Unfortunately, half of your post merely says that I am arrogant. You fail to actually address my points, instead only repeating what you’ve said before, with the added bonus of calling me names, and then just running away at the end. Why are you so scared to address specifically what I say? Let me go through your post. I will respond in the same order you give.

“1. Who chose you as the arbiter of what is “good, calculated, reserved”? This statement reveals nothing but your own arrogant opinion.”

Did you just read my posts, and not the ones that came before? I was quoting a previous post that was defending Dr. Spencer by using those exact words. I was disagreeing with another poster that Dr. Spencer is “good, calculated, and reserved”. It reveals your character quite strongly that you nit picked me for not being a good arbiter and not the poster who originally made the comment.

“2. He makes no mistake here at all. He states that the process is not evolution and many scientists (including some Biologists and even some Evolutionists) would agree with that assessment. I go back here to the concept of writing to your audience, something many other scientists could learn from Dr. Spencer. Your rationale that I quote below is the most telling example of your arrogance and the general arrogance of many “scientists”.”

For some reason you quote the very original thing I said and you ignore the two explanations I gave when you challenged me on the issue. I explained this twice, Vince. Let me summarize again but I already responded twice. Dr. Spencer was disagreeing with what scientists said. He must use their definition if he is to disagree with their conclusion. If he was using YOUR definition, then he would not be disagreeing with anyone.

“Dr. Spencer is addressing the impression that the “scientists” give when they claim an occurrence as “evolution”. The impression that they give the average person is that this “evolution” supports the grander scheme expressed by the theory of life being created from inanimate matter, single celled organisms “evolving” in to multi-celled organisms, right on up to man. He is not arguing with the “scientists”, he is correcting the misperception that they are (most likely intentionally) trying to create among the general population.”

Here you respond a little to what I have said before, thank you. Anyways, it is not the problem of scientits what the average person thinks they mean by evolution. If the average person is ignorant of what the term means, that is not the scientists problem.

I have trouble responding to this part because you have made so many errors and strawmen that indicates you just don’t know what the theory of evolution actually says.

Firstly, the theory of evolution says NOTHING about life coming from non life, that is a straw man. Evolution starts when the first life appeared, whether it appeared by abiogensis, alians, magic, or even God.

Second, the moth example was never meant to be an example of how life went from single celled to multi-celled to man. That is taking it WAYYY out of its context. The moth example is merely evidence of natural selection. Dr. Spencer takes the study way out of context by trying to paint it as if biologists are trying to show the long term evolution of man.

“Isn’t science supposed to be about the betterment and enlightenment of mankind. How can the average person be enlightened when arrogant, self centered “scientists” intentionally mislead them to further their own agenda. Yet another parallel between AGW and evolution proponents”

Just because the public doesn’t understand what the scientists are saying, doesn’t mean that they are being “intentionally mislead”. You are the only one saying that Vince. Most people, like you, don’t understand that evolution has NOTHING to do with the creation of life. Is that because scientists are “misleading the public” or because most people are simply ignorant about the theory of evolution and what it means? (especially considering that a quick google search explains exactly what the theory of evolution says).

“There you go again, now you’re using the word exact, in all caps none the less. There is nothing about the theory of evolution that is either “exact” or “plain and simple”. Until you admit that basic fact you have no credibility.”

You still don’t get that your definition and my definition mean the same thing? This is like you asking what the defintion of a car is, and me saying “a vehicle with an engine and four wheels” and you saying “HA, its actually a vehicle with an engine and FOUR RUBBER TIRES look at how many different defintions they’re are!!” As you see, both definitions mean the same. Definitions can obviously be said different ways, that doesn’t mean they mean different things.

Cumulative genetic changes = change in allele frequency. Please, learn what the terms mean before engaging in a discussion about them.

You are pretty much saying that “evolution” could mean any definition. If that was Roy Spencer’s problem, he should have tried to clarify what kind of evolution they MEANT in the moth example. Instead, he simply assumes one (and the wrong one at that) and attacks it. They call that a strawman, vince.

