I’m not flouncing, merely exhausted at repeatedly having to plug holes due to the ambiguity of words (i) that weren’t originally even mine & (ii) where the alternate readings generally don’t seem to me to be particularly sensible.
Please feel free to interrogate George and Stephen as to their understanding of these words. I look forward to the results. 
You can’t avoid that when you must interpret the words, even if only in your head, when you reply to them.
I knew that and should have made it clear. The original text was quoted from a source known for voluminous disgorgement of crankery, misdirection, and narcissistic incoherence. My intention was for us to avoid having adult conversation contaminated by nonsense. I’m happy to move on: I think you are curious about this version of the question:
Is there a version of science – a view of science – that is widely accepted and that can peacefully accept a limited number of religious ideas?
I think the answer is clearly yes. One arena where this would happen, in my view, is the very arena that PS identifies as its theme and (less clear here) mission: the nature of humans. Consider standards of research ethics as they apply to human subjects. I view the whole system as a consensus assertion of the moral value of human beings, setting that value so high that it vastly exceeds the value of any other animal species. More briefly: the ethical norms and rules surrounding experimentation on humans all amount to a straightforward assertion of human preciousness.
How do we justify these rules? We know they come at a cost, both material and sometimes ethical [insert favorite trolley problem here]. More problematically, the rules are specific to humans – you can remove the top of the skull of a non-human primate (NHP), bolt an electrical apparatus to their head, restrain them in a chair, record from their brain while they watch TV, then kill them and look at their brain in the lab. To me, that points to a VAST ethical gulf between that NHP and a human being. Why? How?
My claim is NOT that we can’t make these judgements without religion, nor is it that religion is even a good way to proceed. In fact, conservative Christianity (as practiced in the States) is going the other direction, lustily dehumanizing people and deliberately eroding human preciousness. (Their god-in-residence, the orange one, openly speculates about whether people crossing the US border are human.) My claim is that human preciousness is in fact a religious idea, one that is grounded in ancient religious ideas (and claims) about human nature.
IMO, science doesn’t merely awkwardly or reluctantly coexist with these ideas (human preciousness arising from religious beliefs). It needs them. Not because we can’t defend human preciousness without the religious ideas. Because we can’t defend human preciousness if half the US population doesn’t believe in it and instead embraces white Christian nationalism.
I hope that makes sense. There are surely other “religious ideas” with which science can comfortably coexist (two possible ones: mysterian “theories” of consciousness and various religious mindfulness practices).
Note that my post isn’t about religious claims (about history or material reality), but those too can live comfortably alongside science whenever they are consistent with what else we know (about history or reality).
Is that really possible? That seems problematic.
I hope I didn’t give the impression that NHP research is undertaken without restrictions, caution, and oversight. In fact it is under increasing scrutiny for (obvious, IMO) ethical reasons. Same goes for research on lots of mammals, some vertebrates, and most interesting (and recently) cephalopods. Re the cephalopods, see excellent article below.
@sfmatheson & @Tim:
Gentlemen,
My earlier statement has suffered quite a bit under your supervision and interpretation.
I don’t ask for a new definition. I ask our resident atheist evolutionists to avoid responses that dismiss … Evangelical … beliefs about God [as] irrational and void."
The few religious ideas that I hope can accept, or tolerated, by science practitioners are the one-off miracles like the divine birth of Jesus or his resurrection.
This question of what makes humanity human was triggered years ago by those who accused @swamidass of promoting a form of racism (since he spoke of Pre-Adamites as distinct from Adam & Eve).
The question includes issues like should Neanderthals be considered a subset of those Pre-Adamites? Or
is “God’s Image” genetic or spiritual?
Aren’t all miracles one-off? Wouldn’t the creation of camels also be a one-off? Where would you draw the line?
Well, it’s complicated since first you create a camel with two humps then you… you know… take one off.
Can you provide an example of a response that dismisses Evangelical beliefs about God as irrational and void? I assume you don’t mean Evangelical beliefs about God like “God created the universe in six 24-hour days 6,000 years ago,” because those beliefs are indeed irrational and void.
I refer to Adam&Eve as one-off miracles because science is not geared to say that something supernatural like their creation is impossible, especially when masked by thousands of years of Pre-Adamites who rose up the old fashioned way!
The creation of Camels escapes the one-off label because nobody is arguing for a de novo creation of camels - - separate from an evolved camel population. And, further, camels are part of a whole biblical range of beasts and creatures … all treated in the same way.
Your sardonic skills are superb.
Do you feel like you are living up to @swamidass 's idea of breeding trust and peacefulness?
That makes little sense. First, the fact that nobody is arguing for something isn’t relevant to whether it would be called a one-off. Second, of course people are arguing for the creation of camels. Have you never met a creationist?
How is that relevant?
Yes. I’m trying to clarify what exactly your concerns are. Why don’t you provide an example of what you’re concerned about?
The term “one-off” was not coined by me. But i think it makes enough sense intuitively to justify it’s ongoing use.
But if you can up with something i think works better, ill be happy to consider it.
Sigh. So you havent picked up on my too subtle nuances? While others get my nuances - - and find even more to pile on even more objections.
Ok. Let’s try again:
1] Atheist responses that “God is not needed” for evolution to work are not as ideal as “God guides evolution”.
Why? Because that answer cuts ID assertions down to size; and, because it encourages Theist Evolutionists to participate in the debate.
2] Atheists who want to argue there is no god should be assigned to a room that has been designated for atheist themes.
3] New & Exciting Idea!
There should be a quiz that offers different ways of describing GAE and its conclusions … because believe it or not there are still evolutionists who dont understand @swamidass 's
Premises and Conclusions.
This type of response doesn’t dismiss beliefs in God as irrational and void. As far as we can tell, God isn’t needed for evolution to work. You can believe that God guides all natural processes and leads them to serve His purposes (as I do to an extent), but that’s not the same as believing that all natural processes need God to work.
“God guides evolution” is fine, but that doesn’t address ID claims at all, because that is for the most part what IDers are already claiming. “God is not needed” directly addresses ID claims.
Your idea for making this forum more peaceful and inclusive is to segregate people by faith? I hope I’m misunderstanding what you’re saying, because that’s an awful take.
Re-read this glorious quote:
Isnt John saying if we arent tuning into what atheists are thinking, its not worth discussing?
George’s ramblings are usually disrespectful and even dehumanizing to unbelievers, and my opinion is that the best way to limit the damage is to disengage from his self-focused contributions. But I’ll give him credit for this, which is not a minor thing: he has us (some of us, anyway) talking about how to make the forum more peaceful and inclusive. (Ironically, he seems to want neither.) Count me in on any such conversation, and feel free to ask for help when/if appropriate.