The deep green sophistry of 'religious' equivalence

Suffolkbor

Climate change sceptics would not be afforded Philosopher status I fear .

You should be careful Ms. Phillips.
You might have charges of heresy laid against you and be subjected to an inquisition.

On a lighter note ;
whatever happened to the days when High Court Judges mediated over genuine criminal cases and provided the rest of us with entertainment regarding their off duty habits involving houses of ill repute , nappies and the word "Nanny and lots of custard ?

Ray

"For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths." - 2 Timothy, ch 4, vs 3-4

wonderer

Surely, regardless of whether or not it is correct to hold that man contributes to global warming or whether or not such belief can be properly be called a philosophy, it cannot be fair to discriminate against someone in his job for taking that view, can it? I haven't followed your link to the report yet, however.

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?

James

Get ready to pay Carbon Footprint Indulgences for remission of sins against Mother Earth.

workie ticket

Rupert Dickinson and Judge Burton should be very very careful in case the muslims hear about this. Time for them to keep their heads down for a while.

Tiko

"In any rational universe, religion would be rightly abandoned as Medieval superstition."

Er, they tried that in China. No thanks. Not for me.

Watt Tyler

Puzzled. There is rationality in religion. You should find out a bit more about it.

No, I said figure it out for yourself already!

Justin Case

Puzzled - you are well named. "Evolution is a testable theory based on observation and experiment"? No, mate. It is not. It is belief system that attempts (and fails miserably) to explain life without an infinitely intelligent Creator. Species can be shown to adapt within species and this can be observed. But it is impossible for a species to become another species. The mind-boggling complexity of the coded information within each tiniest part of each creature does not and cannot appear from thin air (which evolutionists take on blind faith).

Here's a couple of quotes for you which hopefully may aid you in your journey to be less puzzled:

"The essence of Darwinism lies in a single phrase: natural selection is the creative force of evolutionary change. No one denies that natural selection will play a negative role in eliminating the unfit. Darwinian theories require that it create the fit as well."

Stephen Jay Gould (Professor of Geology and Paleontology, Harvard University), "The return of hopeful monsters". Natural History, vol. LXXXVI(6), June-Jule 1977, p. 28

"The chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way is comparable with the chance that 'a tornado sweeping through a junk yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein'."

Sir Fred Hoyle (English astronomer, Professor of Astronomy at Cambridge University), as quoted in "Hoyle on Evolution". Nature, vol. 294, 12 Nov. 1981, p. 105

Astrid Proll

"I have reduced my consumption of meat......." Red meat, I hope. Cows' gaseous emissions are definitely not CO2 compliant. Stupid git. Flippin' heck. What has England come to - giving eco-fascism a religious status. It's yet another example of twisted PC logic. The country sounds ripe for a take over by some sort of highly motivated and focused fundamentalist grouping - oh, hang on a sec...

YA

"Global warming" is certainly a myth but the context of its promotion isn't that innocent.

First, these ad nauseum repetitions in MSM on "the greatest threat humanity faces today" - yeah, sure. No more freaking threats.

Second, it's the ease with which public money are diverted to service this crap, based on lie. Other types of crap happily follow the route. This way, people are taught to pay ransom when intimidated - a type of Pavlovian training.

Third, this myth promotes useful idiotism as quite fashionable way of thinking. That guy rather needs psychiatric help than arguing. But, somebody wants a climate in society when lie has the same status as truth.

Fourth, it creates an example of considerable establishment full-blown from nothing. Melanie is right, it legitimizes all other types of unhealthy activism.

Fifth, it compromizes real science, - now Darwinism is just "another viewpoint" in a pluralistic garbage bin. The raise of mediocrity is dangerous because those who are uninformed, undecisive and disoriented (don't know and don't care about truth) - are easier to scare and manipulate.

Now let us guess who benefits from all this.. let me tink.. "Common Purpose".. world masonry.. Zionist cabal and Jewish Lobby!!! Yesss!!! Bingo!

Puzzled

Justin Case writes: - "But it is impossible for a species to become another species."

Then why do modern whales have vestigial hind limb bones? Surely not because they evolved, over millions of years, from land-dwelling quadripeds? That's crazy talk!

I refer you also to the Archaeopterygiformes. You couldn't ask for clearer transitional forms between reptiles and birds. And that's not just simple speciation, that's whole different branch of the phylogenetic tree. But perhaps you believe the fossils to fake?

Regarding Gould. The consequences of the removal of 'unfit' phenotypes from a local gene pool is precisely the same as the amplification of a benefit-conferring phenotype. There is no difference.

And Fred Hoyle. Oh dear. Remember that it took a billon years - a billion years - for the simplest prokaryotic organisms, that is, bacterial cells, to evolve after the formation of the Earth. It took a further billion years for these organisms to evolve nucleated, organelle containing cells - to become amoebae if you like. It took a further 500 million years for multicellular organisms to evolve. Two and half billion years for Nature to evolve sponges. When I was a boy two and half billion years was quite a long period of time.

Now then, how long did it take 'The Creator' to evolve? (and why is he such a slow worker?)

Guinevere

Well, if 'ecoism' really is accepted as a 'faith' then surely this case should have been thrown out on the basis that he has no right to ram his beliefs down other people's throats? Would his company have accepted him bullying others on the basis of say, adhering to strict Catholic beliefs and insisting on making a bonfire of any condoms he could find?