“If “scientists” can’t even agree on a consistent definition of species, how then can any definition be used to confirm that a change of species has occurred.”

What defintino would you accept, vince? YOU are the one who said that “a species has never been observed to change species”. How can you even say that if there is no definition of species? I will admit that “species” is not a 100% agree’d on term. That is because biology doesn’t follow the order we give to it. However, under ALL of the above mentioned species definitions, we have found organisms to evolve between them.

“Show me an example of an ape becoming a man.”

Another ignorant statement. Men ARE apes. What are you even asking? For a modern example of some monkey turning into a man? No evolutionist thinks that would happen. Is this another strawman?

“OK, how about a fruit fly becoming something other than a fruit fly”

You get angry that scientists have many defintions of species, and then you use terms that mean nothing at all? What is a fruit fly? What would constitute “not a fruit fly”. What is the earliest point that you would consider a fruit fly, not a fruit fly? If you can’t answer these questions then how can you expect there ever to be an example? You would just shift the goalposts, and say, “oh, that is a fruit fly too you can’t show it turning into an ELEPHANT I BET” Cmon, this is a tactic I see all the time, shifting the goal posts. You ask for species changing, and i give you a million examples. You just say “nope, they aren’t changing enough for me”.

Remember, all of those definitions of species that you gave have examples where organisms evolve between them. Pick whichever you like. You can’t just close your eyes.

“Do a quick google search, type the name of the study and the word refute. Have fun.”

Um, no vince, that is not how these discussion work. I give you my evidence, and then YOU provide the refutation. You can’t just say “oh, all of the refutations are out there GO FIND THEM”. No, that is your job. I have provided a boatload of evidence, and you just say “nope they are all wrong go figure it out for yourself”. Hardly a way to argue, Vince, dont you think?

I know you will probably not respond to any of this, classic case of “I am right so I am leaving” type deal, but in case there are any lurkers out there following this, enjoy.

Last time them I am done with you.

Your arrogance obviously prevents you from ever attempting to understand (or admit you understand) any view point that differs from your own. You attempt to misdirect and obfuscate by digging into details of the most convoluted area of “Science” and then disingenuously proclaiming it to be “plain and simple”. Unless you are hopelessly stupid, which it doesn’t appear that you are, you are being arrogant and disingenuous when you state that anything related to the theory of evolution is either “plain” or “simple”.

Let’s go back to the start of this shall we. My original post was a response to three specific paragraphs in your July 25, 2008 at 03:03 PM post where you attempted to discredit Dr. Spencer. You stated the following:

1) “Spencer does not have a “good, calculated, reserved” stance on the subject. It is anything but.”

and

2) “He makes such elementary mistakes that one might think he never took a basic, college level biology course. For example, he says that “A population of moths that changes from light to dark based upon environmental pressures is not evolution”. That is simply wrong, it is evolution as evolution is defined by scientists. That is, ” a change of allele frequencies over time”. The allele frequencies changed in that moth population. Therefore it is evolution, plain and simple.”

and

3) “Another thing he says is an argument refuted more times then i can count. He says “An Audi and a Ford each have four wheels, a transmission, an engine, a gas tank, fuel injection systems … but no one would claim that they both naturally evolved from a common ancestor”. Ignoring the fact that he tries to relate mechanical objects that can not replicate themselves with biological entities, his explanation would lead us to believe that bats and birds, two organisms that fly, should have very similar ways of flying. Wouldn’t it make sense to for them to have a common design? Why don’t they? Why, in fact, do they have limbs that are phenotypically and genotypically similar to mammals? How come when comparing there genes, morphology, endogenous retrovirus insertion and the fossil record they just all happen to demonstrate a relationship between birds and reptiles, and bats and mammals.”

and finally the last straw

4) “Spencer makes countless more ignorant “observations” to the point where it is embarrassing. I could go on forever, and would be glad too. I don’t mean to side track this discussion though.”

