Reputation is everything in science. Everything.
Based on what?
I’d say same about your religious beliefs…
@Patrick you first came here guns blazing. How did you find out I had a solid scientific reputation?
Looking up your credentials at the university, what department you were in, what your research was on. Then look at your publications, what journals they were in, how many first author/second author, Looked at impact score of some of your papers, with high being high impact to the scientific community. Even looked at sources of research grants. All checked out as legitimate - an up and rising evolutionary scientist and MD at a top secular research and teaching university.
@Patrick Did you ask around about me too? What did you find out? I haven’t published precisely in evolution, so why do you call me evolutionary? How did you figure out I was putting out surprising but legitimate ideas about evolution (e.g. neutral theory and Genealogical science)?
I’m drawing this out so that people can see this isn’t arbitrary.
I watched you in the Biologos food fight with Buggs and Venema. I checked you out the way I would check out any scientist/professor/researcher. You were going to get hammered by your scientific peers and quite possible by your university if you become an embarrassment to your profession, your research funders or your university. But you didn’t, to your credit you never crossed the neutral science line. You never left MN. You getting thrown aside by Biologos was seen as a positive. You remained a working scientist operating under MN. And your peers, your university and your possible sponsors recognized this. Regarding neutral theory and genealogical science, I learned this here at PS and thank you for that. Regarding your work as a scientist who happens to be Christian, I and several atheist groups see you as a secular humanist and a universal human rights proponent who happens to be Christian. Your commitment to diversity, tolerance, justice for all comes through your work here. One thing I did check out was the church that you belong to in the local St. Louis area. It is not the most diverse church in the area. They are semi-accepting of you. Sit in the back at church so that you can see what is in front of you. I now think that your greatest push back for your work at PS is going to come from “your fellow Christians”. Your not the “same kind of Christian as them” That might be a problem for white fundamentalist Christians. We, secular humanists, consider you one of us now and look forward to working with you on racial issues which I know you feel strongly about.
This is spooky. Its like the host was going to be fired by some gestapo types if he was too creationist or something?!
Then he is given LEGITIMACY in science things because of political opinions.
Even biologos was no good. And they are pro evolution.
Universal human rights!! isn’t this left wing jazz for "human rights’ coming not from god or humans but appointed elites!! In short a rejection of governments and the common people and God/natural rights.
there are no universal human rights unless they existed before humans! Are the claimed hominids also in these rights?
DIVERSITY, TOLERANCE. are these not just outdated left wing tags about organizing society, thus nations, on a principal that identity gives one claims to stuff regardless of public opinion and existing contracts and natural claims of identity’s?!
Diversity is the rejection of citizenship .Tolerance is the rejection of opposition to elities demands for this or that to be accepted.
Then comes the WHITE FUNDAMENTALIST accusation.
Fundamentalist is never used these days and is usually a slur. its evangelical 99% of the time to accurately tag folks.
White is often a slur and there is no white people.
Americans are a real identity and the others have segregated hyphenated identities.
In this context it seems to me white was used as a racial term describing people as bad, badder, then others just because of the colour of their skin.
I was made uncomfortable. I don’t care but yuck.
Not one to complain but this was a spooky thread.
lets just talk about important intellectual origin etc stuff. Thats fun.
This is a mistaken view. Legitimacy is science comes from the quality of the science, and most scientists prefer to avoid politics.
2 posts were merged into an existing topic: More Excuses for Cambrian Non-Evolution
I’m not sure that is it.
I don’t see political opinions there. These are common values, including values that you share too.
I don’t think these values are why @Patrick thinks I am a good scientist. It is however part of why he sees great value in what we are doing here. He is just saying that I am more than just a good scientist. I am also a decent human being with whom he finds a lot of common ground.
I suppose I disagree. @Robert_Byers, you yourself want tolerance of YEC in society, right? You want to be treated with respect even though your views are different than ours. You want tolerance and diversity too. When I say that, I am including you, and many others.
This better not be just a left wing ploy (I am not politically oriented). I thought this was Christian values and American values too. They are human values, honestly. We all want to be treated with respect. We all want a community not contingent on agreement. You want it too, don’t you?
Fundamentalist is not a slur for many people. Bob Jones is proudly fundamentalist. Isn’t Ken Ham proudly fundamentalist. You, it seems, are not fundamentalist. Great. Others are.
Race is hard to talk about. I agree. I don’t think any one was attacking you. The part that is half true is this:
It is true on one hand. There are going to be many who attack me as fake Christian. It has already happened. It will happen again. If I become more well known, I’m sure it will get more ugly. Honestly, there are even members of my own family who are livid about what I am doing here. So, @patrick is correct on this.
However, on the other hand, there are a large number of Christians, a larger number I think, that can look past all this nonsense and see who I really am. I am a real Christian too, with a high view of Scripture, with my loyalties to Jesus, not science per se.
The interesting thing about our moment is that there may be atheist/secular groups that see me as “one of their own” and there may be many Christian groups that see me as “one of their own” too. Is that not a good thing? Whether one comes at this from a scientific set of values, or a Christian set of values, would it not be good for our moment to build bridges like this?
We will do that too, but this is more than just ideas. We want to see a new sort of community arise. One where peace is not contingent on agreement.
Seriously, this is the problem faced by democracies since Socrates. Athens attempted democracy based on uniformity - Socrates died for trying to insist on diversity. In our society he’s presented as a hero for individuality, but the problems of maintaining freedom and peace are very acute today: Guantanamo Bay is real, and it’s not only America that is increasingly polarised into camps. The British are entitled to vote to leave the EU, but have foolishly let themselves be led astray by liars.
Muslim societies of the past produced peace very simply - join the consensus or accept Dhimmi status. That is a very real temptation in creating a community - tolerating the outliers whilst making it clear that they are not mainstream. That was always very evident to me at BioLogos once one stepped outside the (for want of a better term) “post evangelical” approach to theistic evolution.
There is the way of the Cross, but it’s a way that not many are willing to take.