Roger K

I have started to doubt that global warming is a neo-religion and I am actualy starting to think that it is a sexual experience. The frenzied irrational climax of a supporter of action against man made global warming is something to behold and it would be banned in any decent society, it frightens the horses and the children. Why, over here in New Zealand recently, hot on the heels of being advised by a Pommie architect to eat to our pets, we had young ladies protesting against global warming / climate change by marching in only body paint! When I asked if I could take them home to replace my dog which I had just eaten, they refused! Dear, oh dear they wont save the planet with that attitude.

political umpire

Justin Case - your argument is completely self defeating, because it raises and cannot answer who created the creator (and the creator's creator, etc etc).

Your use of the word "complex" is where you go wrong. Whether something is complex is subjective. What is complex to a one year old is not complex to a professor of mathematics. Just because things seem complex to adult humans with our present state of knowledge tells us little. If you showed an Amazonian tribe that had had no contact with the outside world the space shuttle, the internet and the silicon chip, chances are they'd conclude that they were too "complex" for humans to have invented and therefore must be the work of god(s).

One might observe that through history those using complexity to defend religion just shift the goalposts according to the present state of scientific knowledge. Hence a stone age tribe ascribes rainbows to god, but then we learn about light and the atmosphere. And so on, to the present day, where we are learning about genes and dna, so the present day religious lot ascribe that to god. Etc

YA

Justin Case: You draw arguments from an outdated source. To "create a fit", the only two things are needed, - strong source of variability, and natural selection. About 20 years ago, scientists were puzzled by the contradiction between low variability by inside-species mutations, and fast speed of evolution. Now this contradiction is lifted, as it became clear that main variability sources were not counted. Ask wiki for "endosymbiosis", "evo-devo", and inter-species breeding.

Herbert Thornton

Well said, Melanie.

Your piece, by the way, could just as accurately have been headed The Death Of Common Sense.

Tubb

There is a very good essay on 'Global Warming as a Religion' by Prof John Brignell at http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/religion.htm

Dixon

I welcome the decision for the very reason that, as far as I am concerned, neo-environmentalism is indeed a religion. Now whenever they guffaw at this assertion I can point to this judgement.

However, it is a major howler to confuse philosophy ( an epistemology ) and "a philosophy" ( a way of life ), which are two distinct things. It is also unwise to cite Bertrand Russell on anything. He was a complete dingbat. One minute advocating the nuclear annhilation of the USSR before it could obtain nuclear weapons and the next calling for nuclear disarmament on the grounds that if we had no nuclear weapons the USSR wouldnt want to attack us. Then asserting that he never made the previous statement, even though he was on record as having done so at a variety of public meetings and in print. He was simultaneously the greatest logician of the 20th century and utterly illogical. Certainly a master of inconsistancy and muddled thinking.

In the same book as cited in this court case he asserts that every man in ancient Sparta was a homosexual. Is that maybe why the macho race of the fascist city state became extinct?

David

Puzzled, your cited ‘evidence’ about evolution is unnecessary because the concept of evolution is generally accepted in any event. It is the origin of the evolutionary process – and not the concept of evolution itself - that lies at the heart of the debate (i.e. where did life first originate from and how did it have the inherent capacity to mutate into different, not necessarily better, forms?). It is at that point that the question “Where did God come from?” usually arises. (You ask the same question in your own unique way when you wrote "How long did it take 'The Creator' to evolve?”).
God, when asked the same question by Moses, replied “I am that I am”, implying that He is without origin and without end. That will have no meaning for you because you don’t accept God’s existence in any event. However, it has – and has had - enormous meaning for billions of people who believe that His infiniteness confirms their ‘understanding’ of His omnipotence (After all, God could not be God if he wasn’t infinite, because he would otherwise be no more than the creation of some other. Neither can He evolve - as you asked - because that would imply his imperfection, thereby negating him being God).
Unfortunately for theists, God’s existence cannot be scientifically proven (rather than logically surmised) because he is a spiritual and not a physical being. His existence can however be logically surmised and spiritually engaged with. There are plenty of books and articles on line that you can read to understand the reasoning for surmising His existence. It is also not so very difficult to start to engage with Him personally.
I suspect that your mind is closed on this though. Certainly, you repeat the same tired and silly accusation that God’s existence is a fairy tale, contemptuously inferring the superiority of your thinking over that of centuries of philosophers, theologians, mathematicians etc. who have studied, explored, debated, accepted and refuted God’s existence (I doubt your superiority, but happy for you to prove otherwise!). If I’m wrong and your mind remains open, why not focus on what God is before so readily applying a Darwinian theory to deduce what he isn’t. After balancing out all your reading, you may still disagree about whether God exists, but it’s unlikely that you’ll be quite so contemptuous of the 1-1.5 billion people who do believe and try to live their lives accordingly.

Tas Walker

Puzzled: You said: "Evolution = a testable theory based on observation and experiment."

So, who saw the fish grow legs and evolve out onto the land 300 million years ago?

And who was checking their watch (or calendar) to record those 300 million years?

Evolution = imagination

Pot Head

Unlike god, AGW exists.

Andy Carpark

Darwinism: That the fittest survive.

