"Perhaps, but it is at least as key to recognize *why* they want to give
evolution this scrutiny. Underlying most of the movement is the
assumption that evolution is incompatible with theism (which *may* be
based on their reading of Scripture but may spring from "God of the Gaps"
theology or other philosophical considerations), which necessitates a
defensive effort to find holes in evolutionary theory. So even if PJ
leaves the Bible out of it, he can't (nor does he really try to) pretend
his motivations are not primarily religious."
Allen -- you are of the opinion (as are a lot of others here) that
"understanding the motives of a person's arguments, in this case PJ, are
of substantial importance in properly evaluating the arguments
themselves.
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.
BTW -- I have not read PJ claiming that his motives are not primarily
religious. Has anyone?
Allen goes on,
"After all, you don't see such large and determined efforts to analyze
relativity or plate tectonics "on its own merits", because these theories
don't threaten anybody's faith. If evolution were not perceived as a
threat to theism, at least 90% of the ID movement (and 99% of the
attention it gets within the Church) would vanish, with ID getting as
little attention as PJ's opposition to scientific orthodoxy on HIV/AIDS."
Perhaps so. But how much "attention" it gets seems to also be a
sub-issue.
"By the way, I'm not opposed to such scrutiny of evolutionary theory, but
I despise the frequently underlying implication that, if evolution stands
up under the scrutiny, atheism will have won the day."
Of course you & I pretty much agree here, though I would not use the word
"despise."
Merry Christmas
Burgy