Editor,
I am greatly offended by the blatant ignorance of Dennis Kinzler's two letters. Both of them represent a dangerous distortion of scientific evidence and reasoning that threatens not just the legitimacy of scientific pursuit in the eyes of the public, but also the ability of people to recognize legitimate scientific warnings and respond appropriately.
I believe enough has been said about Kinzler's opinion on intelligent design as science, both in response to his letter and in response to the absurd claim that intelligent design is scientific. So, I'll get straight to the point.
No one is researching intelligent design, because it is a hypothesis that is currently not testable. If you can give me one way to conclusively demonstrate that there was some intelligent designer, some way that is consistent with everything else we know in science thus far, then I will buy you a beer, and I will buy the claim that intelligent design is an area needing scientific attention.
Second, and most importantly, Kinzler's erroneous claim that global warming is not anthropogenic is simply ridiculous. Granted, there are natural processes involved in the complex dynamics of global warming, some of which are not fully understood. However, the massive evidence in support of the hypothesis of anthropogenic climate change far outweighs the evidence in support of natural trends.
A second lesson in science is that science depends on the determination of hypotheses that are supported by evidence, and your hypothesis, Kinzler, has, as of yet, little empirical support.
Get content from The Daily Lobo delivered to your inbox
Why, Kinzler, do you think that scientists worldwide have sent the message that global warming is real, and it may cause abrupt, irreversible damage to the Earth's ecosystems? Why do climatologists agree with every scientific claim made in Al Gore's film, "An Inconvenient Truth"? Why, Kinzler, if "natural events cause most of it," is the scientific community so certain - 95 percent by statistical approximations as the consensus - that climate change is anthropogenic? If you are so informed about the inherent complexities of climate change, why aren't you the head of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change?
And, no, a simple slogan about the closed nature of science does not suffice or will a claim that scientists don't pay adequate attention to conflicting theories suffice. Scientists are well aware of the various hypotheses out there, and they are well aware of the popular currents.
Scientists know what they're doing. If people continue to treat scientific claims as mere opinions, the world is in grave danger. What would be the response if scientists said there was 95 percent certainty that an asteroid was going to collide with Earth within the next 10 years? Would people, resisting change, stick with the clichéd disagreements that you represent? I pray this is not the case.
Alex Washburne
UNM student
