Agree on this one. Climate change is just as much scientific fact as evolution. If you have scientific facts to say otherwise feel free to get them published and get your nobel prize.
Could you name one person on the Nobel Prize Committee or tell of their credentials, much less their integrity? Do you think that just maybe scientists and Nobel Prize Committee members could ever, just possibly, want to be politically correct, and that some might even be hostile to the message of the Gospel?
I'm not that up on climate change, but let's look at what some scientists, who have worked in the secular realm, have had to say that disagrees with evolutionism. (This is a very small sampling. For a more extensive list see:
These Quotes Reveal The Credulity Of Evolutionists)
We are told that beneficial mutations are an essential mechanism for evolution to occur, but H. J. Mueller, who won a Nobel Prize for his work on mutations, said....
"It is entirely in line with the accidental nature of mutations that extensive tests have agreed in showing the vast majority of them detrimental to the organism in its job of surviving and reproducing -- good ones are so rare we can consider them all bad." H.J. Mueller, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 11:331.
Now I hasten to add that in the next sentence he says "Nevertheless we can infer...." that evolution is true. This is ultra typical of evolutionary thinking. If the actual, hard fought for, data conflicts with the theory (which it always does if you look at all the data) then you just ignore it and go for "inferences" instead. You have to give a nod to evolution in the fiercely self protective, politically correct, highly lucrative world of Neo Darwinism if you want to get ahead in secular science dealing with origins.
Anyway, mutations are isolated, random, events that do not build on one another like Legos, and certainly have no ability to create totally new DNA as, for ex., would be needed to turn a leg into a wing.
As for natural selection, it does not lead to evolution, either. What does NS select from? What is already in the genome. It shuffles pre existing information or may cause a loss of information, not the new info you would need to turn a fin into, say, a foot. That is why no matter what it selects from in a fish or bird or lizard or bacteria or monkey or tree or flower you will still have a fish, bird, lizard, bacteria, etc.
But, if you can, give data - not just theories presented as facts in the conveniently invisible past - that a Life Form A turned into Life Form B as the result of NS. In other words show that a species went to the next level in the Animal Kingdom (ditto for plants) a new taxonomic family. There are trillions of life forms on this planet. We're told it happened in the unverifiable past. Why don't we see any species transitioning to a new family, order, class or phylum today?
Let's see what some other secular scientists have to say about evolution.
Bowler, Peter J., Review of In Search of Deep Time by Henry Gee (Free Press, 1999), American Scientist (vol. 88, March/April 2000), p. 169.
"We cannot identify ancestors or 'missing links,' and we cannot devise testable theories to explain how particular episodes of evolution came about. Gee is adamant that all the popular stories about how the first amphibians conquered the dry land, how the birds developed wings and feathers for flying, how the dinosaurs went extinct, and how humans evolved from apes are just products of our imagination, driven by prejudices and preconceptions."
"There are only two possibilities as to how life arose. One is spontaneous generation arising to evolution; the other is a supernatural creative act of God. There is no third possibility. Spontaneous generation, that life arose from non-living matter was scientifically disproved 120 years ago by Louis Pasteur and others. That leaves us with the only possible conclusion that life arose as a supernatural creative act of God. I will not accept that philosophically because I do not want to believe in God. Therefore, I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible; spontaneous generation arising to evolution." (Nobel Prize winner Wald, George, "Innovation and Biology," Scientific American, Vol. 199, Sept. 1958, p. 100)
"The pathetic thing about it is that many scientists are trying to prove the doctrine of evolution, which no science can do." (Dr. Robert A. Milikan, physicist and Nobel Prize winner, speech before the American Chemical Society.)
"Hypothesis [evolution] based on no evidence and irreconcilable with the facts....These classical evolutionary theories are a gross over-simplification of an immensely complex and intricate mass of facts, and it amazes me that they are swallowed so uncritically and readily, and for such a long time, by so many scientists without a murmur of protest."
(Sir Ernst Chan, Nobel Prize winner for developing penicillin)
"Most important, it should be made clear in the classroom that science, including evolution, has not disproved God’s existence because it cannot be allowed to consider it (presumably). Even if all the data [!] point to an intelligent designer, such a hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic."
Dr. Scott Todd, Nature Magazine 401(6752):423, 30 Sept. 1999.
Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed shows the politics of Neo Darwinism which harasses and expels those in academia and the media who even hint that there MIGHT be evidence for a Creator.
So, we see that there is no scientific consensus in evolution. There is no scientific consensus on climate change either. What the scientists say today is very likely to be changed tomorrow in such areas. And, again, there is zero reason to just assume they aren't being politically correct, motivated by financial gain or publicity, or are even honest. Scientists are human just like everyone else, and don't have halos.
(On evolution, if you ever want to look outside the box, I suggest Wazoloo vids, starting with SEX or maybe So Ya Think Yer a Chimp, on You Tube. After almost 200 years, and all kinds of advances in science, evolution is still considered just a theory. I'd say a pseudo science theory.)
