On this episode of ID the Future, host Emily Kurlinski talks with Michael Egnor, professor of neurosurgery at Stony Brook University, about the dire warnings, stretching back at least to Thomas Malthus near the turn of the nineteenth century, that overpopulation would lead to starvation and civilizational ruin. Egnor discusses this and other scientific claims once widely embraced by scientific experts and later shown to be off base. The lesson, Egnor says, is that when someone tells you to believe something simply because it’s “the scientific consensus,” reserve judgment. Consensus, says Egnor, is “a political concept, not a scientific one.” And when much of the scientific community is held captive by a dogmatic adherence to materialism, any claimed consensus is all the more to be taken with a healthy dose of skepticism.
On this episode of ID the Future, Discovery Institute Fellow Ray Bohlin interviews climate statistician William (Matt) Briggs about the upcoming March for Science. Listen in as they discuss the reaction to the Trump administration’s stance on global warming, the March diversity statement, and other ways this event is focused on politics – not science.
On this episode of ID the Future, Stephen Meyer and Christopher Booker, a columnist for the London Telegraph and author of The Real Global Warming Distaster, talk climate change skepticism and scientific consensus with Michael Medved. How do scientific issues get so controversial, and why does the majority opinion of the general public go against the so-called “scientific consensus,” in regards to evolution as well as climate change? Tune in as they discuss.