Is support of de novo creation motivated by fear?

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

@Jonathan_Burke

As I recall, the GAE includes a theological argument that they endorsed.

But the GAE itself is not a theological argument, it’s an argument that a particular theological interpretation cannot be completely ruled out by science. It is intended to preserve specific theological doctrines, not challenge them.

Interesting theory.

Turns out there is a lot of theology in the GAE. Per chance, have you read the book yet?

@Jonathan_Burke

In doing so it enables them to retain their fear of theological change, and impress that fear on others.

Interesting.

I don’t this analysis matches the psychology going on here.

[Jonathan_Burke]

@swamidass

Turns out there is a lot of theology in the GAE.

I’m sure there is.

@swamidass

I don’t this analysis matches the psychology going on here.

No, you wouldn’t. What’s with the totally misleading topic title by the way?

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

I did not pick the title. What would you prefer it to be?

[Ashwin_s]

@Jonathan_Burke

The GAE is effective for them precisely because it preserves their theology without requiring them to examine or justify it. In doing so it enables them to retain their fear of theological change, and impress that fear on others.

I don’t think this argument is coherent. GAE removes scientific objections to some particular theological positions. It does not remove theological objections/arguments against these positions.
I don’t think any of these guys are scared of discussing and debating theology. It’s their field of expertise/vocation.
I would guess that the scientific part can be intimidating simply because they don’t know enough to argue against it.

[Jonathan_Burke]

@Ashwin_s

I don’t think this argument is coherent. GAE removes scientific objections to some particular theological positions. It does not remove theological objections/arguments against these positions.

But it’s the scientific objections that they’re concerned about. They’re clearly not concerned about the same theological objections/arguments you’re concerned about, or they wouldn’t have endorsed GAE.

@Ashwin_s

I don’t think any of these guys are scared of discussing and debating theology.

Nobody has said they are scared of discussing and debating theology.

@Ashwin_s

I would guess that the scientific part can be intimidating simply because they don’t know enough to argue against it.

Why not read their actual concerns and take their word for it?

[Jonathan_Burke]

@swamidass

I did not pick the title. What would you prefer it to be?

Implications of a non-historical Adam. I don’t see why it had to be dislocated from the original thread, which was already discussing the implications of a non-historical Adam.