How much Adam could an uneducated evangelical Adam if an uneducated evangelical could Adam Adam?

For those interested in discussions of evolutionism, creationism, Intelligent Design as they impact science, philosophy and theology/worldview in society and education today, please find below a small piece of news.

In short, IDism isn’t really all that hard to counter. Most of you have done it here already countless times against IDists. As for me, I’m batting 100% against IDists in person and 99.5% against IDists online. Only Cameron Wybrow in Canada is the lone holdout. I have questions for every IDist that CSC’s John West would (not) ‘expel’ me for!

The DI is afraid of me because I saw it on the inside. But who could ever see the inside of quality, rigorous, ‘good science’ that is done ‘peacefully’, when there is no institutional centre currently available to hold such an abstract utopia, even better than IDism?

No, what is really difficult is to counter IDists who are actually TEists & ECists also at the same time. This combination is much more difficult than just arguing here with lowbrow IDists or mainly heterodox theists. And this, folks, is where you will find them: https://discourse.peacefulscience.org

Vincent J. Torley is already there and he has an offer to co-author his first scientific publication since his PhD with the site host. So it can’t be too hard to handle for TSZers since Vincent is now officially (yet?) a moderator at TSZ. So that’s a perfect introduction for you to show Peaceful Science what you think about their “Science of Adam.”

When the California-born & accented Dr. Swamidass gets the money, as he is already asking for at Peaceful Science, then let me assure the vast majority atheists here they had better be ready to buckle their belts in the North American “creation war” as Swamidass repeatedly calls it. Why? A recycled neologism known as “Genealogical Adam” is coming to a theatre near you & guess what: if your worldview doesn’t like it, then Swamidass cares. http://peacefulscience.org

Swamidass openly welcomes atheists at Peaceful Science. He even prefers them over thoughtful religious critics that don’t play ball his way, displaying why he was not long ago banned by Deborah Haarsma at BioLogos for refusing to bow to former BioLogos biology-lead and Haarsma’s current darling, Dennis Venema, who has blindly followed his Canadian counterpart Denis Lamoureux into becoming what Swamidass calls “no Adam Christians.” Let’s just say the evangelicals at BioLogos and Peaceful Science aren’t getting along right now and with the ASA meeting about to come up with “The Science of Adam” on the agenda, fireworks could result.

It’s almost as if ‘ideologically self-contradictory’ is something evangelical Protestants of the Swamidass, Venema, Lamoureux, BioLogos-variety deny they ever could be accused of themselves.

BioLogos banned Swamidass for claiming what IDist Ann Gauger did: “We could have come from two … A bottleneck of two [A&E] that is older than 500,000 years ago is possible … based on analysis of the genetic data”. What do the biological scientists here say about that?

So, Swamidass is busy preparing either a noble or an ignoble (depending on who you are) place in history by intentionally relativising Adam and Eve with Genealogical Adam. Will anyone ask him what his qualifications for becoming, finally in these previous @18 months, a ‘scientific genealogist’ as he is now claiming to be?

Go to this site, but ask him nicely. Atheists can be nice, good people about Adam and Eve most times too.

https://discourse.peacefulscience.org

0

82 thoughts on “How much Adam could an uneducated evangelical Adam if an uneducated evangelical could Adam Adam?

  1. Yeah, was aware the topic has been raised here before, even read some of the comments. Those threads are so ‘last year,’ right?

    Swamidass is now in 2018 as his own man pushing a “Science of Adam.” He even calls it THE Science of Adam. (Not the most careful and by far not the most respectful creationist in the club when it comes to use of language.)

    Yet his ‘genealogical Adam’ is mere probabilistic fantasy masquerading as a ‘solution’ in “science and religion” discourse in the style of a megachurch. Vincent Torley sure seems to like it! ; )

    What does it even mean to be a ‘genealogical scientist’?

    0
  2. I’m batting 100% against IDists in person and 99.5% against IDists online

    The DI is afraid of me…[a] “thoughtful religious critic that [doesn’t] play ball his way

    I’m guessing keiths appreciates this style of posting. Puffing, dick-measuring, etc. One can find his support for it and its psychological necessity here: http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/why-does-the-soul-need-the-brain/comment-page-18/#comment-227127

    You guys should def enjoy each other!

