[iancw]

> A scientist isn't committed to believing in natural selection in the same way a bibilical literalist is committed to rejecting it. All he's committed to is following the evidence wherever it leads.

At the risk of responding out of identity, but also with the hope of contributing constructively despite having some identity at stake:

A literal interpretation of the bible doesn't preclude accepting natural selection as an ongoing, observable process. It may reject that process as the explanation of our species' origins. Those two are often conflated, contributing to the identity-driven, emotion-filled discussion that PG describes.

Regarding the main premise of the article, I think it's possible to have rational, logical discussions about topics in which identity is involved. They are more challenging than, say, discussing Javascript. But I don't think those discussions work well on the internet. They require trust (that both parties will be heard in good faith) careful check of emotions, motivations, and reasoning. Those are even more challenging without high-bandwidth communication aids like facial expressions and tone of voice.

[reedlaw]

It's quite possible to see flamewars when discussing javascript, e.g. ember vs angular, OO-style or functional, etc. Or the classic emacs vs vim. So I don't think argumentativeness is exclusive to politics and religion by any means.