Does Swamidass’ new “genealogical adams and eves” hypothesis unknowingly serve to “make God a monster”?

As 2020 both cools down in temperature and heats up in rhetoric, here is a response to S. Joshua Swamidass’ recent book that deserves more air time given how a few evangelical Protestant theologians and apologists are expressing surprised praise at it, calling it a ‘game changer’ because of ‘genealogy’ vs. ‘genetics’. I would consider it a ‘game changer’ only in a borrowed or catch-up sense of that term, given Swamidass’ YECist+ audience. Any thoughts here on this critical review of the book by a fellow evangelical active at BioLogos?

From what I’ve read so far, I do not see that Swamidass “makes God a monster” in the book. That rather appears to be what comes from Johnson’s hermeneutics, rather than Swamidass’ intentions or expressions. BioLogos was similarly confused, and hadn’t read Kemp, much like Swamidass (that is, until he finally did). Swamidass has previously written about dungeons & suffering, which perhaps by some people may be mistaken as ‘monstrous’. It would be more appropriate and charitable to say, ‘he knows not what he does’ by opening this rift. Thus, he speaks about “what it means to be human?” as a distant (methodological) naturalist, with an important background personal concern involving local fellow YECists and activistic sociology behind the book’s publication (e.g. choice of publishing house).

I agree with Johnson’s general critique of the book, though with few of his specific ones, given there are other answers that he too apparently hasn’t considered. Swamidass in my interpretation openly & repeatedly distorts the science, philosophy, theology/worldview conversation with his ideology. He intentionally or unintentionally leaves so much important work out, in particular, the work of Catholics and Orthodox, by and large. Nevertheless, he does his work inviting ‘correction’ of facts, data, and empirical natural-physical scientific findings, and speaks as an ex-YEC activist in such a nice, warm and cuddly non-mainline covenant, optimistic way, which makes me thankful for this book & his website. My sincere hope is that the book won’t confuse too many people, and may instead somehow help especially evangelical YECists finally take a step or several steps forward, in order to catch up with where most other Christians have been standing in a more balanced science, philosophy, theology/worldview position already rather calmly for years, wondering why the narrow literalistic evangelicalist efforts on this topic have so badly missed the mark in peoples’ hearts and minds.

“The logic of Genealogical Adam and Eve is entirely circular and makes God a monster.” – Jay Johnson

0

218 thoughts on “Does Swamidass’ new “genealogical adams and eves” hypothesis unknowingly serve to “make God a monster”?

  1. “I do not see that Swamidass “makes God a monster”

    He makes Him look like confused and hypocritical God by prohibiting bestiality, and yet, there is no way for Swamidass’ theory of genealogical A & E to work, unless humans break God’s commandment against bestiality…

    Confusing scientist and hypocritical Christian…

    0
  2. I think the idea needs work. I applaud anything that gets the scientific claims back where they belong.

    0
  3. colewd:
    I think the idea needs work.

    What kind of work is needed for this idea to work, Bill?

    colewd: I applaud anything that gets the scientific claims back where they belong.

    What are you applauding???

    Which means this idea belongs where…exactly?

    0
  4. Gregory, are you still persona non grata at Swamidass’ “Peaceful Science” site? It would be encouraging to hear that he has ceased to suppress dissenting views at his site. It would be even more encouraging it it were true. #Skeptical

    0
  5. J-Mac: What kind of work is needed for this idea to work, Bill?

    I can see how the PS crowd could see the GAE as beneficial, since it means Christians do not have to see science as ruling out a de novo creation of Adam and Eve, and thus can be more accommodating to the more general evolution claims. The de novo creation is important for doctrine of original sin, as it provides a source for sin to be transmitted throughout all modern humanity.

    But, it seems really tenuous. For instance, if true, then it would have been great if a dinosaur stepped on Adam and Eve, and prevented sin from contaminating the rest of the humans created in the image of God, since the GAE does not rule out other such beings unrelated to Adam and Eve.

    Or, if we aren’t being too picky about timelines, why not a genealogical Solo and Leia theory, where humanity had its beginnings in a galaxy and time far far away, until they eventually made it here to earth and populate it? I don’t think science rules out this possibility, either, to use Swamidass’ line of reasoning. This is great, actually, because now the PS crowd can welcome in the Jedi religion as well, by providing a scientific basis for their beliefs. Their scripture is a bit more recent, being transmitted through the prophet Lucas, but it’s rude to show chronological snobbery towards religions.

    More to my liking, I propose a genealogical Beren and Luthien from the Silmarillion. I don’t think we can scientifically rule out the account in the Silmarillion, since (spoiler alert) near the end of the Silmarillion the fabric of reality is drastically altered by Illuvatar, so scientific evidence after the fact doesn’t tell us much about what occurred before, thus the Silmarillion is consistent with modern science. We have to rely on the prophet Tolkien in this case to tell us what happened before the world change.

    0
  6. Mung,

    Belated Christmas greetings! & welcome back if that’s a 2020 thing for you.

    Of course, as you know, it’s impossible to ever be(come) a persona non grata at Peaceful Science because the democratically-minded Swamidass welcomes EVERYONE (“Whatever your personal beliefs, we saved a chair for you.”), no matter which fair and in-bounds questions they ask him to clarify, due to the current ambiguities & gaps in his message. = P

    “It would be encouraging to hear that he has ceased to suppress dissenting views at his site.”

    I’m unaware of the #s of those whose dissenting voices he has suppressed, though doubt they are many. He seems to think he can be a ‘Science bully’ towards people who speaks a different disciplinary language than he does on the topic “what does it mean to be a human being?” A philosophical nitwit, Swamidass is pretending this as a ‘naturalist’ against a ‘humanist’ when the topic is humanity! Wrong & dumb, arrogant-scientist move. Evangelicals too will eventually realize this about his self-named ‘Swamidass model’; this is a physician who hasn’t healed himself from treacherous YECist ideology.

    0
  7. EricMH,

    This doesn’t look good on you, again Eric. Are you one of the IDists who hadn’t thought for a single second in their life about ‘genealogy’ before Swamidass raised it, following Opderbeck’s exploratory paper at BioLogos in 2010? Most Protestants know very little about catholic thought on Adam and Eve’s genealogy, so it’s possible you simply missed it & didn’t know that literature existed.

    Bringing up Star Wars & the Silmarillion here reveals an engineer/mathematician with under-developed thinking muscles about history, anthropology, psychology, and indeed, simply folk mathematics (genealogy).

    Opposition to Swamidass by IDists is more political & rhetorical for their donors than anything else. Why? Because he is dusting up so-called ‘ID science’ as ultra-proud ‘revolutionary’ nonsense, and is qualified to do so. He’s been doing exactly what I and others have for years been saying is needed on the natural scientific aspects of the conversation – engage IDists directly, politely and insistently in a way they can’t avoid or ignore. The philosophy & theology are self-admittedly beyond his strengths, other than perhaps to an audience of immature, under-educated evangelicals who are, or at one point were, YECists, which is mainly what his ideology is designed to oppose & convert to non-YECism. But neither YECists nor evangelicals are the only group involved currently in the bigger picture, which neither Swamidass nor the IDM appears to see beyond the letters of the laws.

    0
  8. Gregory: Are you one of the IDists who hadn’t thought for a single second in their life about ‘genealogy’ before Swamidass raised it, following Opderbeck’s exploratory paper at BioLogos in 2010? Most Protestants know very little about catholic thought on Adam and Eve’s genealogy, so it’s possible you simply missed it & didn’t know that literature existed.

    My comment has nothing to do with genealogy. I am just taking his line of reasoning as to what counts as scientific further along the logical track. If being unable to scientifically disprove something means it is consistent with modern science then we need to look much broader than one religious text. There are plenty of people who believe more in comic book heroes and movies than in a God or in an ancient religious text. So here we have a chance to cast our peaceful science net even wider and capture all of pop culture. I don’t think that is too lofty of a goal for the PS crew to consider.

    0
  9. Gregory: This doesn’t look good on you, again Eric.

    Also, why are you constantly concerned about appearances? The only thing that matters is how things are, not how they seem, and we’ve only got a short period of life to figure out how things actually are. Why waste time on appearances?

    0
  10. EricMH,

    Yes indeed, seeing things as you’d like them to be rather than as they are can be a comfort but reality has a tendency to assert itself, like Dr Johnson’s rock.

    1+
  11. EricMH: I can see how the PS crowd could see the GAE as beneficial, since it means Christians do not have to see science as ruling out a de novo creation of Adam and Eve, and thus can be more accommodating to the more general evolution claims. The de novo creation is important for doctrine of original sin, as it provides a source for sin to be transmitted throughout all modern humanity.

    Science, but especially evolutionary theory, views de novo creation of A & E as nonsense. The great majority of religious people in the world believe in the creation acts, such as the creation of the universe, A & E etc. as fundamentals of their faith, same as the afterlife, redemption, hope etc.

    Swamidass’ idea to bridge evolutionary science with creation, while few applaud, actually leads to great confusions and the appalling contradiction of the Abrahamic Law; i.e. the prohibition of bestiality.

    EricMH: But, it seems really tenuous. For instance, if true, then it would have been great if a dinosaur stepped on Adam and Eve, and prevented sin from contaminating the rest of the humans created in the image of God, since the GAE does not rule out other such beings unrelated to Adam and Eve.

    The ‘contamination of sin’ can’t be genetic, though some theists think it can be.
    Atheists, like Harshman and keiths, seem to grasp it better than most ID crowd.

    EricMH: Or, if we aren’t being too picky about timelines, why not a genealogical Solo and Leia theory, where humanity had its beginnings in a galaxy and time far far away, until they eventually made it here to earth and populate it? I don’t think science rules out this possibility, either, to use Swamidass’ line of reasoning. This is great, actually, because now the PS crowd can welcome in the Jedi religion as well, by providing a scientific basis for their beliefs. Their scripture is a bit more recent, being transmitted through the prophet Lucas, but it’s rude to show chronological snobbery towards religions.

    These are speculative, unfounded assertions beyond a shred of evidence.

    However, the Abrahamic religions do acknowledge the addition of the outside genetic influence to human lineages when they concede the existence of the Nephilim hybrids.

    EricMH: More to my liking, I propose a genealogical Beren and Luthien from the Silmarillion. I don’t think we can scientifically rule out the account in the Silmarillion, since (spoiler alert) near the end of the Silmarillion the fabric of reality is drastically altered by Illuvatar, so scientific evidence after the fact doesn’t tell us much about what occurred before, thus the Silmarillion is consistent with modern science. We have to rely on the prophet Tolkien in this case to tell us what happened before the world change.

    The beauty of your proposition is that doesn’t differ much from Swamidass’ 😉

    1+
  12. EricMH,

    “My comment has nothing to do with genealogy. I am just taking his line of reasoning as to what counts as scientific further along the logical track.”

    1. Sigh. Forgive me, wise & hyper-intelligent (look at the fields he choose, cousin!), EricMH. I had assumed since you wrote “why not a genealogical Solo and Leia theory” and “I propose a genealogical Beren and Luthien from the Silmarillion”, that unless you are now gaslighting, indeed it had SOMETHING to do with genealogy. I must be unintelligent for thinking that, & indeed making that connection, based on what you wrote, EricMH. My communicative coherency pales in comparison with yours. You are the winner simply because you are an ideological IDist; you weren’t & aren’t talking about genealogy. Gauger is; but you’re not & no other IDist is obliged to either.

    2. Neither your ‘line of reasoning’, nor S. Joshua Swamidass’ is trustworthy or of much value on this topic of “what counts as scientific”, for most sincere thinking people. Yes, I’m aware that Joshua actually is a pretty decent ‘practising scientist’, while otoh I’m speaking in humanistic meta-science territory, i.e. the “what counts as scientific” question domain. You & Joshua are both low-tier, under-prepared options to consider this question (e.g. you merely regurgitate your philosophy, which indeed, is more like philosophistry, from the Discovery Institute that you got at their Summer Program. Stephen C. Meyer was rebelliously trained at Cambridge’s HPS dept – he’s the best your rather tiny & uninformed camp has got!), based on your training & education. Forgive me again, that I’m just a sociologist of science. And so, that’s exactly what I’m supposed to point out to you; in this case, the bias of individuals up against societies & systems where they put forward ideas that go with or against ‘the mainstream’ or that are marginal and of little consequence other than as a linguistic and evangelicalistic ideological distraction.

    Are you making an evangelicalistic ideological distraction to people with IDT as your main tool for that, EricMH? That’s sure how it seems to me. The broader conversation isn’t mainly about mathematics, engineering, computer science, or physical science. Instead have a humanistic conversation & drop the scientistic pretense, which reveals the ‘wannabe’ character that the DI’s rhetoric has produced in certain pre-conditioned young people, mainly in the USA. If that happens, then you can stop pretending that when it comes to Adam and Eve of the Bible that you aren’t really commenting about genealogy at all. Otherwise, you’re simply not really ‘in’ that conversation, intentionally so.

    0
  13. J-Mac: These are speculative, unfounded assertions beyond a shred of evidence.

    Exactly, that’s the point of my satire. Whenever we don’t have evidence for some belief, it is scientifically consistent, according to the GAE reasoning, and thus we can give any such beliefs the veneer of scientism 🙂

    Gregory: Are you making an evangelicalistic ideological distraction to people with IDT as your main tool for that, EricMH? That’s sure how it seems to me. The broader conversation isn’t mainly about mathematics, engineering, computer science, or physical science.

    As I mentioned before, IDT is the reason I’m a Catholic, not visa versa. So, if I talk to people about IDT, that’s because I think it is true and interesting. I’ve never seen anyone become a Christian because of IDT. At most, I want to interest them in IDT so they’ll collaborate with IDT research, since there are very few people working in the field, but there seem to be some low hanging fruit we can reach with a bit of collaboration, in particular in bioinformatics.

    0
  14. “IDT is the reason I’m a Catholic, not visa versa. … I’ve never seen anyone become a Christian because of IDT.” – EricMH

    Care to unpack that vice versa a little more? Are you saying that, away from your previously held worldview of_______, discovering ‘Intelligent Design’ theory (& ideology) in 20__, somehow ‘led’ you to Christ and the Christian Church, and that it is not “because of” IDT but rather that “IDT is the reason I’m a Catholic”?

    As to the 2nd part, does it mean smth like: “It happened to me, but I’ve never seen it happen to anyone else”? I’m familiar with several Catholics who walked away from IDT and the DI. Do you know any of them or are they off your radar?

    Also, just curious: were you a young earther, EricMH, at some point in your past like many IDists, as well as EC/TEists, that is, until you had an ‘intellectual’ conversion away from it? I was introduced to the ideology of YECism in 1998, but it didn’t stick.

    0
  15. EricMH,

    “according to the GAE reasoning, and thus we can give any such beliefs the veneer of scientism”

    Yes, of course. Not a few IDists in their ‘IDT is strictly scientific’ chanting on apologetics stages would unite with Swamidass in their scientistic approach, while accusing the other of it. Do you recognize the (add emotional adjective as you wish) grand irony in this, EricMH?

    Adam & Eve’s genealogy needs to be faced on its own; there is no St. Louis capture of the world beyond non-mainline evangelicalism going on here. Swamidass will only become the leader of this “The GAE” with its “genealogical adams and eves,” “genealogical science”, and “Science of Adam”, etc. over at PS, for people who for whatever reason(s) want him to become their voice (more mature than YECists, trying to ‘peacefully’ mediate ‘Science with Evangelical theology’; their apologetics representative among mainstream scientists) for them as evangelicals in particular. As you’re not an evangelical Protestant, surely you’re aware of Swamidass’ main audience and can recognise what I am referring to?

    Then I’m also curious. Who is your genealogical A&E go-to Catholic thinker, EricMH? Let us see if you actually have answers & references to share as a positive contribution, instead of just negative, time-wasting diversions into ideology & CS & informatics-oriented philosophistry.

    0
  16. EricMH: As I mentioned before, IDT is the reason I’m a Catholic, not visa versa

    Here in Europe, most Catholics would give you funny looks if you told them you find ID interesting, let alone convincing.

    0
  17. EricMH: Exactly, that’s the point of my satire. Whenever we don’t have evidence for some belief, it is scientifically consistent, according to the GAE reasoning, and thus we can give any such beliefs the veneer of scientism

    You missed the point, Eric.
    There is both biblical and scientific explanation for the challenge of human origins from Adam and Eve, but that’s not what the supporters of GAE wish to consider – as mentioned regarding the Nephilim.

    People like Swamidass would like to marry creationism with the theory of evolution. To accomplish this, they need to ignore many obvious facts, of which I mentioned only few.
    For some reason you like the idea of GAE. I just hope ID is not moving in that direction, becuase you’d have to marry the monkey soul with the human soul next…😉

    0
  18. J-Mac,

    People like Swamidass would like to marry creationism with the theory of evolution. To accomplish this, they need to ignore many obvious facts, of which I mentioned only few.

    I honestly think Josh realizes evolutionary theory has issues. I think he is just trying to get science and theology in the same room so discussion can take place.

    0
  19. colewd: I honestly think Josh realizes evolutionary theory has issues.

    Are you sure it’s not you who is projecting that on to Joshua?

    1+
  20. colewd:
    J-Mac,

    I honestly think

    Here we go again…
    What is it with the native speakers of English feeling the need to emphasize their honesty when making statements?
    Can someone explain it to me?
    I can scrape by in few languages none of which logically requires to stress one’s honesty at the beginning, or the end of the sentence, unless bul*******ng prior…
    Come on, Bill!

    0
  21. J-Mac: What is it with the native speakers of English feeling the need to emphasize their honesty when making statements?

    Bill just used a common idiom. There’s no need to make a federal case out of it.

    (Note that “make a federal case” is itself a common American idiom)

    0
  22. colewd: Josh realizes evolutionary theory has issues. I think he is just trying to get science and theology in the same room so discussion can take place.

    It doesn’t matter, even if that is true, Bill!

    Neither evolutionary theory supporters, nor the great majority of theists, would like that…

    Why?

    Because supporting such an idea requires a great deal of dishonesty on both sides of the issue…
    Trying to support both sides by believing that somehow the evolutionary theory and creationism can find a common ground for discussion on how to accommodate both is like an attempt to mix oil and water hoping that if both give up something, the new smooth mix of wateroil will eventually prevail…

    Imagine Nathan Lents, an evolutionary biologist and an atheist, supporting this idea…
    He has already embarrassed himself with his book Human Errors, and now with GAE calling it a scientific possibility…
    How much absurdity will this idea generate?

    Will Lents support an evolution of the soul, too?
    Will Swamidass use his computational biology to prove how the monkey gradually evolved a half of a soul and when merged with Cain’s soul, natural selection acted upon it, due fitness or nonsense like that?

    How far the desire to become a successful scientist can reach? At what cost? Where does it end?

    0
  23. J-Mac: Because supporting such an idea requires a great deal of dishonesty on both sides of the issue…
    Trying to support both sides by believing that somehow the evolutionary theory and creationism can find a common ground for discussion on how to accommodate both is like an attempt to mix oil and water hoping that if both give up something, the new smooth mix of wateroil will eventually prevail…

    Yea , what does this guy’s opinion matter:

    “On October 27, 2014, Pope Francis issued a statement at the Pontifical Academy of Sciences that “Evolution in nature is not inconsistent with the notion of creation,” warning against thinking of God’s act of creation as “God [being] a magician, with a magic wand able to do everything.”

    1+
  24. Great thoughts and questions. The argument in the linked article (not Greg’s) seems to be that God created the problem of original sin and the Fall by creating Adam and is therefore culpable. Because Adam’s fall was consequential and God created Adam, he is a Monster.

    A read through my book leaves the objection moot, and traditional theology leaves us with more question about the “critique” than the GAE.

    Does a GAE make God monster? Of course not. Let’s keep in mind a few things here.

    1. The theological details in the book are extremely tentative, and I invite people to adjust as they see fit. If you don’t think I got a particular detail right, just change. I freely admit that I am not a theologian, meant to encourage the conversation. The specific theological details are from a chapter that notes at the beginning and the end of the chapter, alternate ways to make sense of Adam’s fall, and invites the specific approach I develop to be discarded entirely if needed.

    2. Several conservative theologians (Jack Collins, Ken Keathley, Jon Garvey, etc.) are on the record stating that the GAE is theological viable (and exciting) way forward. If they are not bothered, I’m not sure why we should be bothered.

    3. My argument is that the GAE does not introduce any new difficulties to the traditional account, that are not already found in traditional theology (without evolutionary science). If I can demonstrate this objection widely applies to many other orthodox models of human origins, then I’ve demonstrated my case. We can think of this as a sort of “negative control.”

    4. Historical theology makes my case for me, according to the pattern in #3. In any model in which Adam and Eve are real people and they fall, we are faced with the same objection of God being a “monster” by creating the situation in which Adam falls in a consequential way. This has been a long standing question in theology, and nothing in the GAE (or even my discardable proposal) make this question more complex or difficult.

    5. Augustine addressed this question and in more recent times so did Plantinga. Consulting with theologians, they often take a similar path as them in response (see “felix culpa”, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felix_culpa). This response will be satisfiying and disatisfying, but nothing in the GAE changes the calculus.

    So, the GAE isn’t challenge one bit by this objection. If you don’t like the specific proposal I made on original sin, just discard it, as I specifically welcomed everyone to do in the book. It does not make God monster any more than traditional Christian theology without evolutionary science. Instead, the objection just reduces to the problem of theodicy.

    This “God is a monster” “critique” is coming from a person without any theological training. The critique itself leaves out material facts to my argument, such as the total discardability of the details on which he relies upon.

    I wish there was more to engage here.

    Actual theologians are beginning to write about the book. One book should be published soon. The conversation will be interesting, won’t it? https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/garvey-update-on-the-generations-of-heaven-and-earth/8540/23?u=swamidass

    As for the details of this objection, this comment might be all that’s needed.

    1+
  25. For those that care to critique the GAE book, I welcome it. In general, you will make better progress if you engage what I wrote rather than hearsay about it. This is a great example where a lot of hoopla is made from an unreliable and selective summary.

    Should be fun read too. Don’t miss out :).

    Peace.

    1+
  26. Mung: Gregory, are you still persona non grata at Swamidass’ “Peaceful Science” site?

    He is suspended, but I’ve invited him back if he is willing to play by the rules .He declined. Any time he want’s to reconsider, I’d consider giving him another chance.

    Mung, you aren’t suspended yourself. I can’t be blamed for self-censorship.

    1+
  27. “From what I’ve read so far, I do not see that Swamidass “makes God a monster” in the book. That rather appears to be what comes from Johnson’s hermeneutics, rather than Swamidass’ intentions or expressions. BioLogos was similarly confused, and hadn’t read Kemp, much like Swamidass (that is, until he finally did).”

    I think that is about right, but I’m not sure why you’d think I hadn’t read Kemp. Of course I had, very early on. However, early on, I was focused on the science without engaging the theology, and did not want to bind the science to Kemp’s specific proposal. Ed Feser, however, was a contribution I learned of later in the process.

    As you know from reading the book, I engage Kemp at length, and rely on his explication of monogenesis. Moreover, I hear that Kemp is reviewing the GAE. There is an interesting conversation in Catholicism about this.

    Tomorrow this link will go live, a catholic podcast on the GAE.
    http://www.classicaltheism.com/adam Enjoy.

    1+
  28. swamidass: Mung, you aren’t suspended yourself. I can’t be blamed for self-censorship.

    I disagree with your proposition that people you find objectionable, i.e., people who dare disagree with you, are only being censored if their account is suspended.

    I stopped participating at your site because you refused to treat me equitably. Is there any reason to think that you have changed?

    0
  29. newton: Yea , what does this guy’s opinion matter:

    “On October 27, 2014, Pope Francis issued a statement at the Pontifical Academy of Sciences that “Evolution in nature is not inconsistent with the notion of creation,” warning against thinking of God’s act of creation as “God [being] a magician, with a magic wand able to do everything.”

    What’s exactly wrong with this statement?
    If one defines evolution as change overtime, even the most blindly driven creationists will concede that organisms do change with time…

    God being a magician with a magic wand is more associated with atheists portraying the act of creation that way and yet, their own act of creation is not further away from magic. Quite the contrary. Atheists just substituted one “magic” for another; an act of creation requiring superior to their intelligence, atheists ascribed to mindless, random processes and natural selection proving that nonsense is preferred by atheists due to their worldviews…

    0
  30. Mung: I stopped participating at your site because you refused to treat me equitably. Is there any reason to think that you have changed?

    We have a much larger moderator team now, and more standardized rules.

    People disagree with me all the time at PS, without incident (and many have become good friends, though our disagreement might continue). If you can avoid speaking on my behalf, and avoid putting words in my mouth, I can’t see why disagreeing with me would be a problem. If you are only there to disagree with me, however, you really seem to be missing the point.

    We don’t have to agree in the end, but he purpose of PS is to seek understanding. Both to help others understand us and to understand others. That is one reason why there has been friction, as we don’t generally tolerate behavior that works against those goals, especially when it targets professional scientists using their real names.

    1+
  31. swamidass: 1. The theological details in the book are extremely tentative, and I invite people to adjust as they see fit.

    No way! Really?
    I guess ErikMH’s satire about ‘genealogical Solo and Leia where humanity had its beginnings in a galaxy and time far far away, until they eventually made it here to earth and populate it’ was right on…
    Anybody likes SpongeBob? He could be your ancestor, if you go by Swamidass’ book where his own theology can be adjusted as one would like it fit…
    First Moses, now this…

    1+

  32. Mung: I disagree with your proposition that people you find objectionable, i.e., people who dare disagree with you, are only being censored if their account is suspended.

    I stopped participating at your site because you refused to treat me equitably. Is there any reason to think that you have changed?

    Do you believe in hell, Mung?
    Would you like hell to be real, sometimes? 😉

    0
  33. My main problem with swamidass’ approach to me is that I already believe in many of the core ‘propositions’ he is putting forward in his work. And he largely knows this already & even has borrowed some of my phrases from me without giving credit. He is thus not ‘convincing’ me of these things in his publicly delivered works; rather just doing weak philosophy of science & amateur evangelical theologizing about them.

    His aim is obviously mainly to convince his ‘fellow YECists’. That doesn’t mean he is a YECist, but rather that his evangelical non-mainline covenant ‘fellows’, along with other Protestant evangelicals are his main audience. That’s how he talks & mainly who is listening. His secondary audience is of course every human being, creature and plant on earth sensitive to the Sun, but we get that already.

    The audience of swamidass’ book is obviously not the many Abrahamic monotheists who already accept the argument he is making, since he got it from us in the first place (though he hasn’t figured that out yet). One should make a different argument, however, to different audiences. Unfortunately, swamidass has not shown he has that gear to go beyond engaging evangelical YECists & rather gets stuck with incoherent ideologizing that he disguises as naturalistic philosophy of science. However, if he is sincere in engaging with Catholics and Orthodox, then it makes sense also that he will leave evangelicalism within 10 years, even if it doesn’t appear as a live risk to him the way he thinks & believes now. There’s no way a person could remain sincerely as naïve as he has been for so many years about ‘origins’ if he engages (more than he does now) with non-evangelicals who are already arrived at where he is hoping evangelicals will eventually be. It would be a tiresome lifelong effort, that swamidass would have to be setting himself up for as a ministry for his apologetics work YECists trying to marry “science & theology”. For this, I applaud swamidass’ work among evangelicals, even while pushing back when he tries to speak down to or unknowingly in an unsophisticated and obnoxious way towards others beyond his comfort zone of evangelicalism. The biggest problem in this conversation is inside his doorstep, rather than outside it. He should stop trying to convince those who are already in agreement or ahead of him.

    The last prediction I made here at TSZ was that swamidass would eventually change from writing ‘the genealogical Adam’ to instead writing ‘the genealogical Adam and Eve.’ That prediction bore out as he eventually titled his book exactly that, at last giving Eve her due. It’s this kind of fickle or just superficial switching of names, concepts & phrases, that I find far too often in swamidass and which reveals an uncommitted and shallow-thinking mind.

    That he is trying to ‘trump’ me or anyone with ‘THE GAE’ (dirtying them with smug scientistic apologetics), reveals a soul lacking in contact with mature religious people. This would reveal to swamidass people who are not insecure or pretentious about the topics he is writing about, and who give thoughtful answers to questions that aim for greater balance between science, philosophy, theology/worldview than he is expressing in his talks or writings. Experiencing that may help to cure him of the self-induced ‘naturalistic’ stance he takes towards Science, that is, if there is *any* humility in the man now boasting to have come up with something that has in fact already long been claimed. The impact of swamidass’ evangelicalistic training & apologetics thinking on his ‘5th voice’ simply aren’t what he wants to openly & publicly speak about, except with fellow evangelicals & boosters.

    To swamidass: If you’re going to address me with ‘you’, then I expect some respect that you haven’t yet shown to me here or anywhere. Why are you such a disrespectful ‘confessing scientist’? If ‘we’ are going to have a conversation,’ then I expect a fair, dignified demeanour from you, instead of arrogant defensive attacks by a person obviously insecure about their lack of training in philosophy (& more).

    “I’m not sure why you’d think I hadn’t read Kemp.” – swamidass (or whatever he prefers to be called) to Gregory (yours truly)

    Because failure to read Catholics has been a trend in my experiences with US evangelicals. Ted Davis at ASA & BioLogos took YEARS of me recommending Kemp to him. Opderbeck got Kemp from ASA, which pre-dates what you have in your book. Garvey was a bit quicker on the uptake, though has he told you he learned about Kemp’s work from me at BioLogos yet, swamidass? You likely got it through BioLogos, as it got there through me (along with the removal of ‘Darwinism’ from their Questions section via Falk, also uncredited; a lack of respect trend at BioLogos too!). If you didn’t (as likely you won’t name a date & source for locating it), then in any case, it’s been in the news for years before you reported about it in your book anyway in previous works by Kemp, as well as many other major non-evangelical writers. That you don’t read enough – it looks like barely any from the references in your book & papers – non-evangelical thinkers is my main charge here.

    0
  34. “I can’t see why disagreeing with me would be a problem.” – swamidass (to Mung)

    Hmm, well, let me try a reply. Because it would make your views look quite bad, superficial & wanting in light of better ones, rather than how you currently propose them so ‘confidently’ (a word you like to use to describe yourself). And it makes sense, swamidass, that you wouldn’t want that ‘appearance’ regarding your views (not sure how people seeing that may then reflect on you, but I’m gonna focus on the ideas, not the person) to take hold among people, given that you’ve announced yourself on a “Quest for the 5th Voice in Human Origins”, from the bio-medical realm.

    General (to reader, not to dialogue partner):
    Ladies & gentlemen, swamidass is precedence-seeking & relativizing in an ambitious evangelicalistic way & the record will win out against him, wait and see, even while more mature dialogue will drown his book out.

    swamidass wasn’t on the old-ASA list before BioLogos, the latter where he burst onto the scene, close to tenure. Neither was retired Dr. Garvey, an ID-fond fence-sitting reformationalist. David Opderbeck, who swamidass cites as the key figure who at BioLogos sparked his ‘precedence-setting’ bid to write ‘THE GAE’, was on the list, though. The topics swamidass is now trumpeting as ‘new’ are simply not ‘new’ as he suggests they are and it is a strange display of self-aggrandizement of taking credit undeserved. Buggs made the breakthrough. Reporting on that to evangelicals (kinda like BioLogos) & relativizing A&E has been swamidass’ main contribution so far.

    For people who wish to know what kind of character swamidass has behind the smoke & mirrors now engaged in as an “origins apologist,” though I have asked him to call me by the name listed here, which happens to be my birth name “Gregory”, and have always properly called him by his user name, or (across platforms) asked him what he prefers to be called so that I may indeed address him by that name, instead his stance towards me has been that he outright refuses to properly address me as such & always diminutizes my name as “Greg”, in an attempt to belittle me. This is an example of swamidass’ bullying style, that Mung is referring to above. He simply doesn’t show class. Another example, the previous time swamidass came here led to an incident wherein he was found guilty of violating TSZ Forum Rules (& general internet etiquette). Yet he only ‘half-apologized’ (to the Mods, not to me), which shows there is little admission of guilt, mercy or charity in his heart. That, folks, sadly isn’t worthy of peoples’ respect simply for his grand unoriginal idea.

    Low-brow evangelicalistic ambition, now hyped as 21st century ‘origins apologetics’, YECist-focussed, looks like ‘peaceful scientism,’ and seems to have no end of independently-discovered look-at-Science, more than philosophy or theology, fancy!

    swamidass has the option to ‘talk like a man’ here at TSZ or instead demand others join him at PS, under his sheltered conditions. Let’s at least ask swamidass if he would respond here to reviews of his book made here, rather than just starting a conversation about the review safely over at his evangelicalist Templeton-seeded fake Empty Chair site.

    Would he agree to at least participate in a parallel thread of a review of his book at TSZ? Or would he refuse to participate on TSZ’s terms & instead again violate them?

    To swamidass: how about it?

    1+
  35. Link now up. I didn’t listen much to swamidass as I’m quite well familiar with his basic position by now. Little time for his book salesmanship & hyping up ‘THE GAE’ now. swamidass is putting options on the table. Yet it’s been done before many times in the Literature, recently by Zondervan & others.

    What Richard Buggs did was new; that opened the ‘new option’, while the genealogical option was already there so long before swamidass that he looks both sciency proud and at the same time remorseless trying to suggest he has come up with it, ‘to aid with conversation’.

    The Host admits he is an amateur on the topic, and agrees, as many of us do, about being open to correction. Which kinds of correction he is open to is the main issue with swamidass. Notably, the Host’s best model is not swamidass’ model, but rather Kenneth Kemp’s.

    This also reflects most reviews of swamidass’ book that I’ve read so far: many of the positive comments about swamidass’ book, are actually positive comments about the distinction Kemp made, rather than any substantial contribution of swamidass himself. I’m waiting for more coming from swamidass, to openly admit “that’s from Kemp, not from me,” so that people will give proper credit in the discussion.

    Why is this important, alongside of the ‘strictly scientific’ claims swamidass makes in the book? Because this is exactly the issue that led to swamidass’ voluntary/involuntary departure from BioLogos, with claims of ‘racism!’ being slung by swamidass at Venema & BioLogos screaming ‘polygenism!’ swamidass hasn’t come clean on his own views yet (covenant non-mainline protestantism still aside), rather retreating to ‘I’m just presenting options, & not really pushing THE GAE’ to people, which is a bit hard to stomach for its fantasy projection.

    The Host who stands on a base that so far swamidass doesn’t, concludes the following about swamidass’ GAE proposal: “Today I’m not prepared to say this is compatible with Catholic teaching.”

    Quite strangely, the Host notes that as a result of swamidass’ proposal: “There could be a Catholic version of Adam and Eve.” Yet, he has already been discussing that model, without the genealogical flim-flam that swamidass’ community fetish with biblical literalism produces. The Host concludes: “I find Kenneth Kemp’s proposal to be a great way to hold to an original couple, A&E, in a way that’s compatible with scientific evidence… that’s the path I recommend as a Catholic.”

    0
  36. Gregory: To swamidass: If you’re going to address me with ‘you’, then I expect some respect that you haven’t yet shown to me here or anywhere. Why are you such a disrespectful ‘confessing scientist’?

    Gregory, your post is almost entirely about Swamdass’s personality and psychology. To me that seems very disrespectful. Yet you want him to treat you with respect.

    If ‘we’ are going to have a conversation,’ then I expect a fair, dignified demeanour from you, instead of arrogant defensive attacks by a person obviously insecure about their lack of training in philosophy (& more).

    So sayeth Mr Gregory Arrogant.

    1+
  37. Talking about history, ideas & statements by a person is not “almost entirely about Swamdass’s personality and psychology”, unless a person is detached from reality, maybe ‘out there’ in mathematics & agnostic woo.

    Thank you. I expect to be called arrogant by atheist/agnostics who reject a living Creator in their lives, and indeed, I’m much less ‘confident-confessional-evangelical-proselytizing’ than swamidass. It is welcome he is helping YECists catch up to others far ahead through dialogue; even if the evangelicalistic part comes with it. I guess one could call multiple times expressed support for swamidass’ project & promoting people to go there, like Neil himself, ‘arrogant’. Oh, well.

    The fact that swamidass in this thread broke habit and addressed me personally using ‘you’, whereas he has previously only spoken past me here, without directly referencing the person who writes these words, makes it a ‘psychological’ move on his part. He either shows respect to my name and calls me “Gregory” or he doesn’t. Simple as that. A basic human right, at the end of the day, one that swamidass willingly violates, as he markets ‘THE GAE’. Does anyone else here have a problem with that request to swamidass (or whatever he wishes to be called here)?

    Conversation begins with respect, Neil. You have mine solely as an un-elected ‘moderator’ here, not for your agnostic/atheist worldview in a broader conversation that, unlike you, I believe should involve science, philosophy, theology/worldview in a collaborative, constructive & mutually beneficial way.

    S. Joshua Swamidass doesn’t have my respect or approval in conversation at this time, for reasons some of which are on record & known here. The disrespect began with swamidass’ treatment of me when (at the moment of turning) he realized that his ideological naturalism would not slip by easily, and that it made a significant difference in how his message was received if my voice were in the conversation with his, to ‘keep it in check’ from exaggerations, loose terminology, etc. This was when he aggressively moved to strike, showed no mercy, and has expressed no remorse for it, neither privately nor publicly.

    That’s the ‘respect’ basis he and I (between us) are currently operating on. If any part of that isn’t true, I will accept being held to account for it. He can tell his side of the story here, if he wishes, as I have already expressed openness to reconciliation that he has not responded to. swamidass belittles, bullies & mocks those taking a stand even against just a few of his fuzzy proposals … while his alter-ego sings a sweet public song, inviting ‘correction’, through mainly evangelicalistic channels, very much like BioLogos, RTB, AiG, DI & others he is emulating & aiming to surpass do.

    This character-involving (non-naturalistic) material is merely the sociology I am reporting on as a ‘dispassionate scientist’ (LOL!) referring to swamidass & Peaceful Science among the creationist, evolutionist, IDist, & other such ‘origins’ organizations in society today. I really do wish there were a better way to bring all of these self-admittedly ‘fighting’ voices (swamidass uses ‘war’ terminology) into greater harmony & don’t see PS as the answer for this, despite swamidass’ superficially phrased evangelicalistic good intentions. It makes little sense to call a man ‘arrogant’ when he is simply challenging the claims swamidass has made in his papers & recent book, showing their limitations and identifying their misinterpretations.

    0
  38. Gregory: The last prediction I made here at TSZ was that swamidass would eventually change from writing ‘the genealogical Adam’ to instead writing ‘the genealogical Adam and Eve.’

    Seems like the timeline does not support this claim. First publication on the GAE was titled, “A Genealogical Adam and Eve in Evolution”.

    https://henrycenter.tiu.edu/2017/06/a-genealogical-adam-and-eve-in-evolution/

    Prediction…post-diction, what is the difference any ways? 😉

    Gregory: I expect to be called arrogant by atheist/agnostics who reject a living Creator in their lives,

    Neil, sorry for the abuse you endure by Christians. I wish you were treated better.

    Gregory: Because failure to read Catholics has been a trend in my experiences with US evangelicals. Ted Davis at ASA & BioLogos took YEARS of me recommending Kemp to him.

    Yes, that is right. And I got to the bottom of it.

    First off, Kemp did not actually make a distinction between genetic and genealogical ancestry, in those terms. He was pointed in the right direction, but was disconnected from the scientific literature on this.

    Second, his view was wrongly painted as polygenesis, and rejected as beastiality by some at BioLogos.

    Third, his view certainly undermined the narrative that a some people were pushing, so it wasn’t convenient.

    That, and other factors, is why they did not mentioned Kemp. Of course, I’m glad to emphasize is work now. Early on, I avoided mention of him, because I was focusing on the science, and I did not want to inherit the critiques leveled at him at BL. My work, now, really opens the door for broader consideration of his work, and I’m glad for that.

    1+
  39. swamidass: Several conservative theologians (Jack Collins, Ken Keathley, Jon Garvey, etc.) are on the record stating that the GAE is theological viable (and exciting) way forward. If they are not bothered, I’m not sure why we should be bothered.

    Several conservative theologians support GAE is theologically viable? Exciting?
    Maybe there is no death penalty for zoophilia where they live?

    I’m going to try to contact them for comments…Maybe they don’t know they could be doing time up to life in prison for publicly supporting bestiality…

    0
  40. Gregory: I expect to be called arrogant by atheist/agnostics who reject a living Creator in their lives, and indeed, I’m much less ‘confident-confessional-evangelical-proselytizing’ than swamidass.

    It’s not arrogance! It’s stupidity to try to take credit for the idea that discredits Creator’s major law on zoophilia…

    0
  41. swamidass,

    It was actually the work of Richard Buggs that opened up the conversation. Yours is just evangelicalistically trying to popularize it in a “science vs. evangelical theology” conversation. His was the breakthrough research that started your sciency genealogical fetish. Do you admit this or not? The Opderbeck & Garvey timelines, I’ve already helped to clarify you on.

    “And I got to the bottom of it.”

    Not really. Your history here is full of holes & highly skewed, as has been pointed out to you already. The start of Chapter 5 is astonishing for what it leaves out, pretending to have studied the field (sorry, that’s not what swamidass did). swamidass’ manuscript was already submitted when he was corrected by Jonathan Burke, and given a further name even within his own tradition.

    People should treat swamidass’ work very carefully and with lots of salt and light, as it is an admittedly unfinished ‘work in progress’. There are indeed some ‘scientists’ who speak so tentatively as to reduce the value of their contribution to almost nothing.

    Dig deeper than Kemp, swamidass, there is much, much more that you’ve missed. This likely won’t stop you from believing you’ve “got to the bottom of it”, but then again, some people give little to no credit to others because of their ambitious pride. Who would have thought swamidass would come along as an ambitious human origins apologist, even though he barely studies human beings at all in his professional work?

    “My work, now, really opens the door for broader consideration of his work, and I’m glad for that.”

    Yes, it will be good for Kemp’s work to be further considered. It’s welcome swamidass is highlighting Kemp’s work.

    THE GAE is an evangelical catch-up game, borrowing from a much richer tradition than evangelicalism. swamidass is laying out an evangelical Protestant non-mainline view that in some cases argues from the historical Christian tradition, which his own ‘denomination’ has wandered away from into ‘USAmerican evangelicalism’. The irony of swamidass recommending people to go outside of evangelicalism in order to better understand human origins while remaining himself an evangelical is heavy here.

    “Kemp did not actually make a distinction…”

    Please stop trying to force Kemp to do what you want him to, using your pet language, instead of what he did. Kemp made exactly the key distinction that people credit YOUR book for, yet the distinction was first made by Kemp. I believe it is your responsibility to correct them. Do you disagree? Kemp should be credited for what is more important than the relativisation of A&E that you perform, rather than swamidass trying to shift the discussion to genealogy, away from monogenesis. Obviously swamidass is still embroiled in an unfinished argument with BioLogos about who is advocating polygenesis and who is not.

    “Neil, sorry for the abuse you endure by Christians. I wish you were treated better.”

    I wish swamidass would treat Christians and other theists better than he does with his defensive insularity, naturalist ideology & highly liberal theology. He is obviously intent on engaging YECists, IDists, TEists in his own personal ‘culture war’ defending individualistic christianity. This is a man who WANTS to war, so that he can proclaim himself a bringer of peace using ideas he borrowed from others. This is dangerous precedent that ignores history & culture, as ‘scientistic’ swamidass is apparently quite proud to be pushing on heresy as far as he can.

