Second Thots

I, for one, am glad there are writers like Lorne Gunter who are doing more than their share to engage in an actual debate about global warming, climate change, or whatever else they want to call the theory these days. By the way, you can include Lorrie Goldstein in the same category, too. Almost everyone else in this country is biting what's being fed to us hook, line, and sinker.

Gunter raises a very important point in his article today. Specifically, he points out that many of these so-called scientists resort to unscientific arguments when advocating for global warming theory.

I saw this same phenomenon occur on Steve Paikin's show, The Agenda, where evolution was the topic of debate. Over and over again, scientists defending evolutionary theory against concepts like intelligent design felt it necessary to resort to specifically unscientific arguments to advance their cause.

So, you had comments about the value of the design of the eye or the back. You had smirks on faces when discussing the Pope's position on evolution. It went on and on.

Science is supposed to be about facts based on observation and evidence. It's also supposed to be about debating alternative theories using scientific principles as a strict guide.

Yet, too often, you see scientists engage in an agenda that is about anything other than science. Keep this in mind the next time you see people treat science as though it were the Bible. It's not. It's limited in what it tells us about the world, it's sometimes wrong, and the people who engage in it often flawed — just like everything else in this world.