One finally comes to the conclusion that, despite vigorous protests, belief in evolution and intelligent design are matters of faith. – Roy Spencer
Roy Spencer is an indepenent thinker and critic of the current global warming movement. In an article entitled Faith-Based Evolution on the TCS Daily site, he addresses the faith issue discussed in the prior post as it applies to evolutionary theories. What he says isn’t new, and I know exactly what evolutionists would say in response, however without addressing the issue of faith. Since it was pertinent to today’s subject, I thought I’d just pass along the link to his article.
To conclude common descent is still a leap; it is inferred by circumstantial evidence. When you ask, “Why would sharks carry the genetic load for fingers if they don’t have any genetic means for hands?” the answer is, we don’t know, do we?
The point is not whether CD exists or not, but that to accept CD as true requires a leap.
“Anthropocentric” s/b “anthrogenic.”
Once, more, with feelings of frustration over this. I read Spencer’s page and it is full of misconceptions expressed as truths. One of the largest, and the only one I have time to deal with directly is this one:
He claims that the fossil record is our only real source of information about transitional life, but if he kept up with the science beyond the 19th century he would know about the tools of genetics. We have a profound knowledge of common ancestry through the genome. The sequencing of the genome of the platypus alone demonstrates how strong common ancestry really is. It shows how mammals transitioned from external eggs to internal gestation. It shows the transition to mammary feed from yoke.
The genome and the presence of endogenous retroviral modification of genes demonstrates how we have a common ancestry with all life; and the dead-end nature of many structures in the genome are a concrete argument against common design. Why would sharks carry the genetic load for fingers if they don’t have any genetic means for hands?
He completely mis-states what Gould and Lewontin were teaching in punctuated equilibria. PE is an argument against strict adaptationism as pushed by “The Selfish Gene,” and takes into count such pressures as catastrophism, geographical separation as demonstrated by ring species and the like.
Since Spencer is a scientist on the side of saying that global warming is not anthropocentric (something I am on the fence about,) this piece also calls into question his ability to reasonably state his case. He has the credentials, sure, but if he can make such obvious mistakes and relies and blanket denials of things that I know to be true in the world of evolution (in which he is out of his depth) then how can we trust what he says about global warming? Is his position based on the same kind of thinking?