I wasn’t thinking that you were suggesting this. I think if we tried to imitate their rhetoric we would undermine the ethos of BioLogos. That’s just my personal opinion, and I recognize that others might disagree.
Perhaps look instead to people like Paul and to Martln Luther King Jr, and other. Probably even Tim Keller.
Paul in Acts 17 is honestly one of the best model’s I’ve seen. He is brilliant in his approach and execution there. Theologically grounded, but also innovative. Ultimately he is centered on the Gospel, and effectively diffuses conflict in a very hostile and cross-cultural context.
As counter approach, that can be rhetorically strong when employed with honesty is an “invitational rhetoric,” which I often employ.
Invitational rhetoric is a theory of rhetoric developed by Sonja K. Foss and Cindy L. Griffin in 1995.[1] Invitational rhetoric is defined as “an invitation to understanding as a means to create a relationship rooted in equality, immanent value, and self-determination.”[1] The theory challenges the traditional definition of rhetoric as persuasion—the effort to change others—because the objective of invitational rhetoric is not to persuade but to gain an understanding of the perspectives of others.[1][2][3][4][5]
Invitational rhetoric - Wikipedia
Of course, one should not use this cynically and dishonestly, intending to persuade people while denying it. However, in fact, I am not trying to persuade people to change, but to build understanding. I see that as an intrinsic good, and worth pursuing even if we all end up disagreeing in the end.
The fact of the matter, nonetheless, is that we are changed as we understand each other better. So people do change as we engage with honestly this way, but the change is often mutual. Moreover, this approach effectively defangs and undermines the false claims of persecution that are often nurtured and promoted (that I am sure you are wanting BioLogos not to do).
The irony is that EC/TE leaders often have their own persecution narrative, which is often central to their identity. For that reason an invitational approach and rhetoric is very difficult for most people. We have to deal with our own wounds before we can work for peace.
I grew up in a young earth creationist family. I still bear the wounds of rejection that came when I affirmed evolution. I was angry, also, about lies I was told about Scripture and science, all in service of a man-made and anti-evolution worldview. The constant pull is to be defined by my injuries. Encountering Jesus, however, His reordering brings me to things greater than my wounds.
The Confessing Scientist - #3 by Elle - Peaceful Science
Based on election results, denominational policy votes, and the like, I would say the most effective rhetoric frequently misrepresents, attacks, and divides.
But not always. To that extent, yes, we can learn.
And yes, we have to interact with those folks as best we can.
2 Likes
In my view, that is the wrong way to look at the problem as it relates to the early evolution of life. What we should be asking is how many random sequences can catalyze a reaction which produces a functional energy intermediate. ATP just happens to be the energy intermediate that life found, but are there other small molecules that could have been used in metabolism? I would think that there is. Does the molecule even need an adenosine, or would other molecules suffice as long as the phosphates were there to supply lots of energy as the bonds between them are broken?
What we need to be careful of is the Sharpshooter fallacy, where we draw the bulls eye around the bullet hole. We shouldn’t assume that ATP hydrolyzing enzymes had to evolve. We shouldn’t assume that ATP is essential to life, even if it is essential to the life that did appear on Earth.
4 Likes
Doug Axe’s response, and it’s a doozy…
Yep. Doozy is a good way to put it…
Your article really does demand a response. Undeniable packs a powerful punch, but doesn't land a knockout
-
First of all, why did Uncommon Descent remove you as a contributor for your honest engagement with Axe’s ideas? For the the concern about free debate, why exactly is it okay to suppress you?
-
Second, you quoted three professors (full disclosure, I am one of them), none of whom would endorse his mathematical argument. This also included James Tour, a well know scientist in the ID orbit (though not an ID advocate).
Reviewing the comments by Professors A, B and C, I was struck by the fact that not one of them was willing to endorse Dr. Axe’s mathematical arguments against abiogenesis and unguided evolution, even though all of them are Christians, two of them are skeptical of abiogenesis, and one of them is sympathetic towards Intelligent Design. So where does that leave me?
It leaves @vjtorley kicked out of Uncommon Descent because criticising Axe’s argument is intolerable in ID.
It seems the ID movement is suppressing dissent to Doug Axe’s argument. I do hope, honestly, that a better response is made to @vjtorley’s article. It demands a response. I’m also very sorry he was kicked out of Uncommon Descent for his honesty.
The discussion by @vjtorley is a sensible one, and I agree that much of what is discussed is beyond what scientists can demonstrate.
2 Likes