The Biologos Foundation has reinvigorated the faith-science discussion among evangelicals and seeks to offer an alternative to the common evangelical critique of modern evolutionary biology and old earth/old universe cosmology. One might get the impression that the Biologos approach is new. Of course, it is not. Evangelical Christians have responded to developments in modern science since the 19th century as soon as geologists started advocating an old earth and Darwin published The Origin of Species. Some in the late 19th and early 20th centuries already forged a peace. Evangelicals with more fundamentalist history and leanings have been slower to do so and have been wrestling with science ever since. The American Scientific Affiliation (ASA) began in 1941 as "a group of Christian scientific men devoting themselves to the task of reviewing, preparing, and distributing information on the authenticity, historicity, and scientific aspects of the Holy Scriptures in order that the faith of many in the Lord Jesus Christ may be firmly established." (Hart paper) ASA has a 70 year history of dialogue and discussion. Anyone interested in this debate would profit from tracking this history. Seeing how ASA members worked through these issues and settled on the various options could be instructive for those currently exploring these questions.

[Most of the references found in this essay are links to resources on the ASA web site: journal articles and letters to the editor, newsletter articles, audio or video of annual meeting presentation, and other resources. The reader is encouraged to access these primary material. Links only are provided in the interest of space and continuity of narrative.]

The Beginnings: Modern Science and Christian Faith

The ASA began as an organization believing that there was no ultimate conflict between the true facts of science (vs. theories built on those facts) and scripture. The founding fathers of the ASA were all practicing scientists. An early project was the writing of what ultimately became Modern Science and Christian Faith (1948, 1950). Already in the ASA the value of thoroughly discussing difficulties and not necessarily promoting a particular point of view is evident. Irving Cowpertwaite wrote, "It is felt that such a frank airing of both sides of the question will appeal to the student and will receive a consideration when other more sensational approaches will not. Students are intelligent and fully capable of arriving at constructive conclusions if full data are presented. The dangerous, insidious conviction is that based on an incomplete knowledge of the problem...The statements and representations...must be able to meet the scrutiny of men unfriendly to the cause of Christ and rise unscathed. Error or misrepresentations of science would seriously impair the usefulness of the book." The commitment to rigorous science is in the ASA from the beginning.

The chapters on astronomy and geology recognize the immense age of the universe and the results of radiometric dating to establish that age. One important geological observation listed is the absence of transitional forms, a relatively uncontested claim in the 1950's. Consequently, the authors distance themselves from theistic evolution and tend toward a progressive creationist view. The statements of scripture are seen to be remarkably consonant with the latest findings of science. There is a recognition that the Bible is not a scientific textbook and is perhaps pre-scientific. For example the chapter on chemistry states:

...the references to chemistry in the Bible are few but are scientifically and historically accurate as we would expect in a book inspired of God. The Bible is not a textbook of science; its main message is one of salvation and spiritual life. But its science is correct as far as it is referred and the absence of chemical errors in the Bible only confirms our faith in the Holy Record.

The chapter on biology is firmly anti-evolutionary. It reviews the latest genetics research, although is clearly written prior to the modern molecular biology era. They write in their conclusion:

...Some students of nature have proposed theories to account for the origin of organisms without recourse to the Biblical record...Only mutation and other chromosomal changes give new characters, but these are not progressive in an evolutionary sense. A method which could produce evolution is unknown...The first chapter of Genesis relates that God created plants and animals "after their kind" and we observe at present a strong tendency for them to remain within well-defined limits.

Interestingly, the authors of this chapter, Walter Lammerts and Robert Tinkle were part of the group of ten ASA members who started the Creation Research Society in 1963. Apparently, they were not convinced of the great age of the earth and universe or the viability of the day-age view of Genesis 1.

The chapter on anthropology is nearly 100 pages, one-third of the entire book, and covers the topics of race, cultural development, linguistics, and fossil hominids. The authors seek to correlate the scientific data concerning human origins with scripture. With respect to the Genesis flood it is noted that the findings of modern anthropology "must have occurred subsequent to the Flood unless that catastrophe was not universal" and that the answer cannot be determined "until the geological flood questions are settled."

