We already have categories that cover everything you might want, and it still seems odd to relegate one side - the side of science - to a hidden category. If an argument is futile then it still seems odd that only one side should be banished, it’s as if you want the other to win by default.
GAE does not claim that there is any scientific evidence of Adam and Eve - it’s quite clear that there isn’t. So obviously it is fine to have a default that there is no scientific evidence for guided.mutations, the more so since theistic evolution denies that God guides mutations.
And next week, it will be some I.D. person making the same complaint about Design being banished!
Again:
1] No topic is being “banished”. I am saying the time is coming that the spotlight should be removed.
Paul, try to think back to when you first heard of the book GAE. You no doubt said to yourself that you need to read the book. Well, did you ever do that?
The GAE doesnt say science proves Adam/Eve. It says there is a way to read Genesis that fits with the conventional understanding of Original Sin - - and Adam/Eve becoming a universal ancestral pair to all humanity - - without overturning multiple fundamental fields of science ranging from geology to chemistry all the way to cosmology:
1] by accepting evolution as God’s way to shape life, and
2] by accepting earth as billions of years old.
Some people jump at the chance to avoid having to contradict modern science; others because they believe the Atheist arguments favoring evolution are just too existentially stark, and lacking in meaning, to be favored.
Even the allegorical interpretation of Adam (found more frequently at BioLogos) is a little less extreme than the Atheist world view of evolution.
Frankly, Paul, the odds of bumping into someone skeptical of “God guiding Evolution” seems higher at @BioLogos. When I was active there it seemed I was the only one willing to use that phrase!
What I would like is for PS.org to live up to its full potential.
THE SINGULAR NATURE OF
METAPHYSICS BY JOSHUA
There is only ONE GAE.
There is only ONE (modern) theological/evolutionary work founded on a PRE-ADAMITE
human population.
There is only ONE evolutionary work that still provides for Adam as a universal common ancestor!
And how are you Atheists and @Admins using the triple uniqueness of @swamidass’ religious legacy?:
As a mostly irrelevant backdrop to the monotony of atheist rebuttals to the monotony of Intelligent Design apologists!
I used to “beat the bushes” out in the nooks and crannies of the world’s Web. My assignment was to invite Creationists (and sometimes Evolutionists) to PS.org
In no time visitors would be sucked into the Intelligent Design “vortex”. We have become just like most other sites debating creationism or evolutionism.
The “spotlight” is a metaphor for the tendency of an active argument to monopolize the attention of PS.org members (or more attention than is warranted by the routine nature of the discussion).
By putting Intelligent Design threads into a separate discussion area, members always know where to check for the newest Design discussion - - without banning a topic.
Obviously!!! That is why i brought up @BioLogos!!!
GAE was specifically developed for those who REALLY clung to an historical Adam (usually because of a perceived importance of Augustine’s Original Sin).
I pointed out to you, more than once, that you misconstrued one of my earlier posts - - you missed my sarcasm to another reader.
As for controlling the response of a reader - - this is why I think a separate area is so needed. It will help, without banning any topic or any one.
But it will help to remind members that GAE allows for the teleology of Christianity to assume its normal place in the soul of the faithful without invoking the politics of Design so often abused by creationists.
When you make essentially tge same comment twice and go on to rail against atheist participation here it’s hard to credit your claim that you were speaking sarcastically.
I don’t think that’s quite correct. As articulated by Collins, TE states that “special supernatural intervention” is not “required” after “evolution got under way”, which is short of denying it occurred. Other articulations do appear to “believe that God has directly intervened at crucial points such as the origin of humans.”