What did Darwin Regret? An “enfeebled” moral and emotional character

[Relates (Roger A. Sawtelle)]

@Gregory

Your views as a non-scientist are and remain simply irrelevant to science

Dear Gregory,

You might be unaware of this, but BioLogos Forum is a place were interested scientists and non-scientists can discuss topics concerning science and faith, especially the topic of evolution. As far as I know one does not need qualifications of any sort to participate in this forum. Nor am I looking for a job from you. No thank you.

If you are accusing me of pontificating about ecology, I don’t think so, but it is possible, so I apologize. Because I know that I am not an “expert” on ecology and science I try to make sure that I can defend what I say on scientific topics. That is why I usually insist on evidence based on experiment and verified studies like referred to Peter that he said was improper.

Peter claimed I twisted science to suit my belief in a good God by saying that evolution is based on symbiosis. Now most people I know that the late Lynn Margulis, who was controversial, was a prominent scientist and shared this very idea. So how can I be anti-science, if I agree with a great scientist. That does not make me right, but why do you and Peter reject me out of hand?

What is much more important than being a professional scientist or being trained to be a scientist, is to think like a scientist, and that this is what I try to do.

[Gregory]

“That does not make me right, but why do you and Peter reject me out of hand”

As gently as possible, with a continued firm “No thanks”.

1. You say things already long and widely known, as if you’re telling people something unique & new; this wastes peoples’ time, 2) it appears that you almost idolize “ecology” & “symbiosis”, which seems unhealthy, 3) You chronically use non-standard capitalization, which makes your text horribly difficult to understand, 4) You appear to be hung up on Richard Dawkins, 5) Nothing you have offered appears to be tractable or value-adding for “practising” scientists, philosophers and theologians.

You’ve written an AWFUL LOT at BioLogos over the years, Roger. But you’ve started very few topics, and none with “ecology” or “symbiosis” in the title, while you do indeed pontificate about them just like breathing air. Why not start a new thread, your own thread, and give your best presentation of “ecology and symbiosis” - ONCE and FOR ALL - and see if you can add value at BioLogos, rather than just consuming peoples’ time with endless philosophistry?

[Gregory]

Oops, perhaps shouldn’t have suggested. Roger already got an opportunity here, which didn’t seem to go well. Debating Roger's ideas

[Relates (Roger A. Sawtelle)]

Dear Gregory,

Let me respond as firmly as needed, thank you for your comments, but no thanks for your advice at least until we have the air cleared.

First of all we need to understand what happened to @Peter. Peter said he could intimidate or humiliate me, because I said that God and Nature are good, while Dawkins as an authoritative evolutionary scientist said that God and Nature are hostile to humanity. By the way this reference to Dawkins did not come from me, but the beginning of the essay by Sy Garte published by BioLogos and introduced as a topic on the forum, “Purpose, Evolution, and Self-Replication.”

As it turned out he could not. Predation is not the result of hostility, but the way Nature makes best use of resources through symbiosis. Humans are predators in that we eat animals and plants to live, not because we must struggle against them for scarce resources. .

He gave a list of parasites, some of which were pretty scary, but come on, an appeal to emotions is not proof. He appealed to the fact of extinction and the fear of death, but when I called him on that he seemed reverse his field, so he really had nothing.

Except ad hominem arguments. For those who do not know an ad hominem is not based on facts, but based on human persons. It means we cannot say that X person right or wrong simply because she or he is a Christian, or a Republican, or a Scientist or White.

Gregory, are you saying that Peter won the debate solely because I am not a certified scientist? Soley based on ad hominem arguments, not substance and facts?

The reason why this is important to me is that the Logos is important to me. I hope that the Logos is important to BioLogos, but I wonder when I see no one from BioLogos defend the Logos. (Not that the Logos needs a defense, but who are Christians if not people of the Logos.) The Logos says that the nature of the universe and life is not conflict, but love.

Now I know that Dawkins does not agree with this, but that does not make it false. If BioLogos does not accept it as true then maybe I am in the wrong forum. Certainly if it is Not true that Jesus is the Logos and God is the God of Love, then I have added nothing of value for “practicing” scientists, philosophers and theologians.

Disagreement is not putting others down. I am not putting Dawkins down. The facts stand for themselves. The wrong way to prove you are right is to put others down.

[Gregory]

Roger, please, stop badgering. I simply don’t have the time on my hands that you have for idle chatter. Thanks for understanding, gently, but firmly, “No, thanks.”

“Gregory, are you saying that Peter won the debate”

I’m uninterested in mediating a “debate” between you and Peter. From what I can tell, he’s not interested to “debate” you either. Please go, with politeness and grace requested, start your own thread and put your best “ecology & symbiosis” largely philosophical work there. OK?