Why be skeptical about Swamidass’ ‘Peaceful Science’ pitch?

This thread is meant to be a resource for people to express their hopefully sincere & proper skepticism about Dr. S. Joshua Swamidass’ so-called ‘Peaceful Science’ project on an on-going basis as issues & challenges arise. The purpose for starting this thread now is the announcement of a grant to Peaceful Science (PS) by the mutual fund wealth-based John Templeton Foundation. http://peacefulscience.org/new-voice/

I will express some of my skepticism about PS in a few words: Joshua is strangely aiming by ‘inviting all positions as equal’ to relativise the names ‘Adam’ and ‘Eve,’ while at the same time trying himself to become a ‘genealogist’. The woman in the pair he apparently has some kind of a gender bias against, since he hasn’t laid out why he sometimes omits her & only sometimes brings Eve into the conversation. I predicted here a few months ago that Joshua would eventually change his almost exclusively ‘Genealogical Adam’ talk to finally start being more inclusive with ‘Genealogical Adam & Eve.’ Joshua hasn’t taken the hint by adapting his language & thinking yet, though he has been known to change his mind about things in the past.

Once others realise the relativistic, ‘diversity-driven’ goal of his enterprise, even while he speaks about that goal only indirectly, he will hit his ceiling much like BioLogos has in its mission to convert evangelicals to ‘evolution-accepting,’ kinda like Joshua but different. BioLogos stands as the USAmerican-made role model for Joshua to go his own way, not long after he actively alienated himself from Deborah Haarsma & BioLogos leadership publicly. Example 1 of borrowed modelling: PS uses the same software as BioLogos. (TSZ is behind & should likewise adopt Discourse asap.)

While the explicit intention of making an attempt to bring people of different ‘faiths’ into a dialogue about ‘human origins’ for the improvement of relations between people drawn along what Joshua labels as ‘secularist vs. confessionalist’ lines may sound good on the surface for valuable social & cultural purposes, unfortunately, at the end of the day it’s a USAmerican production of the creationist & IDist flavour that could not have arisen elsewhere the way Swamidass has been promoting himself & selling it. Because of this I don’t think Joshua can actually ‘act peacefully’ in his own community due to his sometimes loud, brash attitude, which I have witnessed now on several occasions in arrogant dismissals & self-justification of wrongs at the cost of relationships with others who he seems to consider as ‘below’ him or simply ‘non-scientist’ & therefore less suited for the broader science, philosophy & theology conversation. Ann Gauger has already expressed how uncomfortable she feels in the way she has been treated at PS, despite Joshua’s efforts at pleasantries. This is largely due to Joshua’s hierarchical structure of participants through which he finds himself compelled to defend one of his largest boosters & fanboys, an atheist friend of FFRF who has made over 3,600 posts at PS, as well as a self-described ‘frantic’ unitarian universalist with 2800 posts.

As for the TSZ & PS relationship, it has been growing & I am delighted to see more and more atheists & agnostics (i.e. ‘skeptics’) from this site visiting there, which is surely more inspiring & enlightening than here. TSZ moderator Neil Rickert a.k.a. “Agnostic Mathematician” has posted over 730 times there in the past 4+ months. Former TSZ moderator Alan Fox “Secular European” has posted almost 160 times. Once volunteer moderator Vincent J. Torley “Catholic Philosopher” has posted 174 times. New TSZ moderator Mung “Theistic-ID Evolution” has posted almost 1,000 times already at PS in just 3 months. John Harshman “Secular Avian Phylogenist” ( I have no idea why he uses the term ‘secular’ there other than following Joshua’s main dichotomy of secular vs. confessional) has created more than 1,200 posts there. This is a record transfer of attention from TSZ to PS, just as I had hoped! There is really no need to turn back to UD or continue to give it attention when PS is available now & growing. http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/peaceful-science-has-eclipsed-uncommon-descent-how-will-that-impact-tszs-reason-to-be/

Nevertheless, the absence of balance is obvious. Joshua has only a few times comes to TSZ to share or explore his views in a more challenging environment than in his own ‘safe space.’ Perhaps he is daunted that he might have to actually face ideological scrutiny, which so far he has proven himself unable to handle carefully, properly or sufficiently, either when he started going public only with his ‘science vs. religion’ views over at BioLogos or now at his own site.

