Yes John, I was wondering about this myself. I apologise in advance to Joshua for sidestepping his “bigger issue” for the issue that tweaks my curiosity.
Who is Paul Nelson? As a long-time creationism-watcher, I’m aware of the name, that he’s an ID advocate, a YEC philosopher of science, and that he once made, but completely failed to substantiate, some claims about something called Ontogenetic Depth. But I was aware of little else about him. Certainly nothing to bestow on him the right to anything more than common respect.
So I’ve done a little bit of digging. He seems to be the co-author of a few ID books, but the sole author of none. The Wedge Document claimed that his PhD thesis (on his disagreement with Common Descent) was going to be turned into a book, but that never eventuated.
I can find no evidence of peer-reviewed academic publication by him since around the time of his PhD thesis (in the late 1990s).
The sole affiliation I’ve been able to track down for him, outside of the Discovery Institute, is that at some stage he was (and possibly still is) an adjunct professor in Science and Religion at Biola University.
This would seem to be more of another cautionary tale about how an obsession with ID can leave you decades older, with little to show for it, than the biography of an intellectual titan, whose wisdom we should await with bated breath.
At times, common respect has not been extended to @pnelson. This undermines trust, and I think this is what @r_speir was concerned of here.
Now, of course, ID often does not extend common respect the other direction, but this a different issue. Even if they don’t treat us with respect, we should not return in kind. Treating them with respect makes it harder to ignore the substance of our critique of them.
I still don’t see why @r_speir does not trust my basic honesty, or that of @glipsnort and others who have always been honest with him. I hope he can explain or back of that distrust.
I would not advocate treating any participant of this forum with less than common respect.
However respect is a two-way street, and is likely to wear thin when one side appears to indulge in evasive, obfuscative, and/or misrepresentative (as Nelson’s recent blatant quotemine of Carroll demonstrated) tactics, that may be viewed as less than respectful of its audience.
This is why I have little-to-no trust of Nelson (or for that matter anybody else that I can think of associated with the Discovery Institute).
Addendum: my justification to calling Nelson’s Carroll quote a “quotemine” can be found here: Comments on Why Spier Distrusts
r_speir objects to that label (see below). You may disagree with my reasoning, and I would welcome reasoned criticism of my position.
I cannot however say that I’m particularly happy at having this justification split off from r_speir’s objection, particularly as it calls my position “Malarkey” & “Ridiculous” without substantiation – hardly a civil response.
Malarkey. He did not quote mine. This is precisely what why a rift exists between people like you and me. I read the full page from Carroll and Nelson not once took him out of context. Nelson was even nice enough to come back around later and clarify his point - part of his unstated point being that you are incorrect about the quotemine. Ridiculous.
Let’s discuss @glipsnort. He has been above reproach, always honest, and never even argumentative. What is different between @glipsnort and I? Why do you trust me and not him?
Relationship are important. I do think this is serious enough of a charge that it merits some reflection and investigation. I think he deserves a chance to make it right if he did wrong. If he did not, he deserves an apology, and a chance to be trusted by you.
swamidass
(S. Joshua Swamidass)
Split this topic
30