As I was blithely ambling down the primrose path, oblivious to all the really important issues of the day — such as the refugees of Darfur — and escaping into the happy realm of ID, where one's opinion needn't have any impact on one's existential commitment to anything, I made the mistake of visiting Uncommondescent (UD). There for all the world to see was post after post, challenging the scientific community's opinion that human civilization is increasing the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, which in turn is increasing global warming.
Now it had never dawned on me that an advocate of ID needed to challenge the scientific community's opinion of global warming. It seemed perfectly logically compatible to believe in ID and in global warming, which up until now I have done. So at first I was slightly baffled as to why they were making such a fuss about it at UD. But then I started to see the dots that they were connecting (and the dots they conveniently didn't mention, but which are probably the real connection). For those of you who haven't noticed what's going on, here's the scoop in a nutshell:
Dot #1: Theories about global warming depend upon computer models. Critics of ID often try to show that irreducibly complex (IC) systems could have evolved without ID, using computer models. If an ID advocate rejects the computer models that refute ID, then she should reject the computer models that prove global warming. Interesting bit of logic here. Perhaps Dembski will include this in that book the Templeton Foundation is waiting for.
Dot #2: The majority of the scientific community rejects ID. The majority of the scientific community accepts global warming. An advocate of ID is going against the majority of the scientific community, when it comes to ID. Therefore an advocate of ID should go against the scientific community when it comes to global warming. More sterling logic. No doubt Dembski will want to include this in his next book, also.
Unmentioned Dot #1: Most of the funds the ID movement gets comes from politically conservative groups, such as the people who fund the Discovery Institute. And in turn, these people often depend upon the generosity of things like oil corporations. If you want to stay on their good side, it pays (literally) to be on their side when it comes to issues such as… well, such as global warming.
Unmentioned Dot #2: The religious right wants everyone to think that God is completely in charge of things like climate change, and therefore we humans shouldn't worry about what impact we may have on our planet. So if you want the religious right to support ID, better side with them when it comes to global warming.
Well, despite the astounding logic of all these dots, I still remain a believer in global warming and ID. But then I've always been a bit of a maverick. Why change now?