How to Invite ID Into Conversation


(Ann Gauger) #56

Did you watch the video? True, Not true?


Yes, very true.

But how it is to be used to heal the racial divide in this country that is still tearing this country apart?

Contrast DI’s Human Zoo with David Reich’s presentation that "whiteness doesn’t exist.

(Ann Gauger) #58

I can’t speak as to motive for making it, but the history is there and we do not ever want to see it repeated. At one point in the debate a woman made the suggestion that people with more Neanderthal DNA were smarter. And Swamidass and I both said no, we don’t want to make distinctions by genetics. We are all human.


Because Neanderthals were humans. And so were Denosivans and Erectus. We humans go back 2 million years.

(Ann Gauger) #60

Part of the healing is to make people not of color to open their eyes to what life is like for others. I have lived with a woman from Ethiopia for several years now. She was raised in a small village, no running water or toilet, cooking over an open fire. She had to quit school at 8th grade when her mother got sick. I have seen how she is treated when I am there and when I am not. I have learned how different my life has been, and still is. We have bridged the divide but we are still learning.

(S. Joshua Swamidass) #61

I did watch the video. Very true very true.

Do you know what race baiting is? Did you see how Lenski responded to it? Did you see what Klinghoffer did with it? A Few Tweets from Lenski

(Ann Gauger) #62

I was not happy

(S. Joshua Swamidass) #63

So don’t justify it by denying what happened and saying “not true.”

(Ann Gauger) #64

Excuse me? I did not say not true. And I did not deny it. I just said I was not happy with it.

(S. Joshua Swamidass) #65

Did I misread you?

What did you mean? What did I miss?

(it seems I misunderstood, sorry, but what did you mean?)

(Ann Gauger) #66

I was asking Patrick if he thought it was true.

(S. Joshua Swamidass) #67

Would you mind explaining this some more? You explained quite a bit why inviting to DI into “dialogue” is offensive. It seems like a lot of effort on some fairly normal language.

Can we balance this just a bit with some clarity from you on what you feel about DI’s rhetoric and actions? Why are they doing what they are doing? Why aren’t you publicly objecting?

(S. Joshua Swamidass) #68

That was great. Thank you.

I agree on both points. @Agauger you are not a racist. This one thing we have real common ground on.

Still DI,…well I agree with @patrick and Lenski here.


Yes, I very much agree.

This week’s House Oversight Committee hearings were a clear visual on how divided this country is. One party was all white males over 60. The other party was mixed - all colors, races, religions, sexes, sexual orientations, countries of origins. It was really stark differences. Just by looking at them, I instantly knew what party they represented. (Please note that I am an Independent and not affiliated with any political party.)

(Nathan H. Lents) #70

Ann, I understand the point you are making in this thread more than most people would probably expect. I’m hoping some time and distance will cool heads on whatever happened here. Since I wasn’t there, I’m not going to blindly step in and defend @swamidass, just because he’s my friend. But knowing him as I do, I highly doubt that anything he said could possibly be 1/10th as nasty as what Klinghoffer, Egnor, Wells, et al. sling in pretty much every post and it’s not just toward Josh. Even Behe was personally insulting to me even after we tried to keep the gloves up at first and keep everything about science and not personality. The DI fires a lot of nasty shots and then cries victim when anyone fires back. Think of the things that have been written about Josh on EN over the past three weeks and you’re taking issue with him saying “invite to dialog” instead of just “dialog?” When you work for an organization like DI, you have to expect to feel some heat. We’re all judged partly for the company we keep.

All that said, I also agree that you take a lot of heat here on PS and I wouldn’t react very well to that either. We’re talking about forum reorganization and I think maybe that may hold some solutions. Different rooms, different categories could be for different types of community. The open and public model doesn’t always work when people feel strongly about issues. Maybe we revisit this discussion when tempers have cooled and think about a more moderated “room” for some of these engagements where all comments are pre-approved and stricter rules are enforced vigorously. Maybe it can be publicly viewable but only a handful of more serious and qualified folks are allowed to post. Just an idea. I’m willing to keep trying (with you, specifically, and Paul Nelson also seems reasonable).

(Ann Gauger) #71

Thanks, Nathan. I wish I could say it was possible to stay.


@Agauger I got an idea. Create a new login under the name “Ann Pingry” and then comment on just the things you are interested in learning about. Leave your DI work at the office. Treat PS as the place you go to after work. You might find it more enjoyable instead of stressful.

(Guy Coe) #73

Sure sounds conversational to me: Näsvall et al. Demonstrates the Effectiveness of Intelligent Design | Evolution News
Please do stay, @Agauger ; we need more class acts around here!

(Ann Gauger) #74

Thank you Guy. I wish I could.

(Ann Gauger) #75

But then you’d know it was me and couldn’t resist teasing.