Free Evolution and Climate Change Book Downloads!


The National Center for Science Education has made available a plethora of Evolution and Climate Change Book Downloads. (Not entire books, but complete chapters.) This even included books for children. This is a good opportunity to see what is out there. Enjoy!


@AMWolfe I thought you would enjoy this, since it includes books for kids and you liked Grandmother Fish so much.


This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.


You’re right; Dr. Falk says I was actually the first person to post on BioLogos. But this post is from Dec 2016.

There is no debate on global warming among professional climate scientists; 97% of them agree that the earth is warming and man is for the most part responsible. But I shudder to think about the junk science coming in the months ahead.

Are you sure you’ll be able to stay away from BioLogos?

(Chris Falter) #8

Godspeed in your new endeavors, Eddie!


This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.


This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.

(Chris Falter) #11

Actually, Eddie, @beaglelady is right on the 97% attribution to anthropogenic causes among climate scientists. That’s what their published models show, and that has become the consensus in that neck of the scientific woods.

The disagreements occur along the axes of timing, severity, and impact. Will sea levels rise by 30 cm or 3m? Will temperatures rise by 0.5 degrees C. or 3 degrees C. in the next 200 years? To what extent will devastating hurricanes make landfall more frequently–10% or 100%? Those are hard questions to answer, which of course makes the political considerations harder. How can you fashion a policy in the face of such uncertainties?

Unfortunately, some folks like the incoming President of the USA have proclaimed that the climate scientists are propagating a Chinese hoax, allegedly in an attempt to cripple Western economies. Yet you seem not to have noticed, Eddie. You direct your fire at the climate scientists who think that the odds of devastating consequences are high enough to push us in a direction of prudently mitigating the risk. Yet the folks who make the most outrageous claims in the debate–the vast majority of the ruling party in the USA, for example–seem to completely escape your attention. Your extraordinarily one-sided bias in describing the controversy seems quite remarkable, coming as it does from a trained philosopher. I confess I am puzzled.

That NAS member is not a climate scientist; perhaps you were not aware of that.

(James McKay) #12

There’s something that really, really puzzles and saddens me about the whole climate debate. Why do so many evangelical Christians side with the climate sceptics when there is no Biblical support whatsoever for doing so, and if anything the Bible tells us that we need to be good stewards of God’s creation? In fact, Revelation 11:18 talks about God “destroying those who destroy the earth.” Then there are all the verses about sowing and reaping, e.g. Galatians 6:7 – surely it’s obvious that if you sow pollution and deforestation, you’re going to reap climate change?

(Jon) #13

That is absolutely right. The overwhelming scientific consensus is that anthropogenic global warming is a well established scientific fact. The issue was effectively closed by the ice core samples way back in the 1990s.

Because conservative religionists typically harbor deep distrust and fear about science. Consequently there’s a strong correlation of rejection of evolution, with rejection of anthropogenic climate change.

(Chris Falter) #14

btw, @Eddie, the Washington Post recently published the story of a climate scientist, Andreas Muenchow, who testified before Congress in 2010 that he was uncertain about anthropogenic global warming. He was not ostracized by the scientific community; instead, he continued his research and has in fact recently published some interesting conclusions.

I know that one anecdote does not offer iron-clad proof of a statement, but I think your alarm over the state of the climate science community is misplaced.


This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.

(Jon) #16

Expert credibility in climate change.

(i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC (Anthropogenic Climate Change) outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.

Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature.

Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.


This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.


This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.

(Chris Falter) #19

Hi Eddie,

I thought you were referring to physicist Happer, about whom the article stated:

“William Happer, professor emeritus of physics at Princeton University and a member of the National Academy of Sciences…”


(Jon) #20

I suppose you’re aware Lindzen is a well known purveyor of climate misinformation, and persistent denier of AGW.

(Chris Falter) #21

Hi Jon,

That he denies AGW is not necessarily a problem, provided he is dealing capably with the evidence. The first link (“misinformation”) indicates, however, that his peers do not think Lindzen is treating the evidence capably.


(Chris Falter) #22

You will be happy to know, Eddie, that @beaglelady is not just repeating a meme. It turns out that someone has already performed that detailed investigation, as @Jonathan_Burke has pointed out:

Hope you find that to be encouraging–with respect to @beaglelady, anyway. I don’t find it to be encouraging with regard to our stewardship of the world God put us in charge of, or with regard to the future well-being of our great-grandchildren.


(Chris Falter) #23

Hi Eddie -

You asked beaglelady to provide investigative evidence, not just anecdotes, for the assertion that 97% of the climate science community agrees with AGW. So I am going to ask you to supply more than just anecdotes. Who performed the survey of climate scientists upon which you are relying, and where did that survey get published?

Secondly, academia is very much a realm of bruising arguments. Would you agree with that? Judging by your posts on this forum, I would be very surprised if you disagreed. Given that academia is a realm of bruising arguments, Judith Curry’s complaints don’t carry much weight in my estimation. She doesn’t like the rhetorical heat, so she wants to pursue a consulting career. I wish her well.

Moreover, I think she is right that the purveyors of the best-tested climate models do not always acknowledge their probabilistic nature. I don’t think this communication issue ranks among the top 5 issues in public policy related to climate change, but it is an issue. Eddie, you would probably rank the communication issue more highly than I, and we’ll probably have to agree to disagree on that.