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
Looks like you have some serious thinking to do Eric…
Adapa has some serious theories for you to reconsider, such as the creative powers of the bolt of lightning… Who can argue against that?
I wouldn’t put too much thought into what Adapa has to say about relationships in the military, shame, all that… She sound like one who comes from a broken home, I mean literally. A tree probably fell on her roof and cracked the whole structure. Her parents could get along well… but her house was likely in a bad shape…😉
LOL Don’t worry FFRF nor anyone is going to sue you because you mixed up entropy and information at PS. Information Theory is a difficult subject to master even for someone who has a PhD in the subject.
Eric, you made a fool out yourself at PS for your lack of knowledge of the very subject you have a PhD EE in. The foundations of Information Theory were established by Claude Shannon in his now famous 1948 paper that you apparently had never read. How can you continue to make outlandish claims about functional information in biological systems when you have never grasped the basics of information and entropy in communication systems?
Patrick Trischitta,
We know bolts of lightning exist. We know that they significantly change the place where they hit. We can observe them.
I’ve never seen the creative power of an unknown entity do something some-when. So in fact a bolt of lightning has substantially more explanatory power available to it then any purported Intelligent Designer.
Unless, of course, you can tell me more about your Intelligent Designer then we already know about lightning…..
See. All you have to do is appeal to my ego, and I show up. Haha. Actually, now that I’m doing the website and attendant social media, adding one more forum to track seemed too much. I also knew that Swamidass wouldn’t be back. He runs for cover as soon as I show up. Am I serious? There’s your answer. I’ve been battling the flu for days, or I would’ve replied here earlier. Sorry. I’ll be playing catch-up for a while.
I am working on a book — Becoming Adam, Becoming Christ. The proposal is making the rounds now. Pray for me, if you’re so inclined. I’ve sketched out an overview in a three-part post, Adam’s Evolutionary Journey. Find it here: http://becomingadam.com/index.php/podcast-blog/
Hmmm. I’m not sure BioLogos would want to claim me, let alone to have groomed me. I hang onto the evangelical label for the moment, though it’s becoming more problematic every day. I can probably guess some of your objections, but first I’d like to ask you some questions about Kemp’s article. Send me an email at jayjohnson@becomingadam.com when you have time.
Thank you!
Jay313,
I’m sorry but would you mind telling who you are?
What’s your connection to Swamidass, if any?
Patrick Trischitta,
I have always wondered, how a representative of FFRF got tangled up with a religious movement promoted by Swamidass at Peaceful Science?
Please ignore my request to identify yourself!
I already know who you are …
I am not a representative of FFRF, I am just a long time active member of FFRF. Dr. Swamidass and I had bad experiences with Biologos at rough personal times in our lives which served as a catalyst for becoming allies and later friends. When Josh started Peaceful Science, I joined him because he said that he was going to report on the science as a research scientist adhering to MN. He has never wavered on this. He has always been a trustworthy scientist, MD, person. I think his Christianity serves him well as I consider him a fine person. I don’t see the scientific community nor the secular humanist community ever having issues with him.
Jay313,
Ok, thanks, understood. These suspensions, as with nonlin also, don’t stand well on swamidass’ “openness” record or to the “Empty Chair” rhetoric. EricMH & Mung had similar experiences. Ann Gauger has expressed exasperation at swamidass’ style of rhetoric and posturing. The list goes on and on, which is not something that swamidass’ apologetics hero WLC seems to have in his resume.
No worries then. Catch-up is fine. I’m in the middle of that for the moment too.
Yes, I’m so inclined. May your book be published if it is God’s will.
Well, that first part’s likely understandable and a new label probably wouldn’t hurt too much in the next step, still ever within God’s hands. My objections come through a filter of 15 years lived considerably “East” of where either of us is now, so the key ones you might only guess in the apophatic sense. Good wishes with whatever path opens for you and your family.
Patrick Trischitta,
The capital ‘L’ in BioLogos’ official name is meant for a symbolic reason. Do you know why that is? Even if I’m not the same ‘religion’ as that guy who is a far more highly respected scientist than swamidass, named Francis Collins, NIH, I still respect the specific meaning of the term he coined and use it properly, both out of a sign of respect for the BioLogos Foundation that Collins started & b/c I believe that big “L” for “Logos” is communicatively significant. A person either shows respect for names or they don’t. swamidass here doesn’t show respect for names, so that’s perhaps a habit of his that you’re bringing here, unless you are willing to self-correct & start using the correct term.
