I highly doubt many of you are unaware of my stance on so-called “global warming” (aka “global cooling,” “climate change” or “ManBearPig”). I suspect most of you share my rather dim view of former Vice President Al “The Oilman Goeth” Gore and his “inconvenient slide show,” though I am aware that some of you still cling bitterly to the last vestige of his fading glory.
Of course, my refusal to bow to the low-information set and their invective-laden insistence that ManBearPig is as real as actual stuff does seem to elicit some red-faced tirades. Gore and company’s increasingly suspect belief that something bad is going to happen has become religion to liberals. And like any zealots, our Democrat friends get more than a mite testy when their dogma is challenged. Thus have I observed the newest epithet in the ever-growing liberal lexicon of hate: “anti-science.” For refusing to swallow the global warmists’ anecdotally based pseudo logic, I am apparently “anti-science.”
That sort of ad hominem pabulum might pass for discourse in the White House or the studio audience of a Bill Maher telecast, but it isn’t actual debate — just as ManBearPig isn’t actual science. Allow me to demonstrate.
About 17 billion years ago, it happened. Better minds than mine have wrestled with the nature of it, what preceded it, what caused it and what exactly it produced. What we all seem to agree upon is the fact that it wasn’t, and then it really was. What captivates me isn’t what it was. I expect many eons more will pass before anyone figures it out. What really inspires my inner science geek is what happened after it.
In the first few moments after it, there wasn’t much to look at. Within a millisecond or two, hydrogen atoms had formed; but stable hydrogen and helium atoms didn’t debut for nearly a half million years. The first star didn’t begin to shine for nearly 100 million years. The first galaxy didn’t coalesce until nearly a billion years had passed since it. Our own sun didn’t rise and shine until almost 10 billion years had passed. And the first human didn’t do his first Fred Flintstone until mere moments ago, from an astronomical perspective.
Everything in between it and now has been the product of a crescendo of creation and destruction. From atoms to galaxies and everything in between, now exists as it does only because everything that happened before it not only happened, but happened in a fairly precise order. A series of almost ludicrously unlikely events followed one another throughout all those years like dominoes on a cosmic table: seemingly random yet magnificently structured, unfolding on scales from the infinitesimally small to the infinitely huge. From the first buzzing subatomic particles to the galactic superclusters spanning the entire universe, it led unexpectedly, yet inexorably, to now. In the words of One far greater than I: “without form, and void” (Genesis 1:2).
From the aforementioned timeline of the universe, I can divine two inescapable truths:
- The idea that a collection of perfectly ordered coincidences of almost astronomical unlikelihood happened despite incalculably bad odds without assistance from an entity that exists beyond all of it defies logic.
- The idea that any of those perfectly ordered coincidences could be altered, stopped or started by a creature that has existed for less than 1/100,000th of all of history — and has never ventured farther from its home than a few hundred thousand miles — defies basic common sense.
On my side, I have a geological and astronomical record that dates back close to 20 billion years. I have the inescapable certitudes of math and physics. And I have what my old Western civilization professor, the incomparable Dr. Stegemann, referred to as “the accumulated wisdom of the tribe”: the sum total of tens of thousands of years of humanity’s progress toward answering the ultimate questions.
My detractors have a fluidly anecdotal theory based on 150 years of observations that trades fact for folly and has required no fewer than three name changes in four decades due to climatological cycles it has yet to predict correctly. If that’s “pro-science,” then color me “anti-science,” I suppose.