It appears that there’s enough of a taste of PS & Swamidass’ view of managed ‘peace-seeking’ already from people here. So, what do you think? Why are you skeptical about Swamidass’ ‘Peaceful Science’? Or, on the other side, what do you believe in about this ‘new voice’ on ‘human origins’ (which sounds mostly palaeological, rather than contemporary anthropological, sociological or psychological) now funded to expand its platform?

0

344 thoughts on “Why be skeptical about Swamidass’ ‘Peaceful Science’ pitch?

  1. Kantian Naturalist: But it’s still the case that individual actors are acting on the basis of their perceived rational self-interest. That’s just not the case for evolving organisms like yeast or oak trees. Yeast neither have self-interest nor the capacity to perceive it.

    If oaks have no self-interest, why do they expend energy on producing acorns?

    Their self-interest is not expressed in the ways that humans express theirs. But it does not follow that there is no self-interest.

    0
  2. Mung: It’s as if they never read Darwin, who arrived at “natural selection” by way of analogy.

    Could you imagine what Darwin’s argument would have looked like if he had instead insisted that artificial selection was in fact natural selection?

    I always took his harping on about artificial selection to be a pedagogical tool. His argument, such as it was, would not have been altered one iota by describing artificial selection as a subset of natural selection. AS is to NS as wink is to blink. If you are discussing goals, then the difference matters. If you are discussing mechanics — as Darwin was — then one is merely a subset of the other.

    It is this constant double-speak from evolutionists that lead me to be a critic/skeptic. If the theory is sound it should be able to survive without the rhetorical games it’s proponents resort to.

    I am assuming that this is tongue-in-cheek Mung comedy.
    You’re not that thick.

    0
  3. Neil Rickert: If oaks have no self-interest, why do they expend energy on producing acorns?

    Their self-interest is not expressed in the ways that humans express theirs. But it does not follow that there is no self-interest.

    First, we’re on the slippery slope to metaphysical entity-mongering if we open the door to every concept that we can’t empirically verify.

    Second, it’s not as if oaks deliberately chose to produce acorns. They just do. We can certainly explain why they do in terms of evolutionary theory, but that’s nothing at all like a justification that the oaks themselves are giving us (or each other) as to why they are doing what they are doing.

    By contrast, the imagined rational consumers of economic fantasy are doing precisely what oaks aren’t: they are reflecting on the range of options available to them and deliberately choosing that option which maximizes what they perceive to be in their long-term best self-interest. Friedrich Hayek is arguably a better representative of this idea than Adam Smith; as Hayek puts it, since each individual knows what his or her preference is better than anyone else could know it, there’s no substitute for market transactions. But this assumes that people know what their preferences are and choose to act based on that knowledge. Since oak trees don’t know what their preferences are (even if they had preferences) and don’t make choices, the analogy breaks down.

    Which is not a problem — there are limits to every analogy. But I think we should be very clear about what those limits are, lest we succumb to sloppy thinking.

    0
  4. Kantian Naturalist,

    When you say humans do things deliberately where as oaks just do, you are rejecting materialism by definition. Which is fine, but most atheists do so without admitting they are doing so.

    0
  5. Joe Felsenstein:
    1) There is a big distinction between selection and detailed design.

    2) “The same distinction holds for design by genetic simulation of the antenna of a satellite where the detailed design was not imposed by the engineers.They used a prediction of the ability of the antenna to be multidirectional, without knowing in advance which shape of the antenna would achieve that best.”

    3) “Creationists and ID advocates here seem very reluctant to acknowledge this big distinction.They wave away the first chapter of the Origin as not being an argument for natural selection because the selection there is artificial.In the present discussion Gregory also classifies artificial selection as essentially the same as human design, though he does so for a different reason.”

    1) Yes. I’m glad we both stress the need to be careful when discussing these terms to get the meaning users in the conversation intend when they are being raised.

    2) Thanks for this. I think we all agree with the article that the antenna was designed. It’s what that ‘designing’ & ‘design’ mean across technological – human – biological that matters. Multidirectional prediction joins other challenges involved.