In many respects Modern Science and Christian Faith seems resistant to evolutionary science and committed to a literalistic reading of the Bible. Evolution and creation are pitted against each other and effort is taken to show that evolution is speculative and not rooted in the facts of science. On the other hand the authors are willing to grapple with the scientific data. This commitment to engage science ultimately transformed the ASA from its anti-evolutionary roots to its present openness to evolution as a biological theory as many ASA members recognized that biological evolution was compelling science.

Key Development #1 During the First Decade: Mainstream Science

J. Laurence Kulp was a physical chemist/geochemist whose research was in the area of radiometric dating. In discussions at annual meetings and in a key journal article in 1950 Kulp's advocacy of the anti-YEC view helped the ASA resist a push to become a YEC organization. At the 1948 meeting of the ASA in the discussion following Calvin College biologist Edwin Y. Monsma's paper, which had YEC inclinations, Kulp schooled the attendees in the latest geological views, which include radiometric dating, his area of specialization, and claimed that "one of the most probable facts in geology, I believe, is that the earth is close to two billion years old." (1) At the 1949 meeting Kulp presented the paper "Deluge Geology" which was firmly anti-YEC. (2) Among Kulp's conclusions were the following:

The theory that a relatively recent universal flood can account for the sedimentary strata of the earth is entirely inadequate to explain the observed data in geology. The major propositions of the theory are contradicted by established physical and chemical laws.

This paper has been negative in character because it is believed that this unscientific theory of flood geology has done and will do considerable harm to the strong propagation of the gospel among educated people.

Kulp's viewpoint seems to have been well-received. That year he was elected to the Executive Council for a five year term. While YEC advocates were not unwelcome in the ASA, it is clear already in the early 1950's that the organization was not opposed to consensus-science, old-earth, old-universe views. The later decision in 1963 by some in the ASA to start the Creation Research Society (CRS) reflects that group's dissatisfaction with the direction the ASA was heading. (3) Some of these CRS founders were early leaders in the ASA.

Nonetheless, the ASA continued to be a place where there was on-going discussion of the scientific questions, and CRS members continued as ASA members, but it is fairly clear that the conclusions of mainstream science usually carried the day. Fewer and fewer YEC voices could be heard. The critique of flood geology culminated with Free University of Amsterdam geologist J. R. Van de Fliert's 1969 highly critical review of Whitcomb and Morris's The Genesis Flood entitled "Fundamentalism and the Fundamentals of Geology." (4)

With increasing astonishment, I read through the book The Genesis Flood-The Biblical Record and Its Scientific Implications, by Henry M. Morris and John C. Whitcomb, Jr. If I had been told a few years ago that an apparently serious attempt would be made to reintroduce the diluvialistic theory on Biblical grounds as the only acceptable working hypothesis for the major part of the geological sciences I would not have believed it. I would have considered it just incredible that a professor of Old Testament and a professor of Civil Engineering would write it, and that the foreword would be written by a professional geologist...The serious fact is that it has been written and published...It is almost incredible that such an effort, which must have cost an enormous amount of work and money, has been made for such a bad procedure as this.

Wheaton College zoologist, Russell L. Mixter, with a Ph.D. (1939) from the University of Illinois had a career that spanned from 1928 to 1979. He was active in the ASA and served on the Executive Council for two terms, 1945-1949 and 1950-1954. He authored the ASA monograph Creation and Evolution first published in 1950 which was based on three papers given at ASA Annual Meetings: "The Kind of Genesis and the Kind of Geology" (1946); "The Extent of Change since the Origin of Species" (1947); "The Mechanisms of Evolution" (1948). (5, 6, 7, 8, 9) Mixter was influential in helping the ASA (and evangelicals in general) stay informed about the latest developments in evolutionary theory and to accept evolutionary ideas as far as they were firmly established. He edited the 1959 volume Evolution and Christian Thought Today, a collection of essays by ASA scientists presenting state of the art science related to origins and a reflection on it from a Christian perspective. Mixter, was convinced that evolutionary processes explained biological diversity at the taxonomic category below the order and perhaps even at the order. But in his view neither genetic mechanism nor the fossil record supported a more comprehensive evolution. He found this perceived empirical limitation consistent with the use of "kinds" in Genesis 1. Technically, that made Mixter and other like-minded ASA scientists progressive creationists. It does not seem, however, that they were in principle opposed to a full blown theistic evolution (except in the case of the origin of Adam). They simply did not think that the current scientific evidence warranted the full embrace of evolutionary theory. (10)

