Peaceful Science an Underdog?

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

@Eddie

This activated my sympathy for the underdog.

Look who is the underdog now! Peaceful Science. Does this activate your sympathy?

[Eddie (Edward Robinson)]

@swamidass

Look who is the underdog now! Peaceful Science. Does this activate your sympathy?

I don’t think Peaceful Science is an underdog. I think it’s an experiment in progress. It’s too early to say whether it will be an underdog or dominant in the faith-science arena. Not enough people know about it yet. And it’s still undergoing self-definition, as various new voices chip in. I think its ultimate role in faith/science discussions is yet to fully emerge.

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

@Eddie

I think its ultimate role in faith/science discussions is yet to fully emerge.

This is all very true. What would make you most excited? What do you think we could do of highest significance, that is true to who we are, and what we are meant for?

Related but distinct, what would make us dominant?

[Eddie (Edward Robinson)]

Why try to be dominant? Why not keep PS as a high-level dialogue site in which various faith/science options are explored? The Genealogical Adam is one such option. Others can be explored as they come up. (For example, maybe Jon Garvey’s new book has a position that could be showcased on PS – not as PS dogma, but as a proposal worthy of discussion.) If PS can truly say it isn’t automatically against ID (as theory) or against TE/EC (as a general faith/science approach), but rather is open to the best ideas of both camps, and from creationist camps, as it forges its own “Third Way,” then it need not make unnecessary enemies, as it tests fresh ideas, and will attract many readers. Maybe the only dominance it should seek is not the dominance of a particular position (ID, TE, YEC, Genealogical Adam, etc.), but dominance among faith-science websites for high quality of discussion and classy treatment of people from all camps.

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

@Eddie

Maybe the only dominance it should seek is not the dominance of a particular position (ID, TE, YEC, Genealogical Adam, etc.), but dominance among faith-science websites for high quality of discussion and classy treatment of people from all camps.

That is what I would aim for, if I was to aim to dominate. Hopefully in a way that brings everyone into a better version of themselves too.

@Eddie

If PS can truly say it isn’t automatically against ID (as theory) or against TE/EC (as a general faith/science approach), but rather is open to the best ideas of both camps, and from creationist camps, as it forges its own “Third Way,” then it need not make unnecessary enemies, as it tests fresh ideas, and will attract many readers.

That is what we are aiming for, but it might require people to be willing to let ideas be tested. That can be difficult. In the end though, I would be very happy with this:

@Eddie

Why not keep PS as a high-level dialogue site in which various faith/science options are explored? The Genealogical Adam is one such option. Others can be explored as they come up. (For example, maybe Jon Garvey’s new book has a position that could be showcased on PS – not as PS dogma, but as a proposal worthy of discussion.)

[gbrooks9 (George)]

@Eddie

The Genealogical Adam is one such option. Others can be explored as they come up. (For example, maybe Jon Garvey’s new book has a position that could be showcased on PS – not as PS dogma, but as a proposal worthy of discussion.) If PS can truly say it isn’t automatically against ID (as theory) or against TE/EC (as a general faith/science approach), but rather is open to the best ideas of both camps, and from creationist camps, as it forges its own “Third Way,” then it need not make unnecessary enemies, as it tests fresh ideas, and will attract many readers.

@Eddie

It seems to me that PeacefulScience.Org is the logical place for exploring novel without changing anything.

There is no pro-Evolution group more adventurous than PS.Org.