2025-01-16T05:00:00Z
During my mute days of silence, I was able to ask @swamidass whether he has dropped the GAE from his work at Peaceful Science.
I have in writing that he has not dropped the topic.
Would anyone like to demonstrate their prowess in understanding his view on the GAE by describing
how the GAE fits in with the theological aspect of Peaceful Science?
I think several members would learn from a volunteer (other than myself) who thinks they can do it.
George Brooks
I’ll give it a try: GAE is a ludicrous attempt to pacify YECs into thinking that they can accept the mountain of genetic and fossil evidence for the true origins of humanity while holding on to a fictious story from a particular ancient culture’s creation mythology. It uses the sciences of genealogy and genetics to conjure up a ridiculous and meaningless miracle that has no basis in science nor history. GAE is a myth about a myth.
??? It is more the case that YECs hold GAE to be heresy.
As far as I know, no one has suggested otherwise. But nice that you found something to keep yourself busy.
So, @Patrick, part of your mission here is to work AGAINST the goals of @swamidass ?
Brooks
No. Dr. Swamidass is an excellent scientist and physician. He created Peaceful Science to discuss the science of human origin and other branches of science including genealogy, genetics, ancient DNA. So let Peaceful Science continue on this mission.
Evoluntionary Science is heresy to YECs, so is geology, cosmology, astronomy, evolutionary biology, and many other sciences.
@Patrick ,
You don’t seem to grasp that your statements (like this one below)
" GAE is a ludicrous attempt to pacify YECs into thinking that they can accept the mountain of genetic and fossil evidence for the true origins of humanity while holding on to a fictious story from a particular ancient culture’s creation mythology."
is not only an impediment to Joshua’s work, but it demonstrates your inability to grasp the theological side Peaceful Science.
By definition, Peaceful Science attempts to explain to both Bible Scholars and Science Scholars, that a science-only stance interferes with the “Peaceful” side of Peaceful Science.
PeacefulScience.Org MUST accommodate some of the least troubling religious ideas regarding the nature of human kind as shared by millions of Christians who also see Evolution as part of God’s plan.
Brooks
Prove it. What work, specifically, could Joshua be doing or have done without Patrick’s statement, that he could not or now cannot do because of it?
Please, cite a definition of the website or its title that agrees with the passage quoted above from your message.
Who elected you to dictate what the website must or mustn’t do? Also, what point are you making by raising such demands? What problem are you demonstrably solving?
Those are good questions. I wonder if, in discussions he claims to have had with @swamidass, @gbrooks9 has seen fit to confirm any of the many claims he has been making on the pretext that the represent Joshua’s personal views. If not, it’s a pity that the opportunity was wasted.
This is the latest science on human origins, George. GAE is not science.
Patrick, you dont seem to understand Joshua’s GAE. It is obviously not a science-centric topic - - it is Bible centric.
But it is treated in a scientific manner to demonstrate that some Biblical matters are beyond science to disprove.
@Faizal_Ali (CC: @swamidass ):
Joshua has only agreed (thus far) to say he has not taken the GAE out of the PS.org mission.
He has so far declined all other invitations to discuss how an energetic group of non-theist Evolutionists can develop and sustain a sense of trust and “peace” with Christians Creationists… Creationists who have little choice but fixate on the atheist motivations of their correspondents (because there are so few theological discussions here embracing God’s use of evolution to create humans).
Regardless of how unpersuasive my appeals have been (apparently EXTREMELY so) … the pro-Evolution Christian audience continues to vote with their feet. I can only join them.
In fact, it has dawned on me that of all the millions of pro-Evolution Christians available, there is only non-atheist me who feels betrayed by the lack of support to have a safe place where Christians can discuss GAE with other Christians. And I am a Unitarian!
I think William Lane Craig holds the answer I seek:
This 1+ hour video received 11,000+ views since 2021 and is PS.org’s 3rd highest rated video:
Since Michael Heiser’s death (whose 17 minute PS video garners over 123,000+ !!! views since 2022 !!!) , W.L.Craig is the best and greatest living example of who @swamidass wants to attract as supporters.
I am not in the running. But until such time W.L.Craig (or someone like him) becomes a regular participant I can only be a distraction.
George Brooks
January 2025
That is laughable George. Let start with the talking snake. Hasn’t science disproved that snakes don’t have the biological apparatus to speak nor hear? Since the A&E story proports the fall of ALL humanity is based on GAE’s discussions with a talking snake, I’d say that science has already proven that this didn’t happen. So the premise that GAE is in the genealogy of every human alive 2000 years ago is moot as the Fall of humanity didn’t happen. Isn’t that the whole point of the Bible creation story to show that a divine savior was needed to come and save humanity by dying a horrible death?
Don’t poke the bear. He said he’s leaving. Let’s leave it at that.
I would love to see W. L. Craig here. His is a gentleman. It is sad to see him getting beaten up all the time by Evangelical Christians. W. L. Craig accepts the rapid advances in the science of human origins like ancient DNA, Neanderthal interbreeding and tries hard to reconcile the latest scientific results with what is written in the Bible. Unfortunately it is a losing battle for W. L. Craig as science advance so quickly and does not follow nor cares what the Bible says.
I don’t want to see George leave. Without George here, PS will be less entertaining.
We’ve not even reached the Byers’ Point™ in a while.
However, I suppose it depends upon how it is defined. I had encouraged the National Institute of Standards and Technology to include the Byers’ Point™ in the Revised SI Base Units but still no word. I guess some things are simply too intangible for objective universal standards. (However, considering the recent changes underway in Washington D.C., I suppose it is all becoming moot.)
I don’t share your positive regard for him. He accepts modern science only insofar as he can use it to prop up or legitimize his apologetics. And he does not hesitate to cozy up to ID’ers, or misuse/misrepresent scientific evidence when convenient. Recall that he took the anti-evolution position in a debate with Francisco Ayala. I’ve cued this to a particularly revealing segment, where he uses the Ken Ham-like term “evolution within a single kind” and refers to common ancestry of animals (not all life, just animals) as “an extrapolation of gargantuan proportions… an enormous leap of faith.”
“Byers’ Point”? 'Splain.