On Mon, 8 Apr 1996 07:06:14 -0500 you wrote:
BH>But to try to illustrate internal contradictions in a field by
>quoting its practitioners implies that the critic knows something
>the people being quoted don't, or has performed a more thorough
>analysis than they have. And that's the part that destroys the
>credibility of these kinds of attacks.
[...]
CW>Excuse me for butting in, but isn't this a classic case of the
>genetic fallacy? Seems to me that time would be better spent
>responding to content, rather than arguing that the critic has no
>right to criticize. Besides, much of the criticism has to do not
>with science, but with *logic*, which, I assume, is available equally
>to all.
>
>I'm a CPA; can I therefore point out only those logical errors or
>inconsistencies attributable to other CPA's?
Thanks Chuck. Moreland discusses the genetic fallacy that confuses
the origin of a claim with its truthfulness:
"Creation science is a theory derived from the Bible and is therefore
not scientific. This criticism is frequently encountered in popular
discussions of creation and evolution (e.g., the editorial pages of
newspapers). Unfortunately, it is an example of the genetic fallacy,
the mistake of confusing the origin of a claim with its evidential
warrant and undermining the claim by calling attention to its origin.
What is relevant to the rationality of a claim is the evidence for it,
not its source. The medieval practice of alchemy was the historical
source of modern chemistry, but that is hardly a good objection to the
rationality of chemical theory. F. A. Kekule formulated his idea of
the benzene ring by having a trancelike dream of a snake chasing its
own tail in a circle. But the origin of his idea was not what
mattered; what mattered was the evidential support he could muster for
it. It makes no difference whether a scientific theory comes from a
dream, the Bible, or bathroom graffiti. The issue is whether
independent scientific reasons are given for it." (Moreland J.P.,
"Christianity and the Nature of Science", Baker: Grand Rapids, 1989,
p229)
In this context, the argument is that because: a) I am not a
scientist (or have a PhD! <g>); b) I am not a full bottle on the
theory I am criticising; and/or; c) I will lose "credibility",
therefore I should say nothing critical of evolution.
This erecting of a defensive barrier by discrediting the critic,
rather than answering his criticisms, indicates to me that
those evolutionists who use it are more concerned about protecting
evolution's existing privileged status than getting at the truth.
Ramm points out that even theologians with PhD's (like himself)
have to rely on scientist's technical details while not
necessarily accepting their inferences:
"With reference to technical details of the sciences I must depend on
what other men say, and I am thereby at their mercy. The only
reservation is that there is no monopoly on logic, and granted the
facts, conclusions may be wrongly drawn by an expert, and may be
rightly made by the informed amateur." (Ramm B. "The Christian View
of Science and Scripture", Paternoster: London, 1955 pp7-9).
Johnson observes that because of the specialisation of today's
science, a scientist outside his field of expertise is just another
layman:
"Before undertaking this task I should say something about my
qualifications and purpose. I am not a scientist but an academic
lawyer by profession, with a specialty in analyzing the logic of
arguments and identifying the assumptions that lie behind those
arguments. This background is more appropriate than one might think,
because what people believe about evolution and Darwinism depends very
heavily on the kind of logic they employ and the kind of assumptions
they make. Being a scientist is not necessarily an advantage when
dealing with a very broad topic like evolution, which cuts across many
scientific disciplines and also involves issues of philosophy.
Practicing scientists are of necessity highly specialized, and a
scientist outside his field of expertise is just another layman."
(Johnson P.E., "Darwin on Trial", InterVarsity Press: Illinois,
Second Edition, 1993, p13)
If the naturalist's starting point is wrong, then to that extent his
whole understanding of reality will be wrong, as Zacharias points out:
"The starting point has to be an understanding of the process by which
we come to affirm beliefs as true or false. How does any individual
human being, as a subject in this world of conflicting claims, relate
to objects around him and at a correct understanding of reality? This
issue has occupied philosophy from the beginning of time and is the
decisive first step to knowledge. An error here will only be
multiplied in the distant pursuits of every branch of learning, just
as a slight error in a computer's data base can be compounded. An
erroneous starting point snarls the journey into truth." (Zacharias
R.K., "A Shattered Visage: The Real Face of Atheism", Baker: Grand
Rapids MI, 1990, p115)
God bless.
Steve
PS: Sorry if this is a double-up
----------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen Jones ,--_|\ sjones@iinet.net.au |
| 3 Hawker Ave / Oz \ http://www.iinet.net.au/~sjones/ |
| Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ phone +61 9 448 7439. (These are |
| Perth, Australia v my opinions, not my employer's) |
----------------------------------------------------------------