AFS Cinema
May's Response to Leo on Beckwith Misleading
RECEIVED Thu., Aug. 14, 2003
Michael May claims in his Aug. 1 response to Terri Leo ["Postmarks"] that 1) he did not call me a "creationist" and that 2) his calling attention to my Christian faith is somehow relevant to the case for textbook accuracy I was making before the education board. He is mistaken on both counts.
Concerning the latter, I am amazed that someone from a region of the U.S. that seeks to distance itself from its bigoted past would call attention to my faith (as if it were a bad thing) when the arguments I offered to the board stand or fall on their own merit. By singling out my faith and not revealing the metaphysical commitments of my opponents, Mr. May employed the ugly and disreputable "label and dismiss" strategy. Its fallaciousness is easy to recognize if we change the subject and the religion. Imagine, for example, if Mr. May had dismissed the arguments of a Holocaust historian because May had learned that he is a "Jewish historian." Here's the lesson: When someone proposes an argument, a response that calls attention to the person's religion is not a response to the argument – it's called bigotry.
Second, Mr. May clearly implies that I am a creationist, even though I am not. This is what he wrote in his July 18 piece ["Ignorant Design at the SBOE"] in the Chronicle: "The Seattle-based institute [the Discovery Institute] supports Beckwith's work and that of a small stable of 'creation scientists' who disagree with the principles of evolution." Imagine if someone had said the following about Mr. May: "The Austin-based institute [the Lester Maddox Center] supports Mr. May's work and that of a small stable of 'white supremacists' who disagree with the principle of equality." We would all, instantly, infer that Mr. May is a white supremacist, even though he is not.
Concerning the latter, I am amazed that someone from a region of the U.S. that seeks to distance itself from its bigoted past would call attention to my faith (as if it were a bad thing) when the arguments I offered to the board stand or fall on their own merit. By singling out my faith and not revealing the metaphysical commitments of my opponents, Mr. May employed the ugly and disreputable "label and dismiss" strategy. Its fallaciousness is easy to recognize if we change the subject and the religion. Imagine, for example, if Mr. May had dismissed the arguments of a Holocaust historian because May had learned that he is a "Jewish historian." Here's the lesson: When someone proposes an argument, a response that calls attention to the person's religion is not a response to the argument – it's called bigotry.
Second, Mr. May clearly implies that I am a creationist, even though I am not. This is what he wrote in his July 18 piece ["Ignorant Design at the SBOE"] in the Chronicle: "The Seattle-based institute [the Discovery Institute] supports Beckwith's work and that of a small stable of 'creation scientists' who disagree with the principles of evolution." Imagine if someone had said the following about Mr. May: "The Austin-based institute [the Lester Maddox Center] supports Mr. May's work and that of a small stable of 'white supremacists' who disagree with the principle of equality." We would all, instantly, infer that Mr. May is a white supremacist, even though he is not.
Francis J. Beckwith
Associate Director, J. M. Dawson Institute of Church-State Studies
Associate Professor of Church-State Studies
Baylor University
Associate Director, J. M. Dawson Institute of Church-State Studies
Associate Professor of Church-State Studies
Baylor University
News editor Michael King replies:
Professor Beckwith protests more than a little too much. He objects to being described as a "Christian philosopher," when even a cursory review of his publications (including regular contributions to Philosophia Christi published by the Bible Institute of Los Angeles, aka "Biola University") confirms that’s exactly how he presents himself, at least when he’s not flogging his "scholarship" before state boards of education. For him to dismiss such a relevant identification in this context as the equivalent of bigoted anti-Semitism is ludicrous – if anyone is guilty of name-calling, he is. Similarly, while Beckwith may prefer to distinguish the theologian’s new clothes of "intelligent design" from "creationism," other observers are under no such obligation, since both notions rest on the same pseudoscientific premises, and have no place in public school biology textbooks. If he considers such a designation akin to being called a "white supremacist," the problem is his, not Michael May’s nor the Chronicle’s. Finally, in light of the strained logic of his response, perhaps we did err in describing him as a "philosopher" at all.