ASA against YEC?

I agree with the hesitancy of George Murphy and others on this issue, but I=20
think an important part of the discussion is what would be meant by taking a=
=20
position "against YEC".

Like many, I would not want the ASA to officially single out those who=20
believe the Earth to be 6000 years old (or flat, for that matter) as being w=
rong.=A0=20
If the ASA is to stand "against" anything, I think it should be against thos=
e=20
aspects of *the YEC movement* that are most harmful to the faith.=A0 Those=20
aspects being the bad and sometimes dishonest science, and the implication t=
hat=20
Christians *must* read Genesis their way.=A0 I would not want to reject peop=
le like=20
Paul Nelson who believe in 6000 years but without those most harmful element=
s=20
of YEC.

I could therefore see the ASA doing something like the following three-part=20
position:
1) Statement that scientific evidence overwhelmingly points to an old Earth,=
=20
and that the supposed scientific arguments of "creation science" in favor of=
  a=20
young Earth are bogus (it should be worded more diplomatically than "bogus")=
.
2) Statement that faithful Christians through the ages have read Genesis in=20=
a=20
variety of ways, and that we reject the idea that a scientifically accurate=20
report of 144-hour creation is the *only* way for a faithful Christian to=20
interpret these verses.
3) Lamenting the harm done to the witness of the Gospel among the=20
scientifically literate by those who make a big deal about the things we rej=
ect in the=20
first 2 items.

Those are thoughts in process, but I think I would endorse something of the=20
simple, limited scope outlined above.

Allan

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Allan H. Harvey, Boulder, Colorado | SteamDoc@aol.com
"Any opinions expressed here are mine, and should not be
  attributed to my employer, my wife, or my cats"
Received on Mon Dec 29 23:10:19 2003