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. It’s quite clear how the meaning shifted by omitting that sentence.

    It seems you join Mung in your predilections.

  2. Patrick Trischitta:
    I am not embarrassed by you in the least.It is the Catholic Church who should be condemned and convicted for institutionalized child abuse.

    Is that right?

    Are you suggesting the Catholic Church is the only institution plagued by pedophillia and say…Dr. Swamidass’ church is free of condemnation for child abuse?

  3. Patrick Trischitta:
    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.

    Gotta give you credit, Patrick. To turn swamidass into almost sounding like a Randian objectivist worshipping the “god of I” is quite a feat.

    “We secular objectivists defending mainstream Science … from ‘creationists’ & ‘IDists'” … “We scientismists” … “We (well, um, most of “us”) post-YECists telling YECists they can still be YECists according to magical ‘genealogy'”. Isn’t this the kind of messaging that attracts people to PS? MNism sounds like what mainly attracts you to swamidass’ approach, such that without it there would likely be much more difficulty supporting his ideas regarding science, philosophy, theology/worldview.

    BioLogos’ Praveen Sethupathy, who is umm, slightly ‘liberal’ and ‘individualistic’ in his ‘theology’, such that he co-founded his own church, uses exactly the same language as swamidass, though he’s not mentioned in swamidass’ book, asking as a natural scientist: “what does it mean to be human?” These naturalistic humanists of non-mainline evangelicalism these days are a troubling phenomenon. https://www.dailytarheel.com/article/2016/03/hillsborough-church-co-founded-by-unc-professors-focuses-on-resurrection

    Is this the kind of thing you mean by swamidass “answering to a higher moral authority than any organized religion”?

  4. Patrick Trischitta: I am willing and able to tackle the most legitimate difficult questions facing humanity today.

    Really?

    Patrick Trischitta: I am proud to support champions like Swamidass and Lents.

    Champions?
    You have gotta be kidding… Maybe you, like Dr. Lents need to new lentses?
    Lents embarrassed himself with Bad Design = No designer book in Human Errors, as exposed here:

    http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/bad-design-no-designer/

    What is next? I’d be more than glad to review his next project… 😉

  5. J-Mac: as exposed here

    #822 in Genetics (Books)
    #857 in Biological Science
    #466 in Human Evolution

    Is your exposé in the top 1000 list anywhere at Amazon? See the difference?

  6. J-Mac: Is that right?

    Are you suggesting the Catholic Church is the only institution plagued by pedophillia and say…Dr. Swamidass’ church is free of condemnation for child abuse?

    Given the legal proceedings all over the world, I would say that the Catholic Church is the largest institution in the world where the problem is so widespread, the cover up so great, and monetary damages so large that it may end the institution as a functioning institution.

    Patrick Trischitta,

  7. Gregory: Is this the kind of thing you mean by swamidass “answering to a higher moral authority than any organized religion”?

    Ask Swamidass such questions.

  8. EricMH,

    Boy EricMH, you sure don’t know much about threats and how platform hosts make excuses for themselves. swamidass’ assurance must have made a big difference for you:

    “This may be surprising to you, but I think he is doing this playfully. Don’t tell anyone, but I’m pretty sure he kinda likes you.”

    A person gets a law suit lightly threatened at them (“No, I am not just messing with @EricMH”), and swamidass tells a joke “the atheist kinda likes you”, as if that’s just the right medicine in the situation?!

    swamidass is now stuck in “no man’s land” of his own doing with a UU & two almost worshiping atheist allies as his loudest defenders. Why? Because he is philosophically ‘slow’, and theologically reckless.

  9. J-Mac: Really?

    Champions?
    You have gotta be kidding… Maybe you, like Dr. Lents need to new lentses?
    Lents embarrassed himself with Bad Design = No designer book in Human Errors, as exposed here:

    http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/bad-design-no-designer/

    What is next? I’d be more than glad to review his next project… 😉

    Dr. Lents is great guy and I enjoyed his book Human Errors a lot. Yes, not just bad design, terrible design. And as I get older, the design flaws get worse.

