There are no “sacred cows”. No one can hide behind their “collar” or ministry or academic professorships. Look at Cardinal McCarrick.
Looking back at Peaceful Science, I want to protest an imposed rule about not going after Biologos Staff members. Why? These are paid staff members. Why shouldn’t the hot lights of truth and integrity be shown upon them? And then we have the paid staff at AIG including Dr. Jeanson. Why shouldn’t Dr. Jeanson be called out for lack of professional integrity for all the lies he tells and the purposeful manipulation of reputable scientists’ data and hard work?
We all know that science is neutral on whether God exists or not. Why do we give a pass to Deb Haarsma for saying that if there were a multiverse, God created it. It is nonsense. And we should tell her so. To long we have given special rights to “faith leaders” to make claims that men and women of science can’t or won’t make. It is time to call it what it is - lying and lack of integrity to promulgate these lies.
This is where Peaceful Science is different. Dr. Swamidass is a contributing scientist, a physician, and a tenured faculty member at a secular university. Never has he taken a position where the data and facts didn’t support them. Where there is no data nor facts, he says what is possible but doesn’t claim their truth. And never has he disparaged or discounted the work of other legitimate scientists whether they were secular or not. His integrity and scientific honesty are second to none.
I am for all of the ideals of Peaceful Science including kindness towards one another. But no one gets a pass because of their faith or beliefs. Discuss the facts, don’t make stuff up, listen to one another’s arguments. Respect every as a person and as a human being. But you don’t have to respect their beliefs nor ideology. Beliefs and ideologies should be subject to intense scrutiny and if necessary to mockery, insults and humiliation.
So, both sides are right. There was purposeful manipulation and mistreatment, and I have every right to aggressively fight back. @Patrick is right about that.
However, right now, for three reasons, I am not going to fight back.
Pragmatically, I run a real risk of being labeled the angry dark man. It is a cynical way of being dismissed, and I have to cool it now, or I will lose.
Politically, a leader with power for redress is looking to a situation. I do not want to create more conflict that will distract from what he needs to see.
Personally, I want to be better at laying down my anger when I am mistreated. I want to follow Jesus here. I do not want to make decisions when I am angry.
For that reason, @Patrick is right, but so is @gbrooks9 and @Guy_Coe. Go ahead and critique the ideas of anyone (including Haarsma and others), but let’s not make it personall.
And remember, purposeful manipulation comes in many forms, and is at least partly a matter of being in the eyes of the beholder. So, why would you complain if others have the same ethic, but see things differently?
Treat it as a learning experience. Learn from it. Let the anger go. You are a person of high integrity. Continuing working your science as a researcher, professor, physician. That will make a real difference in people’s lives. You help people everyday. That is more than enough for any man. I salute you and thank you for your service to real people both today and in the future.
No way George. I do question your integrity. You hold these people in such high regard. What are YOU doing about the injustice done to Dr. Swamidass? Sitting on your ass again!
No. We’re trusting that he knows the situation better than we do, and will ask for any help he thinks will be strategic. In other words, we respect his wishes, while looking out for him. Honestly, I am wondering whether pressure was brought to bear based on illegitimate ways of gaining foreknowledge, by parties pretending to be friendly. I’ll let that statement go where it may. I have no proof, and no particular desire to be right about that.