Roy Spencer is a Climate Scientist who has had papers critical of Global Warming published in reputable scientific journals.  

OK, fair enough.  The evidence for Global Warming has been extremely difficult to achieve, mathematical models of climate continually run into NP-Complete (not computable) and Chaos (everything goes wierd), and the historic baseline of baseline is not only short but incomplete.  Climate is Sensitive to Initial Conditions so a slight change of value assignment (quantification) to the variables in a model lead to drastic changes in the behavour of the system.  The flow of recursion – which equation is processed when – can also have a dramatic affect.  
Skepticism is a valuable tool in science.  Skeptics are needed to ensure enthusiasm doesn’t run amok.  But the skeptics must also adhere to the proceedures of Science – mere nay-saying is not enough.  Skeptics must also adhere to the accepted scientific findings unless solid, solid, evidence is presented.

Dr. Spencer, in a post on his blog has just made the astonishing claim “…intelligent design, as a theory of origins, is no more religious, and no less scientific, than evolutionism.”  

Adorn thyself with a tin-foil hat.  We’re off to La-la land.

“Curiously, most of the books are written by scientists who lost faith in evolution as adults, after they learned how to apply the analytical tools they were taught in college.”

Notice the word “faith” is invoked early.  Scientists do not accept arguments by faith; they accept arguments based on deduction, inference, and evidence.  The point here is to ego-flatter some clod who never graduated from the 6th grade that his/her incoherent opinion is intellectually equivalent to the rigourous knowledge of someone who has studied a field all their life.

Also notice the intellectual dishonesty, Dr. Spencer invokes the social prestige of science without actually engaging in scientific methodology.  The fact “most books” were written by “scientists” – Who?  What are thier fields?  What was the evidence?  How many books?  What was the reaction of their peers? References? – is a cover to gloss his ‘Appeal to Awe’ Logical fallacy.  

“True evolution, in the macro-sense, has never been observed, only inferred.”

The counter to this is: So What?  I have never “observed” the logical formulation modus ponens only examples of modus ponens.  Let me make this real clear:

If it is raining then the ground is wet.  It is raining.  Therefore, the ground is wet.

If Socrates is a man then he is mortal.  Socrates is a man.  Therefore, he is mortal.

Are two examples allowing the inference of the True and Valid logical structure, modus ponens:

If X then Y.  X.  Therefore, Y.  

but are not identical to modus ponens.  Modus ponens is the Universal pattern;  the examples are the Existential particulars.

But there is a very good reason Dr. Spencer has to outlaw inference, see below.

“Possibly the most critical distinction between the two theories (or better, “models”) of origins is this: While similarities between different but “related” species have been attributed by evolutionism to common ancestry, intelligent design explains the similarities based upon common design. 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.”

One can only laugh.

First, a Theory and a Model are two different things.  A Theory is a verified systematic statement of principles and relationships of phenomena.  A Model is representation, mathematical, verbal, or physical, of something.  

Second, his example does not hold.  Cars, in my limited experience, do not have sex.  Therefore the offered evidence is a non sequitar.  Which leads to …

Third, we see yet more Material Fallacies.  Dr. Spencer is assuming Intelligent Design rather than proving Intelligent Design.  Admittedly it is faster and easier to assume what one is trying to prove but it is generally considered, since about 300 BC, to be methodologically flawed.  To define Intelligent Design and immediately move on is to Beg the Question.  Where is the valid proof?  It is not enough to show flaws in some other explanation.  One has to show proof your explanation is valid and in the above paragraph it has been shown Dr. Spencer’s offered ‘evidence’ is invalid.

“Common ancestry requires transitional forms of life to have existed through the millions of years of supposed biological evolution. Yet the fossil record, our only source of the history of life on Earth, is almost (if not totally) devoid of transitional forms of life that would connect the supposed evolution of amphibians to reptiles, reptiles to birds, etc. “

Oh, Bullshit.  Dr. Spencer, here, is simply lying.

“This is why Stephen Jay Gould, possibly the leading evolutionist of our time, advanced his “punctuated equilibria” theory. In this theory, evolution leading to new kinds of organisms occurs over such brief periods of time that it was not captured in the fossil record. Upon reflection, one cannot help but notice that this is not arguing based upon the evidence — but instead from the lack of evidence.”

Now we are deep in tin-foil hat territory.

That no dinosaurs are found above the K-T Boundary,  mammalian species found above the K-T Boundary are not present below the K-T Boundary, and the diversification of mammalian species after the K-T Boundary is not captured in the fossil record?  Really?  In what Universe?  

Dr. Spencer is demanding species that do not exist have to leave a fossil record after they have been snuffed-out in order to prove they no longer exist otherwise it is “lack of evidence.”      

This is why Dr. Spencer has to disallow inference.  Put in his own field and using his own methodology:

We measure temperature in El Paso and Denver but not in Albuquerque.  As inference is not allowed, and we have a gap in the temperature record at Albuquerque, the only valid conclusion possible is: Albuquerque has no temperature.

To-whit, To-whoo.

There is a lot of other stuff to be ridiculed in the blog but – hey! – why should I have all the fun?