Call for ID Discussions to be Coralled in Separate Folder

[gbrooks9]

I think we need to realize that ID theoretical aspects are not actually relevant to progress on Genealogical Adam. By letting these issues pop up anywhere, in any folder, allows @swamidass’s focus to be hi-jacked almost at will. They should be placed in a section devoted to ID.

Here is the post I made today that touches on this idea:

Is Science Tentative or Settled?

The difficulty stems from the fact that new protein functions, when analyzed at the level of new beneficial phenotypes, typically require multiple new protein folds, which in turn require long stretches of new protein sequence.

@colewd (& @swamidass ),

Joshua,
If you reject the scientific aspect of IDs claims… this continued slogging about on of PROVING vs. DISPROVING the ID position… would seem to work against your efforts to seek trust.

Shouldn’t you set up a folder for threads on this ID dispute and allow the rest of your folders to focus on the issue of Genealogical Adam?

Every time you start making progress on GA, all someone has to de-rail those discussions is start posting: “But what about ID?”

In the world of Christians, the ID claims are either already accepted … or only relevant to those battling out the topic in the realm of politics."

[theman8469]

Censorship and ideological conformity. We really are becoming Biologos and bowing before Darwin and the scientific establishment. Sad and predicable.

[swamidass]

Censorship and ideological conformity. We really are becoming Biologos and bowing before Darwin and the scientific establishment. Sad and predicable.

Overreaction much.

[theman8469]

Great, then you are not going to do it.

[Argon]

Overreaction much.

At least I got the reference to Buffy the Vampire Slayer!

[swamidass]

Great, then you are not going to do it.

Why is adding additional categories for conversations a bad idea?

[theman8469]

ID - little boy table. Let them play while us (George), the adults, deal with the serious stuff.

[swamidass]

ID - little boy table. Let them play while us (George), the adults, deal with the serious stuff.

No. That is not what is being considered.

[gbrooks9]

Censorship and ideological conformity. We really are becoming Biologos and bowing before Darwin and the scientific establishment. Sad and predicable.

@theman8469

I do not follow your logic.

@swamidass is most energetic when it comes to moving portions of threads into a more sensible arrangement.

Nothing I have said should be interpreted as opposing discussion of any topic in principle.

What I oppose is someone hijacking a thread about Gen.Adam with the never ending disputes about design being visible to science.

The Christians here do not even dispute the reality of DESIGN! But over and over… we re-visit the side issue of “is design visible to science”. Let us continue to do so… but in the right section of threads!

[gbrooks9]

ID - little boy table. Let them play while us (George), the adults, deal with the serious stuff.

@theman8469… what are YOUR intentions here?

Are you interested AT ALL in the idea of Adam/Eve being specially created… in addition to an evolved human population?

If not… then what exactly keeps you here?