@Toni_Torppa, this strikes me as a truly astounding statement.
On this forum, you’ve urged everyone to read YEC blog posts, and in fact many of us have done so. Yet you’ve argued that we disagree because we don’t actually read what YEC’s have written. That’s just false.
Now, when we point you to an in depth article, full of quotes of YEC literature and deep engagement with its ideas, you say you won’t read it? Perhaps that’s why you are so convinced YEC is good science, because you are unwilling to read careful criticism of YEC science.
At minimum, this seems hypocritical, but it also looks self-deceptive.
So, why not take a different approach, and choose to follow the wisdom of Proverbs 4:7? Why not first seek understanding of the ideas you reject? Why not read @evograd’s post? Why not seek understanding first?
Yes, I might read the evograd blog when the time comes. It is not a problem.
The problem is how that blog has been used by some professors. For when professors criticize Jeanson’s model, I would like to see their own scientific arguments through which they seek to refute Jeanson’s predictions, etc.
It seems absurd that professors criticizing Jeanson refer to a student’s blog post when i asking for examples of counter-arguments. I just can’t comprehend it. After all, this student has admitted to that he is not an expert on the subject. Shouldn’t science specifically listen to experts?
So this marching order is what is squeezing me. These professors themselves should be the ones who scientifically justify why Jeanson is wrong and refute Jeanson’s best predictions and not the straw mans of them. That’s what I called for here. In other words, why have you given so much weight to that student blog that was not written by an expert?
Since I am not an expert, I have to choose who I trust in any subject. Also in the critique, I would like to hear the best possible experts so that the critique of the Jeanson model is the best possible. In science should be presented to the other party’s arguments in the best light and give them the best counter-arguments. Experts are needed here to make it as scientific as possible and to take any criticism as seriously as possible.
I hope this sentence is also taken seriously by critics of Jeanson: “choose to follow the wisdom of Proverbs 4:7? Why not first seek understanding of the ideas you reject? Why not seek understanding first?”
Science is not specifically about listening to experts. We don’t appeal to authority that way. We trust experts but look to challenge them whenever we can, and we deemphasize our expertise when making those challenges.
What happened here is that several professors reviewed @evograd’s review and believe it is essentially correct. I also know that if errors are identified, @evograd will be quick to correct the errors. For this reason, I recommend his review. That’s how science works.
Now, you might find an error in his review. If you do, and can convince me, I’ll personally call him out on it. I’d expect he would make a correction. If you haven’t noticed it yet, I’ve already defended Nathaniel more than once from some incorrect arguments against his position. I think he wrong, but see no reason to tolerate poor arguments against him.
Because I’ve reviewed its contents and feel comfortable vouching personally for its integrity.
Let’s add that it doesn’t matter that the writings are on a blog or that they are by a student. In fact the writings are detailed and very well referenced, and the student has more expertise and training in these topics than the author of the book being critiqued. It is not appropriate to pervasively emphasize that this is a student writing on a blog. What matters is whether the review pieces are accurate, and whether their author is well qualified to critique the book. Both are well established.
It is also notable that Jeanson has not answered our invitation to dialogue or my request that he fix his misrepresentation of me.
@Toni_Torppa can you ask him why he is not engaging with us directly? I’d love to see him come here and make his case. @moderators would set up a protected thread, and only scientists would be allowed to engage with him.
If he really has found scientific evidence for his position, this is a great opportunity for him to get a hearing. Personally, I will ensure he gets a fair hearing.
Would you please invite him and report back what he says?
It makes perfect sense that some putative professor, or other qualified expert, would refer to @evograd blog post because it contains an already compiled and well-argued case built on the kinds of facts and references they themselves would draw on. (We know this because they have stated as much).
Why do all that same work all over again, go searching the literature for the same relevant articles, and write essentially the same arguments in their own words all over again?
It doesn’t make sense that you “can’t comprehend” this. Your responses here just aren’t reasonable. What it looks like you’re doing is trying to avoid having to deal with a valid and quite substantial criticism of Jeanson’s work. And I can’t help but suspect you’re also trying to make Jeanson’s work appear more important than it actually is, by demanding that “professors” respond to it.
Jeanson is also not an expert in the relevant field. Neither in population genetics, nor evolutionary biology more generally. Yet you trust Jeanson more than you trust someone who is demonstrably more qualified to speak about these topics than Jeanson is.
To make matters worse, actual qualified experts in the fields have stated that they (for the reasons I explained above) accept and endorse @evograd’s blog post. So it’s time to stop the obsession with credentials. Facts aren’t established by titles.
I would remind you of what Nathaniel Jeanson says in a Facebook interview when you ask him for dialogue. Nathaniel says he has your book (he has read it). In your book, you ignore all the Biblical and scientific publications Jeanson has made. So he urges you to read the scientific articles they have done first.
and made a critical analysis of it. Present the predictions of the article, etc. in the strongest light and try to show why they may not match the evidence. If you write a scientific article on a topic then I think Jeanson will respond to it with a scientific article. This is how a scientific and critical dialogue on the subject could begin. However, it requires that you put Jeanson’s arguments in the right light and try to refute them, as the nature of science requires.