A9504.TXT
Excerpts from the ASA Newsletter, Mar/Apr 1995, Vol 37, #2.
Posted to CIS by permission of the ASA by John W. Burgeson
CIS # 73531,1501

 1. Article on PANDAS AND PEOPLE; Biology Textbook Panda-monium.
 2. ASA Geologists on the Radio
 3. About REASONS TO BELIEVE
 4. More on Pandas
 5. Dunedin, New Zealand, the 2nd int'l theological symposium August 1993.
 6. C. S.Lewis Fellowship
 7. Henry Schaefer
 8. About ICR
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Biology Textbook Panda-monium

The high-school biology textbook, "Of Pandas and People," published by the
Foundation for Thought and Ethics in Richardson. TX. was co-authored by Dean
Kenyon and Percival Davis. It is the subject of debate at the upcoming ASA
Annual Meeting and has been reported in the Wall Street Journal (by Erik
Larson, 11/14/94, "Darwinian Struggle: Instead of Evolution. A Textbook
Proposes 'Intelligent Design'"). It
also aroused controversy among science educators at a recent
conference in Beaumont. TX. The WSJ article notes that
the book "is either an unflinching
scientific look at flaws in evolutionary theory or the advance wedge of a new
effort to return old-time religion to U.S. schools."

Jon Buell, the Foundation's president, is reported in the article as saying
that 22,500 copies are in print. Fifteen school districts have ordered
quantities large enough to indicate classroom use."
Robert Kaita also appears in the article. The Foundation
flew him to the teachers' conference to deliver a talk in which he called
intelligent design theory "something that seems to be eminently reasonable."

Percival Davis also co-authored Biology, a college text with more than a
million copies in print published by the Saunders College Publishing unit of
Harcourt General Inc. in New York. The publisher, however, dropped Davis's name
from a later edition in 1990 when alerted to his creationist views. and has
labeled PANDAS as pseudo-science. In the book, Kenyon and Davis argue that it
is unlikely that the dynamics of a prebiotic chemical "soup" would produce life
and that if Darwinism were correct, there would be an abundance of fossil
evidence for transitional forms.

Eugenie Scott. director of the National Center for Science Education. discounts
the argument over whether evolution took place, emphasizing that the scientific
debate is about *how* it happened. To Scott, PANDAS disguises religion as
science and she questions the honesty of not being more forthright about its
intelligent designer. Berkeley law professor Phillip Johnson agrees that the
underlying motivation of belief in a Creator cannot be ignored and that a more
explicit expression of such intentions is in order. However, he countered: "The
fact is they're working against enormous prejudice here, and enormous bigotry.
And they're vying to put it in terms that the courts and science will allow to
exist."

To market the book (the WSJ article continues) Jon Buell first offered it as a
supplemental text to state and local textbook boards in Idaho and Alabama.
Idaho rejected the book, but in Alabama,
Phyllis its defense. Scientists from Yale, Brandeis. and Princeton (Kaita
again) were brought in to testify for it. However. the book was withdrawn when.
Buell said. "We realized we were dealing with politics. not scholarship at
all." Jon then took the approach of marketing directly to biology teachers. who
are generally easy to contact. available for meeting. and receptive to new
resources.

Brown U. biology professor Kenneth R. Miller also issue and gave examples. such
as Gould's panda's thumb. the backwards neural wiring of the human retina as
"an error no intelligent designer would make." and "discarded. broken and
nonfunctional sequences" in DNA. Miller sums up his opinion of PANDAS by
stating that it

"misstates evolutionary theory, skims over the enormous wealth of the fossil
record. and ignores the sophistication of radiometric dating. The most
compelling reason to keep this book out of the biology classroom is that it is
bad science. pure and simple."

In another letter to the WSJ, Forrest M. Mims Ill asked. "Why is belief in a
creator God viewed as 'pseudoscience'?" Mims also questioned "the amazing
censorship. contradictions and outright battles within the evolutionary
community," noting that for today's aspiring naturalist to write a paper like
Darwin's creationist paper on ant lion larva would jeopardize his career.
Darwin later challenged his outlook but remained tolerant of those who held his
earlier view. Forrest concludes: "It is regrettable that Darwin's faithful have
lost their leader's tolerance."

Jon Buell's letter ends the WSJ section. thanking the author and the WSJ for
publicizing the book and clarifying that:

"According to the National Academy of Sciences, creation science is a very
specific doctrine based on the book of Genesis, postulating a young earth and a
world-wide flood.

