Al Gore, Creationist

Sunday, May 06, 2007

Friday, commenter Jim May pointed me to this interesting post by a disciple of Al Gore over at Neurotransmission, who expressed amazement and disappointment with Gore after seeing his traveling medicine show -- I mean "global warming slide show".

Why? Because Gore not only confessed to holding Creationist beliefs during his allegedly scientific presentation, he also nonchalantly claimed that there was "no conflict" between science and religion.

Even more interesting is the form his reaction took:

[Gore] tarnishes his beautifully crafted presentation by not only stating his belief in creationism - but by placing the words "Adam and Eve" right on the slide (which is actually a scientific graph) as a caption explaining the beginnings of mankind.

Something doesn't add up here. On one hand, he is using science to predict the disastrous outcome of our current actions and rally support for taking proactive measures to make sure bad things don't happen, but on the other hand, he is clinging to stone-age beliefs that another very important area of science has proven wrong (that we humans evolved from other forms of life, and that every organism on Earth has a common ancestor).


Whaaaaa???? You tell me that anthropogenic climate change is a scientific fact (to the degree that science can use that word), mankind came from God's creation of Adam and Eve 200,000 years ago, there is no conflict between science and religion, refer to the Scopes trial, and then shrug it off and move on with the show?

[This juxtaposition] pretty much ruined the rest of the show for me. His message about climate change and our need to take action was great, inspiring even. However, I am now somewhat confused about the sort of man that is Al Gore. If you're going to be intellectually honest about issues like climate change, than why not carry through to the next logical step and apply this kind of honest thinking to everything?

I dunno. Maybe he's just saying these things because he's a politician, or because his family would freak out if he didn't claim belief in theistic creationism. Maybe one day in this part of the world it will be ok for our elected representatives to not believe. ... [last bold added]
Pardon the expression, but Amen to that question in the bold there, "br0k3nglass". You should look into the mirror when asking it, though.

Even aside from the fact that many scientists on the global warming side of the scientific debate vehemently disagree with Gore's B-movie disaster scenarios (and see them discrediting their scientific views), on what basis do you hold that the government has any right to deprive the citizenry of its economic freedom in order to implement the political programs demanded by Gore and his ilk?

There really should be two global warming debates going on right now: the scientific debate, and a political debate. The former debate centers around the question of, "Is it happening, and why?" The latter, wholly independent question which is, sadly, not being asked at all, let alone debated, is "By what right does the government dictate how I obtain the energy I need to live?"

The answer to that question is "None," as I recently outlined, and yet the vast majority of mankind accept on faith that it is the government's job to force people to act in certain ways -- whether or not they rationally judge such actions to be appropriate and regardless of the fact that what they wish to do does not violate the rights of any other individual.

The day when it will be acceptable for politicians "to not believe" will arrive when ignorance and superstition become the exception rather than the rule within the body politic.

-- CAV


Anonymous said...

"By what right does the government dictate how I obtain the energy I need to live?"

It's not obtaining the energy the government regulates, it is what you emit into the common atmosphere that it has rules about. Do you *really* think that is wrong? What if someone wanted to build a coal power plant with no scrubber next to where you live, would you accept it or would you go to the hated government to complain?

Gus Van Horn said...

First, I do not "hate" government. I merely hate it being used for the exact opposite of its intended purpose, which is the protection of my individual rights. I do not hate government any more than I hate water, although I would drown if held beneath that life-giving fluid for too long.

The only proper time for the government to intervene is when what one person does violates the rights of another person.

In the case of a coal plant, there could conceivably be rules that would prevent its belching exhaust directly onto my house, for example, due to the indisputable dangers that would to my health or damage to my property.

However, with respect to carbon dioxide emissions, there is no proper role for the government. The "danger" posed by carbon dioxide is far from being proved and is of such a delayed and variable nature that it cannot be said to pose the kind of imminent danger that would warrant government intervention of any kind.