I don’t think so. Did you see any fundamental agreements?
It’s hard to pick anything out of the mush, I’m afraid. You both believe in the basics of Christianity and that God was active in some undefined (or perhaps differently defined) way in the history of life and that science can’t resolve everything. Beyond that, what?
Don’t you find common ground in what he said?
I’m afraid you will have to point to it. He does acknowledge that there is evidence favoring common descent, but he also rejects common descent. The former might be considered common ground, though only a plot a few inches on a side. He seems to confuse common descent with unguided evolution, incidentally.
2 Likes
So there you have something, and I do believe it is progress, even if it is an inch. Give it more time too, and think about what could happen if that confusion was overcome.
The first step would to be for him to state his evidence against common descent or admit that his objection was entirely religious.
1 Like
I agree.
I disagree with this approach. RTB doesn’t have any “evidence against common descent” and historically they haven’t shown that they even understand it. So the first step IMO is for them to understand what it is they are talking about. It seems to me that this step is happening now, and my position is that we should encourage them and even cheer them on.
That’s not the first step. It’s the last step. And again, my position is that we should encourage this and make room for it. It is grossly dishonest to say, as RTB did for many years, that evolutionary theory is obviously wrong. It is not dishonest at all for them or anyone else to say “my religious commitments lead me to doubt.”
5 Likes
The first step in that is to understand that they don’t know what it is they are talking about, and a quick path to that is to have them present their case and then explain what’s wrong about it.
2 Likes
Well @John_Harshman, They just published a book presenting their case. I can vouch for them that this book is offered in good faith. They are not playing games or intentionally quote mining. They are at place that they really want to engage with secular scientists, just like you, and sort this out. That is what I can tell you from working with them over the last couple years.
They wrote a book. It is the right place to begin a dialogue with them. It is certainly subject to criticism, and that in fact is the point.
What do you think about reading the book, and writing a response for our blog responding to one of the chapters (a scientific chapter of your choice) on the PS blog? If you will do that, I’ll even buy you a copy and send it to you.
2 Likes
What is their case? Their case for what, incidentally?
Well, better cluelessness than dishonesty. Mind you, unintentional quote-mining is still a problem.
I would be willing to do that.
If you can show it is quote mining, I would hope they would correct it. In this case, I think they will.
The book will make that very clear. You will find much to agree with if you pay attention, and also quite a bit to disagree with. Focus on explaining the science as you see it, so that they can follow and understand you. If they do understand you, I expect they will adjust.
Great news. I’ll make sure a copy is sent to you.
1 Like
I think this should come immediately after the first step you suggested. We have to know if like Todd Wood, their objections are not fundamentally scientific but based on their religious views.
I’ll give you $20. 
1 Like
This topic was automatically closed 7 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.