@gbrooks9, see how rephrasing things helps immensely? You are concerned about everyone else’s language, legitimately. If you understand how your own language is creating problems, you’ll be understood much better, and might even convince them to change too.
3 Likes
Your questions are perfectly valid… but the problem I’m seeing is that Agnostics and Atheists come here to tangle-up with Creationists… not to help advance @swamidass’s proposal: that it is more than reasonable to allow for the Special Creation of just two humans in exchange for accepting the vast preponderance of scientific evidence that all the rest of humans evolved from the primate branch of the Animal Kingdom. Or if they do come here to help advance these goals, they are quick to forget their original intentions when confronted by a living, breathing Creationist!
One moment, there will be some philosophical discussion budding forth, and then, because of one stray sentence, all of a sudden ID proponents will be asking why this doesn’t prove design?
If the ID proponent is speaking with me, I would say: “I already accept that God designed this and all of Creation! Are you here to convince me that science can prove it? Or are you here to see how well your Faith thrives if we accept Adam/Eve as special creations, and all the rest of the living things as evolved (not necessarily from a single common cell).”
Otherwise, some Agnostic or Atheist jumps the thread, and instead of reminding the ID supporter what we hope to discuss, we are back to “Disputation 401” on a topic as old as the hills, and one that is not likely to be resolved here.
I am well aware of how my language can and will be seen as a “trigger”. And I am happy to accept my “devil’s advocate” role regarding Atheists and Agnostics encouraging ID supporters to examine an alternate path, rather than to egg them on regarding Design being provable or not.
Out there in the cold, cruel world… just raising a topic will trigger unwanted response, because our audiences are so ingrained with the conventional and cliche tropes … what is the usual response for someone waving the red flag of Evolution, or the black flag of Adam/Eve being historical people.
It requires tremendous resolve to not go for the bait … and to remind one’s self and the others that the topic being raised is not the usual topic…
Sorry, no, that is not any kind of reasonable.
I do have to be honest with myself. And, being honest with myself, I am skeptical of any special creation.
I mostly stay out of threads related to special creation. I’m not here to discuss theology, and it does not concern me what others may want to believe about a special creation. But don’t expect me to consider special creation as reasonable.
1 Like
It is NOT reasonable to make any kind of “exchange”. Accepting the vast preponderance of scientific evidence that all humans evolved from the primate branch of the Animal Kingdom is considered provisionally true until evidence to the contrary is found.
You have it wrong. That would be Cosmology or OoL. 
More seriously, what’s the matter with a sciencific theory without God? All the Agnostic is saying is that God is not a sciencific concept.
2 Likes
I certainly don’t want you to feel backed into a corner… but I would
assume that in addition to drawing the acceptable line before
Special Creation of just 2 people, you also draw the line at divine
births, and resurrection from death after public execution?
Before you answer, I do want to point out that I’m not speaking about
one’s personal belief … but what one accepts in others. For
example, a hallmark of Unitarians (before and after the merger with
the Universalists, another New England denomination) is that Jesus was
not a God, demi-god, or even divinely conceived. But I’ve never had a
bone to pick with anyone of my friends or family who belonged to a
mainstream denomination, where the divine status of Jesus went without
question, and his disappearance from the tomb followed the usual lines
of thinking.
I think it would also be helpful for you to know that I have nicknamed
@T_Aquaticus as “Good Atheist” because of his ability to put himself
in the shoes of a Christian and ask good questions that led from that
viewpoint. 
1 Like
You write: “It is NOT reasonable to make any kind of “exchange”. Accepting the vast preponderance of scientific evidence that all humans evolved from the primate branch of the Animal Kingdom is considered provisionally true until evidence to the contrary is found.”
Sure sure … and I bet you make people prove that Jesus was divinely born before you give them their Christmas present?!
No response is necessary; it was a rhetorical question…
@Dan_Eastwood , you write: “More seriously, what’s the matter with a scientcific theory without God? All the Agnostic is saying is that God is not a scientific concept.”
I understand the sincerity of your question, Dan. But, without putting too fine a tip to my response, @Swamidass probably wouldn’t have experienced such an unpleasant separation from BioLogos if all he did was suggest Evolution might not have been designed by God. He took a stance on what is, and what is not, affirmed by Science, and what is left open… including the idea that Science (as with Behe’s Pool Shot Model) is not in a position to say Yes or No to the idea that God designed all creation.
I likewise consider those implausible and unlikely.
I do not go around trying to persuade people about these issues. People can privately believe what they want. But don’t ask me to consider such beliefs to be reasonable.
You write: “I do not go around trying to persuade people about these issues. People can privately believe what they want. But don’t ask me to consider such beliefs to be reasonable.”