  10. Gregory:
    EricMH,

    Boy EricMH, you sure don’t know much about threats and how platform hosts make excuses for themselves. swamidass’ assurance must have made a big difference for you:

    A person gets a law suit lightly threatened at them (“No, I am not just messing with @EricMH”), and swamidass tells a joke “the atheist kinda likes you”, as if that’s just the right medicine in the situation.

    swamidass is now stuck in “no man’s land” of his own doing with a UU & two almost worshiping atheist allies as his loudest defenders. Why? Because he is philosophically ‘slow’, and theologically reckless.

    Dr Swamidass and Dr. Lents are doing great. Well beyond my expectations. I continue to wish them well in their professional and personal endeavors.

  11. This is hilarious! swamidass’ top defender at PS can’t even acknowledge that there are FOUR PEOPLE on this thread rejecting the fragile narrative he holds.

  12. Gregory:
    This is hilarious! swamidass’ top defender at PS can’t even acknowledge that there are FOUR PEOPLE on this thread rejecting the fragile narrative he holds.

    I couldn’t care less if there were four hundred people on this thread.

  13. Patrick Trischitta: Ask Swamidass such questions.

    Umm, yeah. swamidass won’t address his “dialogue partner” properly by name. He doxxed & outed me here & at PS. This is not a man displaying the ‘moral’ qualities in dialogue that you claim of him. The evidence goes heavily against him in this case, including the decision of the Moderation team here to delete what swamidass wrote (a rare thing at TSZ). Why don’t you ask swamidass about that?

    swamidass is invited to answer the above sociological observations of his “5th voice” ambitions, articulations & associations here, at PS, or anywhere. It may turn out that we will all be the better for it when he eventually does.

  14. Patrick Trischitta: Given the legal proceedings all over the world, I would say that the Catholic Church is the largest institution in the world where the problem is so widespread,the cover up so great, and monetary damages so large that it may end the institution as a functioning institution.

    Patrick Trischitta,

    That and its business is morality.

  15. Gregory: These naturalistic humanists of non-mainline evangelicalism these days are a troubling phenomenon.

    Sounds pretty non-threatening , what makes it troubling? Little money spent on overhead, most going to help people out. Sounds pretty much like what Jesus did.

  16. newton,

    Jesus of Nazareth preached “naturalism” and spoke of a “naturalized humanity”? That might be swamidass making God in his own image, such as what Jay Johnson wrote, according to the OP, if that’s what you’re hinting at.

    It’s a kind of “inside/outside” question here, newton. If you’re a naturalist, in the sense that you reject “theism”, and with it theology, then nothing will help you “outside” to get the answers you are seeking “inside”. You need to “go inside” to look. It often starts with prayer, after some unexpected happening, which makes people who didn’t previously, discover/see/perceive something “bigger than themselves”.

  17. “the Catholic Church is the largest institution in the world…” – Patrick

    That part in itself is beyond arguably true, isn’t it? If not, who can name a larger institution?

  18. Patrick Trischitta: Dr. Swamidass’ church is free of condemnation for child abuse?

    .

    You avoid to answer my question, again, so I will do it for you.

    Every institution, religious or not, has members, including those in oversight, who are active pedophiles, including Dr. Swamidass’ church. Because his church is relatively small, in comparison to the Catholic Church for example, the media do not cover their legal cases as much, and greedy lawyers tend to go after the big fish…

    If you think otherwise, you are not only naive, but also biased.
    The latter has been proven already…

  19. Patrick Trischitta: Dr. Lents is great guy

    Do this give him a license to embarrass himself by writing meaningless books?

    Patrick Trischitta: I enjoyed his book Human Errors a lot. Yes, not just bad design, terrible design.

    Really?
    Human eye is able to detect 1 photon of light…
    Can Dr Lents design a better functioning eye? Can you? Can Dr Swamidass?
    The human eye design is optimal and people who spread misinformation about it, to support their preconceived notions and world views, do not deserve serious attention…
    None actually…

  20. J-Mac: Every institution, religious or not, has members, including those in oversight, who are active pedophiles, including Dr. Swamidass’ church. Because his church is relatively small, in comparison to the Catholic Church for example, the media do not cover their legal cases as much, and greedy lawyers tend to go after the big fish…

    Perhaps the Catholic Church has been less successful in covering things up. Notwithstanding paedophilia is not unique to Catholic priests, was the Catholic hierarchy justified in trying to hide incidences and in trying to protect perpetrators for half a century (at least)?

