Evolution, Global Warming, and the Assumptions We M ake

i see evolution and global warming being very similar. what makes evolution and global warming so similar? many would probably not see much similarity between the two. some time ago i heard something about the global warming crisis which is upon us and the similarities hit me. first, both are vehemently defended, those of us that choose to oppose these ideas must be too blind, stupid, or close minded to see the ultimate truth that is evolution and global warming. well, that is what we are told. i do not see myself as blind, stupid or close minded. (clarification - i have never heard anyone actually say those who oppose these ideas are blind, stupid, or close minded but i believe it to be a valid sample opinion based on what i have read and hear in the news.) the defenders of these two ideas would burn at the stake for their beliefs were we living in a different time period.

second, the general public is told to believe these two ideas based on the opinion of the so called experts. while at first glance that seems to make sense, on a closer examination, it is discovered that asking pertinent questions and expecting honest and correct answers is entirely forbidden. obviously questions are permitted but for the most part they are softball questions asked by those in the media/scientific community that do not care to dig deep enough to find the real truth. it is always a good idea to listen to the opinions of the experts. but it is not a good idea to put blind faith into what those experts are saying. when we are told to believe what they have to say based solely on the initials after their name and the credentials of where they work we begin to tread down a very slippery slope.

third and related to the second, is that the assumptions held by the 'experts' all too often have more to do with their support of the idea than the merits of the idea itself. both evolution and global warming are not as cut and dry as the experts would have us believe, unless you take the assumptions that lead the experts. the assumptions they make have a tremendous impact on the conclusions they make.

evolution and global warming are both grand in scale. if you change the assumptions you make, you will change your view of the topic.

evolution is only possible if an infinite number of mutations happen by chance to form a single cell continuing all the way up to humans. most who believe evolution would not even question that there is even a chance that may not be possible. what happens if you scrutinize the genetic mechanism that makes life possible? does that genetic mechanism allow for the freedom to make the changes that are necessary for life to evolve the way the experts say it has?

i have not done much reading on global warming but as the name suggests it is global. the global climate is not something that can be diagnosed simply and with a small formula. there are major assumptions that have to be set up before any sort of predictions are even possible. the long term and global effects of every component have to be evaluated as to their impact. how do we know on a global scale the effects of each component? is it a safe assumption that the way something reacts under a certain set of circumstances will be the same on a global scale? are rising temperatures an indication that the global climate is near a collapse or major change?

are there experts that are equally knowledgeable that come to different conclusions? why? if the dissenting views are discarded not because of the evidence but because of unrelated reasons what does that say about the prevailing view? what are the motives behind the experts? is there a vested interest in keeping their view the same?

i do not have the time, space, or eloquence to try and make an argument against either idea.(others more persuasive than i have written books on both subjects) my point is that the assumptions we make have an impact far greater than we realize. it is so easy to go with the flow and forget to question what we are doing and why we are doing it.

what would change if we questioned some of the assumptions we have that govern the choices we make?

what assumptions need to be questioned?

if those assumptions are wrong are we willing to put them behind us?