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?

344 Replies to “Why be skeptical about Swamidass’ ‘Peaceful Science’ pitch?”

  1. Nonlin.org
    Ignored
    says:

    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.

    Remember the question I asked when you tried to separate Eugenics from Darwinism? “who do you claim to be Eugenist while not Darwinist?”

    Being a Darwinosaur, you don’t understand how illogical your two statements are:

    “Plato was not a Darwinist because he lived 2000 years before Darwin, BUT Plato was an Eugenist EVEN THOUGH he lived 2000 years before Galton.”

  2. Nonlin.org
    Ignored
    says:

    Gregory:
    1. I take a more logical position than you & don’t attempt to redefine ‘evolution’ OUT of the dictionary as a legitimate & proper term.
    2. Are you suggesting we shouldn’t theorise about ‘change’? Why not? There are non-evolutionary types of change, as you likely know.
    3. 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.

    1. How would you know you “take a more logical position”?
    2. “Change” is trivial and observable. Read Darwin – even he wasn’t that dumb to “theorise about ‘change’”
    3. Read history. Atheism came first – Darwinism second and only to support atheism. Something about “intellectually fulfilled” nonsense. Who cares, right? But if you claim to be science, you must follow the scientific method.

  3. Nonlin.org
    Ignored
    says:

    newton: If in war , victors kill all the men of a conquered nation while taking the conquered women to breed with, they are controlling breeding to increase the occurrences of a desirable ,to the victors, bloodlines.

    They’re not thinking that far. Stick with what you know.

  4. Nonlin.org
    Ignored
    says:

    Allan Miller: The EU? PETA? Global warming? All connected by Darwinism?

    Yep! I already explained why. Go over the list and see for yourself.
    Sadly, Eugenics is alive and well under various disguises.

  5. DNA_Jock
    Ignored
    says:

    Nonlin.org,

    Nonlin.org‘s attempt at ridicule: “Plato was not a Darwinist because he lived 2000 years before Darwin, BUT Plato was an Eugenist EVEN THOUGH he lived 2000 years before Galton.”

    LOL
    Plato was not a Darwinist, that much is true. But he was a ‘eugenics proponent’, despite living before Galton. That was, after all, what you asked for. Obviously, no-one called him such during his lifetime; just as no-one called Jesus “King of the Jews”.
    They didn’ t speak English.

  6. Allan Miller
    Ignored
    says:

    Nonlin.org: Yep! I already explained why. Go over the list and see for yourself.
    Sadly, Eugenics is alive and well under various disguises.

    The list did not include eugenics. For the rest, me going over the list won’t help, since there is no apparent connection. Simply saying something followed by “‘cos of Darwinism” is not actually making a case.

    Sausages. Cos of Darwinism. The Democrats. Cos of Darwinism. Yo’ momma. Cos of Darwinism.

    Try making the case that PETA is ‘cos of Darwinism’. Or the EU.

  7. newton
    Ignored
    says:

    Nonlin.org: They’re not thinking that far. Stick with what you know.

    Really, what are they thinking about when they purposely kill competitors for mating with the females , if not selective breeding for a desired trait, the bloodlines of the victors?

    If they had livestock , they knew that mechanism. Maybe you underestimate the intelligence of the ancients.

    It

  8. Gregory Gregory
    Ignored
    says:

    Nonlin.org: 1. How would you know you “take a more logical position”?
    2. “Change” is trivial and observable. Read Darwin – even he wasn’t that dumb to“theorise about ‘change’”
    3. Read history. Atheism came first – Darwinism second and only to support atheism. Something about “intellectually fulfilled” nonsense. Who cares, right? But if you claim to be science, you must follow the scientific method.