And I certainly don’t want you thinking that I would want you to try to persuade people on these points. @swamidass’ position is that the science of archaeology and physical anthropology is not in a position to say whether 2 humans were “specially created” or not. And within the Christian community, with those who already attribute some sort of divinity to Jesus, an additional event or two of special creation would not seem out-of-line.
However, what would be helpful is if, when in a discussion with a Christian who is already inclined to believe in the special creation of Adam/Eve, it would facilitate matters if you inquired as to their interest in adopting the position that all the rest of humanity was created by God’s use of Evolution. You wouldn’t have to say that you personally accept that position, but that for someone who does think Adam and Eve were specially created, a position accepting the rest of humanity being produced by Evolution wouldn’t be out of line with Romans 5.
Would this be a difficult position for you to encourage?
No one is asking you to endorse them, at least I am not. I’m just asking us to be upfront about the facts when there is no evidence against a position, that is all. I’m pretty sure that, with integrity, you could say: “I think the special creation of Adam and Eve is hogwash and implausible, but I acknowledge that there is no evidence against it in some scenarios.”
2 Likes
Let’s put it this way.
I do encourage people to believe that we are here as a result of evolution. I do encourage creationists to believe that the system of evolution is part of the creation and is part of how animals and plants were created. I prefer to avoid saying anything about special creation, other than that it cannot be ruled out on the evidence we have.
2 Likes
And Joshua is correct; science cannot distinguish between the Pool Shot and a natural history. What more do you want?
I would just love to have one day where nobody anywhere on this site is arguing with a creationist about the existence of God.
It makes this site so juvenile and trivial when it happens.
@swamidass is putting together breakthrough scenarios (involving God)… and every time someone equates Evolution with something that God doesnt use it is a jab in the eye for these models.
??? But I’m not arguing about about the existence of God, nor am I attempting to trivialize God. I’m stating the limits of what we can know by science. Science cannot falsify the Pool Shot model, IMO. If you believe that God had a hand in Creation in this manner, there is nothing is this claim for me to object to, scientifically.
3 Likes
@gbrooks9 one thing I have found is that ID proponents feel slighted when I don’t engage their arguments. They feel it is duplicitous. That is why I engage, along with other reasons. We are engaging the validity of their arguments, not whether God exists. That might beat repeating. In fact that might be a better point to emphasize alongside these exchanges. You don’t need anyone to change their behaivior for you to make that point on your own.
"??? But I’m not arguing about about the existence of God, nor am I attempting to trivialize God. I’m stating the limits of what we can know by science. Science cannot falsify the Pool Shot model, IMO. If you believe that God had a hand in Creation in this manner, there is nothing is this claim for me to object to, scientifically."
My statement was purely generic… so that those who know their shoe size, know when I’m speaking about THEIR shoes, and not anyone else’s.
Dan, I do like your summations!; I re-word them slightly below.
1] “Science cannot falsify the Pool Shot model.”
2] "If you believe that God is the Creator, “Science cannot falsify God as Creator of the Universe.”
But the one I want our forgetful atheists to memorize is the response to provocations by ID advocates.
For example, one or two might say: “Protein Folding/Flagella/Etc/Voila-Voila” is impossible to create through random nature, etc etc etc.
The Ideal Response would be: “So if you are a Creationist, do you accept the idea that God could guide Evolutionary processes to create this [thing]?”
Immediately, we are putting the conversation right where it needs to be … the response doesn’t require anyone to give up their Atheism (or any other status), and it is sending the Creationist along the path to follow to where they can see Evolution can be a part of Design just as well (if not better) than Special Creation.
Dan, thanks for give me a platform for a longer answer!
You write: “…one thing I have found is that ID proponents feel slighted when I don’t engage their arguments. They feel it is duplicitous.”
I’m not sure I’m following your logic.
Would they think it is duplicitous if you say: “As a Christian, you have no problem with a theology that includes God governing the force of Evolution to create what you are discussing here in this thread. As an Evolutionary Scientist, I am more comfortable with the idea that the operation/thingy/whatever could be a little easier to create than what a layman might think. But I am convinced that God has designed all of Creation, one way or another.”
Do you think this kind of response would be considered duplicitous? If yes, I would wonder about the perspective of your correspondent. But if it is another kind of response that can be seen as duplicitous, could you share a classic example? I would like to know what you could possibly say, unintentionally even, that would be so received!
@gbrooks9, I’m OK with the rest, but one quibble …
But the one I want our forgetful atheists to memorize …
Quibble: I don’t think you meant atheists. 
Happy to oblige, but be careful what you ask for!
2 Likes