    3) Yes, my reasons are quite different from YECs & IDists & I agree they are rather conveniently reluctant to acknowledge the distinction. Indeed, doing so would quickly bring down the IDM. To be clear, I rarely use the term ‘artificial selection’ in my work because it doesn’t fit well into the landscape, certainly not as well as ‘human selection’, which includes a broader feature of the debate about human choice & free will.

    ‘Human selection’ (Wallace 1890) –> Human extension (McLuhan 1960s) = more accurate study of intentional change-over-time involving specifically human beings (during anthropocene alone) than anything yet produced under the biological anthropology-oriented distant past ‘human evolution’ umbrella, which tends to price human agency now among us, a feature KN has somewhat accurately noted, at a discount.

    So, in short, I prefer to lean the ‘artificial selection’ topic into a more general ‘human selection’ field for conversation. But again, in keeping with the OP, these are not the kinds of things Joshua talks about or is trained to address.

    0
  6. “Sorry, Gregory, but a lot of what you say about evolution is just wrong. Perhaps you are correct about technical usage of “evolution” within sociology. But, as used in ordinary language and in biology, you cannot exclude agency.”

    Yeah, right, “Agnostic non-religious retired mathematician”. It’s your hobby, while I’ve done it in the trenches, including at Darwin’s alma mater Cambridge, in their HPS department. To suggest my research was limited to sociology within the social sciences and humanities and that I haven’t looked at definitions of ‘evolution’ across a fairly wide range of academic disciplines in SSH would be something I would take you up on as a challenge. I’ve done the work, Neil, unlike the agnostic position you currently assume.

    Nevertheless, I’m glad you admit that we cannot exclude agency in this discussion. Many biologists, however, exclude discussions of agency in their writings & work, using an ‘externalist’ or ‘environmentalist’ approach. It can tend to smack of ‘vitalism’, which is something materialist & atheist biologists are keen to avoid. These people are not speaking about ‘agency’ the way I mean it, which is related specifically to human beings. If you want to go the route of Bruno Latour, then involve actors & actants, in addition to considering ‘agents’ even as non-human. In my work, human agency is presumed (which doesn’t make it any less difficult to understand), not excluded. Otherwise, KN accurately identified what you misunderstood in what I wrote.

    0
  7. Kantian Naturalist,

    “Gregory is interested in where the analogy breaks down and I worry you’re interest in the analogy itself is preventing you from engaging with Gregory’s point.”

    Yes, I agree.

    0
  8. phoodoo: When you say humans do things deliberately where as oaks just do, you are rejecting materialism by definition. Which is fine, but most atheists do so without admitting they are doing so.

    I disagree but only because I don’t share your implicit definition of materialism. But I’m also not a materialist so I don’t really care too much.

    phoodoo: If there is a difference between a wink and a blink, then we are made of something other than chemicals and we have no idea what that other thing is.

    I don’t see how the difference between a wink and blink could be explained in terms of what we are comprised of. I actually think it’s a mistake to try and do ontology in terms of what stuff is comprised of. That’s a legacy of the 17th century that we’re better off without.

    Neil Rickert: You surely don’t believe that every human child is a result of deliberate choice.

    True, but that’s a red herring with regard to the differences between oaks and humans — which, let us bear in mind, is something I introduced only to stress the disanalogy between evolution and economics.

    0
  9. Mung:

    Could you imagine what Darwin’s argument would have looked like if he had instead insisted that artificial selection was in fact natural selection? / It is this constant double-speak from evolutionists that lead me to be a critic/skeptic. If the theory is sound it should be able to survive without the rhetorical games it’s proponents resort to.

    Yes, there is double-speak coming from some evolutionists. However, evolutionary biology is in no danger of usurpation by IDism. Let’s not have too loud a public LOL about that, Mung, ok? No, it is not uncharitable to notice what Mung said & to point it out, just like it is coming from some ID leaders.