Intelligent design, in contrast, is simply a way of interpreting the evidence
of biology. It says nothing about the identity or characteristics of the
designer, or the age of the earth, or any other specifically biblical question.
Intelligent design addresses a question already pervasive in biology textbooks,
which is whether pre-existing intelligence was needed to make the wondrously
complex things we call living organisms."

For some. arguments about life's origins from accident or randomness point them
away from a creator. Buell argues that if the facts of biology point students
toward a creator,  as PANDAS does, and powerful organizations of science
educators oppose the book, it is because it conflicts with their promotion of
naturalism as science.

Another letter of response to the WSJ article came from John L. Wiester. who
asks: "Why is the ACLU attempting to ban [Pandas] from the classroom? Why
should they go ballistic when 15 out of 15.700 school districts wish to use
PANDAS to teach evolution critically rather than dogmatically? I thought the
ACLU stood for academic freedom and was against censorship and book banning."
John compares the ACLU's attack on Pandas with O.J. Simpson's defense lawyers'
attempts to suppress evidence damaging to their cause.

The latest news is that J. David Price has lined up Kenneth Miller (see above)
to take the opposing side in the CISE symposium on the question of whether
Pandas should be recommended as a supplementary biology textbook, with Michael
Behe supporting it. The three hour ASA Annual Meeting symposium, to be held
Sunday, July 23 from 2:30 to 5:30 pm. will be chaired by David Wilcox.
Background to the subject will be introduced by philosopher of science Steve
Meyer. Miller, Behe, Wilcox and Meyer will then form a panel for questions and
discussion.

Postscript: Meyer wrote a letter to Christianity Today (Nov 14, 1994)
clarifying his exchange at the Cambridge "Cosmos and Creator" conference (see
JAN/FEB 1995 ASAN. p.5) involving Arthur Peacocke. Meyer's criticism of some
biologists opposed to the design hypothesis was given on the grounds "that they
ignore, rather than demand, specific evidences. In short. resistance to
intelligent design derives from philosophical convention, not observed
evidence." The planned debate should provide ample opportunity to discuss the
various issues surrounding PANDAS and the intelligent design approach to
origins.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. ASA Geologists on the Radio

On Jan. 30. geologist Monty Swan initiated a joint interview with three members
of the Affiliation of Christian Geologists (ACG) on "Steel on Steel." a
Christian radio program hosted by John Loeffler in Denver. Jeff Greenberg of
Wheaton, president of ACG, fellow geologist John L. Wiester at Westmont College
in California and Steve Austin, representing the Institute for Creation
Research (ICR) participated. Swan's hope was that the two-hour interaction
would educate the general Christian audience and leave them with a more
tolerant attitude towards scientific and theological diversity.

The geological focus was on the origin and age of the earth. Each of the three
guests was to represent a major position in the interpretation of special and
general revelation -- of scripture and science. Steve Austin, representing the
young-earth position, gave the opening statement. He strongly urged a
methodology which requires a literalistic reading of scripture in explanation
of geologic phenomena. The fiat of God, his commanding words, and the Genesis
flood were taken to be the primary mechanisms of erosion, deposition,
mountain-building. and the origin and extinction of organisms. Greenberg next
set out the character of an old earth "theistic evolution" position. Jeff's
first statement was that position labels are hazardous in their generalizations
and that his view was much more accurately characterized by uncertainty than by
any system of neat harmonization. He recognized an ancient earth as the proper
scientific view without any necessary conflict with scripture. The language of
Genesis 1 and 2 also leaves open the details of correlating the biblical events
with counterparts in nature. When Wiester's turn came to make an initial
position statement. he simply said that he and Greenberg were in virtual
agreement on the issues and he then took the greater part of his 15 minutes to
redirect the interviews. According to John, "to go on arguing about our
differences of interpretation was like "Viet Nam." He proposed instead that the
emphasis be on spiritual unity in confronting militant naturalism as it is
mandated in public schools. As evangelical scientists, we could certainty agree
that essential to all Christian positions is belief in God as Creator, whose
creative work is in evidence in nature. Of mutual concern is the position of
those who impose philosophical criteria by their own choosing and not by
logical necessity on geology. In other words. it is their faith against ours,
not science versus religion.

John also praised the work of the ICR in being years ahead of mainstream
geology in recognizing the importance of catastrophic events in geological
history.