Who do we mean by the fittest? The strongest? The cleverest? No. Weakness and stupidity everywhere survive.

By the fittest we must therefore mean those who survive.

Darwinism: That survivors survive.

Justin Case

There is a great article today on The Greatest Scam On Earth by Sultan Knish. Enjoy...

http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/2009/11/greatest-scam-on-earth.html

Justin Case

Ya - You say "To "create a fit", the only two things are needed, - strong source of variability, and natural selection". Variability in species only loses information. No new genetic information is added - how could it be? So mutations within species due to loss of genetic coding may provide some small benefit but it is impossible for anything new to be added to the species. So species can never become other species; they can only mutate downwards.

SimonP

Apparently you can be a saviour of the world by using these new light bulb thingys.

elixelx

"If my Rabbi told that wall to fall down, it would!"
"If my Rabbi told that wall NOT to fall down, it wouldn't!"
So which of these two students would you believe, Puzzled? And which of these two Rabbis is more powerful?
Can you PROVE where the whale's vestigial bone comes from?
Can you definitively AVER that first you were a fish, which became a mammal, which became a baboon, which became your ancestor? That's YOUR ancestor, not mine!
Can you EXPLAIN beyond reasonable doubt, the imaginary yet omniscient mechanism by which one, single "ORIGIN", became a trillion variegated "SPECIES"?!
You can't! Any more than ordering a wall NOT to fall down is proof of power!
You cannot prove the negative, and that's all "Evolution" comes down to; in the absence of proof to the contrary this or that MUST BE the case! Since we can't know more we must SURMISE this or that!
THAT'S SCIENCE!!!!?
Puzzled, you are not foolish or naive; Your education has been sorely misdirected, is all.
In future, sign in as "Perplexed" , and read a book written just for you,--"The Guide for the Perplexed" by Maimonedes--so that you can cleanse your mind of the unsupported theory that a blind and vicious randomness is the key to the nature of Man!
"He who believes in Chance will suffer the furies of Chance"--"Guide for the Perplexed."

Puzzled

Justin Case. Your knowledge of the mechanisms of genetic variation is rather naive. Gene mutation can occur at many levels - from single nucleotide polymorphisms, to the introduction of stop codons and longer stretches of DNA (whole genes, even) via intron/exon shuffling.

Puzzled

Tas Walker. There's this thing called the 'fossil record' - I expect you've heard of it.

There's this other thing called 'radionuclide decay'. It allows us to date rocks, among other things.

(and no, the Earth wasn't created in 4004 BC)

John Thomas

Puzzled - The one thing we know, concrning Darwinism, is that it can not be tested, or subjected to the repeatability criterion. And the more you learn about Darwinism/evolutionism/materialism the more certain you become that it is an ideological position, or rather, the creation myth of our secularist age.

Justin Case

Political umpire - You are the one whose argument is completely self defeating. “Who created the Creator?” is bogus question. It carries an inherent contradiction. It is like the notion of dry water and hot ice - one can say these phrases but they are meaningless. The whole point of faith in the fact of a Creator is that He is uncreated and eternal - is outside and above the universe and is the One who brought everything into existence. It is the only real explanation for how? and why?

With regard to complexity - you miss my point entirely. I was not talking about space shuttles, the internet and the silicon chip. These things are derived by man from existing created things. I am talking about the inherent and staggeringly complex intelligently coding that demonstrably exists within even the tiniest part of the universe from which man re-creates. The intelligent coded information had to come from a highly intelligent mind. When someone comes across a personal computer with its sophisticated programmes they would never assume that it had come out of nowhere all by itself and over vast aeons of time designed and organised itself into what we see today. Human bodies and indeed the entire building-blocks of the entire universe are vastly more sophisticated and are clearly written in a code that could only have come from an infinitely-intelligent mind.

Justin Case

Puzzled - These so-called ‘remnants’ in whales are not useless at all, but help strengthen the reproductive organs—the bones are different in males and females. So they are best explained by creation, not evolution.

With regard to the supposed link between birds and dinosaurs - Research shows that birds lack the embryonic thumb that dinosaurs had, suggesting that it is “almost impossible” for the species to be closely related. A team led by bird expert Alan Feduccia, chairman of biology at the University of North Carolina, studied bird embryos under a microscope, and published their study in the journal Science.

With regard to your arguments about billions of years. You were the one who talked about testable theories based on observation .Your belief in billions of years is purely blind faith . There is no way on the Creators earth that you can demonstrate billions of years. It’s the difference between experimental science and historical science. The latter is based on theory and speculation and the invention of billions of years is to try and support the impossible blind-faith wish of molecules-to-man evolution.

Molecules-to-man- evolution is a myth with two fundamental problems - 1. Where did time, space and matter come from in the first place? 2. Where could the vast amount of coded information come from for species to become something completely different? Trust in the fact of the Creator has no problem answering these questions. There had to be an infinitely-intelligent mind with infinite-power to bring it into existence in the first place and the information need not be added because it is all there to begin with provided by His infinite wisdom.