    1) Complete the sentence & factor in the rest in your answer please.
    2) Change is anything but trivial. While there is no ‘changeology’ as a field, the notion of change challenges what is observable in many ways. It is sad you have little wonder about ‘change’ & so much fixation on ‘evolution’ rather than just proper refusal of ideological ‘evolutionism’. Semantically speaking, ‘change’ is the master category in relation with ‘evolution’.
    3) Breathe air. Darwin’s work as a naturalist & publications about natural history were not “only to support atheism.” Please give your head a shake. You are having trouble distinguishing ideology and anti-religious worldviews from proper natural science and scholarly work. No, I don’t “claim to be science” or a ‘scientist’, & there are multiple methods (plural) to follow when people ‘do science.’ Please wake up from this nightmare of blame you are living in.

    The ‘intellectually fulfilled’ nonsense, which I agree is nonsense, is by Richard Dawkins, whose reputation has plunged as people have come to see him as a bigoted, mean, empty-hearted, chauvinistic, snobby person. Carry on, that was yesteryear, since Peterson vs. Harris now is much more interesting & appealing to several ‘sides,’ one of which you might wish to be on. Time to catch up?

  9. Nonlin.org
    Ignored
    says:

    DNA_Jock: LOL
    Plato was not a Darwinist, that much is true. But he was a ‘eugenics proponent’, despite living before Galton.

    And yet Galton developed his theory based on the Darwinist nonsense, not on Plato. You cannot blame Plato for Galton. At most, you can claim that Plato was a proto – ‘eugenics proponent’. But better check with him first 🙂

  10. Nonlin.org
    Ignored
    says:

    Allan Miller: Try making the case that PETA is ‘cos of Darwinism’. Or the EU.

    Already did and won’t repeat again and again for those lacking reading comprehension.

  11. Nonlin.org
    Ignored
    says:

    newton: Really, what are they thinking about when they purposely kill competitors for mating with the females , if not selective breeding for a desired trait, the bloodlines of the victors?

    Nonsense. Probably simple violence and lust. Last I checked, rape is usually not followed by childcare.

  12. Nonlin.org
    Ignored
    says:

    Gregory,

    1) Huh?
    2) What’s up with the fluff? At least you agree “there is no ‘changeology’ as a field”
    3) Nonsense
    4) Harris is as dumb as Dawkins

  13. Gregory Gregory
    Ignored
    says:

    Nonlin.org:
    Gregory,

    1) Huh?
    2) What’s up with the fluff? At least you agree “there is no ‘changeology’ as a field”
    3) Nonsense
    4) Harris is as dumb as Dawkins

    1) The whole sentence reads: “I take a more logical position than you & don’t attempt to redefine ‘evolution’ OUT of the dictionary as a legitimate & proper term.” Since you seem to wish to do the latter, as only a foolish person might nowadays, the former holds.

    2) Fluff? And apparently you thinking change is trivial is not fluff? Whatever.

    3) “Darwinism second and only to support atheism” is tripe shown wrong by many scholars across a range of theology/worldview. Apparently you want to be an outlier so as not to be trusted? It’s working.

    4) Neither Harris nor Dawkins is ‘dumb’. They are both comparatively highly intelligent people. However, the ‘intellectually fulfilled’ quote is from Dawkins. Have fun dancing with those 2 instead of doing something more valuable. The DI hasn’t learned yet, so perhaps they’re set a pattern for you to follow.

  14. newton
    Ignored
    says:

    Nonlin.org: Nonsense. Probably simple violence and lust. Last I checked, rape is usually not followed by childcare.

    It is if rape allows a society to increase its population to replenish those lost in war. The fastest way to do that is by increasing the number of childbearing women, they are a resource. The more successful the warrior the more his offspring are valued.

    It is estimated that 16 million men share the genetic legacy of Genghis Khan, That because of his sunny disposition.

  15. Mung Mung
    Ignored
    says:

    I’m skeptical about any enterprise that suppresses the truth.

  16. Gregory Gregory
    Ignored
    says:

    Mung:
    I’m skeptical about any enterprise that suppresses the truth.

    Fair enough. Which truth(s) is(are) being suppressed by Joshua at PS?

  17. Rumraket Rumraket
    Ignored
    says:

    Nonlin.org: 4) Harris is as dumb as Dawkins

    But still twice as clever as you will ever be.

