I would like to see the part of the approved grant proposal that says a human couple created de novo 6,000 years ago could be ancestors of the entire human race. That’s not a rhetorical question.
Again, I would like to see whether these reviews affirm the part of GAE that allows for a de novo human couple 6,000 years ago. Or are we going to get another @NLENTS style “well it’s good if it brings all these YEC rubes closer to real science”?
I don’t recall calling anyone a rube. I do recall taking time away from my family and professional work to travel to workshops, three times now I believe, to discuss origins science with people with whom I disagree pretty fundamentally, and at risk to my own reputation in my community, and doing so with mutual understanding and respect. Here I was thinking I was helping to extend an olive branch between two communities too long at war.
@NLENTS that’s exactly how I remember it. You’ve never called anyone a rube, and in fact have done quite a bit to reach across the divide.
It’s online and google accessible. Post a link when you find it.
Well, as we just explained, this is an inaccurate characterization of @nlents. He deserves far more respect that this, even if we disagree with him on important points.
Second, I’m concerned about goal post moving in this request. The book itself doesn’t argue that Adam and Eve were in fact de novo created. I certainly don’t argue this. Rather, I argue this:
I am pushing back on BioLogos’s insistence that “the de novo creation of Adam and Eve is not compatible with what scientists have found in God’s creation.” Aligned with this insistence, Deborah Haarsma confronted pastor Tim Keller for his confession that Adam and Eve were specially created. She still warns he “risks driving away those who might otherwise be drawn to the faith.”
This also is not true. The de novo creation of Adam and Eve is compatible with what scientists have found in God’s creation. Even if common descent is true, Adam and Eve could have been created without parents.
You don’t have to personally affirm de novo creation to agree that it isn’t in conflict with the evidence. We don’t have to even affirm common descent to affirm de novo creation is not in conflict with common descent. @NLENTS agrees as does several other scientists. That is all my book argues on this scientific point, all that’s required of those of us that care to honestly represent science to the public on this focused point.
If that’s what you mean by “affirm” de novo creation, then many of us do. If you want more than this, you’ve shifted the goal posts and missed the point of the book entirely.
Well it’s been awhile, but what we are discussing is whether or not YEC is allowed in science. After a very long thread where you argued quite specifically that YECs are allowed as long as they don’t discuss it openly, which also means they cannot receive grants or do research on it, you then claimed that GAE is a YEC hypothesis and claimed that published research and grants supporting it prove that YEC is allowed in science.
The only way I can square this circle is that you think your own research should not be allowed.
Please produce the direct quotes. I don’t recall phrasing it that way.
Also, I do think there is prejudice against YECs in mainstream science.
Squaring the circle? Make a distinction between YEC science and YEC readings of Scripture. The GAE is not YEC creationist science, because it is consistent with evolutionary science. It is, however, making space for YEC-like (literalist/realist) readings of Scripture alongside evolution and an old earth. The YEC science is not going to work in mainstream science, but the GAE shows that a literalist reading of Scripture can be consistent.
Okay, so you are admitting that YECs cannot get grants to do research supportive of creation science. Is that correct?
I do not think YEC can get NIH or NSF grants to support YEC science. If that was your point, wish you had just said it. That seems to be correct. We can discuss why that’s the case if it isn’t already obvious.
I am sure they can get funding from other sources, and in fact we know they obtain such funding.
I don’t think it’s fair to call the hostility of mainstream science toward YEC “prejudice”.
YEC hasn’t been “pre-judged”. Its arguments have been evaluated extensively and found to be incompatible with reality as we understand it.
Edit: I should add that when I wrote my comment I thought you had said “YEC” not “YECs”. That could potentially change the meaning of your statement and make my criticism somewhat less applicable.
I think we saw a fairly striking display of prejudice in some threads the last month.
Just because a person personally believes YEC, doesn’t mean they should be outed or that they can’t do good mainstream science. Some people had a hard time accepting these obviously true facts. That is unfortunate. I do believe that institutional structures do not support this prejudice.