Stephen Fox

Surely the issue here is that all religions as well as all crackpot theories (such as AGW) are a matter for private conscience. The employers of this idiot have every right to disregard what he says, though to employ him as 'sustainability officer' seems pretty silly in the first place.
As for the consequences for Christianity, I would suggest that insofar as the precepts and values of the Judaeo-Christian tradition are expressed in our framework of law (and I fully agree with you Melanie that they are), then they are thus defended. I am not against the establishment of the Anglican church as a symbol of that defence.
But in this case, all that counts is the law as it relates to green issues, not anyones inalienble right to have their soppy obsessions appeased

Mailman

Come on guys, many of us have suspected global warming (tm) to be nothing more than a religion for a while now. This ruling only confirms that!

Mailman

Freddy

Hang on a sec, is this the same Mr Justice Burton who ruled that schools could only show "An Inconvenient Truth" if they listed nine significant errors (= places where Gore exaggerated een more than the IPCC reports) ?

Dixon

I am dismayed to discover that my earlier comment has appeared here. will this one?

I am someone to whom the question of veridicality is vital and who sees the trumpeting of "consensus" as though that were proof of anything as in itself an objection to AGW. But I also see AGW as only the core of a baggage of assumptions and moral presuppositions that I find objectionable, irrespective of whether the hypothesis itself is valid. To whit, the fundamental assumption by environmentalists that there is a moral imperative upon me to circumscribe my life to benefit the lives of others. Quite simply, why the hell should I?

That established, I then must note that this column seems to draw an awful lot of muddled comments not only from addled supporters of AGW but, even worse, people who lambast Darwinism whilst clearly not having the foggiest idea what they are talking about.

I blame David Attenborough, whose 50 year career on television has been an appalling wasted opportunity to educate people, thrown away on such idiotic lines as "...there was more food on land so they evolved legs". Evolution doiesnt work like that. If anyone is lead to believe that it is supposed to they can be forgiven for thinking its absurd. Someone like Attenborough who basically knows what to say but seems incapable of conveying it cannot be so forgiven.

But that is beside my point, which is that the constant linking of criticism of AGW ( legitimate in my opinion ) on this blog with expressions of ignorance about evolution ( understandable, given how poorly the idea is communicated by "experts" ) is deeply unfortunate. It enables AGW proponents to easily conclude that their critics are all of the same ilk.

George

A couple of light-hearted thoughts:

If AGW is a religion, does that mean that it can no longer be taught in US schools?

If AGW is a religion, does that make Al Gore the Archbishop?

Keith

There is an assumption that the standards of morality, ethics, behaviour and support for goodness and the law of the land are greater among the religious than the non religious and those with other lifestyles. There is no evidence whatsoever to support this, it is based solely on the self aggrandisement of the religious, but there is evidence that the organised religions place doctrine above all other values.

Tuffers

Presumably Professor Nutt will now be able to claim unfair dismissal for his "belief" that cannabis is less harmful than alcohol.

Political Umpire

Justin Case, you simply repeat your same mistakes, and in the first instance, try and make a virtue out of absurdity. There is no logic in saying (i) humans are too complex to have evolved; therefore (ii) they must have been created by some fantastical entity who is totally exempt from any similar criteria. There is no an iota of evidence for this. At most you can say that present scientific knowledge doesn't provide a compelling case for the origins of the universe or life within it. That might be the case, but it provides no - absolutely no - support for any alternative theory such as one eternal supernatural being, still less one that might be associated with any known religion (I'm not saying you said that it did, but others certainly do). It might be we are part of an alien experiment, or created by a committee of sky faries, or anything your imagination can come up with, but it is absurd to say that (a) because we can't explain the universe's origin that (b) your explanation must be right or even have a shred of support. It's like when creationists say "we can't prove God exists, because then he wouldn't be God", which is just farcical.

The point about complexity you misunderstood, so I'll try again. You say that dna etc is complex. So what? The amazonians I describe might think that man alone could not have built the space shuttle; there must have been divine help. Yet given enough time it could be shown to them that in fact no divine help was needed, and that although complex, the shuttle was not impossibly complex for humans to have invented it.

Similarly, here you are asserting that evolution (which isn't about chance at all, but natural selection, which is the opposite of chance) can't explain the development of humans without a divine creator starting it all off, because it's too "complex". And yet in the future science may be able to explain it all, thus removing the need for the God factor. Just as people once couldn't understand how rainbows or tidal waves occurred, so put it down to God.

Tony Allwright

Global-warm-mongering is of course a religion, or at least a cult. Have a look at Climate Changeology Cult

Kyle Becker

Argument between theists and scientifically bent individuals over the truth of evolution and the "Truth" of Creation is fruitless.

Basically, the scientifically minded individuals are of two camps: Those who think evolution is consistent with divine Creation; and those who think evolution is inconsistent with a Creator in the Judaeo-Christian mold.

Essentially, all conversations between the theists and the scientifically bent individuals will break down into squabbling over the meaning of the Creation (I personally find the literal interpretation of a Creator making the earth in six days along with all the plants and animals laughable) or the timing of the Creation or the purely emotional argument over why men descended or did not descend from apes.

This is not a rational argument between two camps both interested in truth. One already thinks it knows "the truth" on a level that defies reason (quite literally); the other side thus becomes charged with dispelling myth and breaking faith's hold on the mind of the other to clear the way to debate matters scientifically." Nothing good will follow.