The angst felt by ASA members in the course of this early engagement with evolution is seen in the article by Irving A. Cowperthwaite "Some Implications of Evolution for ASA" and its responses. (11, 12, 13) Historian Mark Kalthoff relates the events of this era in "The Harmonious Dissonance of Evangelical Scientists: Rhetoric and Reality in the Early Decades of The American Scientific Affiliation." (14) Kalthoff's take on the ASA's attitude toward flood geology is similar to what has been spelled out above. He detects less of an an anti-evolutionary sentiment than suggested here. Another historian's perspective on this era is in Seung-Hun Yang's "Radiocarbon Dating and American Evangelical Christians." (15)

Key Development #2 During the First Decade: A More Flexible Approach to the Bible

The second major development is the beginnings of what critics believed to be a relaxation of the doctrine of Biblical inerrancy. Bernard Ramm's book The Christian View of Science and Scripture took the first steps. Arthur W. Kushke, Jr. of Westminster Theological Seminary complained in JASA that Ramm offered a less strict view of inspiration. (16, 17)

In 1963 Richard H. Bube took over the editorship of the JASA and presented a paper entitled "A Perspective on Scriptural Inerrancy" where he distinguished between "arbitrary inerrancy" where "the Scriptures are considered to be verbally inspired, inerrant, and infallible in an arbitrarily absolute sense as factual information" and "revelational inerrancy" where "the Scriptures are indeed verbally inspired, inerrant, and infallible as a revelation of God by Himself to men." (18) The key distinction here is that the Bible may contain "errors," as in mistaken opinions about the natural world held by the original human authors and the original audience, as long as these are not central to the revelatory purpose of the Bible. Bube is quick to say, "This by no means implies that there are "errors" of fact in the Bible, but rather that the criteria for judging fact are often either uncertain or irrelevant to the revelational purpose of the Bible."

In the first issue of JASA with Bube as editor an article by Paul H. Seely entitled "The Three Storied Universe" appeared. (19) Seely is unapologetic in his claim that an erroneous three-tiered universe is found in the Bible.

The Bible assumes that the universe is three-storied; but, we do not believe that Christians are bound to give assent to such a cosmology, since the purpose of the Bible is to give redemptive, not scientific truth.

There were critical responses to Seely's article by R. Laird Harris "The Typical Modernistic View of Scripture" and Robert C. Newman "Infallible Inspiration Taught by Scripture Itself" with a response by Seely. (20, 21, 22) Editor Richard H. Bube entered the fray, commenting: ...It is not the function of the journal to propagate a crusade for any particular interpretation of many questions in which science and Christian faith are mutually involved. Any article, judged to be consistent with the Constitutionally-stated purposes and doctrine of the ASA and to exhibit sound scholarship in respect to factual basis and exercise of interpretation, is acceptable for publication in the journal. If an author is guilty of gross scientific or exegetical error, we are confident that readers will quickly set the record straight, thereby increasing general understanding of the truth. Given Dr. Harris' strong convictions, exactly what is needed is an "answer" to Mr. Seely's "exegesis in detail."

The ASA, Editor Richard H. Bube, the JASA, and Paul H. Seely were all featured in Harold Lindsell's 1976 The Battle for the Bible as examples of Evangelicals who compromised scriptural inerrancy. Bube is said to have "become an articulate spokesman in support of biblical errancy." Lindsell writes "The American Scientific Affiliation and the Evangelical Theological Society have in them people who do not believe that the Bible is free from all error in the whole and in the part."

Not everyone who accepted modern science thought that it came at the expense of the doctrine of inerrancy. For example, even Kushke wrote, "It was good to note, among other things, the desire that Christian statements on science should be informed; the views on the chronology of the earth and of man and the elasticity of the creative "kind"; and the opposition to the flood view of the fossils." Apparently, Kuschke thought that that the kind of inerrancy he advocated did not require views which would set the Christian scientist against much of modern science. Others have noted that the inerrancy of the Old Princeton theologians (e.g., Charles Hodge, A. A. Hodge, B. B. Warfield) was perhaps a bit more nuanced than the inerrancy of Harold Lindsell. Bube's own response to Lindsell was published in a communication in JASA "Inerrancy Is/Is Not The Watershed of Evangelicalism? None Of The Above." (23)

After two decades ASA seemed comfortable with a view of scripture or a way of interpreting scripture that removed most of the earlier perceived conflicts between the Bible and science. Issues such as the days of Genesis 1, a geologically young earth, the kinds of Genesis 1, and the extent (both geographically and anthropologically) of the Genesis flood were no longer seen to be problems. This dissolution of scriptural difficulties led to an openness to well-established modern scientific claims.

