On Wed, 17 Apr 1996 19:01:46 -0500 you wrote:
CW>Jim Bell's post on the "Priesthood Fallacy" pushed one of my many
>hot buttons. What gives with the supercilious attitude that says:
>only advanced-degree-holding academics, who have read the "primary
>sources," should be taken seriously in the evolution/creation debate?
Very simple. Shoot the messenger and you don't have to bother hearing
any bad news! :-)
[...]
CW>Are only ThD theologians entitled to address the question of
>whether God exists? Are only PhD political scientists able to make
>wise political decisions? Should I obediently accept the latest
>fashion in psychobabble from any child psychologist with an advanced
>degree because, after all, I haven't read the primary sources?
>Should only those who read the entire 1,300 page Health Care Reform
>Bill be allowed to render judgment on it? Must I consult a PhD home
>economist to obtain the best chili recipe?
If Denis is consistent, I presume he would answer "Yes"!
CW>In my experience, far from being an indicator of credibility, an
>advanced degree is often a warning flag (present company excluded, of
>course). For example, I understand that the Modern Language
>Association can effectively blackball any aspiring instructor in the
>humanities who does not subscribe to the latest moronic postmodern
>theories of literary and historical deconstructionism. So I am
>automatically skeptical of historical or literary scholarship
>emanating from anyone with a PhD earned from a major secular
>university within the last 10 years. Is science doing the same
>thing? Is this why Dean Kenyon was drummed out of the corps?
I think that the reputation of academics in the eyes of the general
public is rapidly deteriorating:
"Forty years ago the city of Berkeley, California, was called "the
Athens of the West." Now it is known everywhere as "Berserkly," and
the other university cities of America are equally notorious for
irrational, self-indulgent, self-righteous behavior. The problem goes
far beyond adolescent high jinks, which up to a point are a proper
feature of a community of adolescents learning to become mature
citizens of the culture of reason. Universities are centers of
unreason in the much more profound sense that they are based on a
metaphysical position that will not support a concept of rationality
in the value realm, and hence ultimately will not support it
anywhere." (Johnson P.E., "Reason in the Balance", InterVarsity
Press: Downers Grove Ill., 1995, p130)
CW>Call it the priesthood fallacy, call it the genetic fallacy,
>whatever. But, IMO, it's smug and presumptuous to dismiss *anyone's*
>argument based solely on his/her lack of "credentials." Any
>statement or assertion is right or wrong, and should be accepted or
>rejected, based solely on the quality of its *content*, nothing else.
Agreed, thanks.
CW>Whenever I make naive scientific errors (as I certainly will), I'll
>meekly accept all the abuse any expert cares to dish out. But for
>anyone to reject what I say merely because I'm a bean-counter, or
>what Jim Bell and Phillip Johnson say because they're attorneys, or
>what Stephen Jones says because he's, uh, whatever he is, is the
>height of arrogance. Of course, nobody in this group would do such a
>thing.
No. Of course they wouldn't! :-)
Since my qualifications has been an issue, for newcomers I should
clarify that my current job is a project manager for hospital computer
software. Prior to that I was a public hospital Administrator. I
have a Bachelor's degree in Health Administration and a post graduate
Diploma in Government Administration. I have been a Christian
(Baptist and Church of Christ) for nearly 30 years and I had an early
interest in Bible-Science issues, although it went dormant for many
years. I have had an abiding interest in theology, mainly from the
conservative evangelical reformed perspective.
In the last 2 years I have bought and borrowed dozens of books on the
Creation-Evolution controversy, including evolutionists like Gould,
Dawkins, Sagan, Leakey, Goodwin, etc. I am an old-Earth/young Adam
progressive creationist and while I *provisionally* accept some tenets
held by evolutionists (eg. micro-evolution, common genetic ancestry)
I do not believe that natural processes are adequate to completely
explain the origin of the universe, life and life's major features.
IOW I believe that the Biblical and scientific evidence supports a
model of the supernatural intervention by God at strategic points in
biological history, just as there has been supernatural interventions
by God at strategic points in human history.
I can understand atheists attacking my views with vehemence, but I am
still surprised that some *Christians* are so wedded to the theory of
evolution, that when that theory is criticised (which I would have
thought is normal for scientfic theories), they react with ad hominem
attacks against one of their fellow Christians. But I am not
complaining
and will leave that to the Lord to sort out.
Thanks for your layman perspective. I appreciate it.
Steve
----------------------------------------------------------------
| 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) |
----------------------------------------------------------------