Sergey

Melanie, you may be right in that AGW is philosophy. That is, present level of knowledge insufficient both to confirmation of it or rejection of it. What is worse, I suspect that no future improvement of this knowledge would be able to resolve this riddle. Some problems, even when they are clearly posed, do not have a positive solution. No system with truly chaotic behavior can be reliably prognosticated by any deterministic model, and we simply have no clues if climate system is chaotic or not. No amount of observation will tell us this. So I am really agnostic about AGW, as any mathematician that understand non-linear dynamic theory, should be. But if the current cooling trend will prolong for another decade, everything for warmist bandwagon will be lost. Again, I do not know if this will happen.

YA

Tas Walker:

According to your logics, your grand-grand-grandfather is also an imagination, because you've never seen him.

Those who are doubtful about evolution, try this imaginary construction.

Imagine yourself, as you were when your child was born, standing near to your father as he was in the time when you were born, stading near to his father.. and so on. If you walked, in your imagination, along this chain of your relatives, you would find that, already after 200 meters they will be very different from yourself. Your ancestors standing in less than kilometer distance, could meet neanderthals in their lifetime. Those standing in 20 kilometers distance.. not sure if you could recognize them as humans.

So here it is, a sketch of your personal evolution - suggested only by available historical facts and very basic logics (you only should agree that your ancestors were born, that's it). There is nothing negative or humiliating in this picture; to the contrary, I find it instructive and even breathtaking.

You can prefer some delusion sanctified by religion, this is your choice, but just think for a moment, - to deny your ancestors their existence means to betray them. Can you imagine how some of your grand-grand-grand..-children will simply say that you never existed, because it's just unimaginable to be related to that low life?

Martin Archer

Puzzled, below, should read Karl Popper to see if Evolution, as a 'testable theory based on observation and experiment' 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.

hadrian

As a convinced Bible-believing Christian I have no problem with recognising that everyone is inherently religious and that without some overarching world-view would slump into what sociologist, Peter Berger calls 'anomic collapse'. Agreed-call it religion or ideology or world-view, we all need one so this Green thing seems fair enough even if we do rather suspect it is a pretty threadbare substitute for reality.
As for the atheist's constant refrain that belief in a Personal Creator is 'mediaeval' and irrational, some of us would retort that it is the atheist who is ultimately faced with irrationalism at the heart of their existence- wanting and more often than not acting as if life were purposefully created with meaning yet maintaining it is nothing more than a cosmic 'glitch'.

Paul

Puzzled: "... there's this thing called the 'fossil record' - I expect you've heard of it ...". But actually the fossil record does NOT support Darwin's theory. It shows a sudden appearance of most of the animal phyla that are still alive today as well as some that are now extinct - in the so-called "Cambrian explosion". Darwin's theory predicts a long history of gradual diversion common ancestor, which is not found in the fossil record. Darwin himself was aware of this flaw in his theory, but believed that future fossil finds would vindicate it. They haven't.

Roger K

I am sure Melanis must be dismayed by some of the muddled, obtuse and quite frankly irrelevant argument that takes place on her blog. From an employment issue to what is philosophy to comparative religion and the comments of an ignorant judge. Rupert Dickinson was made redundant, that means his job/position no longer exists, not that he was sacked because of this or that reason. The trouble making chancer was trying to screw a few dollars out of his former employer and the judge swallowed it. The insights the outcome gives to the moral bankruptcy and degradation of British society and political life is worth noting.
When I am talking to climate change/global warming activists I find that because their arguments no longer have a base in fact but the implications of their proposed legislation is so far reaching, I can only deal with them by showing how ridiculous they are and therefore their arguments are equally ridicolous. To paraphrase Marx, our business is not to understand them but to deal to them.
No wonder they win when all our effort goes into remote debate on creationism as opposed to evolution. An Oxford Debate never won the war.

James Newbound

You write that, "because of his belief in climate change Dickinson was entitled to the same protection against discrimination as someone with religious convictions."

You go on, "The second step was the judge’s decision that man-made global warming was a philosophy."

I'll preface this by stating that I have not read the judgement, but I think it has been misunderstood by you, or perhaps your sources. Or perhaps it is the judge who has misunderstood his bedtime reading!

A philosophy is a collection of principles upon which a way of life is founded. Surely the judge was awarding protection not on the merit or significance of the beliefs themselves, but on a lifestyle adhered to due to those beliefs. Conversely, if a belief-system is held such that it informs ethical life decisions, what exactly bars it from being a "religious" belief?

Freedom of religion is nothing other than the freedom to practise one's religion. Or, manifest one's ethical codes - one's philosophy.

Unless one were to make some value-judgement, how is the philosophy of Christianity and the philosophy of "Green" anything other than equivalent?

As loony as it seems, its perfectly logical.

YA

Paul:

"Cambrian explosion" is well explained by a start of symbiosis at tissue/organ/organism level; the bulk of this job was done even earlier, at ~1mm scale, in soft matter, without endoskeletons, so there is no chance of fossil proof. We live with result.

On common ancestor of chimp and human - have you heard about ardipitecus, discovered month ago? That is 4.4 million years back, still on our, human branch.
But ask any anthropologist about species on this branch, ("Lucy" etc.) - they will say that they are NOT humans. Again if there was a possibility to meet and communicate with Ardis, most likely you would find that they are rather apes.

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.

Arthur Dent

But life is a cosmic glitch, Hadrian. Ultimately, it's meaningless and random, and we're just fighting, rutting animals scratching around for a living in the dirt. The Universe is blind and pitiless. Any number of Cosmic events could sterilise our planet in the blink of an eye.