    Edit remove extraneous text.

  21. J-Mac: No! Sheer dumb luck did

    This is when the capital ‘D’ used makes a difference. If the reader doesn’t read the big ‘D’, they will misinterpret, as J-Mac has done.

    There’s a difference signified between ‘design’ and ‘Design’, which some IDists don’t accept, others ignore, while others continue to argue fruitlessly & waste time on.

    The argument that life systems are ‘Designed’ is on the table. The argument that life systems are ‘designed’ is not on the table. Otherwise you’re not really talking about the DI’s IDT. Clearer?

  22. Gregory: Umm, yeah. swamidass won’t address his “dialogue partner” properly by name. He doxxed & outed me here & at PS. This is not a man displaying the ‘moral’ qualities in dialogue that you claim of him. The evidence goes heavily against him in this case, including the decision of the Moderation team here to delete what swamidass wrote (a rare thing at TSZ). Why don’t you ask swamidass about that?

    swamidass is invited to answer the above sociological observations of his “5th voice” ambitions, articulations & associations here, at PS, or anywhere. It may turn out that we will all be the better for it when he eventually does.

    We know who you are “Gregory” and what you are all about – JoeG at Intelligent Reasoning.

  23. J-Mac: Do this give him a license to embarrass himself by writing meaningless books?

    Really?
    Human eye is able to detect 1 photon of light…
    Can Dr Lents design a better functioning eye?Can you? Can Dr Swamidass?
    The human eye design is optimal and people who spread misinformation about it, to support their preconceived notions and world views, do not deserve serious attention…
    None actually…

    Says the man wearing glasses. Lents’ book is excellent. Especially about the eye design flaws and the loss of the ability to make vitamin C. You hang on the IDism when in reality the non-Intelligent process of natural selection is why the human body is they way it is.

  24. J-Mac: So does my car…
    I guess this meansit wasn’t designed?

    Of course your car was designed. It was designed to give you are feww hundred thousand miles if you maintain it properly. Cars are not biological entities.

  25. Patrick Trischitta: We know who you are “Gregory” and what you are all about – JoeG at Intelligent Reasoning.

    You may be joking but, just in case, that is impossible.

    Also, you may not be aware of TSZ rules on “outing”. The rule, en bref, is that we don’t.

  26. Patrick Trischitta: We know who you are “Gregory” and what you are all about – JoeG at Intelligent Reasoning.

    Come again? Are you suggesting I am “JoeG at Intelligent Reasoning”? If so, then let me clear the air, as Alan has already done: I am not that person. This ‘knowing what you are all about’ is dismissed as posturing nonsense.

  27. Gregory: Hmm, many believe its “business” is “salvation.”

    Salvation is God’s “ “business”, communicating how , through following the rules, is organized religion’s, among other things.

  28. newton: Salvation is God’s “ “business”,communicating how , through following the rules, is organized religion’s, among other things.

    We are agreed then, that salvation is God’s “business.”

    I’m not sure how “organized” religion is; sometimes “organized chaos”. “Following the rules” the way you attach it to that ‘R’ word sounds menacing, whereas in other cases/contexts it simply makes sense for social-cultural order, stability, sense of belonging, etc.

    I guess this kind of ‘order from chaos’ language comes in when one discusses with physicists who are ‘practising’ theologians too. Others of course dismiss the combination of physics & theology as an impossibility, whereas I’ve been blessed to meet several people doing just that.

    Check out oikonomia

  29. Neil Rickert,

    Thanks. I’m only curious who the, likewise menacing-sounding, “We know…” referred to. Is that a “PS vs. me (Gregory) at TSZ” kinda issue, do you think?

    This thread has revealed at least 4 persons who feel communicatively mis- or ill-treated at PS. If swamidass is really an ‘Empty Chair’ guy, as he claims to be, then he’ll take the serious criticisms we have expressed here as a way to improve PS in the future. He has said there are now more Moderators than previously when Mung visited, as if the quantity of people of his own personal singular choice guaranteed higher quality. But he hasn’t himself met his critics head-on, or made a breakthrough that would help drag more of the largely right-wing evangelicalist movement in the USA, kicking & screaming forward to where most ‘non-fundamentalist, non-creationist’ people of faith, hope, & love expressed within a ‘spiritual understanding’ of existence beyond the physical world alone, are already waiting for swamidass’ fellow ‘religious’ to catch up. I am open and welcome to be proven wrong that swamidass’ work just leaves open the door for “YECists will still be YECists”, and do hope that more evangelicals will indeed finally catch up with other more mature (on this particular topic, quite obviously) Christian thinkers and believers.

