George, I didn’t “hijack” anything. I did not argue anywhere on the original thread this started with (“Why Does ID Criticize TE?”) that ID inferences are valid, or that anyone should accept them. I already told several people here that I have no intention of repeating ID arguments such as one can find in the works of Behe, Dembski, Meyer, etc. If people want ID arguments, they can read such authors. (I know that you will never read them, but will continue to regard entirely on rumor and hearsay regarding their contents.)
You are the one who keeps bringing the subject back to ID inferences and why they supposedly aren’t possible. I have merely responded to errors in fact and reasoning you have presented in your discussions. If you want me to stop talking about ID, stop talking about it yourself!
As for your comment on metaphysics, it’s clear that you didn’t grasp my point about origin-of-life research, which, unlike most scientific research, is driven almost completely by metaphysical commitment – the commitment to ruling out intelligence in considering the various possibilities for the origin of life.
ID isn’t polarizing within the orthodox, traditional, American Protestant Christian community. It is quite popular within that community. It is unpopular mainly among liberal Christians, whether mainstream or evangelical. There are a few exceptions among Protestant evangelicals, such as Joshua, but for the most part it is liberal Christians, plus a few so-called “Thomist” Catholics (who actually deviate from explicit statements of Thomas Aquinas), who viscerally dislike ID. I’d call virtually everyone associated with BioLogos a theological liberal, and most of the ASA TEs are liberals as well, in my view, with the exception of Ted Davis and Terry Gray. And of course, all Unitarians are by definition ultra-liberal, to the point of leaving Christianity itself behind, so their dislike of ID is irrelevant if we are talking about the Christian community.
This from the guy who both on BioLogos and here has regularly hijacked discussions to lead them back to his pet set of concerns! The chutzpah is amazing.
In my opinion, the energy of Peaceful Science is not being dissipated by Christians such as myself or Jon Garvey, but by the Unitarians, atheists and agnostics here who deep down have contempt for historical Christian faith, such as is held by Joshua, Jon Garvey, Daniel Ang, myself, and others here. This site would do far better, in my view, if it became an explicitly Christian site, for the purpose of finding peace among Christians (not between Christians and infidels) regarding questions of origins. The problem is that the Christians here (OEC, YEC, ID, TE), in trying to have serious theological dialogue with each other over questions of origins, are constantly sidetracked by side-attacks from people who in their heart of hearts wish either that Christianity would die, or that it would become so liberal as to be indistinguishable from secular humanism.
I don’t object to those who openly oppose Christianity, such as Patrick – they play a clarifying role. I always know where Patrick stands and what his motives are for writing what he writes. I do object to those who aren’t Christian themselves continually trying to get Christians to water their Christianity down in order to harmonize with various claims of modern science. What are their motives, when they claim to be acting in the best interests of good Christian doctrine, yet haven’t darkened the doorway of a Christian church for years, if ever?
Your own role here is logically and rhetorically unsustainable. You write as if you are really trying to help out Christians, by pushing them to accept “Genealogical Adam”, even though you personally think that the whole story of Adam and Eve is a crock of ---- and that the Bible is not the revealed word of God but merely the word of man, and often a very flawed word of man at that. You want Christians to accept a modified Christian theology so that they can accommodate evolution, but you couldn’t care less personally about the Christianity part, only about the evolution part. You are happy if they accept any old story that reconciles them to evolution. Your whole position thus reeks of insincerity.
More generally, I have grown deeply disenchanted with Peaceful Science. When I started posting here, intelligent folks like Daniel Ang and Philosurfer were making useful contributions, but increasingly, we are witnessing a rehash of BioLogos, with you sounding your same non-Christian notes over and over again, and the atheists needling the ID proponents and creationists time and again. Even Fruitfly is back, though under a different name here. I likely will soon cease posting at Peaceful Science, because I’m tired of walking this endless treadmill, seeing non-Christians team up with liberal Christians against traditional Christians and against ID supporters. BioLogos is already moribund because that was all it had to offer; unless Peaceful Science changes directions soon, it will become BioLogos 2.0. And there’s no point in that. So I would give Joshua the opposite advice from yours; I would advise him that PS will never serve Christian ends until the people who are merely using Christianity, for their own personal, non-Christian agendas, are prevented from dominating the discussions here. As it stands, this site is sending a very mixed message to its Christian readers, and unless that changes, it will harm rather than further the acceptance of Christian faith.