I will respond in order.

1. Who chose you as the arbiter of what is “good, calculated, reserved”? This statement reveals nothing but your own arrogant opinion.

2. He makes no mistake here at all. He states that the process is not evolution and many scientists (including some Biologists and even some Evolutionists) would agree with that assessment. I go back here to the concept of writing to your audience, something many other scientists could learn from Dr. Spencer. Your rationale that I quote below is the most telling example of your arrogance and the general arrogance of many “scientists”.

“Because he is DIRECTLY addressing what the scientists are saying, he must use THEIR definition regardless of who he is talking too otherwise it does not make sense to argue with them”

Dr. Spencer is addressing the impression that the “scientists” give when they claim an occurrence as “evolution”. The impression that they give the average person is that this “evolution” supports the grander scheme expressed by the theory of life being created from inanimate matter, single celled organisms “evolving” in to multi-celled organisms, right on up to man. He is not arguing with the “scientists”, he is correcting the misperception that they are (most likely intentionally) trying to create among the general population.

Isn’t science supposed to be about the betterment and enlightenment of mankind. How can the average person be enlightened when arrogant, self centered “scientists” intentionally mislead them to further their own agenda. Yet another parallel between AGW and evolution proponents.

3) Why would anyone be surprised that you don’t understand the basic concept of an analogy. Your conclusion here of what his explanation “would lead us to believe” is completely erroneous. Another example of your arrogance that you believe you know what anything would lead others to believe.

4) “Spencer makes countless more ignorant “observations” to the point where it is embarrassing.”

This is your basic ad hominem attack which is often used by AGW proponents. And then back to disingenuous with “I could go on forever, and would be glad too. I don’t mean to side track this discussion though.”

Now let’s directly address your latest diatribe.

A) Uh…do you even know what “change of allele frequencies from one generation to the next” even means?. Your definition is pretty much the exact same definition that I gave just with easier words… you merely reinforced the point that there is only one scientific definition of evolution…thank you.

Troll playbook: Start with that personal attack on me. Check. Then you use “pretty much the same”. The problem is that you used these little things “ “. They are known as quotation marks. When you place words or phrases inside them they are intended to be taken literally, word-for-word. “Pretty much the same” doesn’t cut it.

You stated that your quote was the only scientific definition and I, with minimal effort, found another one of the many that are out there just to point out your arrogance.

B) “So again, you showed me one other scientific definition, and low and behold, it means the EXACT same thing as my definition. Still only one scientific definition…if you can find others I will be happy to look at them. (and i have no idea what you are talking about with this “proven” business you speak of).”

There you go again, now you’re using the word exact, in all caps none the less. There is nothing about the theory of evolution that is either “exact” or “plain and simple”. Until you admit that basic fact you have no credibility.

Do a quick google search, I’m not doing any more work for you. Of course your definition of “scientific definition” could impact what you find. Do you mean biologist’s definition, evolutionist’s definition, chemist’s definition? Do we all get to have our own definitions? It seems evolutionists are quite good at making up new definitions whenever the generally accepted ones don’t fit their agenda (more in a minute on this).

If you don’t understand the concept of proof you are beyond my help.

C) “You can’t just wave your hands and make all of those examples go away. All? Can you show me how even one of them is refuted? two? I couldn’t find any. Would you like me to show you another huge list of speciation events? Their have been practically hundreds. Or will you just look at them and say “nope, none of them are good” without giving a reason?
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
here is another list of speciation events. Will you hand wave away all of these too? If you would like, I can pick one or two and you can try to show me why they are not speciation events. That link has a list near the middle of the page, the first part explains what speciation is and some mechanisms which you should probably read.”

Do a quick google search, type the name of the study and the word refute. Have fun.

