Chuck
Jim Bell's post on the "Priesthood Fallacy" pushed one of my many hot
buttons. What gives with the supercilious attitude that says: only
advanced-degree-holding academics, who have read the "primary sources,"
should be taken seriously in the evolution/creation debate?
I have been practicing tax accounting for 25 years; but I have never read
*my* "primary source" (the Internal Revenue Code) in its entirety, and I
don't intend to - partly because it's dull enough to put a rock into a
coma, but primarily because I don't *need* to in order to be competent in
my profession. Others have long ago done the dirty work of translating it
into English; I don't need to reinvent the wheel. In fact, I doubt that
there is a human being alive (other than a proofreader in some dungeon
somewhere) who has read the entire Code and Regs straight through.
I hold an MBA in accounting from the Wharton Graduate School, considered by
many to be the best business school in the world. But I will debate tax
theory with any layman, at his level, and without sneering at his opinions
because he's not an "expert," as I supposedly am. In fact, I've been
thoroughly stood on my ear more than once by "non-experts."
Are only ThD theologians entitled to address the question of whether God
exists? Are only PhD political scientists able to make wise political
decisions? Should I obediently accept the latest fashion in psychobabble
from any child psychologist with an advanced degree because, after all, I
haven't read the primary sources? Should only those who read the entire
1,300 page Health Care Reform Bill be allowed to render judgment on it?
Must I consult a PhD home economist to obtain the best chili recipe?
In my experience, far from being an indicator of credibility, an advanced
degree is often a warning flag (present company excluded, of course). For
example, I understand that the Modern Language Association can effectively
blackball any aspiring instructor in the humanities who does not subscribe
to the latest moronic postmodern theories of literary and historical
deconstructionism. So I am automatically skeptical of historical or
literary scholarship emanating from anyone with a PhD earned from a major
secular university within the last 10 years. Is science doing the same
thing? Is this why Dean Kenyon was drummed out of the corps?
Call it the priesthood fallacy, call it the genetic fallacy, whatever. But,
IMO, it's smug and presumptuous to dismiss *anyone's* argument based solely
on his/her lack of "credentials." Any statement or assertion is right or
wrong, and should be accepted or rejected, based solely on the quality of
its *content*, nothing else. Whenever I make naive scientific errors (as I
certainly will), I'll meekly accept all the abuse any expert cares to dish
out. But for anyone to reject what I say merely because I'm a bean-counter,
or what Jim Bell and Phillip Johnson say because they're attorneys, or what
Stephen Jones says because he's, uh, whatever he is, is the height of
arrogance. Of course, nobody in this group would do such a thing.
Chuck
-------------------------------------------------------------
Chuck Warman
cwarman@sol.wf.net
"The abdication of Belief / Makes the Behavior small."
--- Emily Dickinson