I agree. We need to respond both to where PJ's movement thinks they are strong (their credibility as
expert witnesses in logic) and there they think they are weak (theology). Perhaps they do think theology
is irrelevant, but I suspect that much of their Christian audience would not share that opinion.
Jon
george murphy wrote:
> No doubt he sees engagement with theology to be a detriment to his case. Whether or not he
> knows anything about it is perhaps of secondary importance. What does seem clear from this is that it
> is to the advantage of Christians who disagree with the anti-evolution crusade, including ID, to
> highlight its theological deficiencies.
> In response to your last question, perhaps we can't avoid "sinking" entirely. One approach
> might be to do the type of thing a lawyer would try to do with an "expert" witness for the other side,
> destroy his or her credibility as an expert. [snip] Johnson can say all he wants to that the real issue
> is "logic", but serious questions can be raised about his credibility and the relevance of his expertise
> in the court of public opinion if it is pointed out rather relentlessly that he has no qualifications,
> and demonstrably little knowledge, in the areas of either science or religion. After all, most people
> think that evolution has (or is supposed to have) something to do with science, and that creation has
> some connection. (I am cheating a little bit here by using "religion" instead of "theology" but I think
> that's legitimate popularization here.)
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Apr 23 2001 - 19:16:01 EDT