I would like to thank you for the link. It helps with many of my points. Here’s a fun quote from your link that “waves away” all of the studies with no effort from me at all.

“A discussion of speciation requires a definition of what constitutes a species. This is a topic of considerable debate within the biological community. Three recent reviews in the Journal of Phycology give some idea of the scope of the debate (Castenholz 1992, Manhart and McCourt 1992, Wood and Leatham 1992). There are a variety of different species concept currently in use by biologists. These include folk, biological, morphological, genetic, paleontological, evolutionary, phylogenetic and biosystematic definitions. In the interest of brevity, I’ll only discuss four of these — folk, biological, morphological and phylogenetic. A good review of species definitions is given in Stuessy 1990.”

If “scientists” can’t even agree on a consistent definition of species, how then can any definition be used to confirm that a change of species has occurred. Show me an example of an ape becoming a man. No? OK, how about a primate becoming a different type of primate. Still no? OK, how about a fruit fly becoming something other than a fruit fly. Still no answer although “scientists” have been trying for many years to accomplish just that.
As I alluded to above its seems that the definitions used in studying the theory of evolution have evolved over the past 150 years. It appears that when it becomes apparent that they can’t prove some aspect of the theory evolutionists just change a few rules, tweek a definition or two and voila. What do you know, another fine comparison to AGW alarmists.

D) “That is funny you say that, because the evolutions arn’t trying to get the people of the world to spend money, they ALREADY have people spending money. The money spent on evolution faaaarr outweighs the money spend on global warming. Evolutionary principles are applied to alomst all aspects of biology including many aspects of other disciplines. Sorry to burst your bubble.”

I have no doubt that some of the studies under your very broad definition of evolution have most likely resulted in some positive impact on humankind. When the definition of evolution is expanded to include cross breeding or mutating plants and animals to make them more able to produce food or more resistant to disease for example. Back to the main point, however, that doesn’t fit into the general population’s understanding of evolution. I’m sure countless other funds have been wasted by those “scientists” who believe in the more basic definition of evolution (man from inanimate material) and are dedicated not to further science or benefit the world, but to prove their “Faith”.

Sorry, I digress because you did so by taking my comment completely out of context in an attempt to make a point. Imagine that.

My comment was not directed toward research funding (Although I somehow feel you knew that. Just being disingenuous again?). It was directed toward the trillions of dollars that it would cost the world to implement the Draconian regulations being suggested by many AGW alarmists. I hate to disappoint you, but you burst nothing.

“You obviously don’t understand the concept of writing to your audience. Dr. Spencer wasn’t writing to a group of Biologists, Biology Professors, or even Biology students. He was writing to the average person. Therefore, the average person’s understanding of what is meant by evolution is what is important, not the scientific definition. Even is there was only one scientific definition”

Often when I get into debates about this issue with people, they ignore much of what I say. Unfortunately, this is the case now. Let me try to explain why Dr. Spencer needs to use the correct definition in this case, regardless of who he is talking too.

The moth study is a common study referenced as evidence that evolution takes place. Scientists would point to it, and say, “hey look, there, evolution is taking place”. Roy Spencer is directly disputing this claim. He is saying, “hold on a moment, they are NOT evolving”. Because he is DIRECTLY addressing what the scientists are saying, he must use THEIR definition regardless of who he is talking too otherwise it does not make sense to argue with them. For example, let us say Dr. Spencer is using your definition of evolution. The conversation would go something like this.

Scientists: Look, the moth’s are evolving! (in the sense that their genetic makeup is changing from one generation to the next)

Dr. Spencer: “no they are not! they are still the same species”

Scientists: “we know…thats not what we mean by evolution…”

Dr. Spencer: “but under my definition of evolution, they are not evolving!”

Scientists: “ok…i guess under your definition (which is not the scientific definition) they are not…”

By using the term “evolving” in this context, he makes it seem like he is disagreeing with the scientists, when in fact, he is just making some random observation that everyone agrees with and using the wrong term.

