Re: Kerkut

Drsyme wrote:
>
> I must admit some discomfort with the views of George and Dick. I am
> sure varous experts in many different areas can go on Dick's website
> and point out "obvious blunders". I have trouble with the idea that
> Dick wants to discredit Ross' entire view because he is weak in the
> biology area. And similarly, as you point out Gordon, even though
> many would be quick to cricized Ross' exegesis, as George seems to do,
> I am sure that experts could poke holes in his ideas as well.

        This is just the type of thing I had in mind. I have no notion that my
theological or scientific views are beyond criticism, but what seems to be suggested
here is that anybody's views can be criticized so everybody's are of equal value.
Thay aren't. & recognizing what Gordon said (& what I agreed to) about academic
degrees - & I would add academic positions & publications - these things are at least a
first order indication of familiarity with the field and technical competence. All
other things being equal, you're better off listening to someone with a Th.D. from an
accredited seminary than to one with a mailorder diploma from Gee Whiz Bible College
 
> So, where do we draw the line between well intentioned christian
> scientists looking for truth, and those who are using less than
> rigorous science to support their biased view? For example:
> personally, I have a lot of trouble with, and can see the weak science
> in many of the AIG and ICR reports, but is Hugh Ross the same? How do
> I know that Dick's ideas are not the ones that are filled with bias
> and less than perfect scrutiny?

        How do you know? For 1 thing, do some reading in works by people with some
recognized expertise in the scientific field in question & in the broad theological
tradition.

        A couple of nights ago, flipping through channels, I came across & forced myself
to watch a 1/2 hour segment on the Trinity Broadcasting Network with "Dr." Carl Baugh
and a high school math teacher who was adjunct faculty at some college I'd never heard
of. (Baugh - whose doctorate is spurious - kept calling him "Professor.") I had trouble
keeping from retching as they presented "proofs" that evolution was fake, that
scientists were often wrong, that the Bible contained a lot of scientific data that
secular scientists had only recently discovered (including citation of Is.40:22 as "God
sits on the _sphere_ of the earth"!) &c straight out of Harry Rimmer.
        Few people on this list would have been taken in by any of this, but there are
millions of Americans who are both scientifically and theologically illiterate & who
undoubtedly lap that stuff up. This is just a restatement of a problem that we've often
talked about here, & I don't imagine that telling people to pay attention to people with
real credentials in the fields they're talking about will solve it. But it wouldn't
hurt.
                                                        Shalom,
                                                        George

George L. Murphy
gmurphy@raex.com
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
Received on Thu Feb 5 17:58:52 2004