By “always,” can I ask how long you have been aware of the existence of S. Joshua Swamidass? I ask because he’s still a relative “newbie” in my eyes, at least in the science, philosophy, theology/worldview discourse. He only “burst” onto the scene that I was watching in 2016 at BioLogos. Before that, he was not on my radar. It would often be quite hard to know how “trustworthy” a person in the past was if you only recently met them.
Thank you for sharing this. It makes sense how that was a catalyst, first for your ally-ship and then later friendship at PS. You are, after all, aren’t you, the most prolific poster at PS, with more posts even than the Ringmaster Host himself? Surely the stage swamidass has given you has also strengthened your allyship with him … for Science as well.
He defends ideological atheism, not just atheists, against fellow devout Christians. Surely that is one of the very things that makes him “a fine person” in your eyes. Iow, he’s “secular” with you, which means he appears “fair,” just as swamidass likes to pair those two terms, is it right?
Yes, he’s very sensitive about that topic, isn’t he? Again, thanks for sharing that was the reason, i.e. swamidass’ claim to “adhere to MNism”, that brought you to his site to ally with him & become his friend against creationists and IDists, bringing scientism as peacefully as possible in that cause.
He did just say this a few days ago, as bluntly as ever, didn’t he?
Hmm, unchanging, static, won’t change, isn’t changing, cannot change, not yet ready to change? swamidass sounds affirmatively stuck in scientistic ideology.
Really? How so? You are aware he’s actually protecting YECists with his “THE GAE”, don’t you? Would you like to start a thread here about whether or not “the scientific community” (sic) or “the secular humanist community” (sic) would ever have issues with … his ideas (not him personally)?
Please, give it a try here, Patrick, and see how much you might learn instead of just guessing. This site is filled with atheists and agnostics, aka ‘secular humanists’, as well as many natural and applied scientists. You might be surprised what you discover if you formulate a basic claim, even framing it in an exploratory sense as a research question, regarding things regular commentators here “may have issues with” involving sometimes friendly swamidass’ particular GAE.
Let me just say this site is fine about attacking ideas, especially when done with evidence and logical argument. Personal attacks are not welcome.
Patrick Trischitta,
Thanks for the clarification.
If TSZ sticks to this motto, it could become even better, more worthwhile site to visit and reference. Unfortunately, sometimes ideas are closely related to a person’s ego, or hypocrisy, which I personally find hard not to expose…😉
Some might say you do an excellent job exposing someone’s ego.
You mean, my ego? 😉
If that is the case, I try to keep it under control…It’s not easy sometimes… when you see obvious things and others don’t… because they don’t want to, or in few cases, they simply can’t see the obvious, I have recently learned…
What are you gonna do?
Never occurred to me but now that you mention it…
I am sure you are aware of possible alternative explanations …
I guess that would depend on what motivates you.
Alan Fox,
Yes, Alan, even though you won’t say Amen: “his ideas (not him personally)”
Patrick’s claim de-personalized:
Gregory,
Sorry for the typo in BioLogos. Dr. Francis Collins continues to be an excellent NIH Director. And Dr. Swamidass continues to be an excellent tenured Professor at UWSTL. His work at PS and his book shows rather well how, like Dr. Francis Collins founding BioLogos, one can be an excellent scientist, professional, and teacher adhering to MN as well as adhering to the tenets of one’s personal faith. Since science is neutral on the questions of faith, Dr Swamidass and Dr. Collins are excellent role models on how this can be accomplished.
Patrick Trischitta,
Thanks for self-correcting re: BioLogos’ proper spelling. Names, are important, and should be respected. It’s a shame your “confessing scientist” mentor over at PS disagrees in practise.
Thanks for this, Patrick. It’s funny. What protection of scientistic idolatry using these evangelical Christian men as your instruments for doing it!
Don’t forget though, it’s really properly denoted as “MNism” (“methodological natural-ISM”), rather than the softer “MN” (“methodologically natural”, or “methods of studying nature”?). The softer version might make some people think what they are pushing is ‘less ideological’, or even forget what ideology they are advocating in public; just like its really YECism, not just YEC.
