Are Evolution and Climate Change Controversial?

by Ken Ham on June 13, 2014

In a recent article regarding the atheistic, evolutionary Cosmos TV series hosted by Neil deGrasse Tyson, Time reports,

Though the show had received a fair amount of attention for its head-on approach to hot-button scientific topics like evolution and climate change, Tyson shrugged off any notion that those issues were “controversial.” They’re just science, he said, and there’s nothing controversial about them.

Climate Change and Science

Now when Tyson equated man-made “climate change” with “science,” he is falsely indoctrinating people, just as the atheists do when they call evolution “science.” Not because climate change doesn’t occur—it does—but because the claims about its causes and severity are actually heavily dependent on evolutionary claims about the unobservable past. (As explained in the first two articles listed below, many current climate models compare the present world’s conditions with beliefs about “800,000 years” of temperature and carbon dioxide levels—beliefs based on a circle of unverifiable assumptions about ice cores!)

Tyson attributes global warming—which he warns may soon heat our planet past the point of no return—to man-made carbon dioxide, ignoring the many climate experts who believe the earth may simply be experiencing normal fluctuations in climate and conveniently forgetting that just a few decades ago experts were concerned about global cooling.

Historical and Observational Science

As we have explained so many times, the word “science” means knowledge. There is a big difference between knowledge about origins (“historical science,” which presents beliefs about the past such as molecules-to-man evolution) and knowledge gained by experimentation in the present (“observational science” or empiricism based on experiments in the present—such as the study of genetics or the study of the properties of matter to build technology).

We have a similar situation with “climate change.” One can certainly observe and take measurements to illustrate climate change since man has been keeping records (as a part of observational science). But then trying to interpret those changes to determine what has caused them involves a great deal of historical science. This is because one cannot be sure one has all information concerning what has happened in the past. For example, could it be the sun has had more of an effect than we realize, as some have suggested?

Conclusion

The point here is that there is a big difference between documenting climate change (which we certainly do not deny) and trying to come up with the correct interpretation of exactly what has happened over time and why. There could be many varying factors that have not been considered or understood correctly. So talking about climate change is like discussing the origins issue: there are things one can observe, but there are lots of things one cannot observe, and interpretations of the information are involved.

While skeptics like Tyson claim the Christian worldview is contradictory to science, using the Bible as our foundation and starting point we see that observational science actually confirms the Bible. It is sad to see secularists “suppress the truth in unrighteousness” (Romans 1:18) and continue to spread their lies of evolution and millions of years in their attempt to explain this world without God.

While mankind spread its lies of evolution and millions of years as fact, the truth of God stands firm. The Bible has stood the test of time, and we must continue to proclaim the truth of the Lord Jesus Christ and give answers, defending against the attacks of God’s Word (1 Peter 3:15–16).

Did you know that we have been publishing reviews by Dr. Elizabeth Mitchell on each episode of the 13-part series Cosmos: A SpaceTime Odyssey? I encourage you to share these reviews with others that have watched the series to show them how observational science is consistent with the Bible. Dr. Mitchell’s review of the last episode was published today.

I also encourage you to read yesterday’s News to Know article by Dr. Mitchell, which covers the related topic of religion and science, titled “Does Religion Cripple Science Innovation?” In the article, Tyson asserts that religious influence on science intellectually cripples would-be innovators.

Here are some articles to read on climate change: