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

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

  1. Jay313: 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.

    Joshua claims they have more moderators now. So things must be better now.

  2. EricMH: Bonus points for misrepresenting and strawmanning ID under the guise of ‘peaceful science’ to get in good with the secular establishment.

    How should ID be represented? What is ID to you?

  3. Very interesting recent tunes here. Mung, EricMH, Jay313 & myself. Ok, that’s a squad I could temporarily work with on a common purpose for the good of many more than ourselves. What say you fellas? (Sadly, no fellettes with us this time.)

    Would swamidass actually have an open and forthcoming dialogue here with this squad of Abrahamic monotheists (does anyone among 4 object to this label?) about some of the challenges we each and in some cases similarly have, both 1) for his ‘model’ of a ‘GAE’, and 2) more generally regarding swamidass’ peculiar approach to ‘conversation’ about this topic of ‘human origins’, which he is currently proclaiming himself a ‘5th Voice’ for, alongside well-established scholars, some of whom he is actively opposing and antagonizing (RTB, DI, BioLogos)?

    “Joshua chooses to abuse Christians without apology” – Mung

    Yes, sadly and reluctantly I agree that is true.

    Everyone deserves a 2nd chance though, and perhaps swamidass will eventually realize his ‘errors’. swamidass has an opportunity to show integrity here, if he has any left after selling his soul to be an ‘originator’ and ‘innovator’, by giving ALL CREDIT to Kemp, taking it away from swamidass himself, so that people understand clearly what swamidass is contributing, and frankly, perhaps more important in the case of this extremely proud ‘confessing’ biologist, so that we also know clearly what he hasn’t contributed. Otherwise, I’m afraid there is no limit to how much concept theft will go on in swamidass’ work. Given he has shown himself willing to take credit from others that doesn’t belong to him, this is a highly untrustworthy ‘scholar’, no matter his devotion to evangelicalism or non-denominational Christianity. William Lane Craig should be very wary partnering with a person who acts like this, with no remorse or shame, no humility to ask for forgiveness, and no guilt for violating internet decency as a way to achieve his ambitious ‘5th voice’ plans.

    I find swamidass to be sincerely evangelicalistic, yet at the same time jaded in his scientistic post-YECism. This is perhaps why he has displayed such anger and wrath toward the 4 people here, though of course he thinks we are all to blame rather than swamidass himself. Swamidass takes personally any critique of Adam and Eve’s genealogy made in swamidass’ relativistic half-committed image. This guy is seriously a s&%t-disturber to decent conversation among religious folks (the list of spurned at PS grows – IDists have already seen through swamidass’ pretensions to a ‘fair playing field’ at PS – it isn’t) in more ways than he seems to realize. That’s what makes for a difficult conversation; swamidass is off in his own world, apparently thinking he’s the next Darwin, as if THE GAE is the greatest thing to come along in 160 years!

    Nevertheless, one can and should at least give swamidass the benefit of the doubt and see if he is sincere in giving credit to Kemp and others he has not done so properly yet. swamidass is a registered member of TSZ and wrote to this thread. He is now invited back again to stand for some of the difficulties with his own claims. For integrity sake, will he come back again and face at least a little music beyond his fantasies?

    As for me, I will do my utmost to ‘stick to the arguments’ and stay away from making a critique only about swamidass himself. His ‘5th voice’ proclamations, however, don’t make it easy to accept even the softest, simplest contribution that swamidass has made on this topic. Certainly we will not accept his proposed ‘model’ without checking the sources, which is why I am bringing up Kemp, even though swamidass includes Kemp in the book. I don’t ‘hear’ him crediting Kemp properly, but rather taking credit himself for Kemp’s (& others’) ideas.

    I believe at least 4 of us here stand united here rejecting swamidass’ aggressively ‘peaceful’ proclamations in “science & theology” discourse as pretentious, presumptuous, and falsely advertised. I would add that swamidass doesn’t have a theological ‘leg to stand on’ with what he’s doing and neither (calling JG a ‘theologian’?!) If swamidass would ever enter into a public conversation with me, he would quickly realize that the little leagues of YECist evangelicalistic ‘science’ have come to an end, one that he won’t tell to his YECist evangelicalistic friends. swamidass isn’t on the level to have that conversation, which is at least partly behind why he rudely, under flimsy pretenses, kicked me out from his PS ’empty chair’ site.

    May those who come into contact with his book be touched by grace in a way that would lead them out of the ideological trap swamidass has unwittingly set for them, and many of us. Those who won’t be trapped by swamidass’ ‘logic’ here, by his ideological scientism, would be wise to work together against his aggressive pro-YECist positionlessness.

  4. dazz: Yup, no logic to be seen there, as far as I can tell

    I’ll let you think about it a bit to see if you can figure out the connection.

    Hints:
    1. What famous Greek philosopher provides the basis for much of Catholic philosophy?
    2. What are the four causes this philosopher identified?
    3. Which of these causes does IDT focus on demonstrating scientifically?

    For a mainstream explanation of all this, check out Alasdair MacIntyre’s book “After Virtue”.

  5. Aristotle, I guess

    EricMH: 3. Which of these causes does IDT focus on demonstrating scientifically?

    If ID has demonstrated anything scientifically, I’m the Pope

  6. EricMH,

    Alasdair McIntyre being recruited as an IDist using Aristotle, claiming ‘Science’ is only about material & efficient causes, not formal or final causes? False linkage. Are you suggesting McIntyre is an IDist? No. So don’t try to use him for IDist apologetics please.

    EricMH – please ignore OMagain – this is NOT a thread about IDT, IDism or anything to do with the DI’s ideology. Sorry, go start another thread if you want that conversation & instead please stay on topic here. Thanks.

  7. dazz,

    Thanks. Is it possible to have the video show up in the comment, or only to be clicked on as a link? I used the embed code, perhaps incorrectly.

  8. Gregory:
    dazz,

    Thanks. Is it possible to have the video show up in the comment, or only to be clicked on as a link? I used the embed code, perhaps incorrectly.

    I don’t think so

  9. EricMH: 3. Which of these causes does IDT focus on demonstrating scientifically?

    Intelligent Design Theology doesn’t do anything to support their case scientifically. IDT is a religiously motivated political movement, not a scientific one.

  10. Adapa,

    Again, please, while the ‘temptation’ to follow IDists around wherever they go, hounding them about ‘IDiotic IDT’ & such things, is clearly strong among some people, I’m asking in this thread to resist that temptation & instead do the right thing by staying on topic: swamidass’ new book & his ‘5th voice’ messaging. Thanks.

  11. Adapa: Intelligent Design Theology doesn’t do anything to support their case scientifically. IDT is a religiously motivated political movement, not a scientific one.

    For what it’s worth, I also think you should back off from this thread. I myself find it very irritating when I’m trying to have a semi-serious discussion about philosophy or science and the thread is hijacked by someone who wants to know I’m not considering the possibility of higher planes of existence or whatever. This thread is for theological discussion.

    Since I have neither the training nor the inclination for theology, I’m staying out of it due to the courtesy that I wish others would show to me — though I reserve the right to weigh in when I see strictly philosophical mistakes being made.

  12. EricMH: I’ll let you think about it a bit to see if you can figure out the connection.

    Hints:
    1. What famous Greek philosopher provides the basis for much of Catholic philosophy?
    2. What are the four causes this philosopher identified?
    3. Which of these causes does IDT focus on demonstrating scientifically?

    For a mainstream explanation of all this, check out Alasdair MacIntyre’s book “After Virtue”.

    I really don’t think that ID demonstrates scientific evidence for formal or final causation. In fact I think that’s very, very deeply confused: ID posits an intelligence as the efficient cause of life. If we had a metaphysics of science that allowed for formal and final causation, there would be no need for ID. Thomists who reject ID are correct to do so.

  13. Kantian Naturalist,

    Fine, then go do it with EricMH on another thread. The merit of your FWIW got canceled out by continuing off-topic with an IDist. What’s wrong with your perception, prof? This thread isn’t about IDT, the DI, IDism or any of that. Whether or not Thomists “are correct” to reject IDT or not (which I believe they are) is irrelevant. This is a thread about swamidass’ book. Please show that courtesy.

  14. EricMH: 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’!

    Very well said. However, censorship, not “nasty” is their main problem. As if they can kill the truth. To me it’s hilarious.

  15. Gregory:
    Kantian Naturalist,

    Fine, then go do it with EricMH on another thread. The merit of your FWIW got canceled out by continuing off-topic with an IDist. What’s wrong with your perception, prof? This thread isn’t about IDT, the DI, IDism or any of that. Whether or not Thomists “are correct” to reject IDT or not (which I believe they are) is irrelevant. This is a thread about swamidass’ book. Please show that courtesy.

    Fair enough — I’ll withdraw from this thread.

  16. Kantian Naturalist,

    If only you among so many (agnostic or atheist) others here knew how much speaking about genealogy wouldn’t cost you, along with the potential benefit it may bring…

    Even philosophy of (folk) genealogy would be appreciated pro- or contra- the book’s main point (which you rightly admit is theological), since it is obvious that swamidass has done in that field barely more than no work.

  17. @Gregory I’m interested to see you grill Swamidass, and see if he has the courage to venture over here, since he obviously has enough time on his hands for lengthy discussions over at PS. He at least owes you such a courtesy since he kicked you off his site.

    However, I have no inclination to read GAE. All I’ve done is skim his ASA paper that laid out his argument, and I find it to be extremely uncompelling, hence my mocking of the argument. So, I cannot be a part of the truth squad.

    I also don’t think it’s correct to characterize Swamidass’ position as YEC evangelical. He makes a big point on how he is completely inline with mainstream evolution views, and doesn’t believe there is any scientific evidence of God’s intervention in history. Very non-YEC evangelical.

    My take is Swamidass is trying to twist the meaning of ‘originating from Adam and Eve’ to be compatible with mainstream evolution theory, so science and religion do not conflict. Essentially in line with Gould’s idea of non overlapping magesteria, based on the even older idea from Averroes that the truths of Aristotelian philosophy do not have anything to do with the truths of Islamic religion.

    And to bring this full circle, and show my ‘Catholic and final cause’ detour is not completely off topic, this was Aquinas’ big project: to show Aristotelian philosophy and Catholic religion are consistent, but within a unified magisterium. I see ID embarking on the same quest, and Swamidass on the other side with Gould and Averroes.

  18. Nonlin.org: However, censorship, not “nasty” is their main problem.

    What instances of censorship do you know of?

    In my case, I called out Swamidass on his equivocation of information and entropy, and they ended up hiding the thread after a lengthy round of trying to publicly shame me.

  19. Mung: Joshua claims they have more moderators now. So things must be better now.

    That’s really funny.

    Gregory: Mung, EricMH, Jay313 & myself. Ok, that’s a squad I could temporarily work with on a common purpose for the good of many more than ourselves. What say you fellas?

    Thanks for the invite, but I’m spread too thin already, and I have bigger fish to fry than GAE. I may do a short blog-only post to clarify the “monster” title and answer a listener’s question, but I’ve devoted too much time to Swamidass’ book as it is. The emperor has no clothes. Not news to most of us.

  20. “I have no inclination to read GAE.” – EricMH

    “Well, I’m certainly not trying to incline you to do so, though you should become familiar with the arguments swamidass lays out there. There is not much new, indeed, other than invocation of a nice, peaceful dialogue that is being proclaimed as ‘new – voila!’ under the philosophistic guidance of swamidass.

    “All I’ve done is skim his ASA paper that laid out his argument, and I find it to be extremely uncompelling, hence my mocking of the argument. So, I cannot be a part of the truth squad.”

    If I were asking you to join a ‘truth squad’, there’d be a serious conversation we’d need to have in private about what you call IDT and I call IDism before you’d be trustworthy to be on it. As for a squad regarding this ‘5th voice’, it doesn’t require one to have read swamidass’ book, or many of his articles. I’m not going to be unfair to swamidass here, as I think a couple of them are worth giving at least a quick glance through and reading the Abstract & Conclusions, etc. to see what he’s on about.

    Can you please confirm what it is that you find “extremely uncompelling”:
    a) swamidass’ presentation of Adam and Eve’s genealogy,
    b) the notion that a genealogical A&E could count as a ‘scientific’ hypothesis,
    c) the notion that a A&E’s genealogy, rather than their genetics, is ‘always already’ part of the teachings of the Roman Catholic church,
    d) the way swamidass has, along with Buggs, Schaffner, Gauger & several others, been distinguishing ‘genealogy’ from ‘genetics’, as a significant feature in understanding ‘what it means to be a human being’, with swamidass doing this in an evangelicalistic way,
    e) the notion that Adam and Eve actually ‘have’ or ‘may be given’ a genealogy,
    f) smth else ________________________?

    Even if you haven’t read much of his works, it would help if you could clarify what specifically you find wrong with his ‘argument’, i.e. that doesn’t align with your Catholic beliefs.

    “I also don’t think it’s correct to characterize Swamidass’ position as YEC evangelical.”

    To clarify, I said that his main audience are YECist evangelicals & that he’s an “ex-YEC activist.”

    “this was Aquinas’ big project: to show Aristotelian philosophy and Catholic religion are consistent”

    Just consistent? So we’re stuck hovering around in the 13th century still only with the good Doctor & Aristotle, since one can’t turn to anyone both less scholasticistic & more contemporary than Aquinas? IDism is a highly conservative ideology by mainly USAmerican architects indeed; in the hands of the few Catholics that get roped into it, Aquinas as Fr. Chaberek spins him, plus the IDM, is like a tempting grail to a throne in paradise. Maybe that’s what EricMH had in mind with Averroes, who IDists unsurprisingly butcher in their philosophistry of science.

  21. EricMH: What instances of censorship do you know of?

    They deleted my comments (and not for profanities), “timeouts”, not publishing my topics. Worse than Biologos that didn’t do any of that (they just banned me one day due to their massive intellectual losses). I am not complaining – it’s a free country.

  22. Jay313,

    Hold on here a bit, Jay, if you don’t mind, before we get ahead of ourselves. I’m an unreasonably busy guy too. Are you a serious critic or a superficial passerby? It sounded like you have a book on the topic coming out, and the very thing most/many people working on a book want is to be as clear as possible about what they are arguing and putting forth. I’ve got not a couple of things in the works, though, like you, I agree that swamidass isn’t a major figure in either my reading interests or planning.

    As I said, I’m not entirely satisfied with your approach either, which to me doesn’t sound consistent with historical Christian teachings, since that is what you appear to be advocating and presenting yourself as in defense of. Are you? Or are you one of the pick-&-choose-as-you-go liberal individualistic evangelical ‘thinkers’ that BioLogos has been grooming this past decade?

    You’re a BioLogos proponent, it seems. Yet, as you surely are aware, BioLogos’ position in this conversation is also highly compromised. So to some degree it seems that swamidass’ concern may be valid given your previous contacts with him via BioLogos, about which I am not familiar and do not wish in any way to get involved. As you surely know, swamidass is in an on-going argument with BioLogos, including Deborah Haarsma, Dennis Venema and others, that has not yet concluded on the topic of ‘polygenesis’, with each accusing the other of some variant of it. Please clarify if you see things differently as they stand today.

    Thanks for your time & helpful contributions.

  23. Gregory: a) swamidass’ presentation of Adam and Eve’s genealogy,
    b) the notion that a genealogical A&E could count as a ‘scientific’ hypothesis,
    c) the notion that a A&E’s genealogy, rather than their genetics, is ‘always already’ part of the teachings of the Roman Catholic church,
    d) the way swamidass has, along with Buggs, Schaffner, Gauger & several others, been distinguishing ‘genealogy’ from ‘genetics’, as a significant feature in understanding ‘what it means to be a human being’, with swamidass doing this in an evangelicalistic way,
    e) the notion that Adam and Eve actually ‘have’ or ‘may be given’ a genealogy,