I’d also state I’ve experienced prejudice from some scientists just because the GAE sounds like YEC. So much prejudice that they aren’t willing to slow down and listen. That is anti-YEC prejudice, but many scientists have certainly gotten past that with the GAE.
Well, Josh, I was confused because I was expressing exactly that, to which you and others countered that I was wrong because GAE. I was talking about why I chose not to pursue a career in science, which was primarily because I knew I would never be able to do what I really wanted to. Then you guys jumped all over me claiming that GAE is published and gets grants. I interpreted that to mean you were claiming I was wrong.
see my edit.
I suppose it depends on the precise phrasing of what you and I said. I don’t recall at this time. Perhaps we just misunderstood each other.
This is so deeply misleading. The clear intent is to suggest that there is active suppression of “research supportive of creation science,” and the writer here is carefully mixing references to YEC (presumably the beliefs) with YECs (the people). The result is so twisted that it looks like an attempt to deceive. Here is what an honest discussion would look like.
There is very likely bias (more accurately, prejudice) toward/against people who say that they believe the earth is very young. This is understandable (because YECism is indefensibly irrational) but it’s wrong in the end. A person (scientist) should be evaluated on criteria that do not include what they believe about anything, including philosophy, government, etc. I think Joshua has made this clear but I don’t speak for him.
There is necessary “bias” against “research” that is premised on falsehood. This includes research on unicorns, perpetual motion, Omphalos “theories,” relational conflict among the denizens of Olympus, and many questions raised by uninformed religious believers. YECism isn’t part of science because it’s in the same realm as unicorns, perpetual motion, and flat earthism.
Well here’s hoping they can get past that and actually allow YECs to pursue research openly. The claim is that YEC has already done this and been found false. That is absurd. YEC was drummed out of the academy almost a century ago. There is simply no comparison between what YECs are able to do on their own with extremely limited funding and NSF, NIH and all the rest that evolutionary biologists have unfettered access to. FFS, I just read a paper by Robert Carter who was reporting on simulations he ran on his freaking laptop.
Let’s just be clear. The vast majority of research done by NSF and NIH is not connected to evolution. So evolutionary scientists have to compete with other fields to get access to these funds.
So what? I run publishable simulations on my laptop all the time. What research does he want to do that he currently cannot do due to funding constraints?
They can certainly pursue their research openly. They can even openly state their YEC beliefs, and that should not be a criteria used to reject a grant, and it is not. There is no component of the evaluation process that considers a scientists personal beliefs, even if they are publicly stated.
I expect also that a well designed study by a YEC, for example, into polonium radiohalos might even do quite well at the NSF. There is no reason a good study into this question would need to even make reference to YEC. This, of course, is pretty important to YEC science, so this is an example that might blur the lines a bit.
I should never type a reply when I see that you’re also writing one. You always end up saying exactly what I wanted to, except with more precision and eloquance.
(yes I realize that this comment is off-topic and also a little obsequious so feel free to not approve it)
That’s prejudice.
If that is “prejudice”, it is justified, and it is against ideas germaine to the field, not against people who hold particular beliefs.
I do think there is unfair prejudice against YEC ideas too, and I’ve experienced it first hand in responses to the GAE. That prejudice, however, can be overcome if you have solid science backing your ideas. The problem with most ideas from YEC, the science doesn’t pan out. That’s the ultimate problem here.
We can imagine a counterfactual world where YECs produced a solid theory that did make much better sense of the data (or at least was equally coherent) as old earth science. In this case, I think it would be possible for YECs to overcome the bias against their ideas. The GAE is an important datapoint here, showing that some YEC ideas (e.g. de novo creation and literalism) can overcome the bias, if they are paired with good science.
I get tired of this with you Josh. You are constantly contradicting yourself. Can YECs get grants for YEC research or not? Should this be allowed or not?