This just in: Scientists may have "selectively" used (or not) data in making the case for global warming. Is anyone surprised? Look, when you want to see or do something so that such-and-such is the outcome, you will make choices and follow paths that will get you where you've decided you want to go. And with big names like Al Gore et al pumping the global warming gas bag, and politicians and corporations lining up to sign on, there will always be "scientists" ready and willing to provide the data they seek.

In exchange, of course, for recognition, papers at international conferences, citations in important documents, and, yes, government grants. What would surprise me is if the present brouhaha over selective science doesn't lead to boxes full of such items stashed away in freezers.

Don't let those white coats and pocket protectors fool you: scientists are as vulnerable to sin and errors of judgment as the rest of us. There is nothing objective, pristine, or pure about scientific activity. The reason all "respectable" science today is Darwinian, and the reason the only "approved" science for teaching in public schools is Darwinian is because that's the outcome people want - no need for God or the morality He requires, no need for faith and pompous preachers telling us what to believe. The scientific community will be our cadre of pompous experts and tell the rest of the world what's "go" and what's not when it comes to truth and such.

The majority of the public, however, could care less. What difference does it make? Actually, it makes a good deal of difference - economically, politically, spiritually, and ethically. If the public is not willing to see in this current flap of funny science a glimpse behind the curtain of the whole charade, then we will miss a significant opportunity to see science for what it truly is - one, and one highly fallible, means of getting at Truth, but by no means the only one.

T. M. Moore