Purpose, Principles, and Positioning

I. Why I’m Here

Why did you decide to join this group, where you're practically alone? Because it's a rare opportunity to test what is true and what is not — not just for me, but for everyone involved. I follow the principle that we must constantly investigate what we think we know. I came here to apply that to myself, and to offer the same chance to those who think differently. Each interaction forces me to confront my own assumptions and dogmas, and invites those on the opposing side to do the same. This environment is ideal for putting ideas to the test against strong objections — and that’s what truly fosters growth.

Do you receive help? Yes — in a very specific and informal way. Within the scope of this profile, I informally lead a small group of individuals with extensive experience in the Intelligent Design vs. Evolution debate. We share analyses, review arguments, and strive to maintain both technical and philosophical rigor in every contribution.

What is your academic background? I prefer not to disclose it. Not out of secrecy, but out of principle. I don’t want résumés to shape the debate. I would never tell someone they can’t understand A because they studied B — that kind of logic stifles curiosity. Paradoxically, saying that might even mean I’m impressed by their knowledge. By keeping my profile anonymous, I protect the conversation from academic bias and keep the focus where it truly belongs: on the content.

Are you religious? I am. And I believe there are rational religious thinkers and rational naturalists. Being rational doesn’t mean being right — it means not being driven by emotion, and not accepting dogmas without critical thinking. That principle applies to any position, in any debate. Rationality doesn’t belong to one side — it reveals itself when there’s a willingness to question, to listen, and to revise convictions in light of solid arguments.
Does your religion influence your scientific thinking? No. That would be reversing the rational order. The proper sequence is: scientific thinking → philosophical thinking → theological thinking (including atheism). Each of these layers should emerge from rational processes, not precede them. Belief — or disbelief — should be a conclusion, not a starting point.

Navigating Doubt, Technology, and Intellectual Integrity

How do you respond to accusations that your content is AI-generated? It’s a sensitive question and can escalate tensions. But here’s my honest answer, without sugarcoating: it usually means the content is solid and hard to refute — to the point where the person resorts to the trendy placebo to ease their frustration. If it comes after several interactions, it may not necessarily mean the person has reached their intellectual limit, but rather that they’re facing the discomfort of revisiting what they think they know — which can be painful and trigger emotional reactions, especially when they believe such revision is unnecessary. If it comes immediately, the conversation is no longer rational.

But this isn’t a flaw in evolutionary theory. Theories are autonomous — they stand or fall on their own merits, regardless of who defends them. That’s precisely why I choose to follow the principle I stated in the first question: to prioritize ideas over identities, and reasoning over rivalry — instead of turning the debate into a contest of who knows more or who is more intelligent.

What do you think about your opponents using LLMs or AI? I consider any tool or method they choose to use as legitimate. As I said, theories are autonomous — they live or die by their own merits, not by the identity or skill of those who defend them. When I encounter any content, I don’t ask whether it was produced by AI. I focus on the data, formal logic, calculations, interpretations, and inferences. I evaluate all of that and provide a useful response — like a technical assessment — that helps the person decide whether the AI got it right, if that’s the case.

Even when someone uses AI to decline my invitation to dialogue — whether out of convenience, discomfort, or conviction — I still deeply value the objections they left along the way. Every resistance, every counterpoint, even if brief or automated, gives me a chance to refine arguments, revisit premises, and test the strength of ideas. The value of an objection doesn’t lie in how it’s delivered, but in what it reveals. And if it forces me to think better, then it has already fulfilled an essential role.

Criticism, Asymmetry, and Motivation

How do you deal with intense criticism and persistent questioning? It’s part of the process. Any theory that challenges a dominant paradigm will inevitably face resistance. But that also means the content is provoking reflection — and to me, that’s a good sign. Whoever reaches into the beehive may get stung many times, but will also taste the honey. Tension is the price of relevance.

What do you do when faced with unfounded accusations? I keep working. Speculation doesn’t change the data or invalidate the logic. Each episode becomes emotional training: patience, focus, perseverance. It’s not comfortable, but it’s useful.

Do you notice any difference in how your contributions are treated? Yes, there’s a clear asymmetry. When I present something well-structured and technically sound, the focus often shifts to the origin of the response, not the content. When the other side responds with sophistication, the merit is recognized without question. That teaches me to stay focused on what matters.

Does that discourage you? Quite the opposite. Every obstacle reinforces my commitment to the purpose. If it unsettles people, it’s probably touching something relevant. And that motivates me to keep going.