>I had thought (as a long term ASA member and an "originator"
>of this LISTSERV, that a number of us were of the PC persuasion, or,
>perhaps, were as yet uncommitted to a choice between them.
That would be fair to say. What percentage "a number of us" would
be of the whole would be difficult to say, but I would venture less
than 50%.
>In any event, as one previously "on the fence," I have decided to
>take a position on the "PC side." Maybe I'll be the only one --
>I don't know. I know George Murphy and Glenn Morton, two
>members I respect very much, have taken the TE position. I
>assume you have done this also. That's OK.
I find TE scientifically in tune, but most TEers are liberal
theologically, while my theology is staunch conservative, downright
fundamentalist even. I take Genesis 1-11 literally, for example.
The problem here is that my conservative Christian brothers tend
to hold their interpretation of Scripture equal to Scripture. And
if Genesis is mistranslated and misinterpreted, as is normally the
case, it is made to appear to be in conflict not only with science
but history to boot.
ID doesn't work for me. If we are the product of ID, why do we
suffer from over 3,000 genetic disorders? Clever design would be a
better nomenclature. That would be easier to see through and would
help distinguish the Creator's method of creation (TE) from that
proposed by His short-sighted, but otherwise well-intentioned
defenders.
Dick Fischer
THE ORIGINS SOLUTION
http://www.orisol.com