Why can't ASA remain a forum for the discussion of
Faith-Nature issues? Why should we label the
organization as representing a particular position
on issues that all of us have only a `certain' degree of
confidence. For the 7-8 years that i have been associated
with ASA, I have found a commitment to rigorous
scholarship and open dialogue in the area of faith-nature
interaction and i hope that it remains so.
I find that the debate between ID and EC proponents within
ASA as one that is healthy and appropriate. It seems that a
YEC position mutually excludes other views, but i do not see
(may be naively!) that ID and EC are necessarily mutually
exclusive. IMO such diversity is a strength rather than a
weakness.
Are we as Christians in Science at a stage where we can
honestly pursue TRUTH without the driving need for
credibility in the eyes of man? We who are liberated by the
TRUTH and are children of TRUTH should not we be
leading the way in the pursuit of TRUTH. Isn't
credibility a fruit of an honest endeavour, honest
before GOD and before man? What really is at stake in our
dialogue, is it TRUTH, you must be joking!! Just our
perceptions....
Shalom
Gladwin
josephg@fsl.orst.edu