    The point is that not a single IDist has come up with something substantial that their precious ‘Intelligent Design’ theory adds to current social sciences & humanities fields. Can you think of a single thing? In fact, it is the opposite; a hindrance to people thinking more carefully about what is made & used by human beings by avoiding process ideas about ‘designing’. That’s why they avoid ‘real’ design theory like a plague on their Seattle-based movement. It’s not that heroic, but it brings in the charitable donations for ideology, so they still continue.

    0
  10. Gregory asked who were the critics referenced here:

    DNA_Jock: Perhaps his ego gets in the way sometimes, but far, far less often than his critics’.

    I think I can now safely reveal that I was referring to keiths and to Gregory HPS, cantab.
    edit 4 clarity

    0
  11. Allan Miller: If it were truly Darwinian, the environment would be allowed to sort out ‘the fittest’. If it involves the choice of a breeder, then it isn’t quite ‘Darwinian’ at all, but is simply breeding, something with a much longer … uh … pedigree.

    Let’s review the facts:
    1. “The exact definition of eugenics has been a matter of debate since the term was coined by Francis Galton in 1883”

    2. “The idea of a modern project of improving the human population through a statistical understanding of heredity used to encourage good breeding was originally developed by Francis Galton and, initially, was closely linked to Darwinism and his theory of natural selection.[20] Galton had read his half-cousin Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution, which sought to explain the development of plant and animal species, and desired to apply it to humans.

    3. “Such programs included both “positive” measures, such as encouraging individuals deemed particularly “fit” to reproduce, and “negative” measures such as marriage prohibitions and forced sterilization of people deemed unfit for reproduction.”

    4. “A major criticism of eugenics policies is that, regardless of whether “negative” or “positive” policies are used, they are susceptible to abuse because the criteria of selection are determined by whichever group is in political power at the time. ”

    5. “Among institutions, the Catholic Church was an opponent of state-enforced sterilizations.[44] “

    0
  12. Gregory: Do you have a ‘key term’ that you instead propose for the kind of ‘change-over-time’ we see in natural history since you absolutely & with rage of a flaming tongue HATE the concept of ‘evolution’?

    You got the wrong idea. I do not hate “evolution”, but instead find it illogical, ridiculous, and destructive as PROVEN.

    You see ‘change-over-time’ here and now and do not need a far fetched “theory” to explain change. As far as “natural history”, what we see is one thing, and the unverifiable myth told about that an entirely different matter.

    0
  13. Nonlin.org,

    None of this affects the case. It is undisputed that Galton was related to Darwin, and that eugenics historically postdates the Origin. But it is still a fact that eugenics is simply selective breeding, something practiced for millennia before someone had the bright idea of applying it to humanity, which notion cannot sensibly be derived from anything in the Origin.

    The ludicrousness of your case is highlighted by the fact you think evolution is about cats-into-dogs. Yet for eugenics, you make a massive exception. Evolution is your punchbag for The Source Of Bad Things.

    0
  14. DNA_Jock: Well, Linnaean taxonomy does not help. You are trying to distinguish a primate from a rodent and a lagomorph, using information from a primate, a rodent and a couple of pecora.
    You still seem unable to cotton on to the idea that ‘evolution’ makes rather specific predictions about the pattern of divergence, and predicts that particular PARTS of the GH gene will diverge more than other parts.

    Your example is not my field of research, but are these guys not talking about the same transgenic rabbits: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3892305 ?

    Sure Linnaean taxonomy helps. If you were to place the three organisms in a triangle (or four in a square, etc), which one would be further from the others? And don’t forget common sense. Did you understand why that’s all you need in this case?

    Whatever you think “evolution” predicts, it is actually coming from unrelated observations of those organisms. Repeating your claim for the n-th time doesn’t make it more true. I asked for proof, not how certain you are. You do understand what proof is all about, right?

    0
  15. Gregory: No, it is not uncharitable to notice what Mung said & to point it out.

    Perhaps you or Mung could depart from the vague and give a concrete example of an equivocation in which casting it as an attempt to deceive is not an uncharitable reading? I’m well aware that there are variations in definition and usage – the AS/NS discussion above is one such. But there is a stronger claim being made, and I’d like to see it supported.

