Evolution Blog Blocks any Theology Discussion


Here is a group you probably can never get much traction:

Evolution Science vs Creation Science Public Group | Facebook?

They only permit science articles, and reject any discussion looking at the theological discussions.

They deleted the recent Lentz/Swamidass because they think all YouTube videos are usless.

I dont plan to post there any more.

@gbrooks9 I’ll join and defend Swamidass.



It is worth a try!

Facebook is the worst format for these kinds of discussions. It is extremely difficult to keep track of the exchanges, and the format doesn’t lend itself to presenting or explaining evidence, quoting other people’s statements, posting multiple figures or data or anything of the sort. It’s just a cesspool of stupid and people taking turns insulting and baiting each other.



Yet, nevertheless, there are THOUSANDS of people signed up one Facebook group or another, on the topic of Creationism vs. Evolution.

I would have to say that considering the millions of debates that go on within Facebook groups … the awkwardness of Facebook technology is not really the problem here… the problem is the bias of this particular group.

This one in particular is run by atheists and they call the shots… which is why they think they are doing everybody a favor by prohibiting any religious discussions… it’s science or nothing.

I pointed out to them that since there are Christians who a pro-Evolution who are trying to reach-out to Christians who are anti-Evolution, their approach certainly makes for quite an impediment for Christian vs. Christian discussions.

1 Like

It’s both. Both are a huge hinderance to meaningful communication.

We don’t have to put the blame exclusively on a single factor.

Well when it comes to biological evolution, it IS science or nothing. The bible is simply not a relevant factor in determining what occurs in biology. This shouldn’t have to be stated again and again.



The reason I constantly remind the audience is simple. As long as I.D. and Atheist proponents think this blog is a place to argue the epistemology of I.D. or Theism, it must be constantly reminded… because these two trends in our daily debates are polarizing.

The GAE scenarios are designed to REDUCE polarization … but it is hard to accomplish when every day comes a new argument for why Evolution can work without God, or that divine design is somehow something that can be proved.

While I can agree that Facebook may not be as nuanced as our own discourse technology, Facebook “group” technology is infinitely better than the Yahoo group technology that most of us used for some 10 years.

1 Like

I’m one of the moderators on that group, as it happens. The ban on Youtube videos predates me, but the rationale is that they have a low likelihood of being supported by citations to the scientific literature. It is far from a perfect rule, but it is far preferable to being spammed by nonsense videos that have to be viewed in their entirety by a moderator to decide if they are worthwhile.

I see no reason that discussion of GAE would be outside the rules.


@gbrooks9 perhaps post this article:

1 Like

@Faizal_Ali, I don’t think you are completely aware of
how ferociously opposed to G.A.E. scenarios some of your fellow members and administrators can really be.

I posted the YouTube link to the Joshua/Lentz debate because I thought that would be very helpful to hear what an Atheist has to say. But then it was deleted… simply because it was YouTube.

In response to my attempt at clarification, Bertus Stoot
writes “scientific articles are ok”.

Well this is useless, because Joshua’s articles on GAE
are not considered “peer reviewed science articles”.

So, if I send in a link discussing Christian theological
implications, they will delete it.

Mark Grenier, who is quite vitriolic when it comes to GAE, emphatically states: “Swaqmidass is not doing science when he goes downt he religious road.”

This is perfectly in keeping with the roughing-up I received the first time I posted GAE material at this site.

These rules work perfectly fine for making an impediment to I.D. proponents … the ones who claim they are dealing with science, even when Science cannot embrace I.D. epistemologies.

But they become a complete barrier to the very purpose of GAE discussions - - because we are not attempting to argue that one-off creations of Adam and Eve are science … they are simply outside the bounds of Science.

I’m quite sure Mark Grenier will not tolerate anything along those lines. But @Faizal_Ali, maybe you can get him to relax his white knuckle grip on these prohibitions. Otherwise, we’ll just have to ignore the 10,000+ members that belong to Facebook’s
“Evolution Science vs. Creation Science”.

Finally, a place where science and reason triumphs over religion and myth.



Maybe… but it is less impressive when informational videos are banned because they are informational videos.

Links take up very little space in the digital world… but let’s ban them anyway.

I’ll see what I can accomplish. But my main objective is to maintain Dr. Swamidass’ reputation as a man of science and reason like Dr. Francis Collins.


Yes, because those are the rules, as is clearly spelled out in the message called “Group rules from the admins”

The rules are not that strict. Even articles from Answers in Genesis are allowed.

If it’s just about theology, and not about science, then yes it will be deleted.

And I believe Joshua would agree that this part of his model does not involve “doing science.” He repeatedly says that “science is silent” on Adam and Eve.

Well, maybe you are just too sensitive to belong to this group. People of every stripe, creationist and evolutionist alike, get a roughing up every now and then, myself included.

Mark Grenier may well not. So maybe just ignore him and concentrate on the other 9,999 members of the group.



You act like I have never attempted to post at this site. I have. Grenier is like “white on rice” … all over me and anything I describe about Josh’s work. And it isn’t like he says: “Let’s agree to disagree”. His dismissals are full-throated, and without a shred of humility.

If you want GAE to be explored on that group, it needs to come from an Atheist… not from me.

So ignoring that one member is not an option? OK, then.

I’m not going to start singling out individual members so long as they stay within the rules. That forum is much more “no holds barred” than Peaceful Science, for better and for worse.

1 Like


I have already explained why. The rules really don’t allow a forum for theology… which is what GAE embraces. And Grenier will make sure no exceptions are made.

Get an Atheist in there to do it. There’s no point in making me a martyr…

The individual you keep naming is just one member. He has no power over what anyone other than himself posts there.



He is a “crazy-maker”, and a “discussion-disruptor”. I think I posted somewhere in the neighborhood of 50 posts in response to all his attacks.

Until I have rules that protect theological discussions, I’m never going to be willing to go through that again.

Hey… aren’t you the one who thinks Atheists have a lot of merit in these discussions? So prove it.


Oh brother … just look at the manic response mode … this guy is an “A #1” jerk:

Please note that there are virtually no other responses to my postings…