I just discovered that The Chroncile of Higher Education published a letter of mine earlier this year. Here it is:
January 30, 2009
Intelligent Design vs. New Age Philosophy
To the Editor:
In the Nota Bene section of the December 12 issue ("Science and Spirituality," The Chronicle Review), Evan R. Goldstein refers to intelligent design as "anti-rational and anti-intellectual" and lumps it in with New Age philosophy. (He is agreeing with the claims made in The Constant Fire: Beyond the Science vs. Religion Debate, by Adam Frank.) This commits the fallacies of ad hominem fallacy and guilt by association. On ad hominem: The leading thinkers of the intelligent-design movement have doctorates in science and/or philosophy and appeal to empirical evidence and proved means of design detection. This is hardly anti-intellectual (although their conclusions cut against the grain of much of the intelligentsia). On guilt by association: I have written several books critical of New Age philosophy. Its approach to reality (magical thinking) and its conclusions (pantheism) are a million miles from those of intelligent-design scholars.
Douglas Groothuis Professor of Philosophy Denver Seminary Littleton, Colo
Sunday, September 27, 2009
Letter to Chronicle
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
In writing on Richard Dawkins website, I have found it extremely difficult, make that impossible, to have anything approaching a discussion with the fundamentalist Darwinians. Ad hominem and the straw man are routinely and viciously employed, following the rage of their leader.
In fact I was expelled because people would rather demean and then tag me out, rather than do some critical reflection.
On a related note, I saw that you endorsed Bradley Monton's new book. Are we to expect a Denver Post review of this too?
Post a Comment