    The most annoying point is ‘b’. Saying that there is a way to spin the wording of one’s position so the evidence doesn’t contradict it, and then calling that ‘scientific’ entails that all the unfalsifiable fantasy origin stories of humankind are also ‘scientific’. It used to be that falsifiability was a necessary condition for a hypothesis to be scientific. Nowadays, these kids think that anything the evidence doesn’t contradict is ‘science’. It’s like a bad Pastafarian satire. Especially annoying since Swamidass spends so much time bashing IDT (in fact IDT is the only thing bringing an audience to his forum), and then when it finally comes time for him to advance his own ‘scientific’ theory, it is such an anti-climax.

  24. EricMH: It used to be that falsifiability was a necessary condition for a hypothesis to be scientific.

    That’s pretty funny coming from an ID proponent who can’t even think of a testable hypothesis let alone a way to falsify ID’s claims.

    Nowadays, these kids think that anything the evidence doesn’t contradict is ‘science’. It’s like a bad Pastafarian satire.

    Like one really immature kid who thinks his mathematical masturbation has magically proved evolution to be impossible.

  25. EricMH,

    “IDT is the only thing bringing an audience to his forum”

    Not as I see it. And anyway, that sounds too self-inflating coming from an IDist. But there is a sliver of truth in this. swamidass is ‘banking’ on syphoning off people from the IDM, BioLogos, Reasons to Believe, and of course, also Creation Ministries International and Answers in Genesis, the young earth organizations.

    “The most annoying point is ‘b’.”

    Now you’ve switched from “uncompelling” (sic) to “most annoying”?

    Yes, I agree that swamidass over-plays the genealogy card. There is a wonderful and highly precautionary term for what he is attempting to do here that exists in the literature, for which I will follow-up in due time.

    “Saying that there is a way to spin the wording of one’s position so the evidence doesn’t contradict it, and then calling that ‘scientific’ entails that all the unfalsifiable fantasy origin stories of humankind are also ‘scientific’.”

    If I were swamidass, I would spend as “much time bashing IDT” as I could. The IDM is bloated, it is filled with wishful thinkers, not actual producers with results from the ‘theory’ that every card carrying ideologue member of the IDM, down to the last man or woman had hoped for, but hasn’t yet seen written down.

    When will the time come that will IDists eventually admit they have found their hill to die on with IDT? As soon as they realize that ‘natural & artificial intelligence’ is not about Them, but about Us. That’s the banana-skin pirouette and collapse moment of the IDM that McLuhan’s language, theory & methodology make possible to expose as natural scientifically duplicitous & humanistically vacuous.

    It thus simply makes sense why swamidass, along with any thinking Abrahamic religious thinker, opposes the IDM. If you’d like, EricMH, that can be established quite easily in a recorded conversation, if you’d like to set one up for me with Stephen C. Meyer, John G. West, or Brian Miller, all 3 of whom I’ve met in person. Such opportunities for fresh, open dialogue will only happen if and when slippery IDists will finally step forward to take responsibility for the ‘philosophistry’ and double-talking coming from the leadership of their ‘movement’. There’s not only sour dealing coming from Peaceful Science; the IDM has its own bitter pill that people must swallow in their minds & hearts in order to ‘put on’ the facade of IDism.

  26. “then when it finally comes time for him to advance his own ‘scientific’ theory, it is such an anti-climax.”

    Yes, it’s a bit funny how swamidass is coming out of this so far looking like he is a confident scientist, but that he doesn’t have much confidence in science on the topics he cares the most about. He believes in Adam and Eve based on his evangelicalistic Christian faith, not because of ‘science’. He’s personally catching up with Catholic thinkers (and sometimes trying to take credit from them) on this topic, in a way that he can share new knowledge with evangelical friends, not because of ‘science’ itself, but rather due to swamidass’ worldview and relationships.

    Nevertheless, the ‘science’ behind Buggs’ work contra Venema/Scott in Adam and the Genome seems legit. It has ZERO to do with IDT, as surely EricMH will admit. Buggs isn’t an IDist, isn’t a theist, & didn’t mention IDT in his work on this topic.