    Catching up to any kind of “spiritual understanding” (cf. perception, discernment) within himself, so many years without it, is what the new poster Patrick here won’t allow/actively disallows. This is quite unlike what is behind the PS mission put forward by his new friend swamidass, which starts with a spiritual understanding before a physical understanding (at least that’s what I hear through muffled evangelicalistic sentence structure and priority linguistic formulation).

    There is no escaping the fact, whether Patrick likes it or not, that evangelicalism is at the core of swamidass’ mission at PS. I find it astonishing that anyone could see it otherwise, since it is so clearly labelled. swamidass even got into trouble for using the term ‘post-evangelical” & had to backpedal on that. And even if this type of thematic doesn’t interest Patrick, or if he deems it irrelevant, it still reveals a lot about swamidass’ ‘geography’ in positioning himself as a ‘5th voice’ together with the other evangelical origins organisations.

  30. J-Mac: If you feel the addition of the last sentence changes the maning of the previous one, present your argument…

    It is not just the last sentence. Read the complete quote and the rest of the article, your mileage may very and that is ok with me.

  31. Gregory: I’m only curious who the, likewise menacing-sounding, “We know…” referred to. Is that a “PS vs. me (Gregory) at TSZ” kinda issue, do you think?

    It was intended to be casual and imprecise. However, I do think the TSZ moderators would agree with my comment.

    There is no escaping the fact, whether Patrick likes it or not, that evangelicalism is at the core of swamidass’ mission at PS.

    I’m more inclined to see it as evangelizing the acceptance of biological evolution to evangelicals.

  32. Neil Rickert,

    “I’m more inclined to see it as evangelizing the acceptance of biological evolution to evangelicals.”

    Goodness, we’re in agreement again. Don’t let a 3rd time in this sequence happen without you knowing it. = P

    God loves a repentant sinner.

  33. Gregory: God loves a repentant sinner.

    I’m curious about something, Gregory. You believe that we atheists are unrepentant sinners, right? If that’s the case and we won’t be saved, why the bitterness towards us? I mean, I remember feeling really bad for my atheist schoolmates back in the day, and how uncomfortable it made me when some of my fellow Christian friends ignored the fact that they would go to hell or sometimes even mocked them for that. It just didn’t seem right to me. Shouldn’t you be sorry for us, instead of mad at us?

  34. “You believe that we atheists are unrepentant sinners, right?”

    Well, I believe and said that God loves a repentant sinner. Are you unrepentant in your atheism, dazz? That’s how it sounds so far.

    “If that’s the case and we won’t be saved, why the bitterness towards us?”

    If any of my typed words on screen come across as “bitterness”, then it’s a rare, occasional poor reflection of old ways, or just an unintended feature of more ‘jarring’ reaction from reading black/white text. I’m not bitter towards atheists. I just write to cut through a lot of garbage and detours I see on this site in terms of ideas that lead people away from God. And atheists accusing me of bitterness thankfully doesn’t do anything to actually make me so! = )

    If a person knows they won’t be “saved”, this they carry in their hearts, on their own conscience. Who may suffer their heartache of rejection for them, in their place? Even if, who would volunteer this responsibility for them? For if eternity is written into the hearts of humankind, how could those ones not know?
    https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ecclesiastes 3:11&version=NASB

    Some even reject the ‘heart’, dazz, can you imagine?! I’m not “bitter” towards them, either. In conversation, though, my position will come across as different and in key ways contrary to theirs, since I believe the heart is even more important than the mind, though both combine to easily distinguish us from any other creature on Earth. Careful, & protective of others, especially those listening without safeguards to those who reject the heart with cultural materialist ideology, scientism, naturalism, etc., yes, that is something I admit to.

