warming (or to deny human causation of global warming), like creationists, “intelligent design” writers and the many “mathematicians” who keep our mail boxes and Inboxes flooded with claims that pi is rational or other similar nonsense, are operating well outside the established boundaries of peer-reviewed science, and thus, from these reasons alone, are deserving of considerable skepticism.

To begin with, there is a proper forum for debating scientific controversies, one that has been established for centuries and is an essential part of what is properly known as modern science. This forum is most assuredly not lectures, blogs, twitters, do-it-yourself websites, newspaper columns, Fox TV News, or state, provincial or national legislative bodies. Instead the proper forum for scientific debate is the system of peer-reviewed scientific journals and conferences sponsored by major scientific societies. If you see these issues being “debated” in any other setting, you can be assured that the discussion is decidedly “bush league” and not worth taking seriously as scientific debate.

Think of it this way: the next time you see a global warming denier or a creationist or an “intelligent design” writer or even some self-styled “mathematician” making a convincing-sounding argument in a lecture, blog, website or news column, ask yourself the following question: “If he/she really had a solid argument, why isn’t he/she back in the office furiously writing up this material for submission to a leading journal, thereby assuring him/herself future worldwide fame and glory?”

After all, overturning some long-held paradigm is what science and mathematics is all about. Much of the day-to-day work of a real scientist or mathematician is, frankly, somewhat tedious. Every mathematician dreams of being the first to prove (or, perhaps better, disprove) some long-standing conjecture or result. Every physicist dreams of being the first to uncover evidence that counters some decades- or centuries-old theory, or to publish a new mathematical theory that will, like Einstein’s papers on relativity, open up new realms of understanding. Every biologist dreams of finding a completely new species or biochemical feature that refutes some long-held assumption about how the natural world operates.

In many cases, those who attempt to grasp the public attention through other means are themselves well aware that they are short-circuiting this process, and, if pressed, further recognize that they do not really have an argument that could withstand the withering scrutiny of scientific peer review. They often allude to conspiracy or malign forces, or they latch onto underwhelming scientific constructionist arguments [Brown] to impute the scientific enterprise in toto. Thus, when they press their views in public — to a populace that for the most part does not understand how the scientific enterprise operates — they are either being more than a little bit dishonest or else are hugely ignorant (and thus unqualified to be pressing their case).

As mentioned above, some have claimed that various sectors of the scientific community are engaged in a “conspiracy” to silence critics and to keep the “truth” from the public. To a real scientist or mathematician, such claims are most absurd nonsense. How, in a worldwide community of hundreds of thousands of competitive researchers, from every nation on earth and from countless different cultural backgrounds, could a secret “conspiracy” be maintained? As Ben Franklin wrote in his Poor Richard’s Almanac, “Three can keep a secret, provided two of them are dead.” Or as one of us quipped, tongue-in-cheek, in response to a state legislator who was skeptical of evolution, “You have no idea how humiliating this is to me — there is a secret conspiracy among leading scientists, but no one deemed me important enough to be included!”

Here is another way to think about such claims: There are tens of thousands of senior scientists in their late 50s or early 60s who have seen their retirement savings decimated by the recent stock market plunge, and who now wonder if the day will ever come when they are financially well off enough to do their research without the constant stress and distraction of applying for grants (the majority of which are never funded). All one of these scientists has to do to garner both worldwide fame and considerable fortune (e.g., book contracts) is to call a news conference and expose the “truth.” Why isn’t this happening?

The system of peer-reviewed journals and conferences sponsored by major professional societies is the only proper forum for the presentation and review of new ideas, in any field of science or mathematics. It has been stunningly successful: errors have been uncovered, fraud has been rooted out and bogus scientific claims (such as the 1903 N-ray claim, the 1989 cold fusion claim and the more recent assertion of an autism-vaccination link) have been rapidly debunked. This all occurs with a level of reliability and at a speed that is hard to imagine in other human endeavors. Those who attempt to short-circuit this system are doing potentially irreparable harm to the integrity of the system. They may enrich themselves or their friends, but they are doing grievous damage to society at large.

1. [Broder] John M. Broder, “Scientists Taking Steps to Defend Work on Climate,” New York Times, 2 Mar 2010, available at Online article.
2. [Brown] Richard C. Brown, Are Science And Mathematics Socially Constructed?: A Mathematician Encounters Postmodern Interpretations of Science, World Scientific Publications, New York, 2009.
3. [Kaufman] Leslie Kaufman, “Darwin Foes Add Warming to Targets,” New York Times, 3 Mar 2010, available at Online article.
4. [Marshall] Michael Marshall, “Which climate changes can be blamed on humans?” New Scientist, 5 Mar 2010, available at Online article.
5. [NASA] “2009: Second Warmest Year on Record; End of Warmest Decade,” 21 Jan 2010, available at Online article.
6. [RealClimate] “IPCC errors: facts and spin,” 14 Feb 2010, available at Online article.
7. [Revkin] Andrew C. Revkin, “Lacis at NASA on Role of CO2 in Warming,” New York Times, 17 Feb 2010, available at Online article.
8. [Sachs] Jeffrey Sachs, “Climate sceptics are recycled critics of controls on tobacco and acid rain,” Guardian, 19 Feb 2010, available at Online article.
9. [SMR-Creationism] “Have creationist writers uncovered significant technical issues that draw into question established theories of geology and evolution?” 9 Mar 2010, available at Online article.
10. [SMR-ID] “Have intelligent design writers uncovered significant technical issues that draw into question the established theories of geology and evolution?” 16 Jan 2010, available at Online article.
11. [Singer] “S. Fred Singer, Ph.D.: Recent Professional Activities,” Mar 1998, available at Online article.
12. [Vanderhooft] Christian Vanderhooft, “Bill to freeze greenhouse-gas controls clears another hurdle in Utah Legislature,” Salt Lake Tribune, 19 Feb 2010, available at Online article ]]> http://www.sciencemeetsreligion.org/blog/2010/03/creationism-global-warming-denial-and-scientific-integrity/feed/ 0