Nancy P is not perfect

glennmorton@entouch.net wrote:
>
> On Mon Jul 25 11:58 , James Mahaffy sent:
>
> Yes she is making a case that classical Darwinism is a world
> view and
> not just a scientific theory. I think she has some insight
> here.
>
> <<
>
>
>
> Exactly what ISN"T a world view? Isn't General Relativity a
> world view of how the universe is structured?

Not in the sense that Nancy uses it.
>
> James further wrote:
>
> If we are going to disagree with Nancy's argument, may I
> sugest we do it
> on the basis of knowing what she says in Total Truth. The
> book is quite
> readable and I suspect may have an impact on evangelicals.
> <<
>
> Any argument that ties Darwinism with fanatical killers will
> be popular with the evangelicals. but isn't that really an
> argumentum ad hominem? What is the logical point of saying
> things like, Ted Bundy, as a child, read the story of the
> three little pigs, and became a brutal killer. And before
> someone says that this is not analogous, why not? Stalin
> read Darwin and became precisely what? The entire argument
> is fallacious, popular, yes, but also fallacious.

You also said in another post:
> And unfortunately, those who read Pearcey's stuff and like
> it won't think that deeply about this argument. they will
> accept its validity.

As I already indicated that is NOT what she said. She is saying that
reading Darwin was something that led Stalin into atheism (not at all
that it accounted for his behavior). Above you don't like an adhominen
argument. Yet I feel I am attacked because I say something favorable
about (like) some of Nancy's argument so hence I must be accepting of
anything she says. Yet I posted to this forum because I had some
questions about a statement in Nancy's book which I am reading
critically. I also see some weaknesses in her arguments, but I need to
finish the book.

Now if instead of the three pigs, you content that Ted Bundy's reputed
use of pornography affected his view of women you have a bit more of an
argument. It is not in left field to suggest that Darwinism had a
secularizing effect. Would Stalin have been more restrained if he had
not rejected Christianity. I would hope so, but even there the actions
of "Christian serbia" does not give me a lot of hope. I think that was
one of the worries of Charles Hodge back in the time of Darwin was the
potentially secularizing influence of the theory.

One of the strengths and weaknesses of Nancy is that she likes to use
examples. The ones from her life story add something to her case. But
I think a bit of a weakness sometimes in her arguing with examples from
a handful of important folks oversimplifies her analysis of the history
she is dealing with.

-- 
James and Florence Mahaffy    712 722-0381 (Home)
227 S. Main St.               712 722-6279 (Office)
Sioux Center, IA 51250