We’re talking about an ideology, either way. Unless one wishes to disappear the -ISM from the naturalism,” we’ve still got a problem with swamidass’ ‘logic’ here. Whether or not swamidass wants to ‘like’ clearer language regarding MNism or not, is rather beside the issue.
That you don’t call ‘methodological naturalism’ properly as an ‘ideology’, Patrick, reflects the same kind of weak philosophy of science that swamidass echoes/reflects. He is certainly confident about, yet still unconfessing the ideological pretzel he’s tied himself into, especially among YECists & IDists! = P
The notions in question: MNism, “the Science of Adam”, “a genealogical Science of Adam & Eve”, and an “Empty Chair”, that he has in fact been suspending & silencing people from who are most difficult in their criticisms of (not the man, but) his ideas.
Gregory,
Sure going forward, I will use MNism and YECism instead of MN and YEC in my posts.
This is mission statement from FFRF:
“Welcome to the Freedom from Religion Foundation
The history of Western civilization shows us that most social and moral progress has been brought about by persons free from religion. In modern times the first to speak out for prison reform, for humane treatment of the mentally ill, for abolition of capital punishment, for women’s right to vote, for death with dignity for the terminally ill, and for the right to choose contraception, sterilization and abortion have been freethinkers, just as they were the first to call for an end to slavery. The Foundation works as an umbrella for those who are free from religion and are committed to the cherished principle of separation of state and church.
I personally find it difficult to accept there are no conflict of interests by being an active member of Freedom From Religion Foundations, and supporting a friend, whose mission, like it, or not, is to be a new voice human origins, which includes religion…
How does the umbrella for those who are free from religion really work in your case?
What do you tell the members of FFRF when asked about your support for the religious movement promoted by your religious friend, Swamidass?
It comes with the territory: If I’m too humble, people have doubts. If I’m overconfident, even worse…
Calm confidence is where I’d like to be at… 🙂
There may be…but are they true?
How about getting to the truth?
Isn’t that just an example of ismism?
Ah yes, the pitfalls of being too humble are well known.
Who knows? Truth is elusive. Being supported by evidence is a good start.
Not sure posting stuff on a blog is a pathway to the Truth. Probably less elevated motivations dominate .
I sure hope this isn’t criticism.
So, the search for truth by acquiring more evidence is the way to go, no?
True, but I usually learn something new either by reviewing the subject I know or I thought I knew well…😀
Much appreciated for communicative clarity.
That’s not a term that has been discussed widely in the Literature, is it?
Otherwise, please unpack the meaning behind the veiled scientistic sarcasm to others, so the ideological underlay will be exposed. PhDs in natural science who are simply terrible communicators aren’t uncommon.
You mean a critismismism?
Some frequent commentators at the Peaceful Science forum, and critics of Discovery Institute, find GAE idea worse off than ID – Michael Behe, or even YEC – Ken Ham
“In an odd sense, it could be argued that Swamidass actually shows less respect and deference to science than does a Young Earth Creationist like Ken Ham or an Intelligent Design Creationist like Michael Behe (Though, I hasten to add, in every other respect his understanding and acceptance of science far exceeds theirs).”
https://betterrightthanhappy.com/genealogical-adam-eve-an-attempt-to-reconcile-science-and-faith/
How could this be?
Could it be because Behe and Ham at least believe in their own side of the story and Swamidass wants to sit on the fence?
Looks like GAE gets shot at from both sides of the fence… 😉
J-Mac,
“Behe and Ham at least believe in their own side of the story and Swamidass wants to sit on the fence”
Yeah, that’s the way he wrote the book. Without “a position” of his own on display, just hints of it. The only ‘position’ implied is the author’s religious affiliation with Protestant evangelical US Christianity, which is what the publishing house InterVarsity Press represents. Templeton Foundation paid for the book & workshops; that’s a way he’s not just ‘sitting on the fence’, but has chosen allegiances. Will he dare peddling ‘methodological naturalism’ at Veritas Forum?
He team wrote the book with the explicit aim of trying to sit on the fence re: A&E.