    Gauger’s genetics work likewise provides ZERO evidence or unique support for ‘Intelligent Design’ (because it couldn’t by definition), yet it nevertheless does provide an interesting new scientific approach to data collected in new way, with a new focus. That their work doesn’t support IDT/IDism isn’t an ‘anti-climax’, it is just a normal way of doing science, which again & as usual distinguishes it from IDT/IDism.

  27. Kantian Naturalist: Fair enough — I’ll withdraw from this thread.

    That’s why I’ve always enjoyed the “thought exchanges” with you….even if in disagreement. 😊

    When you are wrong, you have the guts to admit it, unlike our moderators, and the great majority of the opinionated crowd here.

    I have more respect for agnostics, or atheists, who are willing to change their minds, as needed, than phony theists or “Christians”, who never do, and confuse otheres in order to push their agenda…

    If there is God, whom does prefer?
    The theists who should know better?
    Or agnostics/atheists who would like to know better?
    I sign off this OP too….
    Sorry

  28. Gregory: Gauger’s genetics work likewise provides ZERO evidence or unique support for ‘Intelligent Design’ (because it couldn’t by definition), yet it nevertheless does provide an interesting new scientific approach to data collected in new way, with a new focus.

    Yes, I like Gauger’s work much more, since she’s actually engaging the scientific data regarding the genetic source. Likewise for the contrary arguments from Biologos, which purport to do the opposite. Both are dealing with something that is mathematically and scientifically tractable, and theoretically we can eventually show one of them is wrong.

    Swamidass, OTOH, just wants to play with words.

  29. Adapa: That’s pretty funny coming from an ID proponent who can’t even think of a testable hypothesis let alone a way to falsify ID’s claims.

    My coauthor came up with a numerical experiment with expected ASC in our recent Bio-C paper. That’s the one section that even Tom English appreciated.

    Adapa: Like one really immature kid who thinks his mathematical masturbation has magically proved evolution to be impossible.

    I don’t believe I’ve said this anywhere, but if so I misspoke. I try to refrain from making strong claims about what the mathematics demonstrates regarding biology.

    Felsenstein has requested that I make such an attempt, and I sketched one previously on TSZ, which English has subsequently shown to be flawed.

  30. Alan Fox,

    And I heard you’ve never done lab work, Alan.

    I can only see what she is producing publicly, but there is clearly research and work being done. If not mistaken from reading it somewhere online, there is apparently a medical condition she has, one that I am familiar with, which makes it difficult for her to do some lab work. If anyone would like to mock her for this condition, which is no fault of her own, they would reveal a classless person.

    What she has written is nevertheless worth considering to compare and contrast with swamidass’s work. As I said, it can be done entirely without involving the DI’s ideology into the discussion, unless one only wants to do that. Not a few people are clearly obsessed with IDism, on both sides of the drama.

    Gauger’s engagement with swamidass in public is part of the ‘origins’ conversation USA-style that much of the rest of the world has been watching, if at all, with strange & baffled curiosity for years now.

  31. EricMH,

    Well, I don’t “like” either’s work ‘more’ or ‘less.’ I’m trying to understand what is true, accurate, valuable, insightful, etc. and what is nonsense, or can just be discarded as trivial or tautological. It does seem like our methods of approach are rather quite different to this topic.

    It is obvious that swamidass *IS* “actually engaging the scientific data regarding the genetic source.” To believe otherwise is to live in a fantasy bubble of your own making. The guy is a tenured faculty member at WSLU, has a lab, graduate students, equipment, budget, etc. You are seriously delusional about scientific practice and recognition if you listen to Gauger instead of swamidass, as if one must first screen people for an “IDist Membership Card” (on Kool-Aid) before ‘trusting’ their ‘scientific’ credentials. It’s a bizarre worldview to entertain, EricMH, that’s for sure, and one of the things that hurts your credibility. Jus saying true, cuz.

    “Swamidass, OTOH, just wants to play with words.”

