First Amendment, Neutrality, Atheism, and Evolution

(Guy Coe) #43

Sort of, “walk softly but carry a big 9 iron, just don’t swing it at anyone’s head” advice? : ) Non-golfers who wish to persuade with reason would do well to try to build their arguments from the valid rules and principles of golf, or their efforts often end up as a mulligan. Some folks might find out it’s actually the ham versions of mini-golf they’re offended by. And, it does no good for either side to be teed off all the time. That’s my chip shot, anyway… Cheers!


I get your point, but would never fire bomb anyone. Very non-violence. Speak out yes, violence no. In you analogy about I would help Backyard Golfers to put in a swimming pool in the backyard and have their kids take up swimming never to be exposed to Golf.

(George) #45


Okay, I accept the amendment of your options. However, I am puzzled?

There are Big Golf hegemonists out there to oppose… would you really take time out of your schedule to try to block “Back Yard Golfers” … all the while the Big Golf hegemonists are ruining the world with their un-opposed activities?

It seems counter-productive to me. The Back Yard golfers, while tarrying with a sport you oppose, are at least out there recruiting Big Golfers from their “Big Madness”.

Every hour you spend trying to reform Back Yard golfers is time lost reforming/opposing the Golf Hegemonists… and one less family who might help you in your efforts against the Golf Hegemonists.


Your absolutely right, there are a lot of Big Fish to go after and I do. I do spend most of my time going again the Big Fish. But as I said before, the little fish here (Dr. Swamidass is still a little fish, hopefully someday be a big Fish) caught the attention of the really Big Fish on our side, - Dawkins, Coyne, Krause, FFRF. I think they lump Dr. Swamidass with Biologos and Venema and Buggs. The whole Venema, Buggs, Swamidass, plus ID through EN caught their attention. I volunteered to check it out and that is what I did. This may be a small pond with little fish, but I find it very nice, the water is at a nice temperature, Dr. Swamidass is a real professional. and there is no hall monitor Brad Kramer checking hall passes treating detention for saying hell or damn.

(George) #47


It really isn’t relevant how Dawkins would lump @swamidass.

I’m trying to discuss the point with you, because you are the one who is here. And, in fact, you can also lump them all together in terms of a generic category. But if you treat the @swamidass school the same as you would treat the Buggs school - - that seems ill-considered.

There is an obvious difference … and a difference that I think even the most practical/pragmatic Atheist would recognize is to his/her advantage.

So… in terms of your original analogy… it would be practical to forget about convincing @swamidass to drop golf all together and build a pool, when @swamidass can help dissuade Big Golfers from taking over the world with their giant golf courses.

(S. Joshua Swamidass) #48

Well that is kind of you @Patrick. Anytime they want to talk, I’m happy to do so, though, I am a small fish :tropical_fish:.

And, from their point of view, I am best lumped with BioLogos (not ID, YEC, or OEC). Though, I’m glad you see me as better behaved: Forum Disclaimer.

Well, if it is that I play golf, I’d say that I play it in a different way than the crowds that have give you all trouble. Even though you do not like golf, you’d benefit from advancing me, as I might be able to convince golfers to play in a less troublesome way.

Once again very kind of you.

As I’ve said, I’m interested in building bridges with everyone, including the atheist community. If you have ideas @Patrick, let me know.


(George) #49

@swamidass, this is exactly how I couch the alternatives in my post(s) above.

@Patrick posed an analogy where Fat Cat Golfers want to take over the world with their Big Course golfing… and then along comes someone who wants to encourage “small yard” golfing … with no thought of global combination. [ in a whisper: … Swami, don’t worry … we can take over the world later! - - but with table tennis! ]

(Guy Coe) #50

Damn, Patrick; you’re right about that one part! : ) Helluva nice thing to say!

1 Like

That it is not “the de facto status” in the country of any participant on this Forum might give an honest person pause to wonder why even anthropologists on the ‘atheism side’ agree that religion and being religious is an ‘evolutionary human universal’.

(Guy Coe) #52

Odd to hear an atheist, on a “science affecting Christians” blog, try to make a moral argument for what “ought” to be.
From whence do you get this, apparently, universal moral oughtness?
Or, is it just a personal preference?
Peace, as well.


Fat Cat golfers (Catholic Church, Islamic Theocratic Countries, and the Evangelical right who literally control the Republican Party and the current Trump Administration) already think that they still run the world. They even have a TV network - Fox. YECism is really on the fringe of the social cultural changes that are going on. Ken Ham (and Biologos) is funded in part to kept Christianity in the discussion. Go to Europe, Christianity is on a death spiral in just about every country. Here, in America, we have the Christian right to keep us entertained as secular spread among the young under 35 who have already surpassed the Baby Bombers in number in the workforce. Millennials will be the majority soon as they are the least religious group in history, and the most educated, and the most scientifically literate group. If you want to make headway for science and reason, and against YEC, OEC, and ID, TE is not the way to do it. If you stick to the science and reasoning, young people might or might not embrace TE but they will certainly reject YEC, OEO and ID as they have already done. Advice: drop special de novo created Adam.


