Comments on Forum Disclaimer

(Mark M Moore) #1

Umm. I think this one could benefit from some work as well. I am just not as sure what you are going for. The first sentence is a bit awkward. Is that a list of questions you hope to answer for people here?

1 Like
Forum Disclaimer
(S. Joshua Swamidass) #2

Removed it. Thanks for the feedback.


Are you sensitive to the concerns of ALL religious communities, or just the various Christian communities? Are you sensitive to the “nones” which may be the majority of your students soon?

(S. Joshua Swamidass) #4

Yup that’s the plan. I just quoted a Hindu parable in the other thread :slight_smile:

1 Like

This cuts both ways. Are you against the science study of gender? NCSE?

(S. Joshua Swamidass) #6

Lol. You really want me to be a bigot don’t you. Just watch how I treat people and see.


“Are you sensitive to the ‘nones’?”

ROTFL! Snowflakes might be hurt if nothing and no one special is insulted. :rofl:

“may be the majority…soon”

How green.

“Yup, that’s the plan.”

Sometimes sensitive is not sensible. Right, Joshua? & sensible might come before over-sensitive.

(S. Joshua Swamidass) #8

I think he is either trying to trap me, or just be sure I’ll be fair. I will be fair. I have no difficulty saying that.


No, I am watching your back! You are so focused in the view in front of you that you are forgetting that your backside is fully exposed.

Once you link yourself to the Evangelical Christian right, you become an easy target from the secular left.

I don’t want to see you pillaged, because you really are a nice guy. And a good scientist with a good career ahead of you.

1 Like
(S. Joshua Swamidass) #10

Thanks for the kind words.

If the secular crowds do come for me, with pitchforks demanding a scalp, I’ll have to trust that atheists like you and my other colleagues will defend me.

I’m only hoping we can serve the common good together.

The Rules of the Game
(George) #11

I wanted to quote the main points from @swamidass’ Forum Disclaimer:

This the Peaceful Science Forum, which is hosted by Dr. S. Joshua Swamidass MD PhD, a professor at Washington University in Saint Louis. See his scientific work here:

Dr. Swamidass affirms mainstream science, including evolutionary science, the common descent of all living things (including humans), methodological naturalism, and an old earth.

He opposes political action to change science curricula, and is a frequent and visible critic of Intelligent Design and scientific creationism. Agreeing with the non-theist Eugenie Scott, he argues science is silent on God’s action, and cannot properly consider theological claims, like the existence or action of God.

He also places a high value on building bridges, and kindness to others, which should not be mistaken for an endorsement of any claims. Dr. Swamidass is also a Christian. He confesses, along with other scientists, that Jesus rose from the dead. For this reason, he is sensitive to the concerns of religious communities. He encourages presenting scientific findings in a theologically-neutral manner so as to reduce unnecessary conflict, so as to better advance understanding of scientific findings in the public square.


When participants start to speculate on topics that don’t directly deal with the positions identified above, please remember to apply these important words to Dr. Swamidass’ patient tolerance for letting visitors explore their ideas with other visitors.

यह मेरा सर्कस नहीं है; ये मेरे बंदर नहीं हैं।

Yah mera sarkas nahin hai; ye mere bandar nahin hain.

இது என் சர்க்கஸ் அல்ல; இவை என் குரங்குகள் அல்ல.

Itu eṉ carkkas alla; ivai eṉ kuraṅkukaḷ alla.

.هذا ليس سيركى هذه ليست قرودى

Hadha lays syrka hadhih laysat qurwda.

זה לא הקרקס שלי; אלה לא הקופים שלי.

Αυτό δεν είναι το τσίρκο μου. αυτά δεν είναι οι πίθηκοι μου.

Aftó den eínai to tsírko mou. aftá den eínai oi píthikoi mou.

1 Like
(George) #12


I wonder if you really mean something more like this:

"… is a skeptic of scientific creationism and does not think it is possible for science to prove God, or to even detect God’s actions."

(S. Joshua Swamidass) #13

Yes, that is what I mean. However, with all the ID traffic here I need to be 100% clear I am not ID, or that will create some avoidable problems for me. There are some limits I have work within here. I do not have total autonomy. Maybe if I become more well known, the more indirect statement you are suggesting might work.

(George) #14


LoL… have we come full circle?!

Your concerns are exactly why i kept asking for a more explicit separation of I.D. threads and threads that actually concern Geneal.Adam !

I dont think you have made the separation here… have you? ( If im wrong, please correct me. )

Im concerned you will have the down side of confusing people about whether or not God-Governed (or God-Guided) Evolution is or isnt Design… as well as the down side that they think Design discussions are somehow going to have a meaningful influence on Geneal.Adam.

1 Like
(S. Joshua Swamidass) #15

There is now an ID category.

1 Like

Wouldn’t everything go under that category?


(George) #17


It would be my hope that the ID category would include:

A] Yep God designs; and
B] We think science can detect God.

Since @swamidass tells us the category is ID, im not sure which aspect is intended… Or Both!

Which means, Joshua, that you need to add an adjective (or two) so it is clear to everyone!


ID does not claim that science can detect God.
ID does not claim that God is a Designer.

1 Like
(George) #19


Well, somebody here is misinformed about something… and ill show you why it isnt me:

  1. If the study of nature is to reveal a Designer, the presence of the designer must be detectable (at the very least) by his or her actions.

  2. If the designer’s actions are to be detected, they must be revealed by controlling for all other variables to such an extent that predictions can be made.

  3. By definition, predictions cannot be made from the study of non-natural events or operations - - as soon as a cause operation is shown to be natural, the designer would have to be operating in the mortal or secular sphere… and thus would not be a deity… or is a deity indistinguishable from Nature itself.

Finally, if ID is simply saying that one can use tge beauty or complexity of the Cosmos as “sufficient evidence” for having Faith, then Peaceful Science already concurs with that simple and optimistic declaration.

@swamidass, please review this posting for coherence. Thanks!

(system) closed #20

This topic was automatically closed 3 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.