I always find the work of @pnelson intriguing and worth considering, and glad to see him engaging on various forums. In fact, I think his and others’ philosophical contributions to the Crossway Theistic Evolution book the most (only?) beneficial parts (the rest, honestly, was really disappointing). I guess my observation is quite simple: Nelson rejects the “canon” of MN, and thus criticizes @swamidass on those grounds (rightly or wrongly). But GAE is speaking to a different audience, one that either accepts or at least doesn’t dismiss mainstream evolutionary science. So I see Swamidass offering a “pastoral” approach (olive branch) for discussion, but not trying to “settle” all the issues at once. I guess I don’t see those solidly committed against evolution (rightly or wrongly) as the intended audience, so the back and forth, while interesting, sort of misses the point. Perhaps I’ve missed the point (though I do recognize the extended “pastoral” point that orthodox Christianity need not be afraid of the science).
4 Likes