Anti-Evolutionists are Welcome Here

Conversation Side Conversation
, ,
1

@pnelson

First, it is not surprising that you aren’t interested in the GAE methodologies. I have always been prepared for Creationists to reject GAE scenarios.

What is surprising is the second issue: that you think there is something more logical, more convincing than Common Descent… and that once we reject Common Descent, then you can have productive conversations about the origins of human primates.

[I have added a bold font to the paragraph immediately below. Discussion at bottom of page]
@pnelson, you are the one out-of-place here at Peaceful Science, just as @scd is out of place. And it is because you and he categorically reject the idea that God would use Evolutionary processes to create Earth’s life forms.

Peaceful Science is all about how to allow for God employing evolutionary processes – and STILL using one-off miracles for the creation of Adam and Eve.

> Note on Editing:
I have placed bold fonts on my poorly chosen words “so-and-so is out of place”. I acknowledge that not only does that phrase have a menacing sound, it also implies censure and/or banning. This is not what as uppermost in my mind when I wrote those words. My intent was to underscore the lack of valuable discussion produced when a Creationist comes Peaceful Science .org in order to debate with atheists about Evolution. There are hundreds of webpages in the English speaking world to dispute Evolution with Atheists.

2

We care about dialogue @gbrooks9. Both @pnelson and @scd are welcome here.

3 Likes
3

Hey someone should help George by writing something about what PS is “all about” so he can stop writing stuff like this. Oh wait:

6 Likes
4

@sfmatheson,

Your linked article, which is only about three (3) weeks old, is a nice article. But it hardly does any heavy lifting about explaining Peaceful Science. I grant you that you have captured many of the atmospherics here at Peaceful Science – to your credit.

But if PS really was what you say it is:
[1] we would not allow Creationists badgering Atheists on the un-knowable conclusion that God would never use Evolutionary processes.

and

[2] nor would we allow Atheists to badger Creationists on how Creationists know there is a God.

These are fundamentally tangential arguments that divide us, rather than help us build trust.

So I have to think you are attacking my conclusions out of self-interest, rather than because I am wrong about these incredibly polarizing discussions that continue to occur here at P.S.

@swamidass

I read your page on the Peaceful Science MISSION:

It appears to be less than six months old… and it seems to spell out “values” beautifully … but not much about the mission.

Where do we find a summation along these lines?:

[a] Since science is not in a position analyze one-off events, religious faith can accept a number of one-off miracles without compelling a theist to reject the sciences in general, or evolution in particular.

[b] Since we are looking for peaceful accommodation:
[ i ] we reject polarizing discussions with Christians advocating that they should reject the idea of God’s existence; and
[ ii ] we reject polarizing discussions with Creationists who argue something UNKNOWABLE, i.e., that God would never use evolutionary processes to create life on Earth generally, or even just humans from primates in the particular.

1 Like
5

A good way of showing people that they are welcome is by using their own preferred designations when talking about them. I don’t know about @scd, but I’m pretty sure @pnelson has never described himself as an “anti-evolutionist”.

6

@swamidass

I don’t believe I would deny their participation … even if it is polarizing and divisive.

My point is that they both engage in polarizing discussions that breed contempt and division.

So, if I’m going to be attacked for what I’m writing about posters like the two I have already mentioned, let’s at least get it right!

7

@Krauze

If @pnelson opposes common descent … what more do we need to categorize him as opposed to evolution?

1 Like
8

@swamidass

The title of the thread doesn’t capture my position at all. I have revised it to read thusly:

Anti-evolutionists are welcome here but why should we tolerate attacks on atheists?

9

Let alone the fact that “evolution” is frequently defined as “change in the allele frequency in a population over time”, which Paul doesn’t oppose.

Notice the phrasing of your question: “What more do we need to categorize him…” It isn’t about making sure Paul feels welcome by extending the minimal effort of common courtesy in using his own preferred designation when talking about him. It’s about finding an excuse to categorize him with a negative label.

10

Yes, there are polarizing topics and discussions on PS. Your proposed solution is to publicly announce to people that they don’t belong here? You did this to @pnelson who wasn’t attacking anyone? You announce the goal of PS in doing this, and you don’t even get it right.

The problem with your post is not that you sought to strongly disagree with Nelson (I do too) or even to suggest to him that his positions take him outside of science or even of scholarship (which they do). Or at least, if that was your intent, you instead wrote a post that told him and someone else that they don’t belong at PS. That’s utterly inappropriate, indeed it’s factually wrong, and IMO it should have been caught in moderation. If you learn anything from this terrible post of yours, it should be that you should stop making pronouncements about what PS is about (you don’t seem to acknowledge what has already been written about this) and about who is welcome to participate.

This made me laugh out loud.

3 Likes
11

@gbrooks9, if, by “attack” you actually mean “criticize” or “argue with”, then we absolutely should tolerate such activity. Heck, we should invite it.

5 Likes
12

Just to be clear where I stand in all this, let me explain a bit.

@gbrooks9, you did not write this out of self interest, and you really do care about the PS project. I’m glad you are here.

It is very important to me that we make clear that Peaceful Science welcomes everyone here, including evolutionists and anti-evolutionists, theists of many sorts and atheists.

For this reason, it is really important not to speak on behalf of Peaceful Science in ways that are unwelcoming. For example, this phrasing really is a problem:

It is also very fraught to describe us in a reductive way, stating we are “all about” one point:

@gbrooks9, I undersatnd your sentiment but there is a better way to express it. You coulld say:

@pnelson, you reallly missing the point, just as @scd is missing the point. And it is because you and he categorically reject the idea that God would use Evolutionary processes to create Earth’s life forms.

Just about everyone at Peaceful Science, including the atheists, know that God could employ evolutionary processes – and STILL using one-off miracles for the creation of Adam and Eve.