    0
  3. Gregory,
    Congratulations on your interesting post!
    However, I have a feeling that your post is not really catered to the majority of bloggers here.. Don’t misunderstand me, please! It is very, very good.
    Unfortunately, the great majority of bloggers here are not familiar or comfortable with some themes… I have learned my lesson with quantum mechanics OPs. Unless they are easy to comprehend, they will not be popular…
    So, I had to change the approach to the issues that were logical to me, but not necessarily easy for people who are not familiar with the theme…I hope you don’t take an offence over this suggestion…

    0
  4. J-Mac: Unfortunately, the great majority of bloggers here are not familiar or comfortable with some themes… I have learned my lesson with quantum mechanics OPs. Unless they are easy to comprehend, they will not be popular…

    A lot of us pointed out to you why your understanding of quantum mechanics is really quite badly flawed. Apparently you’re as bad at understanding criticism as you are at understanding everything else. Have you considered running for president of the United States?

    0
  5. Kantian Naturalist: A lot of us pointed out to you why your understanding of quantum mechanics is really quite badly flawed. Apparently you’re as bad at understanding criticism as you are at understanding everything else. Have you considered running for president of the United States?

    That’s fair. But you wouldn’t have any evidence to back up your speculations, would you? The day you do have proof to back up your preferred speculations over mine, you will get back to me, wouldn’t you?
    As you know, I don’t care what other people THINK OR BELIEVE even if it is a Resurrected Einstein…I hope you can move on the interpretations that are 100 years old..

    0
  6. walto: Awesome. Perfect for a place like this!

    What’s your problem, walto?
    Why should I agree with your beliefs?

    It just hit me…You don’t believe in anything, right?

    0
  7. J-Mac: That’s fair. But you wouldn’t have any evidence to back up your speculations, would you? The day you do have proof to back up your preferred speculations over mine, you will get back to me, wouldn’t you?

    I don’t have any speculations to offer. I only pointed out that your speculations are based on a misunderstanding of the Copenhagen Interpretation. I provided a link to an essay by David Albert. Whether you choose to read it is up to you.

    As you know, I don’t care what other people THINK OR BELIEVE even if it is a Resurrected Einstein…I hope you can move on the interpretations that are 100 years old..

    If you don’t care what other people think or believe, then why are you posting and commenting here?

    0
  8. Kantian Naturalist: I don’t have any speculations to offer. I only pointed out that your speculations are based on a misunderstanding of the Copenhagen Interpretation.I provided a link to an essay by David Albert. Whether you choose to read it is up to you.

    If you don’t care what other people think or believe, then why are you posting and commenting here?

    Are you serious???

    0
  9. J-Mac: Are you serious???

    Of course he is serious. But perhaps his point sailed past without you noticing.

    If you are trying to persuade other people, then of course you care about what they believe. Otherwise you would not be trying to persuade them.

    0
  10. J-Mac: What’s your problem, walto?
    Why should I agree with your beliefs?

    What makes you think I give a shit whether you share my beliefs? Maybe you should read what you actually typed, so you’d have some idea what I was responding to.

    It just hit me…You don’t believe in anything, right?

    I’m absolutely certain you’re a nitwit. I think that should count as a belief.

    0
  11. Neil Rickert: If you are trying to persuade other people, then of course you care about what they believe. Otherwise you would not be trying to persuade them.

    Exactly.

    walto: I’m absolutely certain you’re a nitwit. I think that should count as a belief.

    You also believe that philosophy is extremely hard and that it’s problems are perennial. The only time I get real push-back from you is when I claim that some philosophical problem has been solved!

    0
  12. Neil Rickert: Of course he is serious.But perhaps his point sailed past without you noticing.

    If you are trying to persuade other people, then of course you care about what they believe.Otherwise you would not be trying to persuade them.

    Neil,
    if I place you on ignore, would I still be able to post OPs?

    0
  13. My JP paper says that stuff, kn–so maybe you’re right!

    Otoh, maybe J-mac knows best.

    0
  14. J-Mac: Neil,
    if I place you on ignore, would I still be able to post OPs?

    If you don’t care what anybody believes, it would make sense for you to put everybody on ignore, no?

    0
  15. walto:
    My JP paper says that stuff–so maybe you’re right!

    Otoh, maybe J-mac knows best.

    I may not …but your paper doesn’t scare me … as you should know by now..

    0
  16. walto,

    I put on ignore the consistent violators of logic. When they recover, or if they recover, I reinstate them…there aren’t many though… 🙁

    0
  17. I liked Swamidass’s point that “methodological naturalism” initially had a theological justification and motivation.

    0
  18. walto: If you don’t care what anybody believes, it would make sense for you to put everybody on ignore, no?

    Did you read my comment regarding that?
    I’m putting you on ignore but it’s because you are tooooooooo smart for me,,,

    0
  19. Kantian Naturalist:
    I liked Swamidass’s point that “methodological naturalism” initially had a theological justification and motivation.