  18. Allan Miller
    Ignored
    says:

    Nonlin.org: Already did and won’t repeat again and again for those lacking reading comprehension.

    No you didn’t. You just uttered some vague phrases from Darwin – ‘survival of the fittest’, etc. I can make absolutely no sense of that, as an argument. And it is not because of my comprehension skills, but your utter failure as a communicator.

    The EU is due to Darwinism – but not, for example, the US? That makes no sense. And People For the Ethical Treatment of Animals? wtf?

  19. Nonlin.org
    Ignored
    says:

    Gregory: 1) The whole sentence reads: “I take a more logical position than you & don’t attempt to redefine ‘evolution’ OUT of the dictionary as a legitimate & proper term.” Since you seem to wish to do the latter, as only a foolish person might nowadays, the former holds.

    2) Fluff? And apparently you thinking change is trivial is not fluff? Whatever.

    3) “Darwinism second and only to support atheism” is tripe shown wrong by many scholars across a range of theology/worldview. Apparently you want to be an outlier so as not to be trusted? It’s working.

    4) Neither Harris nor Dawkins is ‘dumb’. They are both comparatively highly intelligent people. However, the ‘intellectually fulfilled’ quote is from Dawkins. Have fun dancing with those 2 instead of doing something more valuable. The DI hasn’t learned yet, so perhaps they’re set a pattern for you to follow.

    1. Showing something is illogical and false is not redefining it “OUT of the dictionary”. Astrology is also false, yet secure in the dictionary
    2. More fluff
    3. Look at all pre-Darwinists. They all had a problem with theism.
    4. Harris and Dawkins – “dumb and dumber”. Nothing these bozos claim is true when scrutinized.

  20. Mung Mung
    Ignored
    says:

    3. Look at all pre-Darwinists. They all had a problem with theism.

    What the hell are you talking about? Have you actually done any reading on the subject that you’re pretending to know about?

  21. Nonlin.org
    Ignored
    says:

    newton: It is estimated that 16 million men share the genetic legacy of Genghis Khan, That because of his sunny disposition.

    Yes, and they’re all blood-thirsty savages… or not. So “passing the gene” does nothing for the guy. The great Darwinist-Eugenics experiment fails again.

  22. Nonlin.org
    Ignored
    says:

    Mung:

    Have you actually done any reading on the subject that you’re pretending to know about?

    Yes, and you can do the same. Start your adventure here:
    Darwin’s Ghosts
    The Secret History of Evolution
    Stott, Rebecca

    This is by all means not the only source.

  23. Mung Mung
    Ignored
    says:

    The Secret History of Evolution

    LoL. By a professor of “creative writing.” I bet.

    Does the book have a bibliography? If it has one it probably reveals that the secret history isn’t all that secret. The amazon blurb mentions Leonardo da Vinci. Is he one of the anti-theists you had in mind?

  24. Nonlin.org
    Ignored
    says:

    Mung: Does the book have a bibliography? If it has one it probably reveals that the secret history isn’t all that secret. The amazon blurb mentions Leonardo da Vinci. Is he one of the anti-theists you had in mind?

    Why are you suddenly so serious? Go read, do your own research, whatever. And if it turns out your beliefs are conflicted (as they seem), seek a guru on a mountain top or something.

  25. phoodoo
    Ignored
    says:

    Rumraket: But still twice as clever as you will ever be.

    Interesting post about ..well, who knows?

    Mung, what do you think, great content? Hey, I know they are looking for some new moderators at TSZ, maybe you can apply?

  26. Joe Felsenstein Joe Felsenstein
    Ignored
    says:

    Rebecca Stott’s book is a good read, skipping through Darwin’s antecedents and concentrating on some of them (Aristotle, Jahiz, Trembley, Leondardo, de Maillet, Diderot, Erasmus Darwin, Lamarck, Robert Chambers, and Wallace). Not as thorough as, say, Peter Bowler’s Evolution, the History of an Idea, but well-written.