“It defines evolution as follows:
Evolution – “the cumulative genetic changes in a population from generation to generation.”"

Uh…do you even know what “change of allele frequencies from one generation to the next” even means?. Your definition is pretty much the exact same definition that I gave just with easier words… you merely reinforced the point that there is only one scientific definition of evolution…thank you.

“A quick google search is all it took to discover the huge controversy around a subject seemingly as straight forward as the definition of evolution. So “plain and simple” doesn’t exist in this topic. Pretending it is “plain and simple” and “there is only one scientific definition” is disingenuous. (By the way, I quite frankly doubt if Dr. Spencer or most of the people reading this blog care what you care. They care about what can be proven.)”

So again, you showed me one other scientific definition, and low and behold, it means the EXACT same thing as my definition. Still only one scientific definition…if you can find others I will be happy to look at them. (and i have no idea what you are talking about with this “proven” business you speak of).

“As far as your last attempt at a point. I stand behind my statement “There is absolutely no evidence anywhere of a new species ever being created through evolution or natural selection.”

Pay specific attention to the word “evidence”. It only took a quick google search to find that all of the studies cited in your link have been refuted, most more than once.”

You can’t just wave your hands and make all of those examples go away. All? Can you show me how even one of them is refuted? two? I couldn’t find any. Would you like me to show you another huge list of speciation events? Their have been practically hundreds. Or will you just look at them and say “nope, none of them are good” without giving a reason?

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

here is another list of speciation events. Will you hand wave away all of these too? If you would like, I can pick one or two and you can try to show me why they are not speciation events. That link has a list near the middle of the page, the first part explains what speciation is and some mechanisms which you should probably read.

“The most important difference between AGW alarmists and Evolutionist is that at least the Evolutionist aren’t trying to get the people of the World to spend trillions of dollars on their theory”

That is funny you say that, because the evolutions arn’t trying to get the people of the world to spend money, they ALREADY have people spending money. The money spent on evolution faaaarr outweighs the money spend on global warming. Evolutionary principles are applied to alomst all aspects of biology including many aspects of other disciplines. Sorry to burst your bubble.

You obviously don’t understand the concept of writing to your audience. Dr. Spencer wasn’t writing to a group of Biologists, Biology Professors, or even Biology students. He was writing to the average person. Therefore, the average person’s understanding of what is meant by evolution is what is important, not the scientific definition. Even is there was only one scientific definition.

Apparently, however, your statements about the “only Scientific definition” and Bio 101 are also incorrect. I unfortunately only had easy access to one Biology textbook (Solomon, E. P., L. R. Berg & D. W. Martin. Biology, 5th edition. Saunders College Publishing. 1999)

It defines evolution as follows:
Evolution – “the cumulative genetic changes in a population from generation to generation.”

So you see your definition is far from the only one and is a clear attempt to obfuscate and distract attention from the key point of the subject of Dr. Spencer’s papers.

Fortunately for me I need only produce one definition to refute your statement: “Wrong, it is plain and simple. I don’t care what “most people” think it means, there is only one scientific definition.”

A quick google search is all it took to discover the huge controversy around a subject seemingly as straight forward as the definition of evolution. So “plain and simple” doesn’t exist in this topic. Pretending it is “plain and simple” and “there is only one scientific definition” is disingenuous. (By the way, I quite frankly doubt if Dr. Spencer or most of the people reading this blog care what you care. They care about what can be proven.)

As far as your last attempt at a point. I stand behind my statement “There is absolutely no evidence anywhere of a new species ever being created through evolution or natural selection.”

Pay specific attention to the word “evidence”. It only took a quick google search to find that all of the studies cited in your link have been refuted, most more than once.

This gets us back to the link between the theories of AGW and Evolution. Their proponents when asked for evidence continually produce responses that do not meet the standard of evidence and act as if they’ve proven their point.

In fact, they and you, have PROVEN nothing.