John Loeffler appreciated Wiester's modified program plan and guided discussion
through to the end. Although Steve Austin indicated some displeasure with the
change in approach, one participant noted that the result had to have made a
good impression among the listening audience. It was a good opportunity to
derail divisive conflicts for shared  Christian beliefs and the larger common
challenge from outside Christendom.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
3. About REASONS TO BELIEVE

This year Hugh Ross's Reasons to Believe organization plans to publish a book
on the extra-dimensionality of God, produce a 30- to 60-minute television
production entitled "Journey to the Outer Limits," complete a cartoon book for
junior high-school students called DESTINATION: CREATION, launch a monthly
bulletin of scientific discoveries, and more. RTB's purpose is to reach the
secular world with the Christian gospel and enable Christians in this effort.
This is done through an apologetics-oriented approach that assumes "that the
Bible and its message of salvation align perfectly with scientific findings."
In the past, Christians attempting to harmonize the Bible with science have
sometimes found such syntheses outdated by changing views in science or
biblical interpretation. And the worst situation has been to make biblical
claims dependent upon contemporary scientific theory. Hugh's material, though
attempting harmonization, appears to avoid the simplistic conjoining that has
previously become an embarrassment. As an astronomer knowledgeable of
astrophysics, he relates the ongoing discoveries in this dynamic field to the
wider biblical perspective, such as the well-known Psalmist's declaration that
"The heavens are revealing the glory of God." RTB is also planning a television
series. "The Creator and the Cosmos," for which development of script and
funding is continuing.

Since July 1993. RTB has reached an audience of about a quarter billion people
through more than than 60 TV and 100 radio programs worldwide. All of this is
done with a (fiscal '93) income of less than one million dollars. For more
information. contact: Reasons to Believe. P.O. Box 5978. Pasadena. CA 91117;
(818) 335-1980. Tell them you read about them on Compuserve.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. More on Pandas

World news magazine also reported (Nov. 26. 1994. p. 8. "Of
pandas, people, and papers") on Larson's WSJ article, objecting to its emphasis
on "sneaking" religion into the classroom. Phil Johnson sent a letter to the
WSJ in defense (Dec. 5. 1994), pointing out that "when scientific organizations
and textbooks refer to 'creationism.' they invariably define the term to mean
six-day, young-earth Genesis literalism. "Evolution" is then defined in
scientific usage as a completely naturalistic system in which God played no
discernible part." Johnson goes on to point out that the intent behind Pandas
is

"to make it possible to question and criticize the dogmatic philosophy that
comes to us as 'evolution.' To do that they have to use terms that allow people
to understand that it is the existence and role of a creator which is the
issue. not the length of time the creator took to create. That is why it is not
dishonest for them to repudiate the label of 'creationists.' The goal is not to
deceive anybody. but to escape a stereotype constructed by Darwinists."

Johnson was also featured in a World article (Oct. 8. '94, "The Clarence of
Darwinism") and was recently published in Christianity Today (Oct. 24, 1994.
p.22. "Shouting 'Heresy' in the Temple of Darwin"). In letters of response to
the latter article. Howard Van Till and Richard Bube both agree with Johnson
that "the secular academy is guilty of distorting and neglecting Christian
scholarship" (Van Till) and of "the basic error of claiming that a world-view
such as 'naturalism' or 'scientism' is actually based on science." (Bube) Both
also find misleading some of Johnson's statements regarding evaluation of
scientific theory and the concept of
genealogical continuity among God's creatures (Van Till). Bube described the
self-limitation of science to the physically testable while noting that
specific phenomena may not be able to be adequately described scientifically.
In this case. "we need either to wait for further inputs or to decide that no
known scientific description is possible; at that point we may appropriately
suggest that the activity of God in non-scientifically describable ways is an
option of faith."
----------------------------------------------------------------
5. Dunedin, New Zealand, the 2nd int'l theological symposium August 1993.

This was organized by the Otago Theological Foundation and the U. of Otago. The
get-together resulted in a 26l-page book. Theology: published by Eerdmans.
Contributing to the volume is New Zealand ASAer Stephen May of Auckland, who
also wrote its introduction.