    As for the “Secret History of Evolution”, the original subtitle seems to have been “In Search of the First Evolutionists”. A “secret” to those who only know about Darwiin, but not to anyone who has read anything about the history of evolutionary thought.

  27. Gregory Gregory
    Ignored
    says:

    Yeah, Mung, go “seek a guru on a mountain top or something.” = P

    ROTFL!

    4. If you multiplied the intelligence your arguments by about 1,000,000 in the (non-lin) light of current evidence & scientific knowledge (CUDOS) you’d reach the footstool upon which Harris & Dawkins rest their explanations when tired. Understand this clearly please: I strongly reject the positions of both Harris & Dawkins. But seriously, guy, what you said is not even dumb (a term only used to respond to your ‘tender abuse’). Please don’t even stop while you’re not ahead.

    “Local contagions of anti-intellectualism threaten to become epidemic.” – Merton

  28. Mung Mung
    Ignored
    says:

    Nonlin.org: Go read, do your own research…

    You mean like the book i am currently reading?

    Evolutionary Theory and the Creation Controversy

  29. phoodoo
    Ignored
    says:

    Mung: You mean like the book i am currently reading?

    Evolutionary Theory and the Creation Controversy

    I haven’t read the book, but I it hasn’t been reviewed by anyone so far I see. Apparently, since I have purchased things on Amazon in the past year, I am allowed to just go online and give it any review I want. Our own DiEb here seems to think this is great.

    I think I am going to say I am not a fan of the book. I think the title should have been Creation Theory and the Evolution Controversy.

    Also I think the author has an inherit ( I am not sure where he inherited it from, but it could be Lamarkian inheritance) philosophical bias. Plus, I am not a fan of his writing style. Too wordy, I presume. Good effort though, I give it two stars.

  30. Gregory Gregory
    Ignored
    says:

    Mung,
    Sounds helpful for the philosophy-challenged (unless the author himself is such), though some strange language in the blurb.

    “Evolutionary theory addresses the phenomenon of the origin and diversity of plant and animal species that we observe. In recent times, however, it has become a predominant ideology which has gained currency far beyond its original confines.” – Rieppel

    Let’s be clear: ‘evolutionary theory’ is not an ideology. ‘Evolutionism’ is an ideology. This is the proper semantic way to distinguish them. Does anyone here disagree? If so, why?

    Likewise, the blurb speaks of “the evolution of evolutionary theory against the background of Creationism and Intelligent Design.” Sorry, biologist-geologist Rieppel with little knowledge of semantics about theory change, but it is simply playful nonsense to speak about the ‘evolution of evolutionary theory.’ You are in the wrong field to make this claim!

    If the guy doesn’t realise the master category is change, not evolution, then he’s got a serious orientation problem. That’s probably why he even gives attention to ‘Intelligent Design,’ though at least he labels it correctly with capital letters so that we’re not confused that it is ‘science,’ when a theory about divine causation could only be called ‘theological science’, not ‘natural science.’

    “if contemporary evolutionary biology is wrong by 90%, why should the doctrine of Intelligent Design not be respected as a serious alternative to natural selection?” – Rieppel

    Thanks for the good intentions. But sorry, that’s a moron with tenure (& a rather good citation index rating) who seems to think that just being a ‘scientist’ makes him able to speak intelligently about other fields in which he or she is a rank amateur at best & frightfully misleading. You just chucked money out the window for this IDist (he thinks he’s onto something clever, calling them instead ‘intelligent designers’, which is semantically dumb & makes no sense), Mung.

    This indeed brings relevance, however, to the Thread Topic again because Joshua Swamidass has demonstrated himself as confused & largely incoherent on the topic of ideology, similar to how Rieppel writes. He doesn’t know when evolutionary theory stops being a ‘science’ & starts turning into ideological evolutionism. And sadly, it does not appear that he wants to know or learn, being a product of what is ‘weak American philosophy,’ & in fact would rather not know, thinking he’s got ‘methodological naturalism’ mastered already.

  31. Alan Fox Alan Fox
    Ignored
    says:

    Gregory: [quoting Rieppel]“if contemporary evolutionary biology is wrong BY 90%, why should the doctrine of Intelligent Design not be respected as a serious alternative to natural selection?”

