The Abuse of Science by Scientists?

The compendium is about Theistic Evolution. It says so in the title.

I know you dislike ID intensely, George, but you are flailing wildly here. I will grant ID can be used to make religious arguments. So can Evolution. Both have religious implications. Look at the names of the threads on this forum. It appears to be about God. Does it therefore disqualify any Peaceful Science arguments as religious arguments?

Happy Birthday. I wish you a wonderful day and many many more. I also wish you success in your battle with cancer.

1 Like

Sweet. Why?

1 Like

No this compendium is about Peaceful Science. That is the title.

One distinction here is that we are calling our arguments theological, and actively resisting calling them science. At least some ID leaders have actively pushed to have there arguments deemed “science.” That is a consequential difference, and part of what makes some people angry.

Happy Birthday.
God bless!

1 Like

The discussion of neutral theory or human origins (the scientific part are not religious. The implications may be. You recognize some ID stuff as Science. I know you make that distinction. Flat out denialism is just wrong.

I think this explains it well in my communications to Dr. Swamidass:

But why does Dr. Gauger deserves such attention? It is not like she is some leading light in evolutionary biology. She has her conclusions in mind before she does the analysis (IDer did it). She backs into her conclusion by saying "Hey look over here, our understanding is weak, therefore I can insert the IDer into the gaps in understanding (which aren’t real gaps at all). She does not DO real science, just reports on perceived gaps found the work of others. Real science hasn’t taken her or Discovery Institute seriously for 10 years if they ever did. As the courts said ID is creationism which is religion not science. Having a real scientist of your caliber who actually does science elevates her to higher level than she has earned and deserves. She belongs with Dr. Jeanson, Dr. Faulkner, Dr. Lisle, and Dr. Snelling as former scientists who no longer do science but use their previous scientific credentials to mock, distort, ridicule the real accomplishment of today’s real scientists. It lacks integrity and she should be treated as such at real scientific conferences and by real scientific journals.

@Patrick, Sorry, this referred to a post mentioning the Theistic Evolution book. I should have quoted.

3 Likes

Having never met me or read my papers it would appear, you denounce me. You don’t know what I think or how I do my science. You impute motives as to how I do Science that are false.

This is irrational prejudice. It’s one thing to disagree with someone, another to spit on them.

2 Likes

You are indulging in ad hominem attacks.
Make logical/relevant points if any.
And remember what you pointed out as the title of the compendium … peaceful science.

I read your papers, viewed your videos, and yes I denounce your ideology. But despite what you do professionally for money, perhaps you are a nice person. If you are ever in the New Jersey area, I would like to invite you to lunch, on me. Are you retiring soon?

1 Like

I’m going to kindly request a pause on this thread till tonight. First I have a lot on my plate today. Second, this is dipping into a pattern that is injuring some people. Third, a break will give everyone some perspective.

These are difficult topics to broach, but we can only do this if we all work hard to understand those with whom we most disagree. So please pause, and see if we can reengage in a more understanding way.

@Agauger is a very nice person :smile:.

2 Likes

Why, I am enjoying conversing with Dr. Gauger. She is a very nice person and perhaps we can be friends after she retires.

1 Like

Is this the same way you claimed to have read ID papers and it turned out to be the Dover trial…
Can you give details of what exactly you read… and what you are denouncing…
That would be a good empirical test…

You asked for one paper. I told you Dover. For the record I have read all the psychobabble coming out of Discovery Institute and the so-called Biologic Institute for many many years. I am no rookie at this. Most of it is nauseating. The rest is comical.

I am inclined to agree with @Agauger here…

She deserves attention because she has been honest, avoided ad hominems, acknowledged and retracted errors, and is bringing important questions to the table.

Reading this thread, I am agree with this too.

It should be obvious that I do not agree with most ID advocates. However, there is no need to bring in the ad hominem. I want the focus here to be on engaging ideas, not on personal attacks. We are going to curtail those that are just repetitively throwing out slogans without engaging others.

@Patrick, you are a minority here as an atheist, so I have tolerated more from you than from others. I need you to help me out with this. We need to be kind to people together. Disagree with people, but kindly. I also think the perspective you give on how atheists see things is important, but it will be helpful if we can do that in a way that welcomes others into understanding it. There is often a lot of validity to your points, but no one will see that if you come of as just being aggressive and bombastic.

Honestly, we are still going to walk away disagreeing on important things. We need a realistic goal. Instead of “making a point”, I want to ask everyone to focus on understanding others, and being understood. That is the only way such a diverse group is going to hang together.

5 Likes