This OP may change over time. But for now…
- Rejecting common descent
- Failure to address how designs are actualized
- Materialism and Naturalism
“Devolution” is evolution. Stop trying to convince people that evolution and devolution are opposites.
Present the case for common descent. Address the subject of why IDists ought to accept common descent. Stop trying to convince people that ID and common descent are incompatible.
The designs that the science of intelligent design detects had to be actualized somehow. If the design that was detected is not an instance of an actualized design then it is a mistake to infer that it is designed. Tell us how designs are actualized without appealing to acts of special creation by a supernatural designer. There needs to be an alternative to God as The Designer who actualized his designs by something other than natural processes or there will always be a cloud over the claim that ID is a “strictly scientific” theory.
It’s not clear to me how introducing the immaterial into science would work. As things stand right now I see appeals to the non-material or the non-natural as unscientific and at odds with claims that ID is a strictly scientific theory.
ETA: Mung has special powers, Gregory.
Had to chuckle at this one from the good retired Dr. Garvey.
Garvey baldly lied to Joshua Swamidass about me, which contributed to Joshua banning me at ‘Peaceful Science.’ I had been critical of the way Joshua was pandering to Patrick, an outspoken atheist & friend of the FFRF. I cautioned that atheism should not be promoted or encouraged at PS. And I believe almost everyone there, even still, aside from the minority atheists, would agree.
Note carefully: I did *NOT* say that atheists shouldn’t be allowed or even welcome at PS. Yet Joshua, armed with my caution & then lied to by Garvey who claimed I have ‘outed’ someone here at TSZ, his collaborator, then banned me for ‘abusing anonymity’. In short, Joshua doesn’t like his ideological naivety to be exposed & certainly not on his own site, got filled with wrath & used his current power against me.
Now it seems, Garvey is saying exactly the same thing I cautioned Joshua about. He’s sick of hearing from Patrick (who uses PS as an atheism news site, amassing the most posts other than Joshua), just as others have mentioned over at PS too. He’s sick of atheism clogging up the channels, turning the site into defensive apologetics, thus taking time away from more fruitful conversations among theists.
Sorry, Jon, the internet has a memory. I haven’t ‘outed’ anyone & you owe an apology for defending your highly pitiful, radical IDist (still, surely a nice guy) collaborator instead of putting in the effort to find obvious common ground with me. This backroom manipulation is on you & Joshua, trying to bring ‘peace’ when there is no peace.
It will eventually also catch up to Garvey to give credit where it is due for several of his ideas that are surely now in his published book, which he is likely claiming he came to on his own. Stealing credit from people & claiming they have ‘outed’ people on the internet when in fact they haven’t, sure doesn’t make a doctor look good in the long run.
I don’t know the full story of why you were banned at PS. However, you continue to give us good reasons to ban you at TSZ. We haven’t done so, because we are rather too tolerant of bad actors.
Maybe you could spend less time badmouthing people at PS. Get that chip off your shoulder, and try to enjoy life.
Given that I’m a sociologist who’s been engaged in & watching this ‘science, philosophy & theology/worldview’ discourse on the Internet for many years, it’s simply part of the story we’re all involved in. That’s why I record it here. Joshua himself linked to this thread & is baiting Mung there, after all.
Nice to see you’re posting so much at PS, Neil! Let me repeat: more atheists & agnostics from TSZ should move their attention to PS, in order to discourse with scientists who are largely Christians, which is something they don’t get a taste of here, even among the strange esoteric ‘theists’. Then their distaste or even hatred of ‘Christians,’ particularly those who are largely non-mainstream evangelical protestants might someday wane, to their benefit.
Telling the truth shouldn’t be confused with ‘bad mouthing.’ Saying ‘I told you so’ might indeed however count as saucy.
I am appealing to their Christian consciences, which perhaps one day will get through to them, so that the lies can stop.
Do you believe I ‘outed’ anyone at TSZ, Neil, in that linked thread? Yes, No or Unsure? Why not respond directly so that your voice is heard?
If I had ‘outed’ anyone in that thread, then surely that would violate TSZ rules, wouldn’t it?
If you think what Jon believes is actually wrong, then say it. If you think what Jon believes is right, then say it. The evidence can be found in the thread itself. Otherwise, your words are irrelevant to the issue at hand. The fact is I like Jon Garvey too much to let your atheist/agnostic ‘moderation’ get in the way of the truth.