    Even if it’s 100%, it’s a non sequitur. Every tub must stand on its own bottom. There’s no justification to default to “Intelligent Design” because another theory were to be falsified. And especially so, since there is no “Intelligent Design” theory as yet (nor likely to be, IMHO).

    ETA to clarify Gregory is quoting Rieppel

  32. Gregory Gregory
    Ignored
    says:

    “since there is no “Intelligent Design” theory as yet”

    Yes, there is. (In fact there are many or at least several that take that name & which are part of the IDM.) A successful one? No.

  33. Alan Fox Alan Fox
    Ignored
    says:

    Gregory: Yes, there is. (In fact there are many or at least several that take that name & which are part of the IDM.) A successful one? No.

    I should have included “scientific”. There is as yet no scientific theory of ID.

  34. newton
    Ignored
    says:

    phoodoo: I haven’t read the book, but I it hasn’t been reviewed by anyone so far I see. Apparently, since I have purchased things on Amazon in the past year, I am allowed to just go online and give it any review I want. Our own DiEb here seems to think this is great.

    Of course you are as long as you don’t claim to know what is in the book.

  35. newton
    Ignored
    says:

    phoodoo: Also I think the author has an inherit ( I am not sure where he inherited it from, but it could be Lamarkian inheritance) philosophical bias. Plus, I am not a fan of his writing style. Too wordy, I presume. Good effort though, I give it two stars.

    You would not be the first to lie in a review

  36. Gregory Gregory
    Ignored
    says:

    Alan Fox: I should have included “scientific”. There is as yet no scientific theory of ID.

    Fair enough; a demarcation game, semantics. But yeah, the DI is playing that game still & insists IDT is ‘strictly scientific’, often displaying ‘scientism’ more than ‘science’.

    IDists seem to think that they can at the same time reject scientism while also embracing it. A silly choice, but then, they’ve mostly been WAPed like Joshua already & don’t know better. ; )

  37. Joe Felsenstein Joe Felsenstein
    Ignored
    says:

    When ID advocates present arguments that are intended to show that ordinary evolutionary forces can’t explain This or can’t explain That, these can be scientific arguments. But when they are asked to present their own explanations for these phenomena, they don’t have any scientific explanation.

    So my view is that the negative arguments of ID advocates are possibly scientific, but the positive evidence for ID is not scientific. So when people say that ID isn’t science, they may be right or may be wrong, depending on whether they are talking about the positive arguments of ID or the negative ones.

  38. colewd
    Ignored
    says:

    Joe Felsenstein,

    But when they are asked to present their own explanations for these phenomena, they don’t have any scientific explanation.

    This is true only depending on where you demarcate the line between science and philosophy. Is empirical evidence of an intelligent creator not scientific evidence? Why not?

  39. Gregory Gregory
    Ignored
    says:

    Joe Felsenstein,

    “So my view is that the negative arguments of ID advocates are possibly scientific, but the positive evidence for ID is not scientific. So when people say that ID isn’t science, they may be right or may be wrong, depending on whether they are talking about the positive arguments of ID or the negative ones.”

    Fair enough, Joe. Negative vs. Positive; Apophatic vs. Kataphatic. There’s some truth in what you’re saying.

    I wonder at what point you will acknowledge the same with Swamidass’ ‘genealogical Adam’, i.e. which aspects of it are ‘positive’ arguments and which negative. With Joshua, one needs to include a 3rd category: fantasy speculation. That’s what’s growing out of his ‘genealogical science’ of Adam & Eve (though he usually leaves out Eve) it seems (with his relativising pro-/anti-LCMS mission), or do you see it differently?

  40. J-Mac
    Ignored
    says:

    Gregory:
    Joe Felsenstein,

    Fair enough, Joe. Negative vs. Positive; Apophatic vs. Kataphatic. There’s some truth in what you’re saying.