    0
  16. Another abuse I notice: the idea that (for example) gassing Jews is a form of ‘Darwinism’. Even if anyone ever developed such a notion in a straight line from Origin, it would show an appallingly bad comprehension of Darwin. Yet far from helping combat such egregious nonsense, opponents say “Yes! Yes, that’s what it says!”.

    0
  17. Allan Miller: His [Darwin] invention was not the breeding of plants and animals, but the recognition that those things that breeders do are also done by other environments.

    Can you prove “those things that breeders do are also done by other environments”?

    “Breeding requires a desired outcome, selection (just a minor step!) and isolation of successive generations of promising individuals, active mating or artificial insemination, optimization of growth conditions for the selected individuals, and/or other genetic technologies. Without most of these active steps nothing happens. ” http://nonlin.org/natural-selection/

    0
  18. Gregory: Which critics of Swamidass &/or PS are you referring to? J-Mac & nonlin.org don’t really count as critics worth taking seriously. Who do you count as an actual critic of PS? The site is still rather new & he manages dissenting views tightly

    I don’t consider myself as a serious critic of PS. I’m not sure about nonling…
    I do know, however, the so-called science of evolution – what I mean by that is macroevolution, such as a 5 pound land-walking-mammal evolving into a 50 ton whale – can not be reconciled with any kind of creation even if the classifications and boundaries of KINDS could be stretched beyond reasonable limits…
    Guided evolution, which I call the subtle creation, would mean that ID/God tried to be deliberately deceitful or overly humble, which would shed doubt on his true abilities…Yes, being overly humble could be deceiving…
    So, if this is what Swamidass is really attempting to do, the unifying creationism with evolutionary science, he is either naïve, or more so, untruthful about his agenda. My personal view is that Swamidass has a gargantuan ego, which he is trying to hide behind his attempts of kindness and fair treatment. Ann Gauger and Paul Nelson have recognized that recently…Good for you both!

    0
  19. Nonlin.org: Can you prove “those things that breeders do are also done by other environments”?

    “Breeding requires a desired outcome, selection (just a minor step!) and isolation of successive generations of promising individuals, active mating or artificial insemination, optimization of growth conditions for the selected individuals, and/or other genetic technologies. Without most of these active steps nothing happens. ” http://nonlin.org/natural-selection/

    Self-reference is not the most convincing of strategies. Saves your fingers, I suppose.
    I certainly don’t mean every last action of a breeder, but the increase or decrease of trait frequencies in the population. Clearly, a prolonged period of cold would be expected to increase the frequency of genes that assist their possessors in dealing with prolonged cold, for example. Do you doubt this? What proof of this would you consider satisfactory?

    If you doubt it, it makes even less sense to blame Darwin for eugenics, since his only contribution is reduced to a mechanism that doesn’t happen.

    0
  20. Gregory: You know more economics than you think as it’s a ‘one-trick pony’ at the end of the day. I’m not asking for knowledge of economic theories, only to raise awareness that not just in economics, but also in sociology, linguistics, psychology & anthropology, some ‘misappropriations’ have occurred.

    I’m pretty sure nobody cares what I have to say about those things. I know I wouldn’t

    Gregory: Ok, what about this? https://evolution-institute.org/toward-a-new-social-darwinism/

    Or this? https://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/06/magazine/the-literary-darwinists.html

    Or, to keep Darwin’s name largely out of it, which hosts the mediocre & confused ‘philosophy of social evolution’ of Jonathan Birch: http://extendedevolutionarysynthesis.com/ & http://extendedevolutionarysynthesis.com/the-philosophy-of-social-evolution/

    Again, I don’t think I’m qualified to judge those things, but I’ll check them out.

    Gregory: They are now proselytizing to others to adopt their chosen language & I’m one of those who has had enough of it. Many of the most outspoken cultural evolutionists are anti-religious or distort religion on purpose to suit their worldview, which is absolutely obvious in the case of D.S. Wilson, Steven Pinker & Sam Harris

    Do you have an example of Harris doing that kind of stuff, please? Just curious

    0
  21. Allan Miller: It is undisputed that Galton was related to Darwin, and that eugenics historically postdates the Origin. But it is still a fact that eugenics is simply selective breeding, something practiced for millennia before someone had the bright idea of applying it to humanity, which notion cannot sensibly be derived from anything in the Origin.