The most important difference between AGW alarmists and Evolutionist is that at least the Evolutionist aren’t trying to get the people of the World to spend trillions of dollars on their theory.

AHH! Shock horror! An a-a-a-athiest!!!

First I would like to address my aparent contradiction where I said I knew little about science but felt qualified to critique doctor Spencer. Let me apologize for this. When I said that my knowledge of “the science was incomplete”, I meant my knowledge of climate science was incomplete, not all science in general. To the contrary, I feel very confident with my scientific knowledge about evolution and I sincerly apologize for the confusion and seeming like I was contradicting myself.

Anyways let’s move on.

“As a reader and a Christian, but rare poster to this site, I appologize to you regulars that I must now stray from the topic of AGM to answer alerk323′s attacks on Dr. Spencer and God.”

I am rather offended that you consider an attack on an ID proponent as an “attack on God”. I know many people who are christian and completely reject ID, do they not accept God as well?

Anyways, let me address your specific problems you had with me.

“I assume you got your info from here: http://www.ridgenet.net/~do_while/sage/v7i9e.htm, You seemed to have cherry picked your info word for word. Why don’t you read on further”

Unfortunately, your assumption is completely wrong. I got my info from BIO 101, but I could have just as easily gotten it from looking for the scientific definition of evolution. Your allegations about me “cherry picking”, are therefore incorrect.

I understand that there are multiple laymen definitions of evolution. However, there is only ONE scientific definition. When Dr. Spencer uses the term in a piece that discusses the SCIENCE of evolution, he must abide by the only definition that applies. He can not pick and chose what his words mean, and neither can you.

“Not so plain and simple after all. I’m sure you are well aware that most people think of the second definition when they think of evolution. (i.e. the idea that man could evolve from some lower form of life)
When Dr. Spencer states “A population of moths that changes from light to dark based upon environmental pressures is not evolution”. he cleary means that a new species was not created.”

Wrong, it is plain and simple. I don’t care what “most people” think it means, there is only one scientific definition. I can name plenty of other definition of evolition. Evolution simply means “change”, in some ways. There is planetary evolution, there is even Pokemon evolution. However, when Dr. Spencer talks about the science of evolution, he must use the scientific definition, he can not merely pick and chose.

If he “clearly meant that a new species was not created”, he should have SAID that “clearly, a new species was not created”. It is wrong to add, “therefore, it did not evolve”. If he truly meant only that a new speices was not created, then he is RIGHT. And guess what, no one ELSE claims that a new species was created. The moth example is simply not an example of a new species arising, and no one claims that it is. However, when Dr. Spencer writes about how “the moth’s didn’t evolve!!”, he does in a way that makes it seem like most people don’t agree. The fact is, if he meant simply that a “new species didn’t arise”, then EVERYONE agrees with him, plain and simple, and he is saying nothing remarkable.

“There is absolutely no evidence anywhere of a new species ever being created through evolution or natural selection. This despite the fact that scientists who believe in the theory have been looking for fossils and trying to create new species in the laboratory for most of the years since the theory was introduced. I’ll let Dr. Spencer speak for himself from here on.”

That is incorrect. I will refer to these two links which explain multiple speciation events that have been observed.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB910.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html

They include a new mosquito species, various plant speciation and various ring species. As you see, you and Dr Spencer are incorrect to state that no new species have been observed to arise through the process of natural selection.

alerk323
“Anyways, I don’t really know which side to fall on simply because there is so much conflicting information out there and my knowledge of the hard science is very incomplete.”

However, he/she immediately started attempting to discredit Dr. Spencer.

akerk323
“Anyways one thing that bothers me about Roy W. Spencer is that it seems he has…rather unconventional views on evolution. While I understand that these are two completely different topics and it is much more appropriate to agree or disagree with him based on his evidence, it does raise red flags when a climate skeptic holds views on another issue that is TRULY against the scientific consensus.”