The End of Either/Or

Bube's 1971 "We Believe in Creation" and "Biblical Evolutionism?" signaled the beginning of the end for the either/or attitude concerning creation and evolution. (24, 25) While there are certainly earlier hints of embracing evolution as God-directed means of creation, most of the earlier writings saw biological evolution as an alternative to Biblical creation. Bube wrote:

It is because of this foundational character of the Biblical doctrine of creation that it is unfortunate when the word "creation" is used narrowly and restrictively to refer--not to the fact of Creation--but to a possible means in the creative activity, usually to that means known as fiat creation. When it is implied that creation and evolution are necessarily mutually exclusive, or when the term "creation" is used as if it were primarily a scientific mechanism for origins, a profound confusion of categories is involved. The implication is given, deliberately or not, that if evolution should be the proper mechanism for the growth and development of living forms, then creation would have to be rejected. To pose such a choice is to do basic damage to the Christian position.

Thus, creation is primarily a theological concept and evolution is primarily a scientific, biological concept. One does not have to choose between the two. Bube is cognizant of evolutionary philosophy, or "evolutionary religion" as he also labels it, where advocates go beyond the science and develop a worldview or a faith-system that competes with Christianity.

Thus, already by 1971 the broad outlines of the evolution discussion in the ASA were present. There was little objection to evolution as a biological theory. The only serious problem that remained for many was how the Biblical account of Adam and Eve could be reconciled with the evolutionary story. Since ASA members believed in a Creator who, in principle, could operate miraculously and supernaturally, they could freely acknowledge that biological evolution may not explain everything. Thus, some in the ASA continued to critique evolution on scientific grounds. These ASA members would self-identify as old earth creationists (OEC). They would link arms later with Hugh Ross's Reasons to Believe organization and the Intelligent Design movement as it gained momentum in the late 1980's and early 1990's.

1978 saw the publication of a special issue of JASA entitled Origins and Change: Selected Readings from the JASA, edited by David L. Willis, Professor of Biology, Oregon State University. This special issue brought together several key articles on origins issues previously printed in JASA and represented the full spectrum of ASA member's views. With the exception of the introductions by the editor each article had been previously published in the Journal. This collection is a good snapshot of the ASA in 1978. While the issue included voices unsympathetic to evolutionary biology, the overall impression given is that old earth geology, biological evolution, and Christianity can co-exist. (26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38)

No Position on Controversial Questions

As noted earlier the ASA has always been willing to discuss controversial questions and be a forum for their discussion within the Christian community. Richard H. Bube started his article "We Believe in Creation" with "It should be well known to readers of the Journal ASA that the ASA does not take an official position on controversial questions." About this same time Claude E. Stipe 1976 ASA President wrote an editorial for JASA "Does the ASA Take a "Position" on Controversial Issues?" Stipe was responding to complaints that ASA had become a theistic evolutionist organization. He denied it and sought to prove it by rehearsing the history of the ASA particularly with respect to the question of its taking sides. It is clear that already by the late 1960's and early 1970's that ASA welcomed theistic evolutionists in its highest ranks, namely JASA editor and Executive Committee members, but it is also clear that other voices are at the table. There continued to be YEC, OEC, and Intelligent Design advocates associated with the ASA. (39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45)

In the early years the call for the ASA to advocate for a particular position came most frequently from those arguing against an old earth, evolutionary biology, human evolution, and approaches to scripture that would accommodate these scientific conclusions. In more recent times there has been pressure for the ASA to take a particular position against a young earth and flood geology, namely that earth history that stretches back billions of years is definitively established by modern science. To do so is necessary for the ASA to remain credible as an organization that promotes integrity in science.