But don't let it get you down, at least we have Internet comment boards to bang away at!

Sergey

As a lot of comments here clearly demonstrate, there is a widespread, persistent confusion between fact of evolution and Darwinism, whis is a specific theory explaining this fact. Fact is undeniable, but this explanation is manifestly wrong and is not supported by fossil record. The best British epistemiologist Carl Popper explicitly refused to grant Darwinsm the status of scientific theory and categorized it as philosophy. The same is situation with AGW: a dubious and unprovable explanation of the fact that we, indeed, have 30 years long warming trend, which can terminate and reverse in the future or can prolong. Nobody actually knows what will happen in the future. Computer models in principle can not tell us that, because it is impossible to write into models all pertinent factors, and every model already is a somewhat arbitrary theory implying which factors are meaningful and which are not. The same circular reasoning we can see in all modern versions of Darwinism: we chose a model and project expectation from it, and when these expectations fail, make ad hoc assumptions to reconcile discrepancies. Popper rightly found such practice to be non-scientific and more appropriate for theological reasoning.

Sergey

"Unless one were to make some value-judgement, how is the philosophy of Christianity and the philosophy of "Green" anything other than equivalent?"
One have ultimately make this value-judgement and chose between Cristianity and paganizm. "Green" philosophy is manifestly pagan, and history shows that this choice is a very consequential one. Pagan religion always was destructive to any society which harbor it. All pagan civilizations were short-lived and either perished or were transformed and saved by embracing Christianity. The same will happen to post-Christian West: it will either collapse or return to its Christian roots. What do you prefer? Of course, this is a value-judgement, but a quite obvious one for any reasonable person.

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!

Arthur Dent

Someone here asked why various commentators are discussing evolution in this thread. It's very simple. Quoting Phillips' original blog entry - "From which it follows that Darwinism too must now be afforded the status of a religion."

Darwinism and religion are strong meat. Of course it's going to get a response (and more page hits for the Spectator, presumably).

YA

Sergey: "..philosophy asserting omnipotence of scientific method.." - just don't hang it on me, OK? "Omnipotence" is meaningless word originated from the same lazy religious thinking. Oh - and 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 (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?

gareth

You have a keen intellect Melanie.

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

Martin Archer

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

andrew adams

You know, all you AGW deniers out there, the scientific principles are very simple to understand. CO2 is a greenhouse gas - it absorbs infrared radiation and thereby traps heat, which in turn warms the planet. This principle was proved long ago and is unquestionable true.
If you increase the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere you will increase the amount of heat which is trapped and increase the amount of warming. The relationship is not a linear one but there has been a great deal of research to determine the extent of temperature increase for a given increase in CO2 levels.
Now it is unquestionably true that CO2 levels have increased drastically in the last 100+ years and that this is due to human activity. The basic physics says that this should lead to an increase in global temperatures.
The onus on you is to explain why basic principle of physics have been violated and increased CO2 levels have not caused increased warming, and why, given the fact that we have> seen increased warming and that there is no evidence that any of the other known factors which influence the climate can be held responsible why we shouldn't hold increased CO2 levels to at least be the primary suspect.

YA

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

Noa Zrk

This judgement clearly demonstrates the logical and practical anomalies arising from the widespread establishment of mind crimes. An effective tool for the intellectual crippling of society.

Derek BLADES

By now "Puzzled" may want to change is pen-name to "Flabbergasted".

I think we all knew there were still some evolution-deniers out there but I thought they were confined to the more backward bits of America. It is a real eye-opener to see so many surfacing right here in the United Kingdom. A positive feeding frenzy of religious bigotry and a sad reflection on the state of science education in our schools.

No professional botanist or biologist now questions Darwin’s basic theory of evolution. Of course, some argue points of detail - as in any other branch of science.

Ms Phillip’s blog was actually about global warming not Darwin. Given that the world is getting warmer the question she raises is whether human activity is wholly or partly responsible. A very large majority of climatologists and earth scientists believe that burning fossil fuels is one of the causes. Why should we not take that seriously and try to do something about it. I am too old to fear the long-term consequences of global warming but I have children and grandchildren who will certainly be affected. Looks to me like ordinary decency to do what we can to reduce the risks for future generations.

Fran

'From which it follows that Darwinism too must now be afforded the status of a religion'

It's official! Richard Dawkins is RELIGIOUS!

Sergey

To Andrew Adams:
"The basic physics says that this should lead to an increase in global temperatures."
In principle, this is true, and actualy nobody denies this. But devil is in details, and these details are far from being clear. What amount of increase of temperature we will have for given rise of carbon dioxide concentations? What proportion of greenhouse effect is due to CO2, what to water vapor, what to methane? As a physical problem, it has not quantitative solution yet. While absorption frequencies for all three main greenhouse gases are known, they form many sharp lines. Due to interaction between molecules and radiation these lines became fussy, giving more wide bands, but quantum-mechanical calculation of the resulting radiation balance is extremly difficult and can not be achieved at present. All we have are "guestimates": not robust calculations from the first principles, as many people believe, but model-based estimates. And they vary by an order of magnitude. Yes, we have no reliable quantitative assessment of climate sensitivity to rise of CO2. It can be catastrophic, or it can be negligible, with everything in between. This is the state of art now. And before we get better understanding of physics of atmosphere radiation balance, we could just as well to read tea leaves. And this is not the only problem haunting AGW. Even more important is our inability to explain or quantify the natural variability of climate system - Ice Ages and interstadials, Little Ice Age, PDO and so on. Since all these phenomena are not satisfactory understood, we have no basis to assert that last 30 year warming is due to CO2 rise and not to natural decadal cycles with no relation to CO2 and with no reason to expect further rise of global temperature. Nothing is known for sure!

