Good grief, if we face total calamity by the end of the century, why in the world wouldn’t you debate the science?
Avoiding serious discussion of design in nature (and of many other questions) fills a need.
Does the “scientific consensus” mean that only scientists who follow the majority are entitled to have their say?
Remember Peter Ridd, the scientist who studied the Great Barrier Reef and spoke out against those who said it showed evidence of global warming?
This is a familiar type of story to anyone who follows the news about academic freedom, especially on the subject of evolution.