Thoughts in a Haystack

Do you suppose that the same delusional denialists who refuse to face up to human-induced climate change are likely to also be evolution deniers? Well, there is this blog entry from one Jordan J. Ballor of the Acton Institute (the home of Jay Richards, co-author, with Guillermo Gonzalez, of The Privileged Planet: How Our Place in the Cosmos is Designed for Discovery and himself a 'demise of Darwinism' predictor) who is babbling on about "the evangelical approach to global warming." It seems that one needs religion-tinted glasses to view empiric facts through if you want to get to heaven. The irony is, therefore, excruciating when Mr. Ballor goes on to say:

[I]f there is any group of people who ought to understand the rigidity of scientific dogma, it should be evangelical Christians. Given the treatment of their views in debates about evolution and more recently “intelligent design,” it shoud be clear just how biased and close-minded scientific orthodoxy can be. It’s difficult, if not impossible, to get anything published in scientific journals that takes ID seriously.

Strangely enough, it is hard to get anything published in scientific journals that take geocenricity seriously either. But Mr. Ballor provides some evidence that not all evangelicals see things his way (if you can stand the frisson of his "but" after the first sentence):

Sure, most prominent scientists that you hear about in the news believe that global warming is real, humans are causing it, and something like the Kyoto protocol is the answer. But why can’t evangelicals see that the minority opinion among scientists in the global warming debates is receiving similar treatment to that which IDers receive?

Uh, maybe when it involves their children's and grandchildren's lives, instead of who their remote ancestors might have been, even evangelicals can see that such bogus "minority opinion" ain't worth what the energy industry paid for it?
.