Those aren't my words, but I would agree with David Campbell that motives
at least have a bearing on credibility. If an idea is only supported by
those who have a strong religious or emotional stake in it, that should
at least be a small red flag.
>I don't hold to that position. I could care less WHY PJ (& Dembski &
>Nelson et al) propose their ideas. Nor do I much care what use may be
>made of those ideas in matters external.
I agree that, fundamentally, ideas should be evaluated on their merits.
But, those who propose ideas also have some responsibility to guard
against their misuse. If PJ and the ID movement are, as they often
claim, just doing science and philosophy rather than apologetics, then
much of the church (which sees their work as "showing that Christianity
isn't false after all because evolution isn't true after all") has
grossly misunderstood what they are doing. If they care about the health
of the church, they should work to correct this misconception. Instead,
some of them seem to bask in it (perhaps because that really is how they
want the church to view their work).
I think it is also legitimate to point out (one hopes with love and
humility) when/if our Christian brothers appear to lack integrity by
presenting themselves as a secular intellectual effort sometimes and as
an apologetic Christian crusade in other circumstances, depending on
which is most convenient. A symptom of such a problem might be
supporting someone who apparently lied about being a Christian in order
to join the ASA.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Dr. Allan H. Harvey | aharvey@boulder.nist.gov |
| Physical and Chemical Properties Division | "Don't blame the |
| National Institute of Standards & Technology | government for what I |
| 325 Broadway, Boulder, CO 80303 | say, or vice versa." |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------