On Mon, 22 Apr 1996 9:28:22 -0500 (CDT) you wrote:
SZ>Many thanks to Brian Harper for giving Hugh Ross' quotation of
>George Greenstein IN CONTEXT. Overall I find that Hugh does a good
>job of quoting sources in their proper context, but this is clearly
>an example where he or one of his staff goofed. In THE CREATOR AND
>THE COSMOS (p. 114) the quote is presented in such a way that it
>seems that Greenstein is sympathetic to the anthropic evidence for
>theism.
I agree that some could get the wrong impression, but all Ross claims
in is that "The discovery of this degree of design in the universe is
having a profound theological impact on astronomers" (Ross H., "The
Creator and the Cosmos", NavPress: Colorado, 1993, p114) and then he
quotes both Davies and Greenstein as examples. It nowhere states that
"Greenstein is sympathetic to the anthropic evidence for theism".
Indeed, in introducing the same quote in his later book "Creation and
Time", Ross heads it up with "Theological Conclusions by SECULAR
Astronomers" (emphasis mine), which makes it quite clear that
Greenstein is not a theist. Ross ends the section in question with
his conclusion:
"In all my conversations with those who do research on the
characteristics of the universe, and in all my readings of articles or
books on the subject, not one person denies the conclusion that
somehow the cosmos has been crafted to make it a fit habitat for life.
Astronomers by nature tend to be independent and iconoclastic. If an
opportunity for disagreement exists, they will seize it. But on the
issue of the fine tuning or careful crafting of the cosmos, the
evidence is so compelling that I have yet to hear of any dissent."
(Ross H., "The Creator and the Cosmos", NavPress, Colorado Springs CO,
1993, p117)
SZ>I discovered about a year ago, when I went to the library and
>looked at Greenstein's book that the paragraph immediately following
>Ross' quote answers his rhetorical question most definitely in the
>negative, as Brian pointed out.
I don't read Greenstein that way. It seems to me that *as a scientist
being* he is forced to admit that:
"As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that
some supernatural agency-or, rather, Agency-must be involved."
(Greenstein G. ,"The Symbiotic Universe", William Morrow: New York,
1988, p27, in Ross H., "The Creator and the Cosmos", NavPress:
Colorado, 1993, p114)
but as a philosophical naturalist he rejects the idea out of hand.
SZ>One doesn't have to agree with Greenstein, but one should NOT quote
>him in such a way that it appears his position is the opposite of
>what it really is. I trust this was just an unfortunate careless
>error on Hugh's part.
I don't think Ross actually does this, but to "avoid every appearance
of evil" (1Th 5:22), it would probably have been better to make it
crystal clear in a footnote that Greenstein answered his question in
the negative.
SZ>Brian appended no commentary, but this example is quite relevant
>to the recent discussion in the group, especially regarding
>selective quotation of sources. It can happen to any of us, which
>is why we should always be careful to READ OUR SOURCES CAREFULLY,
>AND CHECK THE REFERENCES OF OTHERS.
I think you miss the point Stan. :-) There is no evidence that Ross
did not read his sources carefully, or check his references. It is
OK to selectively quote - all quotes are selective. It would only be
wrong if Ross said that Greenstein answered his question in the
affirmative, but Ross does not say this. Ross' emphasis is on the
fact that even *secular* astronomers like Greenstein, Hoyle and
Davies are being forced to acknowledge theological implications from
the evdience. He does not say they became theists - indeed that would
rob the quote of its force. It is *precisely* because Greenstein,
Davies and Hoyle are *not* theists that the quote has its force. If a
Christian astonomer like Hugh Ross says the fine-tuning of the
universe is evidence for design, that is not news. But if a
*non*-theist astronomer like Greenstein says it, that is news.
Perhaps a "belt and braces" appoach would be best like Wendell Bird
who has asterisk against every evolutionist quote with a standard
disclaimer:
"*Scientists cited in this chapter, unless otherwise indicated, are
not proponents of, and their quoted statements are not intended as
endorsements of, either the theory of abrupt appearance or the theory
of creation. However, their quoted statements are acknowledging
data that involve weaknesses of the theory of evolution."
But it gets a bit tedious and one could expect that it should be
obvious that just because someone says something helpful to theism,
that does not make them a theist.
God bless.
Steve
God bless.
----------------------------------------------------------------
| 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) |
----------------------------------------------------------------