For the record, I’m not, because it implies that evolutionary biology is an ideology and that there’s some kind of real alternative hypothesis. Of course that implication depends on context. In some contexts it’s merely synonymous with “evolutionary biologist”, i.e. a person who studies evolution. If that were the context, I wouldn’t mind. That however isn’t the context most of the time I see the term being used.
7 Likes
That isn’t what’s going on here. This very thread shows objectively that you had major misunderstandings that persisted for a while about me. Several other people, including atheists, corrected you and you didn’t pick it up quickly.
This isn’t about me giving a blanket objection. This is about you and your track record specifically with me.
That wasn’t a criticism. It was an attempt to give you a way out and a sympathetic explanation for why you might absurdly accuse another scientist as you did. If that wasn’t why you did this, you’ll have to provide other reasons.
At minimum, your behavior on this thread is extremely unprofessional, making public and baseless accusations against another scientist. I would not do this to you, so why would do you do this to me? You can disagree with me if you like, but as one of the few non-white scientists in the conversation, I’ve earned far more respect than you are showing me.
2 Likes
Sure. I get what you are doing Josh. I see the space you have made for a literal Adam and Eve if people want to believe in a literal Adam and Eve without that notion being threatened by the science. I get it.
However my instincts lean more towards a Gouldian NOMA on these sorts of issues and I view your approach and those of more hardcore creationists as an unnecessary departure of that (although so there is again no misunderstanding, if forced to take one or the other I prefer yours).
I mean in the video I linked to above Craig says your approach takes an “implausibly literal view” (his words) and describes an adherence to literal views of Genesis, Adam and Eve, and a flood as something akin to believing in Santa Claus. I’m really not going down a road that is much different than that and I don’t see where you have said Craig views you as his “enemy” and is merely having an “immune response”.
Well, again I apologize for my mistakes and the lack of adequate speed to coming to that view. Maybe next time I will get it down to less than 60 minutes?
1 Like
Nice apology, almost. Except this took far longer than 60 minutes. Months maybe?
What ever you might think, this is not a fanboy club. You disagree with me. Great. We also have some important common goals and purposes here. We are both scientists. Let’s move forward from here as colleagues. Disagree with me, but do it professionally. Maybe I will learn something from you and change my point of view. That happens regularly on the forum with other people, and I don’t see why it would be any different with you.
4 Likes
OK Josh. Fair enough.
3 Likes
Well that’s not how the term was used within science and I’m inclined to adopt the usage of Mayr over that of say Kent Hovind. But I get where you are coming from. I once had the same attitude towards being called an “evolutionist”.
I never once called Josh my enemy.
It doesn’t work like that. Language is a social phenomenon, and you have to work with the meanings that other people are going to get out of it.
5 Likes
OK. I have a book from Coyne and Orr from 2004 that uses the term evolutionist outside of the creationist definition. Should I ignore that usage and go exclusively with the creationist usage?
I mean creationists change the usage of the word evolution itself to avoid for example saying adaptive change in a population from one generation to the next is evolution. Should I accept their usage of the word “evolution” because language is a social construct?
You insinuated it. Perhaps that was not done intentionally, but I’m not the only one who picked that up from the original post.
2 Likes
Presumably you’re talking about Speciation. That’s a technical work aimed at evolutionary biologists (though I maintain it’s quite accessible to the layman). That isn’t the context we’re in here, and it isn’t the one in talking to a public a high percentage of whom are creationists.
No, but you should recognize what they mean, and you should explain what normal people mean, and how they’re different.
2 Likes
Well I apologize if you or anyone else thought I was painting Josh to be my enemy. I don’t view anyone necessarily as an “enemy” over a disagreement. I in no way ever for a moment believed that he was and never once explicitly said he was.
3 Likes
I know exactly what they mean. And you know what I mean. I choose Mayr’s usage over that of Ken Ham or Kent Hovind. That is all. It’s not a hill to die on. If anyone is confused by the distinction I’m happy to explain it just as I’m happy to explain their unique misuse of the word “evolution” itself.
Apology accepted. Let’s move forward from here treating each other as colleagues. I welcome your participation here, and expect to learn from you too.
4 Likes
You’re not worried that just using the word contributes to a false impression? If you want to avoid that, you would have to append an explanation every time you used it until that meaning became the commonly considered one. Don’t see the point when we have “evolutionary biologist” as an unambiguous term.
4 Likes
I was surprised to hear that Josh Swamidass wasn’t really interested in science, just in using it to make theological points. So I looked up his scientific papers in Web of Science. I put in “Swamidass, J*” and got very few hits, a dismaying surprise. But then I looked up his academic website and realized that his name is “S. Joshua Swamidass”. Once I changed the search to “Swamidass S J” I found lots of hits, particularly in computational methods in toxicology. Perhaps Herman Mays can explain to us how Josh’s interest in topics like “Modeling the Metabolism and Subsequent Reactivity of Drugs” is something he does not because he is interested in that topic, but because it advances his theological agenda.
6 Likes
He’s an absolutely wonderful person and by all accounts an enormously successful scientist. Much more successful than me by many measures. I apologize for the misunderstanding.
3 Likes
@John_Harshman’s point about context being pertinent is really important. That’s why we had this thread also: Respectfulness in Portraying People.