We live in a world in which trash talk is rewarded, and calm discourse is ignored.
Works that way in politics, also.
I ignored it, lol.
Munging Genealogical Adam anyone?
Yes please! Genealogical Adam was already accepted by *ALL* YECists before Joshua came along with his big tight ‘Me-Science-Man’ britches to announce it to the world as his own brilliant formulation. If he doesn’t realise this, then there’s little that can be done to help him.
I’m not aware that you did, and I don’t have any interest in rereading old posts to research it. If it is alleged to have happened some time ago, then I’m not sure that it even matters.
I’m not a member of the jongarvey fan club.
I wonder if Greg would like to reveal his handle on PS, so people can see what happened with him for themselves. I don’t dox people, so I won’t reveal it. All his posts, however, are still at PS under a different name. It would great to see him own up to it.
Was this Lizzie’s intent for this site?
Did he post porn?
Jon Garvey, who Joshua trusts, believes I ‘outed’ someone’s identity here at TSZ. I’d like to know who that is, since Joshua believes Jon rather than me.
I appreciate that Neil is siding with the truth in this case, while Joshua is siding with Garvey’s lie.
What made Jon filled with wrath towards me is I wrote about 3 Canadian IDists using material available on-line. I used no private information and did not reveal any places where any of these people are or may be posting under pseudonyms.
Joshua is thus under a delusion based on trusting a fellow MD who simply got this one wrong. And what is available on his site publicly isn’t where his devious manipulations occur. That is done privately in his punishment box, when people disagree with him. So it’s not available to the public, but is recorded in an email that reveals Jon Garvey accusing me of ‘outing’ someone’s identity.
Is Joshua the kind of person that doubles down on lies instead of seeking the truth? That one TSZ thread is the source of Jon Garvey’s wrath towards me. Let’s settle it here, not over at Joshua’s blog which he has almost complete control over.
One of the rules of this site, is that we discuss ideas, not people.
There’s nothing to settle here. Let’s not start a discussion which would likely violate the rules of this site.
First, if S. Joshua Swamidass is going to shorten my name, then I’ll play the same name game with this falsely modest, disrespectful man. If he is going to disrespect me here in public, then I’m going to start calling him by his birth name: Sanjay, which he revealed at PS (https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/the-indian-comedian-is-right/3496).
My birth name is Gregory. Hi Sanjay, nice to meet you! That’s how one speaks directly to a person, rather than speaking of them indirectly without addressing them properly.
If Sanjay wants to treat me fairly, is ready to apologise & admit that Jon Garvey lied to him about me regarding what I wrote at TSZ, then things between us can improve. I don’t like people falsely accusing me of something I haven’t done and imagine that he feels the same.
Why is he forcing the issue now by trying to make me reveal a pseudonym I used at his site, which now makes more sense because of how is still behaving towards me? Please stop it, Swamidass. You are just escalating the problem.
Sanjay banned me from PS because I called him out on his ignorance of ideology when it comes to ‘methodological naturalism.’ My last post there actually credits the ID people for having a much better grasp of this topic than he does. Yet he simply cannot seem to admit he is wrong, even when the person is an expert on the topic & he is a rank amateur suffering from an inflated ego.
If he could have admitted about ideology what he admitted to someone else regarding theology at PS, i.e. “I am approaching ignoramus on theology,” then we could have made progress. He could have said, “Gregory, it is obvious that you know more about ideology than I do because you’ve studied it & published about it, while I haven’t, so I’d like to learn about it from you.” At that point, I would have treated him quite differently, as if he were open to learning. Instead, he stuck out his pride, apparently thinking that just because one holds a PhD in natural science that automatically qualifies them as a philosopher. It doesn’t.
Now, if Sanjay had been humble with me, instead of puffing out his chest, we would have had quite a different relationship. But instead he puffed himself up, dug his feet in, just like he did at BioLogos, & pretended he had knowledge & understanding that he actually didn’t & doesn’t have. This is what caused the problems between us & it does not seem he is willing to humble himself now, which has led to this impasse. It’s sad that he won’t address me privately by email to settle this instead of making it public here at TSZ, but so be it.
