I see in his letter in the Aug. 10 Times, that Steve Gabell is at it again, this time making pronouncements about what counts as science and what should not be published in the media. In doing so, he insults editors and the media generally about scientific literacy, perhaps holding himself up as an example of a “higher standard” for that. Not a scientist himself, he nevertheless feels qualified to judge which aspects of science are “well established” and which are unworthy of publication.
Having previously exchanged letters in the Times with Mr. Gabell about climate change, I will not reopen that topic. However, he also implies that “creationists” (by which he presumably includes all who believe in a Creator) cannot stand up to evolutionary biology. He is perhaps unaware that the Neo-Darwinian Synthesis, the core of modern evolutionary theory, is founded on very shaky ground and that mounting evidence further undermines it. Suffice it to say that Darwinian evolution cannot account for the diversity of life, nor the “origin of species” as promoted by Darwin and his followers.
I’m not sure who the “wealthy and powerful individuals” are that Gabell had in mind. From my experience, it is dedicated scientists – neither wealthy nor powerful – who question climate alarmism and regnant evolutionism, and they are ignored, marginalized, dismissed and even cancelled for questioning supposedly “settled science” dogma. By the way, as one previously labelled a “climate denier” by Mr. Gabell, I am still awaiting a cheque from the “fossil fuel companies’ which he claims bankroll all of us doubters.
Gabell is correct that climate change and the creation-evolution debate are contentious “issues”, yet he claims that they have been “resolved” scientifically, so that they should not be discussed in the media. In contrast, I believe that is precisely where such issues should be aired, and I applaud the NG Times for its willingness to allow contrary voices to speak.
Ed Norman, Kemptville