Sy Garte on Challenging the Consensus

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

@sygarte

But how far should this go? Do we avoid all scientific positions that seem to be held by a minority of scientists at the moment for fear of being labelled “unscientific” or apologists for a “Christian-friendly” approach to some issue?

I think you are describing an interesting situation, which reminds me of the surprise that BioLogos had when I challenged some of their “consensus.” I think, rather than getting the details straight, it was more about the appearance about being aligned with mainstream science.

It is a bit like:

@Patrick

I think that I do. Biologos doesn’t want to explore the science. It wants to keep to the message that science and Christian faith are compatible. It is wiling to explore and talk about how the theology can be interpreted to make the sense of the science. But Biologos will not engage in the messiness of the science debate. They don’t want two scientists debating the merits of one scientific theory over another.

@Patrick

So, I believe that you are not welcomed on Biologos because you are a practicing scientist with provisional results.

And I think I would use a bit different language than you @sygarte. I would say:

@swamidass

That is exactly right. It is why I’ve come to love science too. It is not an authority play, but an invitation to make sense of the evidence. If you do the hard work, and are lucky enough to see something others missed, you can change the consensus. That is friggen exhilarating, We are rewarded for careful, diligent, and constructive resistance to the consensus, because that is how science progresses.

I think the heart of the problem is that science functions like an appeal to authority among those that do not understand it. But it is really an invitation to play by the rules challenge the consensus, to improve it. Of course, ti takes an immense amount of training and work to find something new, but that is what the invitation of science is.

Is that what you are getting at @sygarte?

---

@Patrick

Inserting of Religion and specifically Evangelical Christianity into science is the whole purpose of the invention of TE/EC. The scientific study of evolution doesn’t need the word Theistic in front of it to describe anything and to continue making process in the understanding of who we are and how we got here. It is merely the insertion of the God belief into science.

Well, not for me. I’m not inserting God into science. Scientific explanations do just fine without divine causation. I’m just having fun thinking about science in light of other things. Not as science experiment, but as scientist in the public square.

@Patrick

And Evolutionary Creationism is just another form of creationism only marginally different from YEC, OEC, and ID. Totally not part of practice of science as science is neutral on such matters.

Well, I’m not going to defend EC specifically, but if we could grow a more science centered voice, that took ambassadorship seriously, I think you might appreciate.