AOC made a comment about climate change that has the denialsphere all in a frenzy of comments.

Anyway, Faux News keeps plying their trade, and publishes this piece:

Physicist: Don’t fall for the argument about ‘settled science’

I am dismayed to hear that NBC’s “Meet The Press” is actually blaming science for its decision to shut down any intelligent, meaningful discussion about climate change. “We’re not going to give time to climate deniers,” the show’s host recently said, referring to people, including Nobel laureates, who disagree that humans are mostly to blame for altering Earth’s climate. “The science is settled even if political opinion is not.”

For the record I’m neither a “denier” or an “alarmist.” I’m a physicist who does his very best to seek the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. I’m also a journalist who’s been covering the complexities of the climate change story since the 1980s, even reporting directly from the north and south poles, where much of the climate research is done.

My point here is not to debate the merits of today’s resolute scientific consensus that humans are having a decisive, apocalyptic impact on the climate. It might very well be correct.

[…]

The piece is all about confusing people under the guise of intelligent thought.

We’ve seen this before, all the time.

Who is the author? “Michael Guillen”, who yes has advanced degrees and taught at an Ivy league school. However, even as his various credits he touts shows, he’s really into public speaking/writing and not doing research.

Oh, and he has a blog:
Where Science and Faith Meet

Yup, as expected, the reason he’s plying his trade on Faux is because he’s an evangelical. He sells himself as the defender of the idea that the Bible and science do not conflict.

It’s all very weak sauce. He fools his marks (and maybe himself) by attempting to sound all magical-balancy.

But note this, from a Blaze article covering him:

Prominent Scientist’s Take-Down of Critics’ Fiery Claims That ‘Evolutionary Biology Discredits the Bible’ or That the Bible ‘Discredits Science

[…]

He continued, “But the subject is complicated because evolution is actually three theories in one - the evidence for which ranges from solid to non-existent. It’s also complicated because, even though the Bible is infallible (or so I believe), we who read and live by it are not.”

From there, Guillen went on to discuss the differences between micro-evolution, macro-evolution and radical evolution, breaking down what he believes to be the level of real-world evidence for each paradigm.

“According to micro-evolution, species are constantly adapting to changes in the environment. The scientific evidence for this is solid - as anyone who keeps up with news about drug-resistant bacteria understands clearly,” he wrote. “Moreover, there is nothing about micro-evolution that overtly contradicts Scripture. So I see no disagreement here whatsoever.”

The scientist went on to explain that macro-evolution is a bit different, as it involves species themselves changing and morphing. Guillen provided the example of fish, over enough time, evolving into humans, saying that, in that case, the evidence is “suggestive but inconclusive, no matter what anyone says and notwithstanding our careful reading of the fossil record.”

In order to be certain of the realities surrounding macro-evolution, the scientist said that one would need to have enough time to observe a plant or animal in the act of morphing from one species to another.

Then, he moved on to what he called “radical evolution” — the most contentious of the three paradigms.

“According to radical evolution, all species on Earth originally developed by chance from inorganic matter (which, physicists hold, sprung into being from nothing),” he wrote. “Here the biological evidence is virtually non-existent, notwithstanding lively and creative speculation about the possible effect of electrical jolts on inorganic molecules, seeds of life raining on Earth from outer space, and so forth.”

[…]

Yup, it’s all the same old song and dance over “micro” vs. “macro”.

America is steeped in magical thinking. Guillen is one of a legion of more-educated-than-the-masses workers who, in order to keep on the religious gravy train, intentionally distorts what has indeed been discovered in order to keep the marks in the pews.