Can you clarify a bit by what you mean when you say "climate change" is a doctrine of faith? I think a majority in the scientific community are still rather certain that humans have affected our climate in a negative way, and that the climate is indeed changing. Thus I would think it much more open to scientific debate (more so than intelligent design). Of course, I agree too many people "play scientist" and use it to their advantage, but it is no different than supporters of intelligent design using cricisms of evolution to "prove" their theory.
I'll have a post up by the end of the weekend with it. It's going to be long, and I have an exam on Friday.
I believe that theory of evolution has the most creedence, and as a Catholic, I agree with the Church that evolution does not perclude Divine involvement.
That doesn't make any sense because ID advocates are trying to correct textbooks that say that evolution is a "random," "unguided process." Yet what is random, does it fall outside of cause and effect?
What is it that you think the theory of evolution is, exactly?
... it is no different than supporters of intelligent design using cricisms of evolution to "prove" their theory.
To bad the supports of "evolution" (They generally don't quite define their own term even, as they seem to have an urge to merge.) have long used the argument from "bad design" to prop up or "prove" Darwinism.
That's probably because:
Neither of the two fundamental axioms of Darwin’s macroevolutionary theory—the concept of the continuity of nature. . . and the belief that all the adaptive design of life has resulted from a blind random process—have been validated by one single empirical discovery or scientific advance since 1859.Doubts About Darwin: A History of Intelligent Design
By Thomas Woodward :46)
Funny how when the arguments from natural theology (which is almost all that is there) are turned back on Darwinists suddenly they begin murmuring about "science, science!"
That sort of thing just means that you're losing an argument, i.e. when you're too interested in trying to define science in some abstract way rather than engaging in the systematic thought and empirical evidence typical to science. It's a tool, not an abstraction. The Darwinists have failed to use it and instead engage in natural theology about Good and Evil combined with sniveling about how God lets evil exist, so look to the empirical evidence.
Commenting by HaloScan
