From: Dr. Blake Nelson (bnelson301@yahoo.com)
Date: Tue Oct 28 2003 - 10:25:14 EST
Comments interspersed with a little tale of graduate
school.
--- Robert Schneider <rjschn39@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> Walter writes
> >
> >
> > Michael Roberts wrote:
> > > As you know so many YECs why cant you mention
> anyone except Gish? Do I
> take
> > > it that others falsify deliberately?
> >
> > I would suggest 2 things, Michael:
> >
> > 1.) Never attribute to malice what simple
> stupidity can explain ;)
> > 2.) Realize that they believe that they are
> reading a book that is
> literally
> > telling them what God has done. Therefore, that
> trumps any science book
> that
> > you have. Even Morris (possibly) is simply
> attempting to reinterpret
> science
> > such that it conforms to his interpretation of the
> Bible. Stupid perhaps,
> but
> > not an intentional falsification.
> >
> > At least those are possible outlooks. The only
> reason for falsifying
> things
> > would be that their livelihood depended upon this
> voodoo science.
Never underestimate that motive. In one of the essays
in From DNA to DEAN, Peacocke makes the point that in
his experience a lot of "nothing buttery" and attempts
to reduce everything to one science (e.g., physics) is
motivated by a desire of the advocate of such a
position to aggrandize one's discipline which stems
from a de, curry grant money, etc. His brief
recitation of these motives resonated significantly
with all my experiences of big public universities as
well as smaller state system schools, albeit
manifested in different ways. I don't imagine
Creation Science types, especially in the employ of
ICR, etc. are immune to such things either.
> >
> > Walt
> >
> >
> I don't think the explanation for the falsehoods
> that are regularly
> perpetrated by YECs is a simple as Walt puts it. I
> think there is a kind of
> wrong-headedness in some YEC spokesmen and debaters
> that has led them to
> think that since they are right, they may say
> anything in order to defend or
> promote their creation science and cast aspersions
> on good science that
> provides evidence for an ancient earth and
> evolution.
Yes, and this is true of lots of unreligious
academics, too. A graduate course I took on political
development in Africa, was a misnomer. The entire
class and its readings were all part of, as the
professor put it, "the project". The "project" was
initially undefined, as he presumed everyone knew what
it was, within 15 minutes, it became clear the
"project" was Marxism and its proper establishment.
All articles were read and discussed in light of the
"project". So, the interpretive principle for
analysis was that research that cast negative light on
the "project" must either be wrong in some important
regard (e.g., methodological, ideological) or really
be a study of something else other than Marxism. A
favorite recurring line of the professor's was "the
project" has never been tried, followed by a knowing
grin. It was his ultimate retort to any critique of
the "project". Good articles were ones that "advanced
the project", i.e., explained the successes of marxism
in particular contexts or why the "project had never
been tried".
My point in this anecdote? I think that creation
science is similar to the project. The end has been
predetermined by other criteria, now we have to
rationalize our way there.
> People who will say
> anything have lost a sense of truth and falsehood,
> but that does not make
> them any less responsible for their falsehoods.
> When is a falsehood not a
> lie? Not when it is the means that the end
> justifies. When is perpetrating
> falsehoods to secure the ends not malice? That's a
> hard one for me to sort
> out.
I don't think the professor that I described above was
malicious in intent because of his fervent attempts to
advance the project. He genuinely believed in "the
project", whatever that "project" as he envisioned it
was. I do think the professor was myopic, completely
blinkered, not at all reasoned or principled about the
"project," and had a predefined objective he wanted to
achieve. In that sense, he was either laughable,
pitiable, or dangerous depending on one's views about
how one should act and feel toward those who appear to
be "broken" and the extent to which one thinks this
person was willing to try to effectuate the "project"
despite the significant mass of humanity's rejection
of the "project" and its history.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Exclusive Video Premiere - Britney Spears
http://launch.yahoo.com/promos/britneyspears/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Oct 28 2003 - 10:28:17 EST