OK, thanks for clarifying that. Still, if you read the GAE book, the proposal that A&E were de novo created is clearly stated as not motivated by science, but Scripture and theology. In that sense it’s not that different, motivation-wise, from the motivation for the belief for the Resurrection. So I don’t understand why you think all Christian scientists who believe that (especially in the sense that Joshua is proposing) are automatically “not interested in the science other than for carving out a space for theology”, but this doesn’t apply to those who believe in the Resurrection only.
1 Like
I believe you don’t, but we’ll see.
Right. It’s motivated by religion. Again I’m just conveying my general informal observations of people with these motivations made over my past 40 years or so of being interested in (maybe “frustrated by” is a better term) this Judeo-Christian creationist versus evolutionist discussion.
Well, then we’re back to square one, since it seems that you’re saying all scientists who hold beliefs motivated by religion instead of science (except perhaps a general deistic sort of God) are only interested in the science for the sake of “carving out space for their theology”. Thus, all Christian scientists who hold a belief in the Resurrection would fall under this category. That’s a pretty serious accusation that should be substantiated amply.
No. I would say there are plenty of scientists with a myriad of religious beliefs who never discuss those beliefs in reference to science and who believe the two approaches are entirely different domains. For those scientists when they talk about nature those beliefs never need to even be brought up because as Laplace is said to have put it, “there is no need for that hypothesis”.
For the record I think if I had only singled out Jeanson here for only being interested in these questions as they relate to his religious beliefs we wouldn’t be having this conversation.
Yes, of course. It’s your attack on Joshua that’s the point of controversy.
6 Likes
Probably, but the fact that you’re treating Joshua as in the same class of Jeanson is quite troubling. This is despite the fact that Joshua is a tenured professional scientist with numerous publications (and still actively researching, publishing, and applying for grants), has defended evolutionary biology publicly and received flak for that from more conservative Christian quarters. None of that is enough. In fact, similar to what @John_Harshman said, your accusation makes him to be worse than Jeanson, given that you insinuate that he is being deceptive (“seemingly friendly to the science”).
1 Like
OK then so Jeanson isn’t writing books or making videos or composing blog posts or Facebook threads on questions regarding say biological diversity or the distribution of plants and animals outside of any references to his religious beliefs, right? We agree on that, correct?
I mean Joshua himself is repeatedly pointing out his desire to find “common ground” with people like Nathaniel Jeanson. I asked him what common ground he has with Jeanson and don’t recall getting a reply.
Does the existence of any “common ground” between two people justify those accusations? Seems like guilt by association.
Sure. Why?
Maybe that common ground is the desire to be able to have your religious beliefs exist within the science. I think that’s what they have in common.
Jeanson achieves that by essentially becoming a science denialist and Josh achieves that in a way that is friendly towards the science. Of course if forced to choose I prefer Josh’s approach but that doesn’t change the fact that they are after the same thing.
Someone like Josh however has already amended his theology in ways Jeanson would find unacceptable so it’s an easier haul for him to make space for his views within the science.
You seem to have difficulty controlling your writing. “bit of a fanboy group” is also insulting. Now, I would count accusations of deceit and of being uninterested in science as attacks.
4 Likes
I mean really it kinda is John. And maybe that’s deserved? I’m fine with that.
@swamidass some clarity if you wouldn’t mind.
Do you believe that a Judeo-Christian God of the Hebrew Bible created by divine fiat, de novo, a man and a woman referred to as Adam and Eve in the book of Genesis?
Do you think that a literal Adam and Eve is a theological necessity in ways that say other Biblical narratives, like the Tower of Babel for example, are not?
What common ground do you have with Nathaniel Jeanson?
Thanks.
So there is some agreement that creationists, like Jeanson for example, aren’t interested in the questions within evolutionary biology outside of their religious agenda. That was my point. The only point of contention then is whether or not Josh has anything in common with these sorts of creationists which everyone in this thread is apparently vehemently opposed to and I’m fine with that.
Please tell me what you feel is “vehement” about the following:
It’s not at all clear to me that he does. More like he doesn’t rule out the possibility. Admittedly, I have not read all of the GAE (though it’s sitting on my shelf), so if he has taken a harder stance on the issue there, I might have missed it.
I suspect that people are reacting more to your exaggerations and (largely unjustified) assumptions about their motives than anything else.
4 Likes
Well we can let Josh clear that up.
Thanks for the comments @John_Harshman and @dga471 and @davecarlson.
To answer your questions @Herman_Mays:
@davecarlson has it right.
I don’t know if God created AE de novo. I’m an agnostic on this. The scientific evidence doesn’t tell us, and there is a debate about what Genesis 2 means. I do know, however, that telling people falsely that there is scientific evidence against the de novo creation of Adam and Eve is wrong and inconsistent with the truth-telling ethic of science.
False.
I don’t know what you mean by “literal,” but if you mean “real people in a real past,” then I hear from many theologians that it is more important than the Tower of Babel story. Other theologians certainly disagree. I’m not expert here and I’m not choosing a side. I just want to be honest with the public about how the scientific evidence constrains and opens options.
I said I wanted to look for common ground. Just because his is wrong on many things doesn’t mean there is no common ground.
I’ve found two points so far.
-
It seem we all agrees (including you too) that his YEC model requires around 50x higher mutation rates than the the evolutionary model. That is an important point of common ground, which adds salience to the conversation about measured mutation rates, where all of us disagree with Jeanson. (If you’d been paying attention you’d know that I already gave you this).
-
I agree with Jeanson that it is important to consider how Scripture interacts with the evidence we find in nature.
What else is our common ground? Who knows? Maybe he likes BBQ like me too. We certainly share something of the human condition. Of course we disagree on several important points, but he is someone worth humanizing. I’m not willing to dehumanize him, even though I think he is wrong.
You offered some other questions/comments too.
False. I don’t put my religious beliefs within science. I do think theology should engage with science. These are just about the opposite thing. I don’t think science can accomodate theology within it, but I do think theology can give an account of science. Science is powerful, but we have to extend outside of science to make sense of everything together.
I haven’t found anything in natural history that impinges on my religious beliefs in a creator, so my substantial interest in questions here is motivated mainly by my curiosity.
Professionally, I’m curious about how insights from population genetics can be used to gain insight into medical questions like the evolution of cancer, and likewise how the evolution of cancer can give insight into the origin of biological innovation. I’ve published a bit on this. There are other directions I’ve explored too, but that’s what I can share now.
I suppose, often motivated by curiosity, I am also interested in demarcating what the evidence does and does NOT tell us. This seems to be the frontier of several biological fields, and often poorly characterized. That’s interesting, and contrasts sharply with (for example) how physicists approach their work.
That’s a false characterization. My goal is to be honest with people about their own beliefs. I don’t usually disclose my personal beliefs Adam and Eve, because they are entirely irrelevant to my point and I am an agnostic on most the details.
I also affirm methodological naturalism (and take quite a bit of heat for this among creationists). Though I wouldn’t personalize it by calling myself a “methodological naturalist”, I can’t recall ever saying that MN is crazy. I believe precisely the opposite.
@Herman_Mays I’m glad to answer your questions. However, it really looks like you are aggressively accusing and insulting a fellow scientist. As my answers should demonstrate, these accusations and insults are baseless. What is behind this?
5 Likes
Sure. We all desire an integrated world view.
2 Likes