For example, Randy Isaac, current Executive Director of the ASA, wrote the following in "Assessing the RATE Project" (46 [particularly from 8:00 to 15:00], 47, 48, 49):

The ASA does not take a position on issues when there is honest disagreement among Christians provided there is adherence to our statement of faith and to integrity in science. Accordingly, the ASA neither endorses nor opposes young-earth creationism which recognizes the possibility of a recent creation with appearance of age or which acknowledges the unresolved discrepancy between scientific data and a young-earth position. However, claims that scientific data affirm a young earth do not meet the criterion of integrity in science.

The Maturing of the ASA and Its Interaction with the Intelligent Design Movement

By the late 1970Ôs the lines were drawn. The ASA became a primary voice in the Christian community for old universe cosmology, old earth geology, and theistic evolution (even though critics of evolutionary biology continued to be heard). The idea that creation and evolution were competing ideas was much less common. However, due to the influence of YEC organizations which seemed much more successful in communicating their message to a general audience than the ASA, evangelicalism as a whole continued to struggle with these questions. This evangelical community included the denominations in which many ASA members held their church memberships.

The discussion in the ASA became more sophisticated as well. Theological questions of exactly how God interacts with the created universe were explored more thoroughly. There seemed to be more interest in the philosophy of science and in the history of science. The ASA became more aware of its own role in the history of the encounter between Christianity and science. The ASA discovered other mature voices exploring these waters such as John Polkinghorne and John Templeton. ASA members became involved in the national and legal debates that were gearing up concerning the teaching of evolution (and/or creationism) in the public schools. Origins interests began to share the stage with a growing American and evangelical environmentalism.

Key players during this era were Howard Van Till, Davis Young and Clarence Menninga, all physical scientists from Calvin College. Robert Herrmann, executive director of the ASA from 1981 to 1994, wrote articles on the intersection of biology and the Christian faith and spearheaded a productive collaboration with Sir John Templeton. Edward (Ted) B. Davis, John (Jack) W. Haas, Jr., Arie Leegwater, Ronald Numbers, and others pushed the ASA to be more conscious of the history of science. Physicist/theologian George Murphy helped make the ASA more theologically aware. (50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72)

This same era saw the rise of the Intelligent Design movement. A history of the ID movement can be found in the PSCF article "Phillip Johnson and the Origins of the Intelligent Design Movement, 1977-1991." (73) The ID movement is complex and not simplistically categorized into the commonly used categories before this time (YEC, old earth or progressive creationists, theistic evolutionists). There seems to be a common anti-evolutionary strand, i.e. evolutionary mechanisms cannot account for what ID calls "specified irreducible complexity" in living systems or at least one that doubts whether evolutionary biology can really live up to its sweeping claims. The ASA welcomed the conversation and the remaining critics of theistic evolution in the ASA embraced the movement. Many annual meeting sessions and symposia and articles in JASA, now renamed Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith (PSCF), were devoted to ID. (74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81) Phillip Johnson's ID manifesto, Darwin on Trial, was discussed thoroughly in PSCF and in ASA meetings. (82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92)

ID's critique of evolutionary biology in general and theistic evolution in particular was answered in the ASA by such voices as Howard Van Till, who argued for a robust, equipped creation that had no need for episodic special creative events; paleontologist, Keith Miller, who argued that there were transitional forms in the fossil record; biochemist, Terry M. Gray, who argued that molecular machines were evolvable; physicist, Loren Haarsma, who also questioned ID's view of God's interaction with the universe; among others. Once again the ASA refused to advocate a specific position and consequently gained a reputation for taking sides on this issue simply because it was unwilling to become the voice of the ID movement. The discussion between ID and theistic evolutionists in the ASA continues to the present. (94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107)

Teaching Science in a Climate of Controversy: A View from the American Scientific Affiliation (1986) was an ASA published booklet intended as a supplemental text at the secondary school level and higher. It was the work of the Committee on Integrity in Science Education (David Price, John Wiester, and Walter Hearn). The "controversy" is the debate between YEC and evolutionary biology and what should be taught in the public schools. Teaching Science, consonant with the majority in the ASA, rejected the YEC view as being unscientific and an inappropriate intrusion of a particular religious viewpoint into the science classroom. However, it also warned against science trying to answer religious and philosophical questions beyond its competence, for example, extrapolating from observed random chemical processes to philosophical accidentalism. The booklet walked through four topics of modern origins science: the Big Bang, origin of life, the Cambrian explosion, and human origins. Not surprisingly, Teaching Science was criticized by YEC and teachers in Christian schools teaching from a YEC perspective, but to the surprise of the authors and to many in the ASA it was highly criticized in the mainstream science education and creation/evolution literature as being just another "creationist" tract. Several PSCF articles and letters summarized, evaluated, and responded to these critiques. In 2006 Jerry Bergman traced this story in "The American Scientific Affiliation Booklet Controversy" where the critical reviews are cited (and quoted in part). (108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120)

