Greg, do you also oppose “materialistic chemistry” and “materialistic physics”? God created the material world and called it “very good”. Are you a modern day Gnostic who agrees with the ancient Gnostics’ denigration of that which is material?
I agree that your false dichotomy (God creating versus God’s evolutionary processes) is not a “small matter.”
I agree that truth can be divisive. I also believe in being generally peaceable even when I consider your view “largely unbecoming of scriptures.” (See what I did there? I can use the same rhetorical tactics to make my position sound superior.) You see, my problem with your position at its foundation is that you are assuming only your viewpoint is in harmony with the scriptures and God’s plan for his creation. I believe that you are stubbornly denying and defying that which God has clearly revealed in his creation. You see, I don’t consider the truths revealed in the material world God created to be somehow inferior to the truths in the Bible which God created. God is not the author of confusion and I don’t believe for a minute that God gave us two amazing works of authorship which somehow directly contradict each other. Indeed, whenever it may appear that the two are in contradiction, I can only assume that it is my interpretations of one or the other or both of them which is the problem. I would suggest that you too should consider that possibility in re-examining your own position.
Why didn’t you also include in that sentence the truths which God has revealed in his creation? Don’t you believe that there is truth in all that God creates, both in his creation and in his scriptures? Indeed, the truths in God’s creation existed long before God gave us the 66 books of the Bible. And considering that the Bible has very little to say about science, it sounds like you are looking in the wrong place for your science. Instead, you are choosing to ignore God’s revelations in his creation in favor of the very fallible attempts by men to draw scientific truths from scriptures which were never intended to be a science textbook. You are creating a false opposition between God’s scriptures and God’s creation.
I find it interesting how so many of the Young Earth Creationists I’ve known (as a former YEC myself) assume that scientists’ interpretations of the evidences found in God’s creation are inherently flawed while their favorite YEC theologians’ interpretations of the evidence found in the scriptures are somehow inerrant. Indeed, this is despite the fact that scientists (both theist and atheist scientists) have often reached much more consensus than the ongoing disagreement of Christian theologians who’ve argued over the same scriptures for many centuries! (Ken Ham loves to denigrate “the mistaken ideas of fallible scientists” but rarely admits to the possibility of his relying on the mistaken ideas of fallible theologians. Indeed, scientists and theologians along with all other humans are fallible in their interpretations of all sorts of things. Many would describe it as we are all fallen for the same basic reason in the Fall itself. Fortunately, scientists have methodologies, including peer review procedures, which encourage and standardize their consensus in ways that the theological world does not. And I make that observation as one who was a science professor before becoming a seminary professor, and as one who has published in both the scientific academy and the evangelical theological academy. I find it amazing that anyone would assume that Bible interpretation is more infallible than other academic fields!)
Romans 12:18 applies:
If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone.
Don’t you agree that what the Apostle Paul said should matter? If it is possible, live at peace with everyone. That is what Peaceful Science is about. We want, as much as it depends upon us individually, to live at peace with everyone—and that can be fostered by trying to better understand the perspectives of others.
Obviously, you are not the only person here who cares about truth. You are also not the only person here who is susceptible to the easy assumption that our own opinions are based upon truth while the opinions of others are not. (Of course we believe our own viewpoint reflects reality and truth. Otherwise, we would probably change our viewpoint.)
It sounds like you are confusing being peaceable with those who hold other viewpoints with agreeing with those other viewpoints. @Swamidass and the introductory preface to these forums (and even in the excerpt you quoted in your post) makes very clear that the former is the goal, not the latter. You are arguing against a straw man.
Again, that is a straw man complaint. (And nobody here is arguing for a passive acquiescence toward alternative “truths” nor any sort of post-modern “Everyone’s personal truth is genuine truth.”)
When the Apostle Paul was respectful and even courteous when interacting with those on Mars Hill, was he guilty of being “tolerant”? I would argue that he was being “peaceful” and even “calm” while respectfully acknowledging their religious impulses and motivations—even while he communicated the truths of Jesus Christ.
In my opposition to what I consider to be your unscriptural position, I have been peaceful—and even “calm”, I would say. Yet, I don’t think that has made me appear overly tolerant in terms of any “Your opinion also represents truth, even though it is opposite to what I believe to be true” relativism sense.