    Of course Eugenics follows and is a derivative of Darwinism. What do you think this is “A Series of Unfortunate Events”?!? Can you name one eugenics proponent that was not also a proponent of Darwinism?

    I have to repeat:
    Eugenics is “natural selection”, “survival of the fittest”, and “struggle for survival” at its worst.

    And it’s not over. Now we have the “global warming” hysteria complete with persecution of the poor to “save the planet” and ongoing eugenics in the EUSSR that includes killing the elderly, the disabled and the unborn “defectives”.

    0
  22. Nonlin.org:

    I have to repeat:
    Eugenics is “natural selection”, “survival of the fittest”, and “struggle for survival” at its worst.

    So what distinguishes eugenics from selective breeding in other organisms?

    And it’s not over. Now we have the “global warming” hysteria complete with persecution of the poor to “save the planet”

    Hysterical nonsense demonstrating your appalling grasp of evolution. What heritable trait is being wiped out by ‘global warming hysteria’? Poverty? 😀

    and ongoing eugenics in the EUSSR that includes killing the elderly, the disabled and the unborn “defectives”.

    EUSSR? Do you mean the EU or the USSR? Either way, where is your evidence that this would not be taking place but for Darwin? All you do is add “‘cos of Darwin” to your woes of choice.

    0
  23. Allan Miller: I certainly don’t mean every last action of a breeder, but the increase or decrease of trait frequencies in the population. Clearly, a prolonged period of cold would be expected to increase the frequency of genes that assist their possessors in dealing with prolonged cold, for example. Do you doubt this? What proof of this would you consider satisfactory?

    If you doubt it, it makes even less sense to blame Darwin for eugenics, since his only contribution is reduced to a mechanism that doesn’t happen.

    So you don’t have any proof. And in fact you do recognize that there’s nothing like breeding in nature. Why don’t you take the next step and admit that the whole NS concept is bogus?

    No, prolonged cold is NOT “expected to increase the frequency of genes that assist their possessors in dealing with prolonged cold”. Prolonged cold often kills the population, end of story. On the other hand, observing organisms adapted to cold doesn’t tell you which came first if any: the adaptation or the exposure.

    Of course Darwin’s contribution reduces to a “mechanism that doesn’t happen”, but that doesn’t mean that him (and Malthus) are not the ones responsible. Just like Marx is partly responsible for the horrors of Communism even if (better yet: precisely because) he was wrong. It’s not like anyone will put a dead guy on trial, but mankind does have a responsibility to take down false idols.

    0
  24. Allan Miller: So what distinguishes eugenics from selective breeding in other organisms?

    What heritable trait is being wiped out by ‘global warming hysteria’? Poverty? 😀

    So now you feel for the chicken’s rights? PETA and all the OTHER nonsense? Because “humans are just another animal”? …like Darwin said?

    And you are OK with persecuting the poor for the ‘global warming hysteria’? Wow!

    EU + USSR = EUSSR – try to keep up. I just showed like 100 time why eugenics is a direct outcome of Darwin’s failed philosophy.

    0
  25. Nonlin.org: So you don’t have any proof. And in fact you do recognize that there’s nothing like breeding in nature. Why don’t you take the next step and admit that the whole NS concept is bogus?

    Of course there is something like breeding in nature. I think we can agree that organisms breed without our help.

    No, prolonged cold is NOT “expected to increase the frequency of genes that assist their possessors in dealing with prolonged cold”. Prolonged cold often kills the population, end of story.

    So either nothing happens, or extinction? That is what you might call a false dichotomy.

    Of course Darwin’s contribution reduces to a “mechanism that doesn’t happen”, but that doesn’t mean that him (and Malthus) are not the ones responsible.

    But the only part of Darwin relevant to eugenics is the part on selective breeding. The completely non-controversial part, describing what has been known for thousands of years.

    If not, what did Darwin add?

    What distinguishes eugenics from selective breeding?

    0
  26. Gregory: Can you think of a single thing?

    Nope.

    However, evolutionary biology is in no danger of usurpation by IDism.