    I wonder at what point you will acknowledge the same with Swamidass’ ‘genealogical Adam’, i.e. which aspects of it are ‘positive’ arguments and which negative. With Joshua, one needs to include a 3rd category: fantasy speculation.That’s what’s growing out of his ‘genealogical science’ of Adam & Eve (though he usually leaves out Eve) it seems (with his relativising pro-/anti-LCMS mission), or do you see it differently?

    Has anybody ever even considered the possible influence of the Nephilim on genealogical Adam and Eve? They are still Christians, are they not?

  41. newton
    Ignored
    says:

    J-Mac: Has anybody ever even considered the possible influence of the Nephilim on genealogical Adam and Eve? They are still Christians, are they not?

    I’ll have whatever you are having.

  42. timothya timothya
    Ignored
    says:

    newton: I’ll have whatever you are having.

    Pre-Christian Christians. What a strange concept.

  43. Gregory Gregory
    Ignored
    says:

    J-Mac: Has anybody ever even considered the possible influence of the Nephilim on genealogical Adam and Eve? They are still Christians, are they not?

    Are (Joshua’s ‘scientific’) genealogical Adam & Eve still Christians? I suppose the answer depends on if you are. Ex-catholic was where it was left in apostasy, it seems. Mashed potatoes is all that’s left from there.

  44. newton
    Ignored
    says:

    Nonlin.org: Yes, and they’re all blood-thirsty savages

    Where do you think best little blood-thirsty savages come from? From the biggest ,baddest blood-thirsty savages.

    So “passing the gene” does nothing for the guy.

    Immortality, nonlin. Everyone dies, some leave stone monuments , he left a legacy of descendants. A physical sign of his existence.

    He probably had a pretty good opinion of himself, so passing along his juju made the Mongols resulted in a superior race of warriors. He practiced the science of improving part of the human race with a sword.

    The great Darwinist-Eugenics experiment fails again.

    Tell that to the Neanderthals

  45. Joe Felsenstein Joe Felsenstein
    Ignored
    says:

    colewd: Is empirical evidence of an intelligent creator not scientific evidence?

    It would be if there were any. At least in the evolutionary arguments, all I’ve seen are arguments that “Darwinism” can’t explain This or That. Even when ID advocates are specifically asked for positive arguments, they tend to be “we positively predict that Darwinism won’t be able to explain This or That.”

  46. Joe Felsenstein Joe Felsenstein
    Ignored
    says:

    Gregory: Are (Joshua’s ‘scientific’) genealogical Adam & Eve still Christians?

    Once they ate The Apple? I suppose they were satanists after that.

  47. Neil Rickert
    Ignored
    says:

    Gregory: I wonder at what point you will acknowledge the same with Swamidass’ ‘genealogical Adam’, i.e. which aspects of it are ‘positive’ arguments and which negative.

    I consider that to mostly be theology. But some of it can be considered plausible speculation that is consistent with science.

  48. Gregory Gregory
    Ignored
    says:

    Joe Felsenstein: Once they ate The Apple?I suppose they were satanists after that.

    Do you think they worshiped Satan, or were deceived by him in the story? Where does Satan enter this conversation for you, Joe, as I thought you usually just comment on natural science, leaving aside issues of worldview or theology. In any case, that comment you responded to was actually addressed to someone else, but the one addressed to you seems to not have been met. Be welcome to meet it also, as it returns to the main topic of this thread.

  49. Gregory Gregory
    Ignored
    says:

    Neil Rickert:
    plausible speculation that is consistent with science.

    So a historical, genealogical Adam & Eve are now considered by you, based on Joshua’s writings (& those he got the idea from, since the innovation is not his, but rather borrowed), as plausibly ‘consistent with science’? Just curious.

  50. petrushka
    Ignored
    says:

    Gregory: So a historical, genealogical Adam & Eve are now considered by you, based on Joshua’s writings (& those he got the idea from, since the innovation is not his, but rather borrowed), as plausibly ‘consistent with science’? Just curious.

    The postulated genealogical Adam has little in common with the Biblical Adam.

Leave a Reply

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