The tone struck me as a bit spikey, but let that pass.
Denis said:
It is not scientists like you or me or our
colleagues who conjure
up the PC view. It comes from those well away from the test tubes, the
fossils and the HOX genes. It is the Stephen Jones' and Phil Johnsons
of
the world, and their motivation is utterly APOLOGETIC. First,
apologetic
to their own personal faith; second, apologetic in defending the faith
to
the non-believing world.
It may be true that PC views did not originate with scientists, but I
don't know the history of such views and would like some confirmation of
that claim. PC views are, of course, simply a species of more general
interventionist views, and it is certainly not obviously true that
interventionist views in general originated outside the scientific
community. Newton, for instance, advocated interventionist views (e.g.,
divinely guided comets keeping the solar system in stable balance), and
Agassiz's biological views were certainly interventionist. In any case,
can you, Denis, provide support for that historical claim you've made?
I'm also not sure what relevance the charged apologetic motivation has.
The first question is, of course, whether or not the charge is true. Is
that something that PCs generally claim, is this a speculative
psychological theory about PC motivation, or what?
The second question is what difference that might make even if true. Is
motive for proposing a theory supposed to be relevant to assessing the
theory? or to assessing the credentials of the proposer? or what? It
is perhaps worth noting that Newton's stated motivation (or at least a
motivation) for proposing his dynamics theories was apologetic (see his
Dec 10, 1692 letter to Bentley, for instance). That fact doesn't seem
to have a whole lot of bearing upon the status of those theories.
In any case, what is the evidence that the motivation of PCs is "utterly
APOLOGETIC", and what exactly are the consequences even if that's true?
Denis goes on:
Tossed into this is a hermeneutical program
regarding Genesis 1-11. Their logic (and I might add mine as well not
so
long ago) is that since rationality and science are epistemic values
in modern thought, then the Word of God must be both rationality and
scientifically congruent. As a result, since God is seen as creating by
fiat and de novo act in Genesis 1, then our science must reflect this
interventistic method, thus the creation of PC
I'm a bit curious about the operative categories here. I've known
zillions of literalists of various sorts, and I've never heard _any_ of
them talking about modern epistemic values. In fact, I've heard very
few of them claiming that if Genesis is to be taken as true, its truth
must be in some sense scientific. They do typically take early Genesis
as giving a straightforward _report_, but that doesn't necessarily mean
that they have been seduced by modern scientism, much less that they
intend to be giving some sort of _argument_ on the basis of science
being an epistemic value. To claim that that is what has in fact
happened, or that that is what they in fact really mean is to engage in
some rather complicated historico-psychological theorizing, and I'd like
to see the actual arguments for that theory.
But suppose that it _is_ true that PCs accept their interventionist
position simply because they are convinced that Scripture tilts in that
direction. What exactly is supposed to be the conclusion from that?
That their view is false? That hardly follows. That their view is
irrational? That hardly follows either. That their view is not
legitimately scientific? How is that supposed to follow? Is the charge
here that motivation or origin of a theory is all that's required to
determine its status? Is there an argument for that claim?
But PLEASE don't conflate the
Jones and Johnson "folk science" with the faith. You know it is crap,
and
I know it is crap.
Exactly what part of the position in question is being categorized as
crap here? Is it the general view that God intervened at various
unspecified points in directing the path of life's development and
diversity? If so, exactly what is the support for anything so strong
as a claim to _know_ that it is "crap"? I'd be curious to see the
argument - especially an argument that did not take the arguer out of
the boundaries of his or her expertise.
Del
_____________________________________________________________
Terry M. Gray, Ph.D. Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry
Calvin College 3201 Burton SE Grand Rapids, MI 40546
Office: (616) 957-7187 FAX: (616) 957-6501
Email: grayt@calvin.edu http://www.calvin.edu/~grayt
*This mission critical message was written on a Macintosh with Eudora Pro*