curmudgeonathome,
While I agree there are genuine objections to SSM, I can't agree that the article is of little value and should be ignored, because your other comments show you're making precisely the kind of logical error that Brian Morris is writing about!

Your likening of the anti-vaxers are to those who believe in global warming/climate change is an irrational emotional reaction to what you see as "doom and gloom and conspiracies". But crucially, you are ignoring the evidence. Science shows us the temperature of the planet is increasing. It explains why the increasing concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere warms the planet. But because of your emotional reaction to what the consequences could be if we don't do something about it, you prefer to reject the evidence and base your opinions on your irrational wishful thinking instead.

y Brian says:” those who reject clear evidence of climate change”
Presumably he means by "climate change" the human effect on climate. There is no science to show any measurable human effect on climate, so his support for the climate fraud is based on ignorance, if he is unaware of the absence of science, or dishonesty, if he is aware of the science deficiency, but dishonestly supports the fraud.
If you have any science, Brian, please refer us to it.
You have made an effort to understand the human condition. It is understandable that you are off to such a bad start, because we know so little about it.

Reading this article was like standing in fecal storm and finding that one was left unsoiled. The advocates of scientism are adept at using the most obvious and shallow criticism that may apply to many religious but fail to reach a serious point.

I have had an interest in evolutionary psychology and given seminars on the Swiss army knife view of the brain. I have read Pascal Boyer's book 'Religion explained". This was all interesting but none of it undermined my understanding of Christian theology. It seems that our detractors have to work much harder than this to make a dent.

And then there is the old chestnut: religion is a cultural construct. Well, of course, what else could it be? It is not part of nature although it obviously situated in the natural world as everything is. You might as well say, gravely, that the Renaissance was a cultural construct. But this obviously misses the point.

It is possible to work in science (neuroscience) and theology without producing mind paralysing contradictions. This article is overblown in an entirely partisan fashion.

Today's truth is based on selecting the parts you like and ignoring the rest.
Facts are based on 'preferred view', and the desire of truth by the masses is anchored by the option of inaction being available at all times.
In short, if I don't like it, it's not true

Meanwhile the best pseudo scientist can came up with for origins is the big bang fantasy. You would think with such irrational nonsense you would just shut up. oh well anything to deny the obvious (design requires Designer, creation demands a Creator). I really don't think Brian even knows what the word rational means. for those deluded by the man made warming religion it means denying the facts and demonising those who disagree. Btw anyone found the missing link yet? I thought not. Just waiting for fraudulent claim 6050.

Brian – when your very first sentence is seriously mistaken, it is hard to take the rest of your article seriously.

You say that there is an “evolutionary flaw”.

No, if materialistic evolution is true, as you evidently believe, there can be no “flaw” in it. To say that something has a flaw in it is to infer that this thing is not the way it was meant to be: something is wrong with it.

But if the universe has unintentionally happened to have come into being then there is no particular way that it is meant to be. It is irrational to claim that there is something wrong with it or any part of it (humans as in your article); it just is what it happens to be and we are just what we happen to be.

Of course you may prefer things to be one way rather than another, but unless you think you are God, there really seems to be no reason why anyone should care what your preferences are.

It is also worth noting that in your whole article you never say that you think that humans have real free will. Unless we can actually choose between alternative ways of being and thinking, then there really is no point in going on like you do.

But of course, accounting for free will in a materialistic universe that has just happened into being is a huge problem for you so I see why you have avoided the subject. It does destroy your article though.