>4/21/96:
>To re-phrase Chuck's question, how come creationists don't hold these guys
>feet to the fire for making unwarranted metaphysical claims? Or, more
>specifically for Chuck, if you are indeed concerned about unwarranted
>claims, why do you seem to focus solely on those who make metaphysical
leaps
>from science and not on those who use faulty science to support their
>metaphysical claims?
>
>4/23/96:
>If you wish to hold people accountable to truth, why is your emphasis so
one
>sided when both extremes play fast and loose with the demarcation between
>science, reality and metaphysics?
Because I think it is more important.. See Mike Perry's magnificent post
yesterday to the thread "God Is a Physicist." He says it much more
eloquently than I can: "the Darwinian revolution was [and is - CW] a direct
attack on the Judeo-Christian ethical worldview and was intended as such."
Morris's version of YEC can hardly compare; sure is a convenient strawman,
though.
>I don't disagree with your criticism about Sagan, but I have been in
churches
>where the literal 6 day creation was taught as fact, the flood version of
>the Grand Canyon taught as fact, etc. Then the same people turned around
>and criticised science for teaching evolution as fact.
Invalid comparison. In churches (as well as private educational
institutions), we have freedom of choice. I assume that you and I agree
that private institutions should be free to teach whatever they want. But
my tax dollars go to support a public education system which will not
permit creation to be presented as a viable alternative to evolution;
indeed, my local school district will not even permit students to make
arguments against common descent. Of course some private educational
institutions and churches make creationism mandatory; but this is beside
the point. If you don't like it, don't go there. If you don't like their
books, don't read them. But public school students have no such options,
either in their choice of schools or within any specific school. Nor do I
have any control over which theory my tax dollars support. FWIW, I would be
equally opposed to teaching YEC (or even my own brand of creationism) *as
fact* in public schools, *if* it were happening. But it isn't. Darwinism
has a state-mandated educational monopoly.
Furthermore, Sagan gets his own PBS series and is an American icon; 98% of
Americans have never heard of Morris.
>I would like to suggest another acronymic category for the group to use:
>TC, for theologically correct. These would be defined as those who
>steadfastly rail against the Secular University, Methodological
Naturalism,
>while conveniently ignoring the philosophical limitations of their own
>epistemology.
Since you are referring to me, please post the tenets of what you regard as
TC (other than broad-brushing all creationists with this label), and I'll
respond point-by-point. You might be quite surprised. As a matter of fact,
as I re-read your posts, I become more and more irritated by the
supercilious attitude. You label me as TC, yet you know *nothing* about my
belief system, other than that I do not believe in macroevolution and I
oppose partial-birth abortions. You don't even know whether I'm a
Christian! This is another example of Jim Bell's Priesthood Fallacy -
you're not interacting with my arguments, just dismissing them arbitrarily.
>4/23/96:
> I also refer to those who complain that
>TE's do not hold Sagan's feet to fire for his unwarranted forays into
>metaphysics--but who, when asked why they do not hold Henry Morris' feet
to
>the fire for a similar grievance, quickly back pedal and say, "don't look
at
>me--I don't agree with Morris"--do you catch the double standard at work
here?
I am growing weary of your continual attempts to try to link me to Henry
Morris-type YECs. Is poor Henry just too tempting a strawman? Or is it
simply because I don't join in the piling on that the scientific
establishment has already done. Heck, there's no shortage of reflectorites
on that pile. How many times a day, Steve, should I recite the appropriate
"I hate Henry" mantra to gain credibility with you? Besides, I already
referred to Hugh Ross's works, one of which (Creation and Time) is devoted
*exclusively* to disproving YEC; Phil Johnson certainly makes his position
clear; and AFAIK there just aren't all that many other old-earth
creationists writing today.
>The TC are those brave souls who stand shoulder-to-shoulder with their
>intellectual brethern and point fingers outward at "others" and chant
their
>memorized mantras about the "secular" world, but who lack the courage to
>turn that accusing digit inward.
Ad hominem alert!!!
>They accuse the world of favoring
>naturalism over theism, but themselves have a bias of theism over
>naturalism. Neither side can claim the standard of Realism.
OF COURSE I have a bias in favor of theism. You just can't be much of a
theist without one :-). I have bought into enough postmodern philosophy to
believe that no one is *truly* objective about anything. Do *you* claim to
be neutral? But I digress; why will you not accept or reject my arguments
on their merit, rather than yet again resorting ad hominem argumentation
(lump me with Henry >>> reject my credibility; label me as TC >>> reject my
credibility). I will happily "submit my epistemology to the same level of
rigor [I] insist for [my] opponents:" In fact, I *am* doing exactly that
by laying my reasoning out there on the reflector for everyone to
criticize; but, where you are concerned, this is not enough. My
epistemology is yet another casualty of the genetic fallacy.
>Thus, the limit of the epistemology of the TC is that they do not evenly
>apply the rules of the debate. Their credibility suffers for this double
>standard.
Please explain what this means. Is it some sort of an equal time demand?
Here's a novel idea, Steve, and a single standard: I'll make my arguments,
and you interract with them, rather than demanding that I discuss other
issues.
>4/24/96:
>Burgey provides some nice examples of the new acronymic category I
recently
>sugested--TC for Theologically Correct.
>
>>1. There are 1000s of Christian bookstores in the US now, where there
were
>> but a few several decades ago. These appear (there are exceptions)
to
>> carry almost exclusively publications by the "right" side of the
spectrum.
>
>Yep, this would be TC.
>
>>2. There are 1000s of fundementalist churches who have bought into the
>> ICR non-science. I've looked in some of their libraries. Usually
very
>> well-stocked with Gish/Morris/McDowell etc. but nothing, for
example,
>> from the ASA or ASA authors.
>
>Clearly TC.
>
>>7. So "the TEs" (and the PCs) and anyone writing on science/theology
topics
>> without an ICR "twist" just don't get heard by the mainstream
Christian.
>
Apparently, TC is synonymous with YEC, since no one has offered any other
*specific* TC beliefs. But then, *I'm* not YEC. Hmmm. I'm really
confused, Steve; maybe we should just interract with one another's
arguments. Have I mentioned that?
>Regardless of the kind of Correctness, political, theological, etc., a
>defining mode of operation is the exclusion of "other" information, and in
>this way, the movement attempts to control the viewpoints of its audience.
A better definition would be, "the *mandatory* exclusion of "other"
information, etc." The attempted analogy (between PC and "TC") just doesn't
work absent the common element of compulsion. Orthodoxy and correctness are
not synonyms.
Chuck
-------------------------------------------------------------
Chuck Warman
cwarman@sol.wf.net
"The abdication of Belief / Makes the Behavior small."
--- Emily Dickinson