Even within the ASA there were those who thought that Teaching Science overstated the critique of evolution especially in the discussion of the Cambrian explosion and human evolution. Full discussion of these issues continued in the ASA in the context of the debate about ID. Retrospectively, it is not hard to see hints of the ID agenda in Teaching Science and so, while it seems clear that the mainstream critics were unfair, perhaps a reading between the lines of Teaching Science fueled the critique. The ASA has always been plagued (or blessed) by a diversity of views, and this has always hampered its ability to produced educational resources accessible to a broader non-technical audience. Teaching Science proved to be no different.

In 1991 in response to this very public conversation the ASA Executive Council adopted a resolution called "A Voice for Evolution as Science". (121) Shortly thereafter, the ASA Commission on Creation produced a consensus document for the ASA, "A General Statement on Creation" was unanimously adopted by the contributors. The document also included specific statements written by individual members to represent the diversity of views in the ASA. (122)

The Science and Faith Education project (also known as the Lay Education Project) was a multimedia project focusing on the physical sciences and the old universe/old earth views was attempted in the late 2000's. It appeared that the ASA was ready to embrace and to propagate an anti-YEC perspective. The project was to have a book, a professionally produced DVD, and a study guide and was designed for home schools, Christian high schools, and Sunday schools. In part because of disagreement within the ASA over adopting and promoting a particular approach (anti-YEC, but concordistic and progressive creationist friendly) the project was canceled. Many in the ASA were and continue to be frustrated by the inability of the organization to carry out its educational mission as exemplified by this incident.

Evolution of the ASA's Constitution and Faith Statement

The ASA constitution was revised in 1950, 1959, 1970, and 1998. Throughout is a strong commitment to the Bible and the Christian faith, to the practice of science, and to communicating to the church and the world in the interface between the two. Already by the second constitution the phrase that figured so prominently in the earliest writings of the ASA, "the facts of science," was dropped. The later versions drop the language of "no discrepancy" and the most recent version drops the term "unerring" with respect to scripture found in the second and third constitutions. In the last version there seems to be movement from distinct fundamentalist and evangelical roots to a broader embracing of orthodox Christianity as expressed in the ecumenical creeds. The third and fourth constitutions explicitly acknowledge the theistic foundations of the practice of science. The most recent constitution has added a statement concerning stewardship and applied science and technology and specifically adds the social sciences alongside the natural sciences. In general, the ASA seems to have moved from a narrower fundamentalist/evangelical group in both its doctrine of scripture and its embracing of mainstream science.

Recent Developments

In the spirit of Modern Science and Christian Faith (1948, 1950) and Evolution and Christian Thought Today (1959) and Origins and Change (1978) geologist/paleontologist Keith B. Miller edited a volume entitled Perspectives on an Evolving Creation, (Miller, K. B., ed.) William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., Grand Rapids (2003). While Perspectives on an Evolving Creation is not an ASA published book, most of its contributors, including Keith B. Miller, the editor, were active members of the ASA. State of the art science relevant to evolution is reviewed and Christian perspectives on that science is offered. The scientific and theological articles are interspersed with brief devotionals written by some of the contributors.

Developments in biochemistry, molecular biology, and genetics have pushed many in the ASA to embrace evolutionary biology in the fullest sense. 1971 also saw the publication in JASA of "The Protein Clock". (123) This article was the transcript of a popular science radio broadcast presenting the comparative molecular data for evolution (amino acid sequences of proteins). The molecular data seemed to provide independent evidence for Darwin's tree of life and convinced many that even major taxonomic groups were related. At the molecular level there really are no gaps. Long standing critiques of macroevolution in the ASA began to dissolve as this data became well-known.