    0
  42. Hi, Gregory, and thanks for the pingback/review. Forgive the clickbait title, but I borrowed “Makes God a Monster” from Arminian theologian Roger Olson, who regularly says that consistent Calvinism does just that. I also wouldn’t disagree that there are answers I haven’t considered, since I have only passing acquaintance with Catholic/Orthodox theology, and none of us can know everything. I’ve been trying to get over here for a couple of days, but my literary agent asked for a few changes to my book proposal, so that took precedence. Swamidass should take a look at how many science best sellers were written by journalists. He thinks I’m just some guy who wandered into a wedding party without an invitation or the right clothes. That’s okay. Keep up the ad hominem and ignore the problems. The party’s almost over. Other folks have noticed:

    Gregory: swamidass belittles, bullies & mocks those taking a stand even against just a few of his fuzzy proposals … while his alter-ego sings a sweet public song, inviting ‘correction’, through mainly evangelicalistic channels,

    On the specific stuff,

    swamidass: 1. The theological details in the book are extremely tentative, and I invite people to adjust as they see fit.

    This has been going on for two years now. Every time an issue is brought up, it’s just a detail that can be discarded. I second what Gregory said,

    Gregory: People should treat swamidass’ work very carefully and with lots of salt and light, as it is an admittedly unfinished ‘work in progress’. There are indeed some ‘scientists’ who speak so tentatively as to reduce the value of their contribution to almost nothing.

    swamidass: 3. My argument is that the GAE does not introduce any new difficulties to the traditional account, that are not already found in traditional theology (without evolutionary science). If I can demonstrate this objection widely applies to many other orthodox models of human origins, then I’ve demonstrated my case.

    The traditional account sees Adam & Eve at the headwaters of the human race, not dropped into history at some arbitrary later date. Simply showing that other formulations have problems doesn’t solve your problem, let alone demonstrate your case. That’s like the elementary school child caught doing something wrong and complaining, “They were doing it too!” Explain why God is not the origin of sin in your scenario. If you can’t, then it is in error, and the fact that others made the same error is no excuse.

    swamidass: This “God is a monster” “critique” is coming from a person without any theological training. The critique itself leaves out material facts to my argument, such as the total discardability of the details on which he relies upon.

    Still with the ad hominem. Swamidass, you entirely lack class. As far as I can tell, the total discardability (sic) of the details renders everything smoke and mirrors.

    swamidass: For those that care to critique the GAE book, I welcome it. In general, you will make better progress if you engage what I wrote rather than hearsay about it. This is a great example where a lot of hoopla is made from an unreliable and selective summary.

    You’re treading into dangerous ground again here, my friend. I have a well-earned reputation for fair reportage gained over 30 years of practice. You will make better progress (and stay out of court) if you engage what I wrote rather than continually attempting to smear my reputation. I’m not nearly as willing to turn the other cheek as Dennis Venema, if you haven’t figured that out by now.

    1+
  43. Hello Jay313, thanks for this. A busy day, but will come back to it shortly. Please let me know how you would like to be addressed, if your User name is acceptable or if there is a nickname you prefer to use.

    It seems you’ve stopped posting at Peaceful Science too, since last month. Is that of your own will or a result of swamidass’ ‘moderation’?

    Mung wasn’t suspended, but was called a ‘sealion’ by swamidass. It’s an issue of swamidass not being very good at facing critique in a dignified, nay, even civilised way. Again, I will repeat that in almost 20 years of observing, interacting with and meeting people, mostly religious people, but some non-religious seekers, on the general topic of science, philosophy, theology/worldview discourse, I have not come across anyone as proudly ‘confident’ in their ideologically scientistic views, even ones that are later shown to him to be wrong (for which, obviously, he simply ‘changes the details’ and then assumes the ‘errors’ were ‘corrected’ in his ‘model’), as S. Joshua Swamidass. Then again, maybe swamidass is simply reacting to Dennis Venema, and therefore taking on that mirror proud, ‘me-scientist’ swag, as if it makes his quasi-scientific ‘genealogical’ argument for him on its own to non-scientists who are asking him sincere, patient, exact, difficult questions for swamadass’ GAE hypothesis.

    What swamidass wrote here about me regarding his ‘moderation’ stretches the truth as well. I’m not going to stoop to swamidass’ level of evangelicalistic disrespect, to borrowing without giving credit, and to not calling a person by their User name. What a pathetically sad & condescending ‘confident scientist’ soul! The truth will come out about how swamidass ‘respects’ his dialogue partners, as soon as they reveal serious, even fatal flaws in his ‘theory’, which is quite obviously made primarily for public display & evangelicalistic apologetics.

    Dennis Venema got wrath-filled angry with me, and outted me at a previous venue, for which he was reprimanded and the outting offence cleaned from the website. It’s the same thing with swamidass who has doxxed & outed me here, thinking somehow that he is above or immune from responsibility for his proposal & attack strategy, even towards fellow Abrahamic monotheists. (Does he tell WLC his vicious attacks on fellow Christians – would WLC still write a book with swamidass if he did?) These examples of ‘evangelical’ morality in ‘doing science’ has been a shocking thing to discover over the past decade, while the mainstream Protestants, Catholics & Orthodox I have spoken with don’t have nearly the same psycho-scientific anger, bitterness and fear problem as swamidass & Venema demonstrate.

    0
  44. Either Jay313 or Jay is fine. My account was “temporarily” suspended the last time I checked, which was later the same day. I’m constantly amazed how people turn a blind eye to the bad behavior. It will burn them in the end. Oh well. I think I’ve made my opinion clear, so no need to belabor the point.

    1+
  45. dazz: Here in Europe, most Catholics would give you funny looks if you told them you find ID interesting, let alone convincing.

    Or let alone the reason why I’m Catholic 😀

    0
  46. swamidass: [T] he purpose of PS is to seek understanding. Both to help others understand us and to understand others…we don’t generally tolerate behavior that works against those goals

    LOL!

    The only goal is to push the GAE compromise (merely a rehash of Gould’s NOMA and Averroes’ two truths doctrine) on Christians with the help of some very angry atheists and passive aggressive Christians. Bonus points for misrepresenting and strawmanning ID under the guise of ‘peaceful science’ to get in good with the secular establishment. And it doesn’t hurt to have Trischitta throw around FFRF lawsuits to lend a threatening air to the whole site.

    PS is the reason I came here to TSZ, since at least my opposition is honestly nasty instead of hiding behind the monikers of ‘Christian’ and ‘peace’!

    0
  47. swamidass: Neil, sorry for the abuse you endure by Christians. I wish you were treated better.

    I agree with Joshua. The irony, however, is that Joshua chooses to abuse Christians without apology, and Neil was a willing participant.

    1+

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.