Obviously, I am under no obligation to say what name I used at Peaceful Science, though several people here at TSZ already know. Additionally, I have already revealed my name full name here at TSZ and am not ashamed of doing so. This site is not ruled by an authoritarian founder like Swamidass has unfortunately demonstrated himself to be at PS. If he thinks he’s just a ‘nice LCMS’ kid who couldn’t possibly be an authoritarian figure, well then think again & repent for what you’ve done in defending a lie (Proverbs 6: 16-19).
What I’d really like to know from him, preferring to stick with topics & arguments rather than focussing on names & personalities: does Swamidass really believe that YECists, meaning many of his friends & most of his relatives, didn’t already accept ‘genealogical Adam’ even *before* he called it that? If he does believe that, then one has to seriously question this man’s integrity as a scientist & scholar because it doesn’t seem he’s done his homework.
Instead, he’s made ridiculously proud claims about this new term he’s coined, in cahoots with Garvey, as if he were a ‘genealogical scientist,’ rather than just a computational biologist & MD. Would he be willing to take a survey of his home church & ask how many of them already accepted ‘genealogical Adam’ before they’d ever heard it come out of his mouth? He has not shown the courage or intellectual integrity yet to do that or to promote ‘genealogical Adam’ among what he calls ‘secular scientists’. And frankly, I hope he doesn’t because it could likely end up much worse than it is already!
If Swamidass would like to show some respect, he could start by not diminutizing my name & addressing me directly as a scholar & gentleman (though it may be hard to imagine given the discussion climate here at TSZ). It’s things like this that reveal the arrogance and condescension of this man, which appears to be unparalleled in the USA’s science, philosophy & theology/worldview discourse.
Easy for you to say since it’s not your integrity at stake, Neil. Swamidass isn’t discussing ideas, he’s discussing me in his post above.
You answered already that you don’t believe I ‘outed’ anyone at TSZ. If Swamidass believes otherwise, then let him say it here & quit baiting people, like he is doing here to me & to Mung over at PS in linking this thread there and asking him: “So do you or do you not support the DI financially independently of buying a few books?”
This demanding style of questioning as if he has a right to know is simply bizarre!
Again, don’t mistake me. I’d actually much prefer to talk about ideas, like the presumptuousness of Swamidass’ claims about ‘genealogical Adam’ when all of the YECists he knows already accepted it before he even used that name. Let’s return to that instead of falling into Joshua’s freakish anti-pseudonym hysteria. Agreed?
For the record, there are people, such as Alan and Bruce, and perhaps Neil, who think that TSZ should be run the way Swamidass’s site is run.
Can we not see why that is such a terrible idea?
Actually, the posts at PS in what I would call the feud between Mung and Swamidass are an example of something much closer to the way TSZ is run.
It is feuding between people that disrupts the forum. It has nothing to do with transparency that I think Walto wants; that transparency would involve opening a decision process to scrutiny, not allowing interpersonal feuds.
We have a single public feuding/moderation thread at TSZ. At PS, the feud is split into multi threads. But Swamidass splits a lot of threads, not just those involving Mung. I personally find it annoying most of the time.
I have personal opinions on the role of each in this spat. All I will say publicly is that neither one of them posts in the way I aspire to post. I also think that it is fair to say that Swamidass wields his powers as an admin in ways I find questionable (eg thread title).
Probably this exchange should move to moderation to be more aligned with TSZ than PS.
You wrote [to Neil]:
That’s grammatically correct, but easily misconstrued as an acquittal. What Neil did write:
[A sentiment with which I whole-heartedly concur.]
Your position seems inconsistent: you whine about some accusation that a Jon Garvey made against you, but you claim that
In which case, your refusal to reveal the handle that you used at PS comes across as, well, cowardice.
How is an independent observer to assess the truth of the matter?
More importantly — and I really want you to pay attention to this — why should anyone care? You have, in my opinion, utterly failed to make the case as to why we should care about your rather incoherent take on HPS, nor care about how you were treated at PS. As Neil did note,
But, as BruceS notes, that conversation should probably occur on the Moderation thread.
You can call me acquitted by the fact that the thread was allowed in the first place. If there was any outing there, it shouldn’t have been allowed according to TSZ rules. The thread was allowed because I was careful *not* to ‘out’ anyone & used only information available in the public domain about the 3 Canadian IDists. I stand behind identifying the danger & folly demonstrated by all 3 of them and continue to recommend that they turn away from the ideological trap they have fallen into. Apparently, Jon in his maybe-IDism folly disagrees.