Alerk323 was quickly exposed as an atheist with an agenda and will most likely be exposed as an AGM Alarmist with an agenda as well.

As a reader and a Christian, but rare poster to this site, I appologize to you regulars that I must now stray from the topic of AGM to answer alerk323′s attacks on Dr. Spencer and God.

In his/her July 25, 2008 at 03:03 PM post alerk323 takes some very brief lines from some of Dr. Spencer’s writings and attempts to discredit his beliefs, going as far as to write the following:

“Spencer makes countless more ignorant “observations” to the point where it is embarrassing. I could go on forever, and would be glad too. I don’t mean to side track this discussion though.”

Alerk, please prove the truth of any of your statements claiming Dr. Spencer’s igonorance. Per your statement: “For example, he says that “A population of moths that changes from light to dark based upon environmental pressures is not evolution”. That is simply wrong, it is evolution as evolution is defined by scientists. That is, ” a change of allele frequencies over time”. The allele frequencies changed in that moth population. Therefore it is evolution, plain and simple.”

I assume you got your info from here: http://www.ridgenet.net/~do_while/sage/v7i9e.htm

You seemed to have cherry picked your info word for word. Why don’t you read on further: “We are glad to clear up the confusion, which stems from the fact that the term “evolution” is used to mean many different things. If “Evolution is only concerned about the change in allele frequency in a population,” then there would be no confusion, and no disagreement. The problem is that people rarely mean that when they use the term, ‘evolution.’” …….. “The confusion comes when someone then tries to use the term “evolution” to mean the creation of moths from non-moths. That would require brand new, fully functional genes, with previously unknown information, to arise. That is an entirely different process than merely changing the relative percentage of existing things.”

Not so plain and simple after all. I’m sure you are well aware that most people think of the second definition when they think of evloution. (i.e. the idea that man could evolve from some lower form of life)

When Dr. Spencer states “A population of moths that changes from light to dark based upon environmental pressures is not evolution”. he cleary means that a new species was not created.

There is absolutely no evidence anywhere of a new species ever being created through evolution or natural selection. This despite the fact that scientists who believe in the theory have been looking for fossils and trying to create new species in the laboratory for most of the years since the theory was introduced. I’ll let Dr. Spencer speak for himself from here on.

Here are two urls for articles that contain the statements that alerk criticizes. If any of you would like to take the time to read them in their entirety you will see the very well thought out, scientifically based reasoning that led Dr. Spencer to become a Christian and to develop his current beliefs.

http://theevolutioncrisis.org.uk/testimony2.php
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/roy-spencer-on-intelligent-design/

Each of you can be your own judge.

If AGW has insufficient evidence, then those who “believe” it are basing it on faith not science; these are similar tendencies as those pertaining to religion: irrational belief based on little or no evidence. AGW clearly has more evidence than that, but the argument still stands.

However, one’s religious beliefs, in my view, tend to be very seperate to science, so probably has little bearing on their climate beliefs, although it is disturbing to hear that Roy Spencer has such strong views on evolution, which is, scientifically, if not theologically, most definitely settled.

Also, to argue that because “Humanists believe some things are right for some people and some situations that may be “wrong” for other people and other situations. There is no absolute right and wrong. Everything depends on the situation.” they are therefore evil makes no sense. Think about it: the world is full of shades of grey; things are never, except in a strictly religious perspective, exactly right or wrong. Let’s take killing someone. Is someone who had a mental illness and killed an attacker in sefl-defense equally blameworthy as someone who killed someone out of sheer malice? Of course not. To argue otherwise would be downright foolish.

To conclude, to argue that because a person is an atheist, their views on climate science must be faulty is to fight a losing battle. If we must make extrapolations from one’s religious views then we must conclude that whatever the atheists believe must be right. I can see no relationship myself between religious views and views on global warming, but can I just say I am an atheist doubter of extreme human-induced global warming with remotely conservative views.