    Well, you aren’t convincing and need to get that plank out of your own eye first. While I am entirely displeased and frankly still in shock by this pretentious ‘me-scientist’ man and the way he has treated me, basically as a ‘slave’ to his ambitious plans, at the same time I don’t for a second believe his intention is to “just play with words.”

    Look, he was defending Tim Keller. Opderbeck’s tempting dichotomy was perhaps dancing like sugar plums in swamidass’ head. Buggs’ breakthrough came along & swamidass thought it was time in his life to take on the figure of Santa Claus, spreading with great glee & self-surprise at all of the attention a gift of ‘light bulbs’. It seems he simply may not have known or even realised that Catholics and Orthodox already turn on the lights, and that many have a stock of bulbs waiting in the closet should one go out.

    That’s the extent of swamidass’ superficial appeal, afaicsi. The main message is, “look at swamidass for Science, that you may see his Creator.” He has set himself up as a scientistic messenger to evangelicals with a message to catch up to Catholics & Orthodox, yet without actually mentioning that openly and directly, to his primary audience of non-mainline evangelical Protestants in his home local. There may be even more difficulty now, however, for them to ‘like’ swamidass (‘liking’ being the apparent goal, rather than purification) when he has started broadly promoting a newly stated (now more on repeat than before) ‘Evolutionary Science’. This combination duo will lead him into much more scientism-related trouble, sad pony with Templeton ‘evolutionary science’ stars on his blanket.

  32. @Gregory, more technically, I find ‘b’ uncompelling: science is about what we can clearly affirm or deny about reality based on empirical evidence. It is not about saying the evidence does not contradict some favored conclusion.

    Swamidass argument in a nutshell:
    1. Due to the fact that after N number of generations in the past ancestry becomes so mixed that any pair N generations ago is our ancestor, it is mathematically consistent to say that some particular pair called “Adam and Eve” N generations ago is our ancestor.
    2. From that fact, Swamidass can play word games with what it means to say “Adam and Eve are the father and mother of us all” and find some permutation that is at least syntactically compatible with the words some mainstream Christians use, but means the point #1.

    Guager’s argument:
    The genetic evidence is consistent with a single genetic originator of all of humanity some 500 kya ago.

    Guager’s argument is dissatisfying because it attempts to show science does not falsify a religious doctrine, but it is more interesting than Swamidass b/c it is not playing word games to move a doctrine out of the realm of falsifiability.

    The great thing about ID, on the other hand, is that it is promoting a positive conclusion: we can empirically detect intelligent agency.

    Additionally, IDT provides a novel scientific methodology that improves on Fisherian hypothesis testing by allowing post hoc pattern detection. I’ve developed technology, proven theorems, run numerical experiments, developed a bioinformatics algorithm, and even written sci fi stories based on Dembski’s concepts of the explanatory filter, active information and intelligent agency. Thus, IDT has merit from a techno science perspective. It gives me new ideas I can go out and test, and use to improve the world and maybe even make money. IDT is not about propping up someone’s favored beliefs about reality. Hence why I’m such a proponent of IDT.

  33. Gregory: EricMH,

    “IDT is the only thing bringing an audience to his forum”

    Not as I see it.

    This is easy to quantifiably confirm. Go check PS right now and look at which threads are pulling in the most views. What is the subject area of these threads?

    Then, wait for a dull patch at PS and look at the threads. What topic is missing from the threads?

    It is plain to see that PS is parasitic on IDT. Its true raison d’etre is to bash IDT. GAE is merely a blip in the topics presented there.

  34. Gregory: I’m trying to understand what is true, accurate, valuable, insightful, etc

    As you see it???

    Gregory: It is obvious that swamidass *IS* “actually engaging the scientific data regarding the genetic source.” To believe otherwise is to live in a fantasy bubble of your own making.

    He believes it too…lol
    https://youtu.be/Euqy42CQzig?t=93

  35. EricMH: The great thing about ID, on the other hand, is that it is promoting a positive conclusion: we can empirically detect intelligent agency.

