On Cussing in Church: In Defense of What's Within?

Abstract

In his testimony in McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education, 529 F.Supp.1255 (E.D. Ark. 1982), Michael Ruse cites the lack of integrity and closed-mindedness of Creationists—in addition to Creationism's untestability, absence of predictive power and tendency to appeal to miracles by way of 'explanation' of natural phenomena—as reasons to deny Creationism scientific status. While one may quibble with Ruse's contention that the character of its advocates bears on Creationism's claim to be a science, one can at least agree with him that it's pointless to attempt to shake Creationists from their beliefs by the application of reasoned argument and evidence. Arguing with Creationists, as Ruse's testimony emphasizes, is like arguing with the business end of a cricket bat: however many bits of empirical evidence or carefully-fashioned argument you lob at them, they whack them undigested right back at you, only harder and a lot nastier. Arguing with Nativists is sometimes like that too. Thus, it is a great relief to find Louise Antony and Robert Matthews expressing their critical reactions to What's Within? (Cowie 1999) in such reasonable and respectful terms. I am grateful to them for transforming what might have been a thankless task—the writing of this response—into a welcome opportunity to conclude what has clearly been for all of us an illuminating and enriching exchange.

Files

Additional details