    The toilet paper had a good start…

    0
  20. J-Mac: if I place you on ignore, would I still be able to post OPs?

    I don’t think that would cause any problems.

    If I were to place you on ignore, that might be a different story.

    0
  21. J-Mac: I put on ignore the consistent violators of logic.

    I didn’t know that WordPress allowed someone to put themselves on ignore.

    0
  22. J-Mac: I may not …but your paper doesn’t scare me … as you should know by now..

    Not even the stuff about being a brain in a vat?! Damn. I was trying scare everyone!

    0
  23. J-Mac:

    if I place you on ignore, would I still be able to post OPs?

    Neil:

    I don’t think that would cause any problems.

    If I were to place you on ignore, that might be a different story.

    That’s because of the dipshit censorship scheme that you and Alan imposed on J-Mac. You won’t acknowledge or correct your mistake, of course.

    What’s even more appalling is that you initially opposed the censorship scheme, but then caved in to Alan — Alan Fox, of all people! — instead of standing your ground and doing your job.

    When you’ve sunk to the level of “I can’t do my job, because Alan told me not to”, you know you’ve hit rock bottom.

    Shades of Trump capitulating to Putin, except that you stooped to licking the boots of Alan — someone who, unlike Putin, is known for his weakness.

    0
  24. keiths,

    OMG, there’s way too much J-mac already. As i’ve said before, he needs his own Cuckoo Corner where he can post 5 OPs a day if he wants to.

    But the main board here is befouled with his crap too much as is.

    0
  25. J-Mac,

    I don’t care what other people THINK OR BELIEVE…

    You care deeply about what other people think, which explains your prickly response to legitimate criticism.

    You’re old enough to have adolescent children. Isn’t it time to learn how to handle criticism constructively?

    0
  26. walto,

    OMG, there’s way too much J-mac already.

    J-Mac says a lot of stupid things, and so do plenty of other people including fifth, Mung, and Bill Cole. But the right response to that isn’t to impose a dipshit censorship scheme that runs counter to the TSZ ethos.

    There were better alternatives on the table, but Alan and Neil were unwilling to adopt one of them, because that would have required them to acknowledge their mistake and correct it. To do their jobs, in other words. Like J-Mac’s, their egos are constantly getting in the way of doing the right thing.

    Thankfully, Alan is no longer a moderator. We’re still stuck with Neil, however.

    0
  27. walto,

    What were the better alternatives?

    The best alternative, instead of overreacting and jumping immediately to a censorship scheme, would have been to ask J-Mac to limit his OPs and to use social pressure to encourage his compliance.

    Had that failed, the option of enforcing a rate limit on any individual’s OP posting was also on the table. Have you forgotten? You were the one who initially made that suggestion, as I recall.

    0
  28. Even Neil understood that rate limiting was better than censorship:

    I would prefer to limit by quantity (or posting rate) than to limit by content.

    That’s what makes his spineless capitulation to Alan so appalling.

    0
  29. Whats the point of this thread/ Not complaining!
    I got banned at biologos. i can’t remember why at all. its stupid their intention to persuade evangelical Christians from such a , attempted, elite position. evangelicals never listen to elites in their ideas on christian truths.
    its over before it starts. its boring in any threat to creationism.
    The censorship proves they are not really our folks. they are just whitewashed liberals.
    Reaching evangelicals is about reaching large numbers and not small numbers of readers in these subjects.
    ID can afford to just aim at small numbers in the educated classes.
    YEC and evolutionists must target the people.
    thats why YEC does well SO out of proportion and evos do so poorly.
    In our time old school evolutionism will flop and be noted in the headlines of whatever remains of the media system.

    0
  30. keiths,

    I do remember and I remain fine with the idea of a universal posting limit. Nobody needs to post every day except lunatics. I didn’t recall you thinking that was a better alternative, but maybe you did.

    0
  31. walto,

    I didn’t recall you thinking that [rate limiting] was a better alternative, but maybe you did.

    Are you kidding? I was adamant in my support of rate limits over censorship. For example:

    walto:

    Alan if the limitation can’t be ex ante, then, yeah, I’d pull the rule-breaking OP until the first of the next month.

    Right. Or if there’s concern about pulling an OP after it’s been published (and after comments may have been made on the thread), then leave it in place but change the author’s status so that future OPs require moderator action prior to publication. In other words, the moderators can enforce the rate limit on anyone who is unwilling or unable to adhere to it voluntarily.

    Here’s the crucial point, Alan: J-Mac has not violated any rules by publishing eight OPs in 37 days. Yes, they are inane, but no, he has not violated the rules. You are punishing him for doing something that was perfectly allowable.

