“… there remains a number of people who take an in-between position. In fact, I suspect a majority of people, professional scientists and laypersons alike, simply hold to their religious beliefs (or lack thereof) with little or no thought given to how these relate to the scientific principles which they accept.”
“But there exist a group of people, often referred to as theistic evolutionists or evolutionary creationists, who are equally as devoted to theism as they are to science and actively work to create a reconciliation between the two.”
That wasn’t even a view on God. It was a view on incorporating God hypotheses into science. Also, you don’t have to shout. Maybe if you stopped shouting you could more easily listen.
Nor does he spend any energy on various other points irrelevant to his message. So? It’s very difficult to discern what you’re even angry about.
And while we’re at it, let’s restore the quote you elided. You’re adopting a creationist tactic of quotemining here.
What I actually said: “Science is not in any way, under any circumstances, aided by trying to stuff God into it. This is not to say that God doesn’t exist (though I of course think he doesn’t); the point is that, for many reasons, God is not a useful feature of any scientific hypothesis and in fact would be the death of science.”
And if you included my final thought to @sfmatheson (see below):
By having dozens of Atheists at the ready at PS.org, @swamidass has guaranteed 2 things:
1] that the high intensity arguments over I.D. will never end for as long as he lives; and
2] that the acrimonious and polarizing debate will always be front and center… unnecessarily stirring up trouble for Christian Evolutionists most everywhere.
By giving ID folks and atheists their own Side Porch (or Design Drawing Room) these 2 factions have a homey place, but not in the center ring, dominating the view.
It should be noted that, on a forum such as this, the “view” will be dominated by whatever the participants choose to discuss. If people choose to discuss Bill’s ever-repeating parade of vacuous ID talking-points, for example, then that will dominate. The only thing that can be done, is to yourself avoid discussing some topics, and to discuss others (if you can find somebody else willing to discuss them with you).
If you want the GAE discussed, the only thing you need to do, and the only thing you can do, is to discuss it yourself, in a sufficiently informed, coherent and interesting way that people want to discuss it with you.
AFAIK, the Discourse software has no facility for “Side Porches”, just Side Conversations, which are already frequently employed on this forum (including on this very thread). If somebody wants the former, they will, necessarilly, have to put in a feature request to the developers.
And yet you don’t object to expressing the idea that a mutation was guided. A one-sided ban would seem adequate to establish a degree of hostility t0 the view that cannot be expressed/. Which in this case is a part of theistic evolution.
If i wished to ban an argument… IF, IF… you are hilarious. I have not sought to ban an argument. I have sought to move the futile argument from the front yard to the side porch.
Your objections certainly don’t see, to be suggesting an alternative location. Nor do you explain why it is only one side you object to - and that the one without any scientific support.
If there were to be a default here, surely it should be the view that there is no scientific evidence for any force guiding evolution.
You know, I’m starting to regret that Discourse doesn’t come with side-porches. We could create one for the IDers and everybody else who finds science indigestable without miracles thrown into the mix. They could all happily discuss with each other how fantastic Science-with-Miracles™ would be, and how people who don’t want miracles in their science are just narrow-minded/atheists/etc, without disturbing the rest of us.
But “if wishes were horses, beggars would ride.” So it’s not to be.
Exactly such a thing existed for many years. It was called “Uncommon Descent.”
In all honesty, I cannot say that the intellectual content of the internet has been damaged by its passing. But if you want to revive it, who’s stopping you?
I think the key word here is “segregated” – this forum appears to have become, in George’s mind at least, his “lawn”, and these darn '‘kids’ need to keep off it!
UD was never segregated, except to the extent that its inhabitants self-segregated themselves.
