>I have to agree with many on this list who oppose use of official news
>releases. I agree with the understanding of these others that the main
>missions of ASA are to offer a broad forum for discussion of ideas, and to
>educate both the Christian and scientific communities about the issues.
>
But how are we going to educate the Christian and scientific communities if
we don't communicate with them? PSCF and the newsletter are basically
inhouse publications read by a very small, interested group. In my memory,
the only educational project we have done successfully has been Teaching
Science in a Climate of Controversy, and it was very successful. But that
was a long involved process, akin to writing a book. What Dennis is
suggesting is reacting to a present situation. You can't do that in a peer
review process. What is the time gap between submission and publication in
PSCF now? 1 year? 2 years? If we have enough confidence, as an organization,
to ask someone to edit our newsletter can't we have confidence that he could
editorialize on a current situation without doing harm to the mission of the
organization, especially if he has a small group he can run his editorial by
for comment before publication?
>Because some subjects such as Darwinism have been historically fraught with
>confusion and controversy, I think that any official statements about such
>matters should be developed carefully by a group of ASA members who
>represent the best thought and spectrum of views in ASA. This is generally
>done by means of our peer-reviewed publications such as Perspectives and
>Teaching Science in a Climate of Controversy.
>
I agree. Is there a difference between an official statement and an editorial?
>I believe that this list has helped to meet ASA's mission by providing a
>forum for a wide range of viewpoints. It is evident from the opinions I
>read here that there is a lot of good thought, but little unanimity.
>Nevertheless, we assume that the process is worthwhile: that people will
>have flexibility and agree with someone else's argument once in a while, or
>at least refine and prune their own ideas.
>
There is unanimity about who created.
>I think it may be the process, as much as the ideas themselves, that
>provides educational value. That is why we must be careful to be civil
>here. Content is wide open. Criticism should be restrained. In this way
>we can set an example.
>
You have described an academic process, but how are we to educate the
non-academic Christian community for whom we are, in many cases, the only
organization that can give them reasonable answers.
> Paul Arveson, Code 724, Signatures Directorate, NSWC
> arveson@oasys.dt.navy.mil bridges@his.com
> (301) 227-3831 (301) 227-4511 (FAX)
>
>
>
>