Molecular geneticist Francis S. Collins, M.D., Ph.D. is a prominent scientist and an evangelical Christian. He is known for his identifying and sequencing the genes for several human genetic pathologies. He headed the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) human genome project and is now the Director of NIH. In 2006 he published The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief. Collins is an ASA Fellow and was a keynote speaker at annual meetings in 2003, 2006, and 2010. His studies of human genetics and comparative genomics has led him to embrace biological evolution including the evolution of human beings. His talks and writings promote that perspective and attempt to provide ways of integrating that conclusion from modern science with the teaching of the Bible on human origins. In 2007 Collins established the Biologos Foundation, "a community of evangelical Christians committed to exploring and celebrating the compatibility of evolutionary creation and biblical faith." There is considerable overlap between Biologos and ASA, although Biologos is more focused on issues related to origins and is more committed to the theistic evolution/evolutionary creation position. ASA continues to have "no official position on controversial questions." This is perhaps one reason why those associated with Biologos felt that they could not carry out their work within the ASA. One hears echoes of an earlier era. (124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129)

Dennis Venema, a biology professor at Trinity Western University, while not as prominent as Francis Collins in the culture at large, has also become a key communicator within the ASA (and Biologos) of the latest genetics research. (130, 131, 132)

Denis Lamoureux has also emerged as a key recent advocate for a full embracing of evolutionary biology within the ASA. Lamoureux has doctorates in dentistry, biology, and theology and teaches science and religion at St. Joseph's College, University of Alberta. His books Evolutionary Creation (2008) and I Love Jesus and I Accept Evolution (2009), detail his version of theistic evolution (evolutionary creation) and his journey from being a YEC to being an ID advocate to being an evolutionary creationist. One of his key perspectives is that God's revelation in the Bible presents theological truth embedded in ancient science. The ancient science is not revelation from God but merely God's accommodation to the original audience, i.e., the cultural context in which God reveals the theological and redemptive message. In many ways Lamoureux's views are similar to those advocated by Richard Bube and Paul Seely over forty years ago. He is an influential proponent of that view today. (133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142)

Despite an increasing openness to human evolution in the ASA with respect to the biology, the Biblical and theological issues continue to vex ASA members. A recent annual meeting symposium (2009 Annual Meeting at Baylor University) was devoted to the topic. It appears that ASA is still considering the options that were first proposed in Modern Science and Christian Faith in 1948. (143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148)

Lessons Learned

The ASA has always taken science seriously. In general, the ASA trusts and follows the broader scientific community. ASA has always been open to discussing alleged weaknesses in scientific theories. Of course, this is part of taking science seriously. For the most part, it seems that the majority of ASA members accept the old universe/old earth cosmology and biological evolution and see no conflict with the compatibility of such with a Christian perspective.

In order to do this ASA members had to give up on the idea that detailed scientific claims are to be found in the Bible. Some have done this by moving to a fundamentally different doctrine of scriptureÐwhat some have called limited inerrancy or a neo-evangelical view. Others have done this by seeing alleged scientific errors as phenomenological claims, i.e. the language of appearances, or by other interpretive approaches. Things such as the days of creation, the kinds of Genesis, geocentrism, the Genesis chronology, etc. are simply not relevant to modern science, even from a Christian perspective. Equally important is the recognition that there is a difference between a theological claim and a scientific claim.

Seeing evolution as an alternative to creation prevented its adoption as a scientific theory. Seeing evolution and creation as being in fundamentally different categories opened the door to embracing evolution as science and part of God's creation. Perhaps it is time to give up altogether on the phrases Biblical evolution, theistic evolution, or evolutionary creation as contributing to this confusion of categories. Recognizing the distinction here has allowed the ASA to properly critique an atheistic naturalism that uses science to support its non-scientific philosophical agenda.

ASA, more than many faith-science groups, seems willing to live with ambiguity. Its members do not have all the answers: theologically, scientifically, or at the interface of the two. Perhaps we will never have the answers. Perhaps not having the answers is part of being finite creatures. This sets the ASA apart from many groups who have definitive answers on these questions.

ASA is a place where people of different opinions still talk to each other. There are special interest groups, some with ASA roots and connections: CRS, Reasons to Believe, Discovery Institute, and Biologos. Unfortunately, the dialogue becomes rather parochial when the different groups are only talking among themselves or trying to proselytize. A strength of the ASA is that its members keep talking even when they disagree.