Caught in the crossfire

Monday, February 09, 2009

Caught in the crossfire

A propos yesterday's piece on Darwin, there is a timely letter in The Daily Telegraph signed by the ranks of the "great and the good". In part, it reads:

Evolution, we believe, has become caught in the crossfire of a religious battle in which Darwin had little interest. Despite his own loss of Christian faith, he wrote shortly before his death: "It seems to me absurd to doubt that a man may be an ardent Theist and an evolutionist."

We respectfully encourage those who reject evolution to weigh the now overwhelming evidence, hugely strengthened by recent advances in genetics, which testifies to the theory's validity.

At the same time, we respectfully ask those contemporary Darwinians who seem intent on using Darwin's theory as a vehicle for promoting an anti-theistic agenda to desist from doing so, as they are, albeit unintentionally, turning people away from the theory.

That, in effect, captures the sprit of what we (and Booker) were trying to say. The theory (and that it is) has been hijacked by interest groups pursuing an agenda which has nothing to do with the theory itself, displaying precisely the intolerance on which Booker remarked.

A theory, however powerful or popular, is still a theory. The essence of science is open (and courteous) discussion. The improvement in knowledge follows (or should follow) the traditional, tried and tested process of thesis (theory), antithesis (arguments against) and synthesis.

In that context, the antithesis is as much part of the scientific process as is the thesis. Doubters are not "deniers" or whatever epithet the howling mob cares to throw at them. They are part of the process which leads to greater understanding. A good theory withstands the challenge and emerges stronger. The weak go to the wall - a process, if you like, of natural selection.

That is, of course, why the evangelistic Darwinians (or neo-Darwinians) have so much in common with the warmists, as Booker pointed out. In their attempts to suppress debate they are the embodiment of anti-science, despite their claims to be reliant on the scientific method they so obviously reject.

Science is not just about facts – it is about process. Without that, we live in the age of unreason.

COMMENT THREAD

Race to the bottom

Irish fishermen are unhappy with the EU, according to the Irish Times, which is hardly surprising as they have fared almost as badly from the CFP as British fishermen.

What is really interesting though is the response from the Irish fisheries minister, Tony Killeen, which demonstrates quite how seriously the EU erodes national powers.

First though, the issue which is causing the ire of the fishermen is the EU's days-at-sea rule controlling the catches of the whitefish fleet which, it is claimed, unfairly penalise those who have fished less over the last decade. 

The days at sea scheme, which rations the days fishermen are allowed to leave port, is being applied on the basis of recent track record, as a "conservation measure". But the problem is that those fishermen who co-operated with earlier conservation schemes and thereby fished less are now being awarded fewer days than those who did not.

At the moment, the scheme is being applied on a three-month trial basis along a limited section of the coast, principally affecting Donegal fishermen, and they are looking to the fisheries minister for relief from what is clearly an unfair anomaly.

And this is what makes Killeen's reaction interesting. He had discussions with the fishing federation at the weekend, when his response not to offer any amelioration but simply to argue that it could have been worse.

But for the government's action, he said, the scheme could have applied to the whole of the Celtic Sea. "The reality of EU fisheries councils is that you don't get everything you want. If we had refused to co-operate, this measure would have been applied further around the coastline," Mr Killeen said.

That's the reality of membership of the EU. You accept something you don't want, and would not have done if you were still an independent nation, on the basis that, if you do not accept it, you get something considerably worse.

Then, in the scheme of things, the minister parades this as a "victory" and expects a pat on the back. That is now how the system works.

COMMENT THREAD