Motives prompting scrutiny of the issues do not particularly matter in
discussing the issues. However, motives in arguing about the issues do
affect the discussion. Are you trying to find out the truth or are you
trying to support your position? There is greater credibility if someone
with no particular viewpoint to promote comes down in favor of a particular
view than if someone already promoting a viewpoint for other reasons claims
the evidence is in his favor. There is no credibility if someone already
promoting a viewpoint for other reasons cites invalid evidence and refuses
to acknowledge correction. The conspiracy theory attitude shown in the
quote below is not a good sign.
>BTW -- I have not read PJ claiming that his motives are not primarily
>religious. Has anyone?
A recent discussion (whether there was a problem that one prominent IDer
was a Moonie) generated the following reply from PJ:
>>the Wedge (including the Discovery Institute) is an intellectual
>>movement, not a church or confessional movement. We have no faith
>>statement or religious requirement. Our objective is to bring before the
>>literate public significant questions which are presently suppressed by the
>>cultural power of the scientific materialist establishment, aided as it is
>>by theistic evolutionists such as yourself. We welcome participation by
>>all qualified persons who want to make it possible to follow the scientific
>>evidence where it leads, rather than being restricted by the dictates of
>>methodological naturalism.
David C.