    Don’t believe in the heart, the spirit, the soul, imagination, immaterial consciousness, dreams, universal morality, life after death, etc.? That’s up to you & your ‘journey’, dazz. I am neither trying to force nor demanding of anyone here. Frankly, it doesn’t sound like you’re really seeking & open to “spiritual realities” anymore. If you were, it might change the aims & with it tone of correspondence between us. Obviously you’re not seeking or expecting pity from me or anyone. There’s other people around the world higher up on my “really feel bad for” list than those at TSZ who actively write against religion, faith, belief in God … as well as creationism & IDism. The air of the Spirit is still fresh; your heart doesn’t need to choke on filthy naturalistic smog voluntarily.

  35. Gregory: This thread has revealed at least 4 persons who feel communicatively mis- or ill-treated at PS.

    LOL there are always a few folks on any forum who get their feeling hurt (over real or imagined slights) and then snivel about it. If you don’t like the ‘party’ leave and setup your own ‘party’ where things can be just like you want them to be. No one is obligated to make sure the ‘Gregs’ or ‘Gregorys’ of the world don’t get thier ‘feelings’ hurt. Go start your own forum and discuss things in a format just to your liking you’re starting to sound like phoodoo.

  36. PeterP,

    Such intervention was surely not aimed at building a constructive dialogue between science, philosophy, theology/worldview. Since everyone has a ‘worldview’, even those who revel in positionlessness (itself a worldview), those who go out of their way to try to erase the impact of theology/worldview on human life offer only self-negating commentary.

    Rather than sniveling or complaining, I am simply keeping the record straight, and putting up notice, as I believe is needed at least to a minimal level, that there are indeed not a few Abrahamic monotheists who STRONGLY reject swamidass’ GAE hypothesis, even while to us some of the details are not themselves objectionable.

    Let’s leave my supposed feelings out of this & just deal with the evidence in this case. PeterP is not the one who’s been doxxed & outed at TSZ & PS as an “imagined slight”. Again, what swamidass did was against TSZ rules & what he wrote was redacted by Moderation. He apologized for ‘misunderstanding’ to the Mods, not to me. That’s the secret swamidass ethic that fellow YECist evangelicals don’t need to know about; iow, swamidass’ double talking, just like he accuses the Discovery Institute of doing.

    Anyone researching swamidass’ GAE book & reading this thread must at least pause to question the integrity of a man who feels compelled to do such things publicly, while yet claiming he is a champion of dialogue & a messenger of peace. Nothing more is really needed to say at this point, as witnessed also above in the responses of others. This ambitious “5th voice” career move is coming at a significant cost to swamidass.

    The truth is that I don’t wish to dwell on it. swamidass and I move forward with different missions & he is evidently, as we see in this thread, not in a mood to answer meaningful and important questions and challenges, even not at all regarding him, but rather regarding his arguments and positions.

    Nevertheless, I still disagree with the statement that in his book swamidass “makes God a monster”. The author of the piece clarified in part his words, and mentioned he may write a follow-up post on his site also to clarify. I’m thankful for that.

    That’s enough for me here, in case no one wishes to return to the OP topic.

  37. Gregory: Rather than sniveling or complaining, I am simply keeping the record straight, and putting up notice, as I believe is needed at least to a minimal level, that there are indeed not a few Abrahamic monotheists who STRONGLY reject swamidass’ GAE hypothesis, even while to us some of the details are not themselves objectionable.

    You are sniveling and you are complaining. That is the sole purpose of your ‘keeping the record straight” rationalization for your whining and complaining. I’m sure other folks are quote capable of navigating thier way through life drawing conclusions and making decisions themselves with no need of you ‘keeping the record straight’.

    Gregory: PeterP is not the one who’s been doxxed & outed at TSZ & PS as an “imagined slight”.

    Give it uo already. You ‘outed’ yourself on this forum long before Joshua addressed you by name when you posted your TED talk links. Do you think folks forgot about that? So, yeah, it is an imagined slight so you can rationalize your continued whining about how swamidass treated you, online, in a manner that got you undies in a bunch.

    Gregory: Anyone researching swamidass’ GAE book & reading this thread must at least pause to question the integrity of a man who feels compelled to do such things publicly, while yet claiming he is a champion of dialogue & a messenger of peace.

