And the circus that is Intelligent Design rolls right along, with the following bit of uninspiring flatulence in this morning's letters section in the Globe:
University of Toronto -- Professor Kenneth Miller is right: creation and evolution are not incompatible (Does God Wear A Lab Coat? -- Oct.1). When He created space, time, matter and energy, the creator (God) also created the marvellous natural laws (the laws of physics, chemistry and mathematics) that govern them. These natural laws contain elements of randomness and probability that are just what is needed to produce natural selection and evolution. Evolution is provided for in the scientific view of creation: God created evolution. After the Big Bang, the universe unfolded according to God's laws. No further intervention on the creator's part need be postulated after the starting shot to account for the present state of the universe. Is that not the ultimate in intelligent design?
So what's so irritating about the above? It's not the actual content, which is simply a waffling, wishy-washy attempt to placate both sides. No problem there.
No, what's annoying is the writer, who is listed as "Bernard Etkin, Professor Emeritus, Institute for Aerospace Studies," as if Dr. Etkins' expertise in aerospace studies somehow gives him extra gravitas when expounding on topics theological. (And, make no mistake, the good doctor's letter is not making any scientific points -- it's purely a statement about the existence of the Christian God, of which Etkin has absolutely no doubt and, because of his technological background, he's hoping you'll agree with.)
Quite simply, whoever was in charge of that letters page fucked up badly. There was no reason to give Etkin's screed any more weight by mentioning his technical background, which had nothing to do with the subject. Let's hope this sort of subtle indoctrination and argument from authority doesn't happen again.
by Canadian Cynic
Blogger Emeritus
Southwestern Ontario Institute for Snarkiness Research
5 comments:
Ah, but any kind of professional qualifier will always get you on the Globe letters page, unless you're one of the small cadre of dedicated pontificators whose letters are printed on an almost daily basis.
Ever notice that the same names keep popping up again and again?
Perhaps the Globe simply publishes whatever signature is provided by the letter writer? I'm not sure that's evidence of editorial bias.
"Perhaps the Globe simply publishes whatever signature is provided by the letter writer? I'm not sure that's evidence of editorial bias."
I don't think so. Most papers I know will only list someone's background if it's directly relevant to the issue. And this one most emphatically isn't.
But if anyone else has a different take on this, by all means, let us know.
I guess I'm blanking out here... Given that theistic evolution is a valid theological position held by a goodly sum of Christians, what's wrong with an academic actually throwing his public weight behind it?
Granted, his qualifications aren't relevant specifically to evolution or theology, but then neither are the qualifications of most people who choose to throw down on it.
Typically, the only time someone's professional qualifications are listed are when they're relevant to the issue being discussed.
There's nothing about being an aerospace engineer that makes anyone more or less qualified to comment on theological issues compared to anyone else.
However, listing this person's (irrelevant) qualifications makes it more likely that readers might react with something like, "Wow, that guy's really clever, there must be something in what he's saying."
It's nothing more than argument from (bogus) authority.
Post a Comment