I’m always glad when we agree, @Patrick, since our views of the world are quite different. I may have expressed a similar sentiment to Elijah Cummings, in a different context, but I was echoing the masthead of the blog I used to have at BioLogos–they have recently redesigned the site, such that the individual blogs several of us wrote have now disappeared from public view.
Here’s what I said there: “Sadly, the public conversation about religion and science today is dominated by shrill, uninformed voices who demonize and insult their opponents, marginalize alternative views in an effort to polarize, and bend the truth until it breaks. We can do a lot better than that. My goal in this blog is to bring some of the best scholarship about Christianity and science out of the ivory tower and into churches, coffee shops, and classrooms across the nation and around the world—and to encourage others to do likewise. Together, we can swim against the current, while being diligent for truth and charitable to all people of good will. Let’s read the book of nature together, with the book of Scripture close at hand.”
So, that’s the context in which I used those words you like.
I offer no balm for your skepticism, @Patrick. Partly, I was thinking of an essay review of 3 books on Christianity & science that I wrote more than 30 years ago. If you care to see it, start reading on p. 47 here: https://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1988/PSCF3-88Complete.pdf
Incidentally, you might be very interested in reading the review immediately after mine (p. 52), devoted to Bernie Lightman’s book on The Origins of Agnosticism. Nice work by Paul Fayter.
The DI is clearly flustered by your approach at PS. That’s because a major plank of the DI’s platform is the claim ID can’t get a fair hearing anywhere in the scientific community because of…reasons. Now they have an open location where they are free to present and defend their evidence and all we get are crickets from the ID big guns. It’s obvious the DI is behind Dr. Gauger’s forced departure. She made the unforgivable sin of posting testable ID ideas which were then shown to be wrong. That’s an action the DI just can’t abide.
I’m not sure I see that as a sign they feel threatened. By the same token, I don’t believe Donald Trump really feels threatened by Mexican and South American immigrants, but I can understand why he might want to convince people they should feel threatened.
It is also why, no matter how kind and fair we are, they will always object that we are not being fair or kind. Right now, we are they only group aligned with mainstream science giving ID a hearing. I warmly welcome them here, and hope that we can understand what we missed about their position.
Perhaps they will convince us that there was something we missed. On important points, they already have done so. Let them come.
Of course some do not want to come to the forum. I understand that and we have other ways. Even if DI doesn’t want you to be heard, we will hear you out. Just contact me privately and we will work out a context that will work for you.
Of course they do. To them a “fair hearing” is where they get to preach their ID anti-science propaganda with no mechanism for criticism or rebuttal. That’s why comments aren’t allowed at EN.
I have to believe this is at least a partial reason why Dr. Gauger was getting so irritated here. She wasn’t used to getting push-back on her ID claims and as we saw she was quite unprepared to defend them.
@mung, @Agauger explained exactly what they wanted from me, what they think that fair hearing is:
Support them publicly when I agree.
Stay out of it when I disagree.
So yes, that is a different understanding of a fair hearing. That is not how it works. They have loved me when I publicly support them, called me untrustworthy when I explained my dissent. They want a fair hearing? We are giving it to them, but it doesn’t look like this.
I think this statement is insulting and demeaning.
IMO, @Agauger hasn’t been forced by anyone to leave this forum. Her life’s work (at least, her bench career since she joined the DI) has been seriously challenged, and she is reacting much as would most others. (I try to imagine what my reaction would be if it became known that polyadenylation is one giant artifact. I can imagine a gamut of emotions and reactions.)
To imply that the powers that be are pulling strings on some @Agauger puppet is to imply that she is not invested in her own work there. I don’t buy that for a second. I also don’t buy that she is anything other than a capable, independent scientist who can and does speak for herself.
Arrington is at least a couple sigmas outside of ‘normal’, and not just with regard to evolution. Despite that, he fits in pretty comfortably with the ‘culture war’ movement reactionaries. Still, I’d hesitate to bunch all IDers with the Uncommon Descent crowd. There definitely is a diversity of thought within ID and I will welcome the day those differences will be publicly aired and actively debated, as any healthy new ‘science’ or movement requires.
Aside: Phil Johnson appeared to be with the ‘preserve us from materialists and save religion’, reactionary movement as well.
This discussion is not part of a “fair hearing” per se, but it raises questions about the good faith participation of DI. Regardless of what is going on with Gauger right this moment, DI does have a different understanding of a fair hearing. They want to control when we disagree with them, and call us untrustworthy, incompetent, and frauds, when we don’t comply. This very understandable tactics, even though undermines their standing in the scientific community they seek to engage.
I won’t presume to speak for Dr. Swamidass, but I will answer for myself as to why I don’t simply ignore ID proponents:
They are very influential among my Christian brethren, and at least some of that influence is detrimental.
Some ID proponents are very influential in legislatures and in public education. Some of that influence is detrimental to the quality education of young people, especially in science—and that affects their judgment as future voters and citizens.
Some ID proponents are perpetuating and reinforcing very negative stereotypes about Bible-affirming Christ-followers. I don’t wish to be negatively stereotyped.
I realize I was probably not clear on this, but I am not suggesting ID proponents be ignored. I just don’t think they should be treated as honest, objective and capable colleagues by serious scientists, because they are demonstrably none of those things.
I will add that @swamidass is probably also being a bit unclear, because it cannot be reasonably claimed that only PS is paying attention to ID. Peaceful Science seems alone among defenders of evolution, however, in treating them like bosom chums who are just a bit uninformed and can be reasoned with.