    More vitriol and whining. I’m stunned that you think this is becoming of you (shhhh not really). All you are trying to do is smear swamidass because you are butt hurt and a too alrge of an ego IMO. You aren’t discussing his literary work you are just making personal attacks. You look small when you do that.

    Gregory: The truth is that I don’t wish to dwell on it.

    All evidence to the contrary….C-ya!

    .

  38. PeterP,

    Well, we’ve been through this before. You had a chance to vent then & probably did. Yes, I have posted links to my work works here before. The RECORD goes against your claims because the outing was obviously done to hurt (swamidass) & against the will of the User (me). The Moderators would not have redacted it if they agreed with your ‘morality’ here, PeterP, so wagging a finger is really just pointing back at yourself.

    swamidass’ doxxing of me at his site (taking my RLI & posting it on his site) during that same period, is of course beyond the responsibility of Moderators here.

    “You aren’t discussing his literary work you are just making personal attacks.”

    This completely untrue, as I’ve discussed his “literary work” enough already, with him, and still do, with others. You weren’t there at BioLogos when swamidass & I were involved in conversations, were you PeterP? No, because as with most atheists, you self-exclude from conversations involving constructive science, philosophy, theology/worldview approaches.

    swamidass takes it personally when his ideology is put on the table, which is understandable, though unnecessary. But for goodness sake, the guy shouldn’t be so existentially frightened (or smth else) of a sociologist of science as to commit such indecencies in an effort to silence critique! I am thankful to be able to discuss swamidass’ provocative and in several ways quite dangerous (for some people) work & PS here without any worry of censorship, even by those who simply don’t ‘like’ the topic.

    Unfortunately, angry voices come along to sow discord, accusing others of whining in a voice of complaint, usually offering nothing positive to the conversation. Such is the internet. Not interested. Smile & goodbye to that “C-ya!”

  39. Gregory: Well, we’ve been through this before. You had a chance to vent then & probably did. Yes, I have posted links to my work works here before. The RECORD goes against your claims because the outing was obviously done to hurt (swamidass) & against the will of the User (me). The Moderators would not have redacted it if they agreed with your ‘morality’ here, PeterP, so wagging a finger is really just pointing back at yourself.

    well you’re gonna have to explain to me how someone who outed themselves could be outed by someone else in an obviously (??) (seems like the personal butt hurt is creeping in here again) hurtful way. If you wanted to remain anonymous I’d suggest you not post links to yourself.

    Gregory: swamidass’ doxxing of me at his site (taking my RLI & posting it on his site) during that same period, is of course beyond the responsibility of Moderators here.

    His site, His rules, don’t like it , dont go there. I’d accept a bit of bitching but you’ve gone far beyond that in your quixotic quest for matrydom.

    Gregory: This completely untrue, as I’ve discussed his “literary work” enough, with him, and with others

    But not here which is what ‘we’ are concerned with.

    Gregory: You weren’t there at BioLogos when swamidass & I were involved in conversations, were you PeterP?

    Fuck no, I had better things to spend my time on!

    Gregory: No, because as with most atheists, you self-exclude from conversations involving constructive science, philosophy, theology/worldview approaches.

    Sure what ever you say, Greg.

    Gregory: swamidass takes it personally when his ideology is put on the table

    So do you. What is your point?

    Gregory: But for goodness sake, the guy shouldn’t be so existentially frightened (or smth else) of a sociologist of science as to commit such indecencies in an effort to silence critique

    Likely more of an attempt to limit boorish behavior among forum participants. Your butthurt is showing through!

    Gregory: I am thankful to be able to discuss swamidass’ provocative and in several ways quite dangerous (for some people) work & PS here without any worry of censorship, even by those who simply don’t ‘like’ the topic.

    Post away and i’m glad your thankful that there is a place you can ‘discuss’ your butthurt over swamidass. I never advicated otherwise. I’m not looking to censor you, Greg, I’m glad you are posting and the more you post the clearere your agenda becomes to everyone.

    Gregory: Unfortunately, angry voices come along to sow discord, usually offering nothing positive to the conversation

    Irony meters across the glove jsut exploded!

    Gregory: Such is the internet. Not interested. Smile & goodbye to that “C-ya!”

    Ain;t that the truth. Sure you are. You’ll be back.

Leave a Reply