    Problem is you can only detect such design if the capabilities and limitations of the designer are hypothesized and tested against. With humans we can do that pretty easily because we have a hundred thousand years’ of known human designs to compare an unknown against. The IDiots can’t even get started because their “Designer” is omnipotent and can produce any possible observed phenomenon. That’s why ID-Creationism is not testable, not falsifiable, not even close to a theory, and not a valid approach to science.

    Thus, IDT has merit from a techno science perspective. It gives me new ideas I can go out and test, and use to improve the world and maybe even make money. IDT is not about propping up someone’s favored beliefs about reality.

    When you or your IDiot buddies get off your collective ass and actually make some testable predictions, test them, and publish the positive results then you can boast. Right now you’re just pissing into the wind.

  36. Adapa,

    Problem is you can only detect such design if the capabilities and limitations of the designer are hypothesized and tested against.

    Based on what standard in science?

  37. Adapa &co indicate TSZ has the same reason for existence as PS 🙂 If my memory serves, the most participated threads always have something to do with IDT.

    Also, indicates the merits of IDT.

    Everyone recognizes flat earthers and 9/11 truthers have a few screws loose, so while there are a few level headed debunkings from credentialed individuals, that debunking space is pretty calm.

    On the other hand, nothing like IDT gets the debunkers so inflamed and up in arms, such that whole forums exist to denounce the movement. Methinks they protest too much 😀

  38. EricMH: On the other hand, nothing like IDT gets the debunkers so inflamed and up in arms, such that whole forums exist to denounce the movement. Methinks they protest too much

    Some of us think scientific literacy (or its lack) is a serious issue for the U.S. We hate to see disingenuous conmen like the clowns running the DI push their religion-based pseudoscience horseshit on the unaware public. That’s why there is so much push-back.

    You as a military officer ought to be doubly ashamed at how you’re helping with the deception.

  39. Adapa,

    Based on the fact you’re a scientifically illiterate sealion.

    This is the best defense of a claim you have been repeating for over a year?

  40. Adapa,

    Some of us think scientific literacy (or its lack) is a serious issue for the U.S. We hate to see disingenuous conmen like the clowns running the DI push their religion-based pseudoscience horseshit on the unaware public. That’s why there is so much push-back.

    Only one third of the public believes in the blind and unguided fairytale. What are you trying to protect?

  41. colewd: This is the best defense of a claim you have been repeating for over a year?

    No Bill, your stupid uninformed blithering all over the web for years is all the evidence I need. You’re one of the most willfully ignorant dumbass Creationists anyone has ever seen. You’ve never met a science paper you didn’t run screaming from.

  42. colewd: Only one third of the public believes in the blind and unguided fairytale. What are you trying to protect?

    Helping make sure the U.S. electorate is scientifically knowledgeable so they can make informed decisions, not like a willfully ignorant dumbass such as you.

    People have tried for years to educate you, holding your hand and walking you through the most basic evolutionary science concepts over and over and over and over. You always come back the next day just as ignorant.

  43. EricMH,

    Regarding Adam and Eve, since you volunteered in this thread that you are a Roman Catholic, could you say how the Roman Catholic teachings about Adam and Eve differ from, or conflict in any way with what you believe S. Joshua Swamidass is proposing at PS?

    “PS is parasitic on IDT. Its true raison d’etre is to bash IDT. GAE is merely a blip in the topics presented there.”

    EricMH, even while you know how much I loathe the way swamidass is going about his evangelicalistic genealogistics, it is simply wrong to say what you do about swamidass’ ‘raison d’etre’. Adam and Eve actually having a ‘genealogy’ is standard Roman Catholic teaching. Didn’t you know that?

    “playing word games to move a doctrine out of the realm of falsifiability”

    Ah, so your major grief with swamidass then is that you believe he makes A&E into an ‘unfalsifiable’ doctrine, and you instead wish A&E to be a sincerely ‘falsifiable’ doctrine? Please clarify, because you sound much more IDist than Catholic so far. I listen to serious Catholic thinkers who reject IDism after having become well enough familiar to make a decision for themselves.

    “and even written sci fi stories”

    Yup, that’s known as IDist philosophistry of science

Leave a Reply