    True. ID would need to offer something that is not supernatural, not immaterial, and probably one that could be characterized as a mechanism. And most IDists I’ve encountered are opposed to naturalism, materialism, and mechanism in evolution preferring instead to opt for interventionism.

    0
  27. Nonlin.org: So now you feel for the chicken’s rights? PETA and all the OTHER nonsense? Because “humans are just another animal”? …like Darwin said?

    Chickens? That’s quite the non sequitur.

    And you are OK with persecuting the poor for the ‘global warming hysteria’? Wow!

    And you are OK twisting my words? Wow!

    EU + USSR = EUSSR

    Not an actual place, then.

    0
  28. DNA_Jock: Nonlin.org: Can you name one eugenics proponent that was not also a proponent of Darwinism?

    Plato.

    Wait, Plato was a proponent of Eugenics when Francis Galton coined the term in 1883? Yeah, let’s blame Plato. Why not?

    0
  29. Nonlin.org: Wait, Plato was a proponent of Eugenics when Francis Galton coined the term in 1883? Yeah, let’s blame Plato. Why not?

    Not only that DNA_Joke were there…

    0
  30. J-Mac: Conscience

    Does Darwin advocate that we act without conscience, then? Is that the magic ingredient I’ve been trying to locate in the Origin?

    0
  31. Allan Miller: Of course there is something like breeding in nature. I think we can agree that organisms breed without our help.

    It is unfortunate that we have use the same word for two entirely different activities. Don’t tell me you didn’t know we were talking about the human breeding of domestic animals and plants.

    0
  32. Allan Miller: Does Darwin advocate that we act without conscience, then? Is that the magic ingredient I’ve been trying to locate in the Origin?

    Does Darwin advocate evolution without the First Cause?
    If not, please provide evidence.
    If yes, why would you skip or ingore it?

    0
  33. Nonlin.org: It is unfortunate that we have use the same word for two entirely different activities. Don’t tell me you didn’t know that, or that you didn’t know we were talking about the human breeding of domestic animals and plants.

    Sure, I was indulging in whimsy. I feel no particular compulsion to argue in a straight line when you leap from NS to global warming to chickens. You deal mostly in haymakers. NAZISM! COMMUNISM! THE EU (OR IS IT THE USSR!) PETA! GLOBAL WARMING! Stuff nonlin.org has a beef about, and bugger all to do with evolution.

    0
  34. J-Mac: Does Darwin advocate evolution without the First Cause?
    If not, please provide evidence.
    If yes, why would you skip or ingore it?

    What’s that got to do with the price of fish?

    0
  35. Nonlin.org: Wait, Plato was a proponent of Eugenics when Francis Galton coined the term in 1883? Yeah, let’s blame Plato. Why not?

    Well, Plato was dead in 1883, but Chaeron (the olympic wrestler) took Plato’s ideas in Books V and VI of the Republic seriously enough to indulge in a forced breeding program of his own in Pellene. So, yeah, I’m comfortable blaming Plato for that.
    Plato had some extremely interesting ideas about breeding programs for the betterment of society.

    0
  36. Mung:
    Cos of Darwin’s followers. Better?

    I know. Until Darwin came along, people were never beastly to each other. I certainly never let a day go by without causing misery to some poor wretch.

    0
  37. J-Mac
    Chill, please.
    Insults directed at me get a pass; those directed at other posters do not.

    0
  38. DNA_Jock:
    Well, Plato was dead in 1883, but Chaeron (the olympic wrestler) took Plato’s ideas in Books V and VI of the Republic seriously enough to indulge in a forced breeding program of his own in Pellene. So, yeah, I’m comfortable blaming Plato for that.
    Plato had some extremely interesting ideas about breeding programs for the betterment of society.

    In Nonlin’s mind, if it wasn’t in the dictionary, it doesn’t matter if it was exactly what eugenics entails, it just wasn’t in the dictionary, “therefore” not eugenics. It’s only eugenics once it’s in the dictionary, more importantly if it serves as an excuse to blame Darwin for it. Nonlin thinks that dictionaries rule reality. Well, of course only if it’s the dictionaries and the definitions Nonlin prefers, so don’t try and bring a different definition from the very dictionary Nonlin used, because that doesn’t work. Only the parts quoted by Nonlin matter.