It is the whole science community that is watching. And Big Pharma, Big corporation in healthcare, genetic research etc. Do you realize how many billions of dollars have been spend try to clean up the damage that one scientist caused in linking vaccines with autism? Nobody really cares about Ken Ham but when scientists like Snelling, Faulkner, Jeanson, and Lisle start backing him up in the name of science, the science community fires back hard. Do you really think Snelling can even show up at a Geology Conference? How about Faulkner at an Astronomy Conference? The only scientist today who has been able to keep that highest level of scientific standing is Francis Collins. Do you know of any others?

1 Like
(S. Joshua Swamidass) #55

Hopefully me. I know I’m early in the process, but I’m working hard to do this right.

There is also Ian Hutchinson too, who very good at what he does, though he dos not touch on origins. So in the origins debate, you might be right. Though there is also Praveen Sethupathy, who does enter the origins fray.

You are absolutely right. And it is my intention to be an effective ambassador of science to the hard to reach areas of society.

Its not enough to be right. We also have to be trusted, I have a better chance of clarifying Jeanson’s errors to his base than anyone else right now. Root for me on that one.


Yes, there are a handful who tip toe along the line. Always be careful as being used as a pawn in the culture wars. Your scientific credentials and MD can get hijacked to and attached to other people’s statements and misuse of facts. Your say the “preliminary results look promising”. A less scrupulous person or company advertises this as an endorsement backing a product. Then it is found out that the product causes cancer. You are forever attached to the claim and called a quack.

okay, when you find yourself in a dark alley with a bunch of YECs, call me. I have an LED light made of gallium nitrate from a billion year old collision of two neutron stars to shine in their eyes.

Jeanson is no longer doing science. You are, and he can’t. Who is helping more people now and in the future? Ten years from now, how many lives have you improved? Only you (and not Jeanson) have the opportunity to do this by continuing your work in science and medicine.

1 Like
(S. Joshua Swamidass) #57

Sorry about missing it the first time. I got where you are coming from now.

(George) #58


Once again, you demonstrate your distinctness from the fine Atheists who contribute comments to the BioLogos pages. They can discuss the BioLogos science from a Christian viewpoint, without having to be Christians (which they freely admit they are not).

While you, on the other hand, seem quite challenged by the idea of discussing Theistic Evolution from a Christian viewpoint, even going to the extent of urging @swamidass to drop the very part of his work that makes his work unique and important - - combining de novo Adam/Eve with Evolutionary Common Descent for a larger human population created prior to Adam/Eve.

A person doesn’t go to a Bar Mitzvah and tell the rabbi he is wasting his time.


Then please, for the love of God, open up to Catholics and Orthodox instead of mainly evangelical Protestants, who almost always come first in your names. There are so many good Catholic high level scientists yet Joshua for some reason can’t name one.

To come up with only 2 names answering an atheist about ‘high level’ Christian scientists is abysmally thin. Sure, it’s a short answer format. Yet you should have 10s & 50s ready at hand. There are many more than you seem to think or know, Joshua.

“Go to Europe, Christianity is on a death spiral in just about every country.”

That is a deceptive lie, which I know from first-hand experience of having lived in Europe. It is a convenient blinder atheists in uSA like to throw upon themselves at ignorant evangelicals there who simply don’t know one way or another about it. Why? Because they’ve never visited or been to European countries, or visited during worship hours Christian churches there.

Yet they talk & talk as if…


For the evangelical protestant to side with the atheist ahead of the evangelical YECist isn’t a likely formula for success here, just like sympathy with the devil causing resentment. While at the same time it might be Jeanson who has made more of a personal impact on peoples’ live not in science and medicine. There are many routes to heaven, aren’t there Joshua?

(Vincent Torley) #61


That is a deceptive lie, which I know from first-hand experience of having lived in Europe. It is a convenient blinder atheists in USA like to throw upon themselves at ignorant evangelicals there who simply don’t know one way or another about it. Why? Because they’ve never visited or been to European countries, or visited during worship hours Christian churches there.

So you’re saying that Christianity is not dead in Europe? That’s news to me. I’d like to hear more. What kinds of Christianity are flourishing, and where? Cheers.


Of course it’s not dead. That’s a ludicrous exaggeration that just displays ignorance. There is a vibrant spirit of Christianity in many parts of Europe.

I’ve met or heard Christians from dozens of European countries at various events unrelated specifically to religion. Having a conversation with someone, or in a ‘reflexive’ field hearing presenters ‘situate’ themselves in the conversation (Haraway), can reveal a lot.

Besides, one can make overtly sociological pronouncements poorly or well on this topic. The ‘secularisation’ thesis of Weber is already long spun out. The new ‘secular’ is just as ‘religious’ as the old situation. It is no use listening to lying atheists about this. In some countries more than others, one cannot easily gain audience from public display of religion. While in other countries and communities it is obvious, welcome and common. To just focus on public officials itself is a minimizing of the conversation.

Heads of State in Europe acknowledge their Christian heritage and the legacies of great Christians in their nations regularly. Though the ‘church attendance’ numbers are down, there are pockets of religious resurgence in many countries of Europe. And migration can play a role in this as well. E.g. in the UK, the number of Catholics has grown in recent years, principally with the immigration of Poles. I would suspect that the current immigrants to Canada and the USA who are religious are higher in religiosity than a considerable amount of the tired many-generation native US citizens, though with different traditions incoming than say in Catholic New France.

1 Like