Jon Garvey could make an effort to clear this up. Will he? Will Swamidass ask him to do so, since he is now sitting behind Jon’s lie in judgment of me?
Simply put, I will not have someone telling lies about me online & thinking they are immune from being called out on it. This punk feud by Swamidass towards Mung spurred me to action against the hypocrisy on display by Swamidass. Though he claims with false righteousness that he won’t dox anyone or reveal their names in public, he has no trouble doing so behind the boards of his ‘peaceful’ site to his hand-picked Moderators. I asked the Mods if they had any part in Swamidass’ ‘disciplining’ of me for making a fair, credible and defensible rejection of Swamidass’ ‘methodological naturalism’ promotion & none of them answered. He then wrote a message to me calling that innocent question ‘harassment.’ It was a one-man ban by a scientist drenched in ideology who simply won’t admit it.
Swamidass is not demonstrating himself as a man of peace, but rather as a man who 1) believes lies if told to him by a trusted ally, & 2) displays wrath when called out properly, calmly and carefully by someone who is actually trained (there aren’t many involved in this conversation who are so trained) to identify ideological bias.
Will Joshua not seek forgiveness as a ‘confessing scientist’, now that this episode is public & made known? Or will he defend Jon Garvey’s ongoing lies & attacks upon me simply for writing truthfully about his collaborator?
In short, I’m not going to switch my tune & submit to Swamidass’ bullying. To be called a coward by DNA_Jock is funny. Notice his swing at the history and philosophy of science (HPS) along the way? It’s like they try to take away the tools to study a phenomenon, then blame you for not making coherent arguments that ‘science alone’ isn’t an answer to the problem? In this sense, Swamidass is just as much a proponent of scientism as DNA_Jock, which reflects why he only included ‘Science’ in the title of his site, not Philosophy or Theology/Worldview. Seeking peace *IN* Science is actually an impossible and wrong-headed idea in the first place, when multiple competing hypotheses are the norm in many fields & where schools form around founders (e.g. Collins’ BioLogos & Lamoureux’s ‘evolutionary creation’).
Why would a DNA_Jock want his or her ideology placed openly on the table when all he wants to talk about is Science Uber Alles, not philosophy or theology/worldview? That’s a HUGE problem in this conversation, as people protect their views from scrutiny as a kind of confirmation bias.
You don’t have to care at all or post in this thread either.
I care because of what he is touting his site & book & ‘genealogical Adam’ as offering to people engaged in science, philosophy and theology/worldview discourse. I think his position is empty at the end & he hasn’t thought through the implications of what his ambitions are driving him into & what damage it will cause the discourse (much like his false accusations towards them of racism caused the split at BioLogos).
Swamidass has a peculiar phobia towards pseudonyms & an aggressive character towards others who use them *only* if they challenge & question him, not otherwise. It’s the same with his new opponents, fellow evangelicals Haarsma, Davis, Kramer & Hemphill. Once they are taken down in an argument, then they start attacking the person to create trouble because they hold the power of Moderation.
This is exactly why I used a pseudonym at PS in the first place, after having been outed by Dennis Venema previously in a venue where the Moderator deleted Venema’s thread from the system. I had done nothing wrong but make an argument he couldn’t respond to. Venema, just like Swamidass, then got personal as soon as he was losing the argument in defense of his ideology, not before. That’s likely why Swamidass claims to be against debate; he doesn’t want to face the challenge head-on. And then it’s oh so easy to blame it on the pseudonym & avoid the argument.
No amount of scientific knowledge in the world could have proven Venema’s case for him, so he switched strategies and went after me. Swamidass did the same on his site, as if his inflated scientific pride couldn’t handle closer scrutiny of his ideology & worldview. And they actually do influence the conversation greatly beyond ‘strictly science,’ which is when both Venema & Swamidass must cede the floor to other speakers who are clearer, more articulate and accurate than they are. Believing they are beyond rebuke reveals how Venema & Swamidass are both acting unwisely in defense of their ‘sciences’. (Proverbs 9:8-9)
Why should anyone be an atheist or settle for being an ‘agnostic’ when love and edifying knowledge are available all around them? Well, this is TSZ, after all! ; )
Says the man who hides behind the back porch.
You merely encourage them to out themselves.
I can attest to the truth of this statement.
Start your own site for that.
I am closing comments on this thread.