Whose ‘fence’? Which ‘fence’? Only swamidass himself knows, because that’s the way he’s rigged the game.
swamidass is in one sense obviously trying to tear down fences, which is why especially USAmericans don’t like it. They (with a few exceptions, e.g. G.M. Price) built those “creationist” fences in the first place! = (
Being free from religion has worked very well in my case. I look at the human condition with an aim to improve things for people based on science, technology, reasoning, and human empathy. I look to US Constitution instead of any holy book for the foundation of law in the United States.
Regarding my support for my friend, Dr. Swamidass, my support is certainly not based on anything to do with the religion Dr. Swamidass’ belongs to or his personal faith and beliefs. I see Dr. Swamidass answering to a higher moral authority than any organized religion, namely his own moral authority. In this regard, Dr. Swamidass’ integrity, moral, ethics, and values to me are exemplary especial in the areas of race, intolerance, and inequality.
And that is exactly what is wrong with GAE, and Dr. Faizal makes his point very clear, as an atheist and a supporter of evolutionary theory, by stating:
“…Swamidass actually shows less respect and deference to science than does a Young Earth Creationist like Ken Ham or an Intelligent Design Creationist like Michael Behe…”.
I agree.
Swamidass’ attempts to bridge science and theology leave both sides wanting, confusing and worse off than before.
Why write the book?!
To confuse the public further on the issue of creation vs evolution?
By doing so, Swamidass made himself not a new voice on human origins, but rather, a new noise…
I personally believe that was his true motivation in the first place…
Gregory,
BTW: you should read your comment again and count contradictions… 😉
Does it prove that everyone else would be better off?
Many people, including many atheists and agnostics, see religious organizations, at least some, as having a positive impact on the society; taking care of the needy…etc
So do many religions…
Both have been misused…and still are…
No? Have you tried to substitute (hypothetically) his religious beliefs with say… pedophilia and imagining you are a member of Freedom From Pedophilia Foundation?
So, why not join freedom from hypocrisy foundation?
This is highly insulting and should be flagged as such. Moderators, clean this up.
Really?
I said hypothetically…
You can use guns and freedom from guns foundation, if you find the other example not fitting…
We dont have cendorship here like at PS or UD…
Okay if you are interested in preventing child abuse, I suggest this secular organization: https://prostasia.org/about/
It would appear you are too easily offended. I don’t often defend J-Mac (can’t recall doing it previously), but his question was hypothetical.
It sounds like you’ve grown soft over at PS, sheltered by swamidass from real, legitimate, difficult questions.
J-Mac asked you to ‘get outside yourself’ for a moment, as it appears you are committing idolatry towards S. Joshua Swamidass, while deciding in your own mind that you think he is divorcing his beliefs from his actions. I see it differently, and I certainly don’t count swamidass a ‘peacemaker’ the way he is insulting, mocking, calling out & condescending towards many people along the way. If you’ve read this thread, there are 4 voices here who have a much different “experience” with swamidass than you do. You believe he is “nice, kind & welcoming” to you, Patrick, while in his own way promoting atheism on his site. He’s sacrificing some of his ‘peacemaking’ simply by doing that, for others in the conversation who don’t wish voices like yours very far at all inside the door.
swamidass deserves very HIGH praise indeed from Patrick of FFRF, for attacking fellow religious and shielding the actively ANTI-religious at PS. What he is receiving from fellow religious believers, otoh, is quite a different story. He knows & says publicly that he is in no man’s land & is trying to suck others into it with him. I am hopeful that not many people at all, other than a person like Patrick or George at PS, would go there with him.
So, you didn’t get my point???
Next time you accuse Eric H of embarrassing himself with obvious inference, he should point this embarrassment of yours…
According to swamidass’ “evolving” personal dictionary, “secular” means “fair”. ROTFL! swamidass appears to need to use ridiculous language (as Neil Rickert pointed out at PS) like “secular science” for his “culture war” approach to this topic.
It may be that Patrick does not see swamidass setting up polemics (like “secular” vs. “confessional”) time & again over at PS, and then simply at the end of his “secular confession” of that polemic, philosophistically arguing “no polemics here” among “us scientists”. It is an incredible display of misunderstood hubris that we are witnessing in this evangelicalistic attempt of swamidass’ to “force peace” into natural science through capitulation to scientistic ideology in “science & religion” discourse. This de-personalization appears to be part of the reason why swamidass seems to think he can get away / is getting away with intentionally disrespecting people online, all wrapped up in ambitious “science & religion” promotion, while not properly crediting those he got his ideas from.