    0
  39. DNA_Jock,

    dare i ask what cantab signifies?

    If you’re aiming to compare the egos of Joshua & I, then at some point I may wish to submit for evidence the 1st email he sent me privately, letting me know what a not good, but great ‘scientist’ he is. It is not too far different from the sectarian pride that is on display at BioLogos, where Joshua got his ‘public’ start under Collins’ invitation, before the Haarsmas’ dis-invitation. If you don’t know what evangelicalistic (kataphatic) egoism is, dazz, then perhaps we’re having quite a different conversation. You go silent or drift away when a lot of the rest of us get more keenly interested in the conversation given what we value.

    Are you a man without an ego, is that it DNA_Jock? So it’s fun to compare the egos of others who take ‘pride’ in their work & aim to do it well? A sinless atheist who avoids knowledge & stories that could corrupt his heart & mind?

    0
  40. Nonlin.org: You got the wrong idea. I do not hate “evolution”, but instead find it illogical, ridiculous, and destructive as PROVEN.

    You see ‘change-over-time’ here and now and do not need a far fetched “theory” to explain change. As far as “natural history”, what we see is one thing, and the unverifiable myth told about that an entirely different matter.”

    I take a more logical position than you & don’t attempt to redefine ‘evolution’ OUT of the dictionary as a legitimate & proper term. Natural history is something that requires concepts in order to make sense as a proper field of study. What is simply required is properly ‘situating’ the meaning of ‘evolution’ in a way that avoids exaggeration & misuse.

    “do not need a far fetched “theory” to explain change.”

    That’s one of the strangest things I’ve heard in some time. Are you suggesting we shouldn’t theorise about ‘change’? Why not? There are non-evolutionary types of change, as you likely know. Why not speak about them more often, instead of just making a negative argument ad nausea?

    It appears rather simple that you reject the worldview of atheists, materialists, naturalists, empiricists, scientism-ists, & generally all anti-theists. Is that about right? Blaming ‘evolution’ for too much weakens your argument. Blame it properly; don’t exaggerate.

    0
  41. Allan Miller,

    “there is a stronger claim being made, and I’d like to see it supported.”

    Which stronger claim? Regarding evolutionism & the double-speak of evolutionists that some people here, a significant number apparently, think doesn’t exist & is a false characterisation of what evolutionists by definition are pushing?

    “No evolutionists here but us evolutionists,” is a common strategy in such conversations. Allan Miller should declare if he considers himself an ‘evolutionist’ first or not.

    0
  42. J-Mac,

    “So, if this is what Swamidass is really attempting to do, the unifying creationism with evolutionary science, he is either naïve, or more so, untruthful about his agenda. My personal view is that Swamidass has a gargantuan ego, which he is trying to hide behind his attempts of kindness and fair treatment. Ann Gauger and Paul Nelson have recognized that recently…Good for you both!”

    Swamidass is amongst the most comical figures to arise in the USAmerican non-mainstream evangelical protestant ‘creationist’ discourse on ‘origins’ in years. He’s not a ‘creationist,’ but only a ‘creationist,’ as long as he says so, right? ; ) He’ll likely change his mind 3 times before the end of the conversation and call that ‘progress.’

    Joshua banned me right after Paul Nelson arrived. Paul had commented on what I wrote re: Joshua’s mind-boggling obscurity wrt MN. Ann Gauger is more articulate & pointed than Joshua, though she cannot defend IDism at the end of the day, which means Joshua has the ‘scientific’ advantage over Gauger. Nelson’s YECism is cute for this DI stalwart & ‘revolutionary’ IDist.

    At the end of the day, Joshua will be publicly humbled just as Dennis Venema was at BioLogos. They are two of a kind, Venema & Swamidass. Venema’s ego took a hit & he was demoted. Joshua’s time will come because he just doesn’t seem to grasp many of the philosophical & theological issues involved; he just trudges up his geneticist’s junk all over them each time he opens his mouth & won’t humble himself to those who know & are trained on those topics. What he did to Eddie there was shameful & humiliating – his “200 words” demand that quickly turned into empty threats.

    0

Leave a Reply

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