Derek BLADES

Sergey, November 7, concludes his reflections on global warming with "Nothing is known for sure!"

This is surely too pessimistic. We know that carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide and methane - all of which are being discharged into the atmosphere in unprecedented quantities - trap heat and warm the planet.

It is true, as you say, that we do not know by exactly how much climate change is due to release of these gases but it would be naive in the extreme to assume that they are having no impact at all. That seems to be Ms Phillips' position but I hope it is not yours.

Governance most often requires that decisions are made using imperfect knowledge. World leaders, acting on the advice of their science advisors, are now discussing how to limit emissions of greenhouse gases. Given the available evidence, imperfect though it may be, this strikes me as a sensible thing to do. But perhaps you disagree and would prefer that they go on fiddling while Rome burns?

Sergey

"But perhaps you disagree and would prefer that they go on fiddling while Rome burns?"
This language of hysterics. It is not known if Rome burns at all, and in all projections the expected temperature rise is very gradual. We have plenty of time to reassess policy measures, and to burn trillions of dollars in panic to prevent imaginary danger is not in my book a reasonable response. Some impact of man-made emissions is possible, but it can be simply negligible, and all proposed measures, even if implemented, can have a negligible impact. Better to bet on economic growth and accomodation to change which it will make possible. Two decades from now will show if there is a problem, to begin with. Modern alarmists remind me primordial heathens who want to throw a virgin into volcano in hope it will save them from eruption, plague, drought or tsunami. They do not know for sure if it will help them, but from precarious principle believe that it will not harm. But present-day pagans want to throw into volcano global economic growth to show their piety and appease Gaia wrath. I am not a person ready to join such lunacies.

Sergey

World political leaders want to hear only such scientific opinions that suit their political goals, and ignore everything else. And their standing goal is to tighten their grip on society - is it any news to you? Cap-and-trade suit this goal ideally. In Ruussia whose budget up to 80% consists of oil and gas revenues, they recommend to expand drilling and build new nuclear plants to sell more gas abroad.

YA

Sergey: you are theorist, obviously. One can take air samples from different altitudes and MEASURE absorption. Then one can steal some man-made gases from samples, to simulate state of atmosphere some number of years ago, and measure again. Most likely there will be influence of man-made gases, but that is still not the end of story. Gases are catched by soil, plants, and go to sea water.
Anyway, - Melanie considers sociopathic projection of GW, not scientific. And I agree with her that over-reactions on GW aren't justified. First, these effects are not so harmful (maximum, will need some population and resources redistribution, big deal; it goes on anyway). Second, they work at hundred years scale. Humanity evolves fast; in 500 years time who knows what will be.. Yes one should study it, and seriously, but without this hysteria.

Sergey

VA: Yes, I am mathematician, but the problem I refered to can not be solved by measurments alone. We need not take samles, we already know empirically and can measure absorption rates for different gas compositions in laboratory. But these measurements useless without algorithm to calculate radiation balance in the whole air column from the surface to 12 km, and we have not such algorithm. Only theoretic formulas can be fed into models to predict how things would vary in course of time. We also can measure radiation fluxes from sattelites with microwave spectrometers, but only for present co2 concentrations; it is imposiible to extrapolate from these data for hypothetical future concentrations. The best observational data can not substitute for absent theory: they told us only about here and now, not what can happen in the future.

Roger K

Further to Andrew Adams claim that C02 causes global warming, take off the Al Gore prescribed specs and look at geo-physical history, C02 rises follow temperature rise not vice versa.

"Oh, what a tangled web we weave when we first begin to deceive."

The obvious lies of carbon emissions begin to be revealed when the basis for carbon trading have to be evaluated.

I challenge Andrew Adams or any UN IPCC scientist to refute the following UNIPPC facts, there is not one shred of empirical scientific evidence to link carbon emissions with Global Warming. All of the following are UN IPPC facts.

Of all the CO2 emissions released into the atmosphere every year, only approximately 3.4% is caused by humans. Everything that is, worldwide.

The rest is accounted from forests, non-vegative organic life, volcanoes and oceans etc. 98.3%!

Of human emissions 1.7% actually goes into the atmosphere. The rest is locked up in plants and other surface level "sinks" that utilise carbon.

On top of this CO2 accounts for only 10% of the grenhouse effect, the biggest contibution coming from water vapour, mostly clouds, those fluffy things up there in the sky!

DO THE MATH!

THIS MEANS AT THE VERY MOST WE CAN ONLY CONTROL 0.17% OF GLOBAL WARMING EFFECT ANNUALLY.

Again since the late 1800s when industrialisation really got under way the best estimate is that humans have only contibuted 2.5% of the total greenhouse effect.
That is 2.5% of a 0.5 C rise is 0.01 C.

