And, apparently, you are traumatized, @jongarvey [later edit --meant gb9, instead]. Just don’t drink the koolaid of the “inevitability” of two opposing sides being unable to come to an understanding of each other that concedes, “well, I don’t agree with them overall, but they make some valid points.”
Agreeing to disagree, agreeably, is at least one of the goals that the forum is aiming for. No segregation required, nor censorship, unless it devolves into ad hominem.
You’re welcome, back!
Who?
So… is this posting for @jongarvey ? Or for @Gbrooks9? Or both of us?
In response to your comments, the segregation I’m promoting is merely a “default” segregation, is a segregation of futile hostilities. If Pro’s and Con’s still want to dispute their favorite ongoing battle of attrition, they can SEE where the battle-threads are, and go there… and participate freely.
But if we don’t make it automatic that 100% of all participants are NO LONGER exposed to 100% of the battle-threads, then each battle will continue to disturb the “default” context that is essential to @swamidass
And just to anticipate, let’s not hear any of this guff about “Freedom of Speech”; I am talking about putting up some sound-blocking insulation … I’m not talking about locking a room where few people can view or listen in on.
PeacefulScience.Org should not be a daily re-visitation to the kinds of debates that we’ve already done for years - - PRE-GENEALOGICAL ADAM!
My early-morning mistake. If I work hard enough, I can make several more by noon! Apologies, @jongarvey and @gbrooks9 . As to the rest of your reply, George, I’ll try to answer sometime soon, as well as to your PM. Right now, I get to take care of a sick daughter.
Suffice it to say, for now, that if GA is “all that,” and I agree that it is, it HAS to be promoted within the atheist and ID communities, for it’s a giant piece of the puzzle which says we don’t have to lose an historical Adam if we admit to a proper role for evolution. Right, @swamidass ?
Cheers!
2 Likes
Wazzat?
3 Likes
I’m in complete agreement that it needs to be promoted in the ID communities.
What i don’t understand is why you think the idea needs any special promotion amongst the Atheists? They’ll tangle with it inevitably, just like they tangle with all the rest of Theism.
@jongarvey, your name was used in a greeting instead of @gbrooks9 - - everything is good (or as good as it ever gets!) 
1 Like
I agree. This isn’t a parochial creation science we proposed in the GA, but something that secular scientists can see legitimacy too.
@Swamidass
That is all well and good. But “best practices” in the realm of psychology is to mix Atheists and Christians into combined task forces, rather than to allow entrenched “sides” to continue to lacerate each other on the futile topic of “Science Detecting God”.
Do you follow me here? Twice now, within 24 hours, two perfectly intelligent people have concluded that I want to separate Atheists from Christians in the pursuit of Genealogical Adam. And yet nothing is further from the truth.
My proposals are to separate the most contentious members of these special interests from the main arenas of discussion within PeacefulScience.Org. The goal is to keep “side-taking” and to divert argument and point-counter-point disputes from the main arenas of PeacefulScience.Org!
Not to block debate, but to keep the negative aspects of debate from tainting the “main chance”:
the process of further developing the Genealogical Adam scenarios.
@Guy_Coe or @swamidass : do either of you actually think that being submerged in an ocean of vigorous debate (regarding the metaphysics of proving God’s presence) will assist in developing a mutual and cooperative approach to Genealogical Adam?
I hope not. Because we are no longer live in an age where we think a good fist fight is the way to make friends regarding complex matters.
1 Like
No it would hide from the main page and notifications all the threadas with the “Design” tag.
So we expect the disputants to willingly apply the “Design” tag?
Maybe this would work in conjunction with another idea. But maybe I’m being overly optimistic?
What I was imagining, is that any time someone wanted to argue about Design issues, they could click on the Design Dispute icon, and go right to the rack of threads currently active on that topic.
Once they click onto a thread or category OUTSIDE of the Design box, they wouldn’t be bombarded by notices about every new posting about disputing Design.
No. Moderators can do it at will.
I think something lik a “Scortched Earth” category is far more likely than a “Design” category. Not all design threads are bad. Only a subset.
Some are bad. Some are not. But all seem irrelevant to the issue of Genealogical Adam.
Try it with gloves and a mouth guard. You might be surprised at. the friends you make. 
2 Likes
@swamidass
I haven’t participated in or even seen any threads where design arguments led to a scorched earth. There may be some— I don’t know. But I would be extremely averse to banishing any design discussions to a place no one can see the.discussion. If a participant or topic is to be ruled out of bounds then that decision should be made with the advice and consent of a member of the same group. That should guarantee there is no point of view bias, and permit more trust among participants who disagree with the status quo.
2 Likes
And so would I!
I’m not talking about banning the discussions. I’m talking about segregating them so that they are not constantly showering the participant with a false sense of division on the matters pertaining to Genealogical Adam.
If and when a participant wants to dispute a Design point, or read the disputes, he or she would go to the “Boxing Arena” we call “Intelligent Design”.
I agree @Agauger which is why I emphasized the problem isn’t design conversation perse. I have seen any reason yet to change the current setup.