James Mahaffy wrote:
> Folks,
>
> Much as I respect Keith for his obvious Christian witness, I think it
> good for Weister's voice to be heard among evangelicals. Our reputation
> among our Christian brothers is equally as important as is our
> reputation among the scientific community.
Our Christian brothers and sisters include a lot of people who are
not "Evangelicals" in
the narrow American sense, and ASA membership is not supposed to be limited
to that particular segment of the church. But attempts to make it a more
seriously ecumenical organization, consistent
with its Statement of Faith are thwarted by the perception that those with
views like John Wiester are characteristic of the organization.
> I professionally (when I get
> time from high teaching loads) study the fossil record (paleoecology of
> Carboniferous coal-swamps). I am not TE (theistic evolution) nor for
> that matter YEC (young earth creation) or ID (intelligent design).
>
> Like Wiester I worry about the secularizing influence of the
> evolutionary dogma when it is taught as it often is as accounting for
> the world and organism originating without a Creator. Obviously TE's
> and Keith would agree with me.
> It saddens me that too often ASA is seen by evangelicals as no different
> than a secular science that appears to them as teaches that God had
> nothing to do with Creation.
Anyone who has gotten this idea has clearly paid no attention to
what ASA members who accept evolution actually say.
Shalom,
George
George L. Murphy
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
"The Science-Theology Dialogue"
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Feb 21 2001 - 21:32:58 EST