Mad Mel and the evolutionists

That perennial figure of fun, and journalist, Melanie Phillips rants on about a 'ridiculous' judgement supporting an eco-warrior on the basis that his deeply-held convictions about climate change deserved the same consideration as anyone else's religious conviction. I've supplied the link to Mel's Spectator blog and below is just one of the threads from the comments to it.

Puzzled. Melanie writes "In any rational universe, he would be sent away with a flea in his ear for trying it on. " In any rational universe, religion would be rightly abandoned as Medieval superstition. Amusing that you bring Darwinism into it though. Evolution = a testable theory based on observation and experiment. Religion = er?

Martin Archer. Puzzled should read Karl Popper to see if Evolution, as a 'testable theory based on observation and experiment' [1] is actually any more provable than the existence of God and whether Darwinism isn't just another form of religion. The difference between prevailing ideologies and the rest lies in power relations.

YA. Martin Archer, that is exactly because of such snobbish lazy relativists like you, we are in such bad situation. Truth isn't "ideology". Put your finger in fire, and it will hurt. That is named testable truth - as well as evolution. In which case arguments are somewhat more complicated, but still well understood.. by those who are not too lazy.

Martin Archer. YA, the brevity of my comment on ideology might support your opinion of me as lazy. Beyond that, your evolution-as-truth argument displays a species of laziness which saddles itself to something energised and purposeful but which cannot guarantee to deliver you to where you want to go. Unlike watching the 'truth' of my finger burning in a flame, evolution is beyond testing... very much like the testing of the existence of a divine creator. At some point faith must overtake us in those of our beliefs which are not immediately supported by evidence. Evolution is not, YA, the same kind of truth as a charred member and as such belongs in my category of Belief.

Sergey. YA, Karl Popper never was a "snobish relativist" denying objective truth. Quite contrary, he was a valiant defender of idea that objective truth exists and can be acknowleged by science. But he also understood that some truths are beyond reach of scientific method and should be sought by other means, namely religion and philosophy. This does not undermines science, but is a mortal blow to scientism, a philosophy asserting omnipotence of scientific method. Choice of moral and religious truth is a true free choice: it is not logically predetermined. But it is a choice between curse and blessing, between life and death. Chose life!

YA. Sergey, ... when there is nothing to discuss, I stop. Popper - probably not.
Martin Archer: "..evolution is not the same kind of truth as a charred member.." - couple of posts earlier I've put here a "fathers chain" example [not included here] (IMHO it is quite close to "charred member". Do you know what "hyperbole" means?) Oh, BTW all you anti-evolutionists forgot to say that this imaginary construction is complete nonsence and has nothing to do with evolution, historical truth, and your own existence. So, say it. Will you dare?

Martin Archer. My last comment here is that I am rarely allowed an even-tempered discussion with Darwinist/Evolutionists. I don't argue from any religious standpoint but merely point out to YA and other Dawkinsian rabid types that they lack an imagination to go with their rationality. Surely, if we ARE the peak of evolution on the planet, we might be allowed myth and imagination to relieve us from the pointlessness of our time thereon: Romanticism; the arts; a welcome contrast to you scientists and your Enlightenment project which attempts to make some sense of a mystery of which you will only be allowed to scratch the surface.

YA. Martin Archer: "..peak of evolution on the planet.." - at least, not far from it...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MNNbFkb0gBk [link to a beautifully played piece of guitar music by Villa Lobos]

Martin Archer. YA, I must break my promise to not comment again if only to say thank you for sharing your artistic appreciation. Sublime.

YA. Martin - impressed by your nobility old chap. Take care.

Noa Zrk. This judgement [as discussed in Melanie Phillips's original blog] clearly demonstrates the logical and practical anomalies arising from the widespread establishment of mind crimes. An effective tool for the intellectual crippling of society.

[end of comments]

The above is what I call a satisfying interchange and is an example of why I love the internet so much. It is an educational tool that is second to none, but we must encourage our youngsters to make the best of it rather than being tempted merely to cut and paste, to satisfy the demands of some or other school project, without reading or understanding.

Anyone wanting to read the whole article and the extensive comments that follow it, the link here should get you there: http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/5504821/the-deep-green-sophistry-of-religious-equivalence.thtml

[1] Popper, Karl. 1978. Natural selection and the emergence of mind. Dialectica 32: 339-355. (excerpt at http://www.geocities.com/criticalrationalist/popperevolution.htm )