This, I think captures your intended sentiment. But it doesn’t speak on behalf of Peaceful Science, and it does not tell @Pnelson and @scd to leave. I don’t meant to call you out harshly to be clear. The only reason I intervened is so that PS is not misrepresented and they do not feel I am asking them to leave by my silence.

As for what we are all about, I have done the heavy lifting here:

This would be the right place to be quoting and using to educate people about what we are doing an dwhy.

Now this worth discussing more. How do we structure conversations and interactions to build trust? Especially for regulars, this is something that should govern our interactions. I do think there are ways for us to improve here.

13

This forum has actually been a great place for atheists to confront common tropes that circulate within some Christian circles. In my experience, what starts out as an “attack” can be swiftly deflected into common understanding. I have seen many posters stunned at the proposition that atheists are open to the idea of God existing, and that atheism isn’t synonymous with believing God does not exist. I think it is also worthwhile for atheists to explain how they derive morality, and just their overall worldview. Most of the time, it turns out Christians and atheists share a lot more in common than many think.

4 Likes
14

The mission is clearly stated, but it could use expansion:

Peaceful Science ’s mission is to advance a civic practice of science…

…by seeking dialogue in discord and understanding across disagreements,
…by fostering interdisciplinary scholarship engaged with science and the public, and
…by encouraging conversation around the grand question: what does it mean to be human?

15

My opinions here.

George wrote that he thinks “we shouldn’t allow” certain kinds of “badgering.” This is depressingly ironic since he just wrote to two participants that they are not welcome, which seems way beyond “badgering” in my book.

But my main point would be that we should all aim for some norms of how to interact that acknowledge and understand the existence of deep differences. A Christian should feel perfectly comfortable asserting the existence of their god, even directly to an atheist, without being accused of “badgering.” If that Christian can provide nothing but blatant assertions and quotes from old books, then they’re being obtuse but they’re not “badgering.” If an atheist complained about this, and cried about being “badgered” by a YEC who thinks that god told her/him something, I would vote we explain to that atheist that boneheaded claims are not disallowed at PS. Boneheadedness need not be judged outside of norms, IMO. But neither should frank and direct rebuttal, including “now that’s just boneheaded.” Reasonable norms would never, IMO, be about whether certain kinds of assertion or disagreement are disallowed, but instead would be about whether certain kinds of dehumanization or exclusion are disallowed.

I’ll note the obvious, though: norms for engagement are not the same as best practices for effective dialogue. Endless repetition (“yes it is! no it isn’t!”) can lie within moral norms but be tedious and distracting and a hindrance to the forum.

3 Likes
16

I agree it could be expanded and that should be an ongoing project. I would like to offer a personal account of how this happened (clarity about the mission) for me, because it was pretty pivotal in my decision to be an active part of PS.

A few months ago, a few PS participants proposed some specific structuring of the forum. The specifics don’t matter but the basic idea was to wall off certain kinds of conversations so that participants wouldn’t be pestered by people who either do or don’t believe in the relevant gods. Part of the backdrop to the proposal was an explicit claim that PS is about a certain kind of conversation (theological, origins-related, etc.). I read these exchanges with concern, because I wouldn’t be interested in a forum like that. Joshua stepped in with a clear and generous response that made an impression on me:

What followed was an interesting discussion of the forum, its goals, and its unfinished nature. It’s a work in progress.

2 Likes
17

George has a habit of speaking for Peaceful Science and explaining that certain people are not welcome here. If I recall, he’s told me that I’m not welcome on occasion. Fortunately, he isn’t in charge. Still, it would be good if he would stop.

6 Likes
18

A lot of good comments here.

I think @gbrooks9 does have valid concerns that I also share.

  1. Boneheaded comments are certainly allowed, but repeating boneheaded comments over and over? Whether polite or not, it is boring and it doesn’t move the conversation forward.

  2. Off-topic objections that totally derail theological conversations undermine our mission. It seems far more sensible to first ensure that the objection does not violate #1, and then start a new thread to raise these objections.

  3. Off-topic ideas or insults/uncivil comments. really should not be answered in line with a thread. We should contact the personal directly to delete or move those comments/insults, or flag the post. Once insults, insults or uncivil comments are addressed in a thread, then it is harder for the offender to just delete them.

Sure, @Moderators can split threads, but honestly it would be best if the regulars exercised discipline in staying on topic, and flagging posts from others that are off0topic, rather than responding.

3 Likes
19

Well, my goal is to avoid those threads altogether. I think it is reasonable for unbelievers to stay out of internecine conversations about the actions and tastes of the gods. There is almost never anything that we can contribute. I’d estimate 60% of the threads on the forum have a title that says “Stephen you wouldn’t be interested in this” and so I simply stay out of them. This kind of “structure” can be really helpful IMO and I could even picture a flexible policy of politely asking people who don’t accept the premise of a conversation (the existence of a god, the reality of common ancestry, etc) to stay out of that conversation. The appeal would be to politeness and respect.

Of course there will be times and places where there is no obvious premise like that, and the topic is actually about the relevance of some science for some belief or vice versa. Norms of respectful discourse would apply, and those include avoidance of mindless repetition, but since these are some of the most important conversations at PS (my opinion, of course), then self-appointed police who tell people they don’t belong should perhaps be flagged in advance and discouraged by moderation.

3 Likes
20

@Art

cc: (@sfmatheson , @swamidass )

Using your logic, we should have as many arguments over unresolvable issues as possible… because that’s the only polite thing to do.

ONE: I am not interested in banning anyone.
TWO: I am not interested in banning any topic.
THREE: But I am interested in properly classifying topics so that NOTORIOUSLY polarizing and divisive discussions can happen without dominating the culture of Peaceful Science.