Yes, Roy Spencer IS a creationist.

[UPDATE: For those who are unaware, Roy Spencer is a vocal climate change "skeptic", but a particularly influential one as a member of the UAH remote sensing team. He has been making the rounds of late peddling a "climate is self-stabilizing due to large negative feedbacks" take on the issue. He is a member of the Heartland Institute, a contributor to the George C. Marshall Institute, and the favorite climatologist of Rush Limbaugh.]

Some people have for whatever reason argued that Spencer is not a creationist, perhaps because in defending the idea that neo-creationist Intelligent Design should be taught in public schools, Spencer plays dumb at who or what the Designer is supposed to be, a common creationist tactic:

Intelligent design can be studied and taught without resorting to human creation traditions and beliefs, which in the West are usually traceable to the first book of the Bible, Genesis. Just as someone can recognize and study some machine of unknown purpose built by another company, country (or alien intelligence?), one can also examine the natural world and ask the question: did this machine arise by semi-random natural physical processes, or could it have been designed by a higher power?

In case anyone believes that Spencer is merely advocating the teaching of ID as a hypothetical rather than as part of his personal religious views, he follows up with a clarification that speaks volumes about both his ability to separate ideology from science and his trustworthiness as a science communicator:

Indeed, I was convinced of the intelligent design arguments based upon the science alone.

But of course there is no scientific evidence in favor of ID. None. And there are mountains and mountains of evidence in support of evolution through natural selection, from fossils to genetics. Spencer’s statement is simply gobsmacking. I would be curious to see what “science” he can produce in favor of ID- as I am sure other ID proponents would as well. It would after all be the first time anyone ever had.

And in other venues, Spencer has been a bit more forthcoming about his actual beliefs. Not only does he believe that the Judeo-Christian god is the creator of the universe and all living creatures, he believes that this also is supported by scientific evidence:

In relation to the basic claims of Christianity, do what I did! Read the Bible. Judge it for itself. Put it to the test. I am confident that you too will find the Bible not only to be in agreement with proven facts of science, but also to be the book which will lead you to a personal faith in God the creator of all things.

Perhaps more puzzling, he believes that the Bible offers a consistent and error-free narrative which itself is evidence of its truth:

I was struck by the unity of the Bible’s message – the way it agreed with itself even though it was written by 40 different authors over a period of 1,600 years. I realised that the gospel records were free of comment from the writers. They merely recorded what they saw without exaggerating the events, without covering up the faults and failings of the followers of Jesus and without trying to present the story in exactly the same way. There were enough differences between the four gospels to prove they had not collaborated, but not enough differences to stray into the area of outright contradictions and errors.

Yes, if the Bible is known for anything, it is its consistency and freedom from errors.

For good measure Spencer also indulges in the right-wing DDT ban/malaria death fantasy.

[LATE UPDATE: And maybe most bizarrely of all, Spencer writes anti-climate change song parodies for his Christian rock band. The horror.]

About these ads

10 responses to “Yes, Roy Spencer IS a creationist.

  1. Pingback: Elisabet Höglund och sanningen » emretsson.net

  2. For an idea of how his beliefs effortlessly inform his approach to climate science, how about these -

    “For most people, either you believe that the world has been created for mankind’s use, with a certain resiliency and stability, or you believe it is just a cosmic accident, fragile, and overly sensitive to our meddling. The creator may be the biblical God; or as a scientist friend of mine believes, some as yet unrevealed Life Force. For many of those who don’t believe in a creator, the spiritual need in their lives results in the uplifting of Mother Nature as the ultimate spiritual entity.”

    and:

    “It would be worthwhile for everyone to think seriously about what they believe mankind’s role on Earth is, and how much influence over nature humans should assert. Since this is ultimately and inevitably a religious question, I fear that science will be misused in the effort to disguise it as a scientific one.”

    http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=071604D

    and hilariously written without any self-awareness of the satirical effect:

    “It wasn’t long after I became a research scientist that I learned that scientists aren’t the unbiased, impartial seekers of truth I always thought they were. Scientists have their own agendas, philosophies, pre-conceived notions, and pet theories. These views end up influencing their science. Nowhere does this have a greater impact on the science than in global warming theory.”

    http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=020604C

    Oh how I laughed! Though I guess it isn’t funny, really.

  3. Pingback: The Sloppy Science of Roy Spencer - Unconventional Sources

  4. Pingback: Man-Made Global Warming Skeptism by 650 - Page 18 - Bad Astronomy and Universe Today Forum

  5. Pingback: emretsson.net » Blog Archive » Sanning och lögn med Elisabet Höglund

  6. Life was brought here by extraterrestrials a long time ago, creating lifeforms through genetic engineering. This is the demystified view of creation as seen by the bible. It makes way more sense than the idiotic and genetically unprovable theory of evolution. Leave climate and prejudice out of this…

  7. Pingback: Christopher Monckton, birther – Part II | The Way Things Break

  8. Pingback: Christopher Monckton, birther – Part III | The Way Things Break

  9. Pingback: Ice Core Data - Page 13 (politics)

  10. Pingback: Of course the pond is shocked, believe it if you can believe Maurice Newman … | PNCAU

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s