Respectfulness in Portraying People

“Harvard-trained biologist Nathaniel Jeanson”
" Evolutionist David MacMillan"

Just one reason why I don’t consider you a reliable conversation partner.


Could you be more specific and explain what you mean. Do you mean David MacMillan is not an evolutionist?

You give one character in your story a glorified description and you call the other an “evolutionist.” Do you seriously not see a problem with how you write about scientists?


I don’t understand what’s wrong with calling a person who believes in the theory of evolution an evolutionist? I also don’t mind being called a creationist because that’s a fact.

Is that what I wrote? Is that even CLOSE to what I wrote?

1 Like

You tell me, also tell me why I’m wrong?

You are using propagandistic techniques. (This is obvious BTW.) You portray one character in one way and another in a different way. Either you don’t see this (which disqualifies you as a worthwhile conversation participant) or you do see it and are trying to hide it (which disqualifies you as a worthwhile conversation participant). Peaceful Science deserves better.


I think you are now attacking me as a person. As if I were acting like propaganda techniques. Well for me, it doesn’t matter how you write about me. It is annoying that you have not even briefly taken a position on the subject I have started. I am interested in discussing the content of Jeanson’s article, not myself. Now, however, you claim me to be the kind of debater the forum does not deserve. And this is because I call a person who believes in the theory of evolution an evolutionist.

Your posts contain multiple accusations against scientists. I write that “you are using propagandistic techniques,” which is not a personal attack, and you complain that you are being attacked. This is pathetically hypocritical.

An alternative possibility is that you do not understand the words being used. “Acting like propagandistic techniques” is gibberish.

That is correct.

That is not correct. Please try to understand how you described BOTH people in your post and how you presented them differently. I don’t have anything else to say to you, and I don’t think that dialogue with you is worth any further keystrokes.


You aren’t understanding @sfmatheson’s point, partly because he isn’t making it clearly. You puff up Jeanson by calling him “Harvard-trained”, which is rank credentialism, and yet you don’t talk about MacMillan’s qualifications. “Evolutionist” to you, is even a pejorative.

Incidentally, it’s not enough for a theory to make correct predictions. It also has to avoid falsification by other data, and YEC is massively falsified by just about everything: astronomy, physics, geology, paleontology, phylogenetics, archeology, etc. I couldn’t think of anything for chemistry, but I’m sure somebody could come up with something.

If I think the moon is made of cheese, and I predict that it will sometimes show as yellow or red for that reason, I’ve made a correct prediction. But will you therefore agree that my theory should be taken seriously?


As a moderator on this forum, I support @sfmatheson’s point. Please try to portray your discussion partners more charitably. Maybe this is something you don’t do consciously or deliberately every time, but I absolutely agree that touting the credentials of one person while portraying the other as a mere “evolutionist” is provocative and doesn’t help to foster respectful, peaceful discussion. And I would also say that this applies to both sides - if someone tries the same tactic with YEC, then please bring our attention to it.


Surely you understand the difference between “Harvard-trained biologist” (a scientific education from a prestigious university) and “evolutionist”(a belief). Anyone does.


For the record, @David_MacMillan is not a scientist, and I don’t mean that as an insult.


Correct. I have a hard science degree and have demonstrated research in optics and quantum physics but I do not consider myself to be a scientist because I do not currently get paid to do science.

Of course Jeanson does not get paid to do science either (nor, in my knowledge, has he ever). He gets paid to pretend to do science.

I would call myself a science advocate and a science writer but not a scientist. I’m not an “evolutionist” either, since the only people who can really call themselves that would be evolutionary biologists, and many of them eschew the term because it is comparable to calling a physicist a “gravitationalist” or an astronomer a “globe-earth-ist”.


The far more interesting thing here to me is that Nathaniel is studiously avoiding mention of me, an actual biologist that 1) agreed that @David_MacMillan was wrong and that Nathaniel did indeed made predictions and 2) asked him to fix a clear misrepresentation.

Why would he ignore me, a scientist, to attack a lawyer? That’s worth asking about @Toni_Torppa.

On a positive note, he appears to have backed off his public accusations of research misconduct. That was bad form…

1 Like

Not so much. This last article says “when one of the authors (David MacMillan, a former YEC) was confronted with the evidence of his professional scientific misconduct, he doubled down on his misrepresentations and added to them.”


I stand corrected.


I have no issue being referred to as an evolutionist. Neither did Mayr or Dobzhansky and many other evolutionary biologists.

I see no issue with being referred to by the same name that the likes of Mayr and Dobzhansky used to refer to themselves.

Could you change the description to your name pls…
It says “Ex- YEC Law student”…
Maybe you could mention your degree… or describe yourself as a science writer/advocate.
I am sure that will help people a bit.