Re: Fw: Ohio Votes 13-5 to Adopt Lesson Plan Critical ofEvolution

I thank Michael for his kind comments about my recent post.

Let me add my own name, to those who have responded to "the religion of
science"; and in at least one case, in a very prominent place. Several
yeasr ago I was invited by American Scientist (the magazine I regard as the
finest literary magazine about science) to review books by John Polkinghorne
and Chet Raymo. If you recognize both of those names, you'll appreciate the
contrast in worldview that they embody. Like Ruse, I used the word
"sophomoric" to describe the religion of science in a draft of this review,
but I took it out to avoid a direct offense to Raymo. (I think I recall
Raymo even saying that he had taken religion as a sophomore, but don't rely
on my memory.) Readers can guess where that happened if they consult the
review:
http://home.messiah.edu/~TDAVIS/AMSCI.htm

As she finishes her book on the ID movement, I urge Denyse not to fall ill
with PJS (Phillip Johnson's Syndrome), a condition of the brain, esp in
highly intelligent people, that causes them to become unable to discern
between varieties of TE, such that everything becomes "Darwinism" as PJ
defines it. (And how does PJ define it? See Charles Hodge.)

Fact is, the range of metaphysical and religious positions falling under
the TE category is even broader than those which fall under the "big tent"
of ID (to borrow PJ's own term). Indeed, the fact that PJ overlooks
cavernous differences in his own tent, does suggest that this may be one of
the factors contributing to PJS. Or, on the other hand, it may just be
further evidence that he suffers from it.

The underlying organic causes of PJS are unclear, but there may be
occupational factors that enhance one's chances of coming down with it.
Lawyers do seem to focus one-sidedly on "winning" by rhetorically presenting
and selecting evidence that gives not the slightest suggestion of any
difficulties in their own position, while glossing over any aspects of their
adversary's position that might suggest that their categorization of it is
mistaken. Years of practicing this kind of thinking, might possibly give
rise to the formation of new pathways in the brain, pathways that short
circuit some of the synapses that might otherwise produce more careful
analysis.

Likewise, those who spend many years writing the equivalent of lawyer's
briefs against a particular position--and scientists like Dawkins or Sagan
and sceptics like Shermer would fit this description as well as PJ
does--could also fall prey to PJS. So, ironically, can even distinguished
theologians like Peacocke (sorry, Michael, but I think this may be true),
who seem unable to slide even a razor blade between someone like Michael or
me and Henry Morris--I've had a few talks with Peacocke myself, including a
very memorable one at Lewis and Tolkien's pub in Oxford when Peacocke all
but equated me with Jerry Fallwell and I literally fell off my bench with
laughter at his sheer folly. What Peacocke knows about the history of
science and religion, and about theology for that matter, prior to roughly
1900 or at least 1859, would appear to fit onto two folio sheets; the same
can be said of Peter Atkins, who literally believes that the middle ages
ended in 1900. From a couple of things he's told me, I suspect that P even
thinks Polkinghorne is a fundamentalist.

Now I'll grant that P properly discerns that there is the metaphysical
equivalent of a grand canyon between himself and me; or between himself and
Polkinghorne. I call that canyon belief in a transcendent God, a term that
Peacocke and many other modern theologians have conveniently been using for
roughly 120 years (if they use it at all) to mean a God who is simply bigger
than us but not transcendent--that is, not the actual originator of the
world, not the one who has determined the nature of nature and the one who
will create a new nature for us in the eschaton, not the one who became
incarnate in a virgin's womb and who bled for our sins to redeem us to
himself. Yes, there is a wide gulf fixed between P and me or P and
Polkinghorne. I'm actually on the same side of that canyon as PJ. I do
wonder, sometimes, why PJ doesn't see that.

ted

ps. Yes, for the record, I've shared my thoughts on discernment more than
once with Phil, and more than once with quite a number of his friends. I'm
the one, in their view, who suffers from PJS. Sometimes the world is just
passing strange.
Received on Fri Mar 12 09:14:56 2004