PS Mission & Values

Conversation
,
1

@sfmatheson

Can you tell us specifically where Genealogical Adam and Eve is not one of our goals?

I quote from the Lents Op-Ed:

USA Today Oped by Nathan Lents.

“Dr. Lents is an atheist scientist, and he explains in this article why he endorsed The Genealogical Adam and Eve , in service of the common good. The values he articulates here are our values too, guided by the trust-building model of public engagement we advocate.”

“Swamidass is not peddling pseudoscience. Indeed, earlier this year, he and I teamed up on the pages of Science to rebut claims by evolution critics. In addition, “The Genealogical Adam and Eve” went through a rigorous process of open peer review, involving scholars from many diverse disciplines and even some secular scientists, including myself and Alan Templeton, a giant in the field of human population genetics. Invited to find fault in his analysis, we couldn’t, partly because the hypothesis is so narrow, but also because it appears to be correct.”

“Surprising though it seems, it is scientifically tenable that, among our billions of other ancestors, we could all be descendant from a single human couple who lived in the past 10,000 years. In fact, as Swamidass carefully explains, this is almost certainly the case according to current estimates of the so-called identical ancestors point, a time in the past when all family trees converge into one common pool of universal ancestors. There are two clear reasons why this astonishing hypothesis is compatible with science.”

“… [Joshua] provides a bridge for those whose faith insists on the real existence of Adam and Eve. Until now, they have had little choice but to reject evolutionary science, at least partly but often wholly. Classes are taught in some evangelical churches that discount evolutionary science in its entirety, a troublesome prospect, being that 1 in 4 Americans identify as evangelical Christians. But if Adam and Eve could exist within the natural world, we might have a resolution to one of the greatest cultural conflicts of the past two centuries.”

“This will not tempt someone like me to believe in the creation story laid out in Genesis. But it just might allow those who do believe to be more open to evolution and, god willing, to science more broadly. For those who take the Adam and Eve story literally, the value of this effort is obvious. But there is value for nonbelievers as well. Widespread suspicion of science weakens our social fabric and undermines the common good. From the urgency of climate change and medical research, to the frontiers of artificial intelligence and space exploration, scientific discovery holds tremendous potential for the betterment of human lives. As such, efforts to bring more people into the scientific mainstream serve not one political party or one particular faith — but all of humanity, to the ends of the Earth.”

**@sfmatheson ** (Attn: @swamidass ):

Since the Lents Op-Ed is obviously a part of the Mission and Values statements, perhaps you can provide guidance for how I can best refer
to the contents of the Op-Ed article that will satisfy you that I am being
necessarily careful.

Respectfully submitted,

George Brooks

2

Hi George.

The Lents oped is not part of the Mission and Values statement, it’s referenced in it. Here is the actual statement:

We are oriented around science, intending to support trustworthy scientists as they engage the public. We are rising into unique role in the societal conversation.

Our Mission

Peaceful Science’s mission is to advance a civic practice of science…

…by seeking dialogue in discord and understanding across disagreements,

…by fostering interdisciplinary scholarship engaged with science and the public, and

…by encouraging conversation around the grand question: what does it mean to be human?

Trust, Questions, and Virtues

We are “peaceful” in that we seek in peace in areas of controversy, where different views are held and these differences matter. For this reason, we expect to encounter conflict. We navigate discord by building trust across disagreement, taking questions seriously, and inviting a community that aspires to virtues.

  • We aim to build trust across divides. In contrast with the “knowledge-deficit” model of science communication, trust grows with trustworthy dialogue across differences and transparency about our own beliefs.
  • We emphasize questions over specific answers. Science does guide our answers, but questions can open ways to new understanding. We can disagree on answers while still finding common ground in questions.
  • We invite a community of virtues. Whatever our individual answers might be, together we find common ground in common virtues, which build trust with one another and grow our understanding.

Centering on trust, questions, and virtues, we are not bound to advocacy of any particular answer. We welcome new knowledge, new questions, and new people, in a community that can grow even when we disagree with one another.

A Civic Practice of Science

We advance a civic practice of science, in which scientists engage in substantive dialogue with scholars from other disciplines and other communities in society, building trust by responding to questions with honesty and rigor.

  1. By honesty, we mean forthrightness about what the scientific evidence is and is not telling us, including scientific findings themselves, along with their limits; we mean truthfulness about how science challenges us, and truthfulness about how it makes space for others.
  2. By rigor, we mean scientific excellence and diligence in our public work, offering understandable explanations of how we come to our conclusions, and transparency about our own mistakes and errors.

Taking Questions Seriously

We make space for others, build trust, and foster trust by taking questions seriously, receiving them with courage, curiosity and empathy, even when these questions are motivated by values different from our own.

  1. By courage, we mean that questions come with risk; we might find new knowledge that changes our view, exposes a mistake, or serves someone with whom we disagree. Engaging questions is worth these risks.
  2. By curiosity, we mean the pursuit of understanding is intrinsically good. Questions are valuable because they can increase our understanding, both our understanding of one another and of what science is discovering about the world around us.
  3. By empathy, we mean to embrace the questions of others as our own, especially when they disagree with us; we make space for others by engaging questions, even when they arise from values not our own.

Space for Differences

Science reshapes our understanding of the world, but it is also limited in its scope and its certainty. Science certainly challenges our beliefs, but a civic practice of science makes space for differences, aspiring to humility, tolerance, and patience.

  1. By humility, we mean that we cannot convince everyone to agree with us, even if we are right and they are wrong. We are cautious to explain the limits and uncertainty of scientific claims.
  2. By tolerance, we mean to create space for those with whom we disagree, where we can engage larger questions together, even as we explain our own point of view.
  3. By patience, we mean endurance with one another across our disagreements, where we seek to understand others, and help them understand us.
5 Likes
3

Please take note that The Genealogical Adam and Eve is not part of the mission of Peaceful Science. The mission of PS is to advance dialogue between science, the public, believers, non-believers, etc., and GAE is an attempt to do just that.

Your repeated suggestions to segregate atheists from Christians in this community are the opposite of the goal of this forum.

6 Likes
4

@misterme987

Get @swamidass to agree that the Lents Op-Ed is NOT a substantive part of our Mission and Values statement.
[TYPO CORRECTED! The word “NOT” was added to correct the
intention of the sentence.]

Then I will go away.

Brooks

5

Hi George.

Unlike you, I won’t claim to speak for Dr. Swamidass. If he wants to come here and elaborate his viewpoint, that’s his prerogative.

1 Like
6

@misterme987

I can assure you … if he appears here and offers instruction, I will do
whatever I can to follow his instruction.

Brooks

7

You seem to think members other than yourself have the power to summon Joshua like he was Beetlejuice. I would consider suggesting you tag or PM him yourself, but I want to spare him the annoyance.

Joshua is not nearly as active on this board as he once was, but he has regularly engaged with atheists on all variety of topics here. If he thought there was a problem with “Christian evolutionists” having to suffer the horrible trauma of actually reading things written by atheists, he could easily have taken measures to prevent that. He didn’t, and hasn’t. So, as I know I have suggested before, you should take that as your answer.

But you won’t, of course.

4 Likes