Six topics are covered. each with a presenter and two responses. The first
section, "Is there a role for natural theology today?" is Owen Gingerich, with
responses from Nancey Murphey and May. The final section. presented by
Polkinghorne, is: "Theological notions of creation and divine causality." The
book is priced at $29.99 and can be ordered from Eerdmans by telephone: (800)
253.7521.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
6. C.S. Lewis Fellowship

James Sire spoke last November in the Tampa, Florida area, hosted by Tom
Woodward's C.S. Lewis Fellowship. (Tom is Director.) Sire, author of the
apologetics classic "The Universe Next Door," gave his famous talk. "Why Should
Anyone Believe Anything At All?" Jim's new book has the same title and
according to the Fellowship newsletter "is collecting rave reviews."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. Henry Schaefer

Henry "Fritz" Schaefer appeared smiling on the front-cover of the Nov-Dec 1994
THE REAL ISSUE, put out by Christian Leadership Ministries. The article
reprinted Fritz's address last
spring at the U. of Colorado, sponsored by CLM, on "Stephen Hawking. the Big
Bang, and God." Schaefer. a professor of chemistry and director of the Center
for Computational Quantum Chemistry at the U. of Georgia, has been nominated
for
the Nobel Prize and was recently cited as the third most quoted chemist in the
world. His goal? "... to understand a little corner of God's plan." (U.S. News
an World Report, 12/23/91). His talk addresses some of the more scientifically
and theologically profound questions that Hawking's book, A Brief History of
Time, raises, such as: Is the universe finite or infinite in extent? Is it
eternal or does it have a beginning? Who or what governs its laws? and Is there
anything beyond its known dimensions?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. About ICR

Insert No. 70 of Acts and Facts, (Vol 23 No. 10, Oct 1994), published by the
Institute for Creation Research (ICR) is about "Christ and the Time of
Creation." by Henry M. Morris. president of the ICR. Morris warns that
"Christians who go along with the standard 'old-earth' model of the
evolutionists need to realize that they are going against the strong testimony
of the Lord Jesus. for He clearly affirmed the truth of recent creation."

Morris's article contains several columns of argument about the fall of
humanity into sin and its general opposition to God's plan for dealing with the
resulting dilemma. Running through this commentary are Bible verses about
creation of the world. from which Morris argues for a recent creation.

Though Henry Morris and other ICR leaders were once ASAers, who is the ASAer in
this story? He is a professor of biology at Wheaton College, Pattle T. Pun.
whom Morris cites as an example of Christians who believe in an old earth.
Criticized as placing current science over biblical teaching. a paragraph from
Pattle is quoted. taken from the Journal of the ASA, March 1987, p. 14. In the
quote, Pun concedes that. without regard to hermeneutical considerations
suggested by science. the Genesis record would appear to be saying that God
created heaven and earth in six solar days. Pun then points out that the Recent
Creationist position "has denied or belittled the vast amount of scientific
evidence amassed" in support of an old-earth view. Morris comments:

Although Dr. Pun is undoubtedly a sincere and gracious Christian, he feels,
nevertheless, that we must base our Biblical hermeneutics on "science." and the
same is apparently true of most of his colleagues at Wheaton and in the
American Scientific Affiliation, as well as of numerous leading theologians.
scientists, and educators throughout the evangelical world. While a fraction of
ASAers are "theistic evolutionists," many also question (to varying extents)
assumptions of Darwinism, and are generally sensitive to the difficult problem
of how to reconcile scriptural understanding with scientific theory. The ICR
differs from the ASA in advocating a specific (young earth. antievolutionary)
view as Christians. The ASA provides a forum for discussion of a wide range of
positions within its basic statement of Christian faith. Through the ASA. some
members have advocated more general statements. such as that of teaching
secondary-school evolution as science. and not as materialist philosophy.

Both the ASA and ICR oppose materialism on biblical ASA. however. has not
asserted as an organization that evolution is necessarily anti-biblical. This
on-going issue continues to be explored by theistic evolutionists, progressive
concordists and those not exactly joining any of these expeditions - another
sizable fraction of the ASA. it appears.
==========================================================================
The American Scientific Affiliation, ASA, founded in 1941, is an
association of people who have made a commitment of themselves to both a
scientific description of the world and to Christianity. The present
membership is about 2,500. A companion Canadian organization exists.
A descriptive file, ASA.TXT, is posted in the library here.

Information on the ASA, including a sample issue of PERSPECTIVES, is
available by writing to:

ASA, P.O. Box 668
Ipswitch, MA 01938-0668

ASA's e-mail address is asa@newl.com