So have you heard the one about the atheist, the creationist, and the computational biologist? Sounds like the start of a joke, doesn’t it? But what if it wasn’t the start of a joke, but the start of a conversation?
In the end, that is our crazy bet. We hope we can talk to Wittgenstein’s lion, and some how find some common ground. I’m hopeful, but it remains to be seen how far this experiment might go.
I guess I can see why some people might think it too long—but I was fine with it. I come from a time when we skimmed material if we thought it too long and then we decided whether to go back and read further on some points. Also, we were taught to structure every paragraph so that the first and/or last sentence of each paragraph provided a summary of that paragraph. So English composition was taught with skimmers in mind, I suppose.
If an article is long, I can always have that option of skimming—but if it is overly short and fails to sufficiently expand on its main points, I may be left unclear on the author’s intent. So I prefer long. I’m probably an odd duck that way.
I am of the opinion that essays are an important form to be recovered. This is why are blog posts can be quite long. Most ideas are best developed in more than a sound bite. Smaller contributes are best in dialogue, as we see on the forum. Ultimately, I’m trying to influence opinions of highly motivated people, not attract mere eyeballs. Essays are a time tested way of doing this.
That being said, this post was really two posts at once. One was a short update on Peaceful Sceince. Perhaps I need to start posting those separately.
I think it is excellent. It has certainly exceeded my expectations as a place where diverse views can be discussed (and argued) but then reason always seems to prevail. A key feature is that there is enough latitude given by Dr. Swamidass and the moderators to allow the envelope to be stretched and then get back to serious discussion. Who can forget “Blasphemy Sunday” proclamation by atheists protesting heavy moderation. I am equally impressed with the number of true experts in many subjects.
I don’t understand what is difficult to understand about my statement. Stop saying RTB (or AJRoberts) doesn’t affirm evolution. Joshua edited his statement to which my comment was directed. I’m glad he did; it is now more accurate. But the fact that he did seems to be confusing late comers.
Evolution is equivocal. The statement you were making above was trying to simplify and categorize our/my basic position. We/I do not affirm universal common descent. That’s all the details I have time for today, sorry.
I think @AJRoberts has made it pretty clear before on this forum she accepts that evolution happens and believes it happens the majority of the time within families and orders. There are just basic Created types. For example, there were was an original Tyrannosaur type that all subsequent Tyrannosaurs evolved from. So she seems to accept Separate ancestry. More of an orchard than a single tree. This is how I have interpreted her statements anyway.
My take away from this is to be more careful in phrasing the RTB position, using language that you’ve tuned in this where I can. This is an example of a place I can.