Carbon Emissions Trading is an obvious scam for making money from peoples' fears. Fools, scoundrels and carpet-baggers abound! It will cost every individual and family dearly in the middle of a recession for no good reason. But perhaps the Green Marxists di have a reason, back to year 0?

I understand the environmentalists desire to control our rampant pollution and in-balance with the Third World, but lies are not the way to do it.

The end never justifies the means. Lets get real, not pointless arguements there is a god, there aint a god or of philosophy which has become so narrow and specialised it's irrelevant.

paulg

This Judge clearly does not know what he is talking about. The only known ideology that I know of that cites Darwinism as a philosophical imperative is National Socialism.
The ‘proverbial’ will hit the fan when people start citing eugenics next! As a basis for their claims. Honestly, this misguided government have adopted stupidity as a philosophical basis of their ideology.

Derek BLADES

Sergey 7 November replied to me about climate change with the words "We have plenty of time to reassess policy measures,..." and later "Two decades from now will show if there is a problem, to begin with."

Comforting words indeed and they might be appropriate if what was at issue was whether to construct a new bypass or enlarge a football stadium.

But we are talking about the future of planet earth which is the only one we have. Two decades from now might well be two decades too late. For an issue this big let us err on the side of caution.

Sergey

Derek, no action taken now could make any difference. We simply can not stop burn coal, oil and gas because we have not alternative technology to replace using fossil fuel. The only meaningful action would be to build new nuclear plants as quickly as possible. But we can do it anyway, regardless if AGW is true or not. This does not require any carbon taxes or cap-and-trade, only political will to ignore Greenies and giving government guaranties of loans to private investors (capital construction costs are huge, and these plants will repay only in 15 years; this why such guaranties are needed). But this course of action will not empower policians, and this is the only reason it is not pursued. Just now there is no measurable warming, temperature is flat for 11 years, and many projections indicate that this will hold at least another decade. No reason for haste and terrible waste of trillions dollars. Going nuclear still is the best investment in climate, regardless.

Nick J

Lovely stuff, Melanie.

Derek BLADES

Sergey. All is forgiven. We nuclear fans are thin on the ground at present, so welcome to the club.

I currently live in France where 85% of electricity is nuclear. French reactors are safe, they emit virtually no green-house gases and electricity is cheap compared with prices in the rest of Europe. As you correctly note, nuclear is the only practical way to reduce carbon emissions. Windmills and sunshine are just not going to do it.

Committments under Kyoto and, hopefully, Copenhagen will convince governments that they must go the nuclear road. There is no other way to meet the kind of reduction targets we must have.

Gerard

Quite so!

hadrian

Arthur Dent-
Well, let's hope you consistently live by that brute and nihilistic philosophy! We expect all atheists to face up to that terrible truth to which they consign themselves and the gift of life by their faithlessness and rebellion against their Maker. No stealing of morality and moral standards, please, no moral indignation because, hey, ultimately nothing is of value, value is delusion. Little wonder our society is crumbling when it embraces and instils such 'values' in its young.

Derek BLADES

hadrian, November 10th, told Arthur Dent- "Well, let's hope you consistently live by that brute and nihilistic philosophy! We expect all atheists to face up to that terrible truth to which they consign themselves and the gift of life by their faithlessness and rebellion against their Maker."

I cannot speak for Arthur Dent but I can answer as a fellow atheist. My own philosphy is not "brute" (perhaps you meant "brutal") nor is it nihilistic. It is an optimistic, outgoing and inquisitive kind of philosophy and I am constantly finding delight in the companionship of others and the wonders of nature. All this without any intervention by an imaginary, and possibly sinister, "Maker"!

Moreover, I live by a moral code that I think you would find perfectly acceptable. It is based on the well known "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" rule. This, as you may have noticed, is common to all religions and indeed to pagan/heathen/animist societies. We don't need religions to teach us morals. Common sense is quite adequate.

Iain

Justin Case wrote:
' But it is impossible for a species to become another species.'

Wrong. New species are observed to evolve. It's a trivial, mundane fact that new species evolve. And yet, the antievolution movement in America has succeeded completely in propagating the idea that this is somehow controversial.

It is a 'manufactroversy' after all. I deemed it conclusive when I read that post. The debate is poisoned utterly. Half-sincerely, half-mischevously, but definitely poisoned.

Iain

Paul wrote:
'But actually the fossil record does NOT support Darwin's theory. It shows a sudden appearance of most of the animal phyla that are still alive today as well as some that are now extinct - in the so-called "Cambrian explosion". Darwin's theory predicts a long history of gradual diversion common ancestor'

More debate-poison.

The Cambrian explosion is a very early diversification of very simple hard-bodied organisms(basically the earliest decent fossils), and is followed by billions of years-worth of gradual transition.

Iain

'These so-called ‘remnants’ in whales are not useless at all, but help strengthen the reproductive organs—the bones are different in males and females. So they are best explained by creation, not evolution.'

The main significance of the whale hipbone is not that it is useless, but that it is a bone which does not exist in other aquatic animals such as fish, and does co-exist alongside other mammalian whale traits such as lungs(instead of gills) and nostril(blowhole), and live birth. A set of mammalian traits which have no particular functional need to form a set, but do anyway, in a whole category of animals known as 'mammals'.