    Far better to adopt a scheme that applies to everyone equally and does not punish the innocent. As walto says:

    Keiths is right about this. I can already see an indignant post on some creationist site about singling out a religious poster for moderation status. There’s no reason for giving that satisfaction. As you can’t/don’t want to pre-screen everyone’s posts, don’t pre-screen anybody’s.

    0
  32. J-Mac:

    I have learned my lesson with quantum mechanics OPs.

    If you read SF, J-Mac, you should take a look at The Gone World. The plot involves quantum multiverses, time travel and causal loops (well, that is really GR), the MWI interpretation. And Penrose/Hameroff theory of consciousness has a key plot role.

    Talk about your imagination — the author does not lack for it!

    Also good for fans for Annihilation. Like that book, its themes include a possible end for humanity, a secret government bureaucracy trying to prevent it, and horrible fates for some humans. Its central characters are also women, although there is a quantum MWI twist to that plural. Of course, the science of Gone World is QM, not the biology of Annihilation.

    0
  33. Moderators could easily move almost every post in this thread to the Moderation thread.

    So, nobody’s interested in Swamidass’ “Science of Adam”?

    I’d be curious to hear Joe Felsenstein’s view about Swamidass’ claims, with Buggs & Gauger in the picture.

    0
  34. walto:
    keiths,

    Well, we remain in agreement on that issue. Thanks for that reminder.

    Apart from being unworkable, ’twas a great idea!

    0
  35. Gregory: So, nobody’s interested in Swamidass’ “Science of Adam”?

    Should I be? The whole ID story revolved around getting religion taught in US public school science classes. It failed but then the religious right sidestepped into supporting Trump

    Et voilà!

    0
  36. Gregory: Moderators could easily move almost every post in this thread to the Moderation thread.

    There’s no rule here regarding being off-topic.

    0
  37. Gregory: So, nobody’s interested in Swamidass’ “Science of Adam”?

    Are you referring to a specific thread there?

    0
  38. walto, to keiths:

    Well, we remain in agreement on that issue. Thanks for that reminder.

    Alan:

    Apart from being unworkable, ’twas a great idea!

    It was completely workable. The only obstacle was the two prickish moderators who refused to do their jobs and fix their mistake.

    TSZ is far better off without your moderation fuckups, Alan.

    We’re still stuck with Neil, however.

    0
  39. Gregory,

    So, nobody’s interested in Swamidass’ “Science of Adam”?

    Since the story of Adam and Eve is otherwise so dumb, implausible, and problematic, it’s hard to get excited about arguments for mere genetic possibility.

    0
  40. So is this OP an invitation to join Dr. Swamidass blog?
    If yes, how many OPs would we be allowed to post per week?

    0
  41. Hello all. Thanks for the free advertising Greg. Just making one comment, and not expecting to be back.

    First off, hello everyone! Keiths, I remember you in particular from our exchange on molinism and evolution. I hope you com and visit peaceful science sometime. I enjoyed engaging with you greatly.

    Despite Greg’s claim, I have not asked for money, and have zero affiliation with Gregory. I did not ask him to write this post, nor did I screen it. Much of the details in it are not correct. You can see my forum disclosure statement here, which will show that this not a funded operation: https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/who-sponsors-peaceful-science/216.

    Vincent is one of our occasional contributors. We are glad to have him. All of you are welcome too. We are just hoping to present science in a theologically neutral way, making space for a wide diversity of beliefs. I affirm evolutionary science, and oppose teaching ID in schools, and most commonly arguing against ID arguments. All this is in my disclaimer: https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/forum-disclaimer/186.

    The conversations on the science have been very high quality, including several top notch scientists. For example, see this engagement with Ewert on his alternative to common descent: https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/winston-ewert-the-dependency-graph-of-life/728.

    There are more and more scholars showing up. We are also experimenting with assigning DOI’s to important forum topics, so that they can be citable by academics. Our readership is small, but there are high quality conversations, and high influence readers. We’ve had surprising affect on the larger conversation.

    We do have some rules, in that we expect kindness from everyone. Anonymity is allowed, but users are banned for abuse of anonymity. Atheist really are welcome here. https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/the-rift-between-atheists-and-christians/576. Our resident atheist Patrick from Freedom From Religion Foundation will tell you that we will treat you with respect.

    Looking forward to seeing you there. Peace.

    0
  42. swamidass: We are just hoping to present science in a theologically neutral way, making space for a wide diversity of beliefs. I affirm evolutionary science, and oppose teaching ID in schools, and most commonly arguing against ID arguments.

    But you still support theistic evolution of some sort even though you have embraced Jesus that says God created life according to their kinds?

    0

Leave a Reply

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