I guess some people like Patrick don’t see a problem with that, nor the intentional rudeness of swamidass towards certain others who calmly, directly, clearly, and as respectfully as possible (when a person is being rude to them in public, mocking them, belittling them, diminutizing them, etc.) point out swamidass’ errors, gaps & exaggerations, simply because that person is telling swamidass he is wrong about IDEAS, that he demonstrates himself as a kind of neo-creationist ideologue, with a trail of “5th voice” evidence to show for it?
For some “reason”, it appears difficult for Patrick, leading poster at PS, and formerly “militant”, now just “Freethinking atheist”, welcome and valued for promoting atheism at PS, to notice this dimension of swamidass’ “5th voice”. One might wonder why that is.
Thanks.
It’s as clear as crystal that my question was such, as indicated by the parentheses…
How much more clearer does it have to be?
Hypocritical is another good word for it…
I couldn’t agree more… Had it been at PS, my comment would be flagged and I would get banned…simple as that. Double standards again…
I have not grown soft over at PS. I am willing and able to tackle the most legitimate difficult questions facing humanity today. I am proud to support champions like Swamidass and Lents.
I am not embarrassed by you in the least. It is the Catholic Church who should be condemned and convicted for institutionalized child abuse.
I was wondering why you did not use the whole quote from Dr. Faizal, so I looked it up to see what you left out. Here is the whole quote.
“In an odd sense, it could be argued that Swamidass actually shows less respect and deference to science than does a Young Earth Creationist like Ken Ham or an Intelligent Design Creationist like Michael Behe (Though, I hasten to add, in every other respect his understanding and acceptance of science far exceeds theirs). ”
It’s doesn’t appear that the way you quote Dr. Faizal is the way he meant it.
Read more at: https://betterrightthanhappy.com/genealogical-adam-eve-an-attempt-to-reconcile-science-and-faith/
For some backstory to issues involving “secular”, “non-secular,” & “confessional” according to swamidass at PS, which includes Patrick’s ideologically “secularist” approach to human existence, morality, happiness, truth, beauty, etc., here. swamidass allows “secularism” showcases en masse at PS, as swamidass himself promotes “secularity”. http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/what-does-s-joshua-swamidass-mean-by-secular-scientist/
Is it fair to say then, as it seems to me, “Freethinking atheist” Patrick serves as a kind of “secularist” journalist over at swamidass’ scientistic forum? For this he ‘champions’ swamidass for Peace, calling *all* people to accept his personal (evangelicalistic) polemics, terms (THE GAE, a “Science of Adam”, said without pretense?), & the conditions (“way of seeing”) that follow from them.
swamidass’ embrace of “secular values” appears so profound that he is willing to sacrifice unity for plurality. For this, I may indeed lean closer to the language Jay used, to describe, in at least some ways, the monstrous position re: “secularity” that swamidass has taken in this Conversation, all good philosophy on the topic apparently put aside.
Lents’ “Human Errors” is an embarrassment of presumptuousness & diversion from simple “anthropological” principles that quite obviously run against his ‘irreligious’ worldview. Go ahead and “champion” work like that if you choose. I’m not taking issue at all with Lents as a person (or champion), but rather with the ideas he expresses in his published works, which I find as largely nonsense and not worthy of serious consideration in the conversation. swamidass chose more politically, than “scientifically” in the case of Lents as a GAE ally, and is not in a strong position based on his background training & education (natural & computing sciences PhD, MD) to defend the gaps & foibles in Lents’ anthroposophistry.
[Stylistic note: hoping it is properly respectful and at least understandable why, I’ve switched to using the User name ‘swamidass’ in this thread because the person using that User name has posted in this thread with that User name. Otherwise, in other threads where that person is not participating, I will revert to using the “public” name “S. Joshua Swamidass” or “Joshua” or “Swamidass”, assuming that is proper usage, since that person is not posting there, unless requested otherwise.]
No? What does it appear to mean?
When a partial quote is used out of context it often does not accurately reflect the meaning of the author. My recommendation is to read what Dr. Fazail wrote.
I did…
If you feel the addition of the last sentence changes the maning of the previous one, present your argument…