Re: ASA

To Dick and all:

I would remind you of the ASA Council statement on the teaching of
evolution and related matters:

*A VOICE FOR EVOLUTION /AS SCIENCE/*

 From PSCF *44*, (December 1992): 252.

*Background*

Science teachers should stress the consistent use of precisely defined
scientific terms. Otherwise, students cannot develop an accurate
comprehension of scientific knowledge and practice.

Science teachers and scientists concerned about the future of science
should (a) recognize the limited scope of science and resist
exploitation of science by persons with political, philosophical, or
religious agendas; and, while celebrating scientific accomplishments,
(b) point out unsolved problems and encourage the investigation of such
problems.

In its fiftieth year (1991), the American Scientific Affiliation (ASA)
of over two thousand scientifically trained members wishes to go on
record in support of the above statements, through an appropriate
resolution passed by the ASA Executive Council. As ASA members have
explored both their engagement in scientific inquiry and their
commitment to the Christian faith, many have sensed problems in the way
biological evolution is taught in primary and secondary schools. Noting
that at least two major court cases (/McLean v Arkansas Board of
Education/, 1982; /Edwards v Aguillard/, 1987) have designated
"scientific creationism" (or "creation science") as religious doctrine
masquerading as science, the ASA judges it equally important to
recognize "evolutionary naturalism" as another essentially religious
doctrine masquerading as science. Evolutionary naturalism employs the
scientific concept of evolution to promote an atheistic and
materialistic view that nature is all there is.

In the current climate of controversy over science teaching in public
schools, stretching the term /evolution/ beyond its range of scientific
usefulness promotes the establishment of evolutionary naturalism.
Besides inviting reaction from proponents of scientific creationism,
such careless usage also erodes support of sound science education among
the broader population of theists, to the detriment of the whole
scientific enterprise.

In "The Meanings of Evolution" (/American Scientist/, Vol. 70, pp.
529-31, Sept-Oct 1982) biologist Keith Stewart Thomson identified three
commonly employed meanings of the term: (1) the general concept of
"change over time"; (2) the hypothesis that all "organisms are related
through common ancestry"; (3) a theory setting forth "a particular
explanatory mechanism for the pattern and process" described in (1) and
(2).

Other meanings range from (4) a scientifically focused concept of
populations adapting to changing environments, to (5) a religiously
value-laden tenet of naturalistic faith, that "Man is the result of a
purposeless and natural process that did not have him in mind" (George
Gaylord Simpson, /The Meaning of Evolution/, 1967, p. 345.). Science
educators should not only distinguish among diverse meanings of
evolution but point out that the degree of certainty rightfully
associated with them varies widely.

*Resolution*:
*A Voice for Evolution* /*As Science*/

On the basis of the considerations stated above, and after polling the
membership on its views, the EXECUTIVE COUNCIL of the AMERICAN
SCIENTIFIC AFFILIATION hereby directs the following RESOLUTION to public
school teachers, administrators, school boards, and producers of
elementary and secondary science textbooks or other educational materials:

BECAUSE it is our common desire to promote excellence and integrity in
science education as well as in science; and

BECAUSE it is our common desire to bring to an end wasteful controversy
generated by inappropriate entanglement of the scientific concept of
evolution with political, philosophical, or religious perspectives;

WE STRONGLY URGE that, in science education, the terms /evolution/ and
/theory of evolution/ should be carefully defined and used in a
consistently scientific manner; and

WE FURTHER URGE that, to make classroom instruction more stimulating
while guarding it against the intrusion of extra-scientific beliefs, the
teaching of /any/ scientific subject, including evolutionary biology,
should include (1) forceful presentation of well-established scientific
data and conclusions; (2) clear distinction between evidence and
inference; and (3) candid discussion of unsolved problems and open
questions.

/(Text of Resolution Adopted by the Executive Council of the American
Scientific Affiliation, December 7, 1991/)
_________________________________________________________________

It might be appropriate to expand the 1991 statement by adding some form
of Dick's Point 5 to the FURTHER URGE section to illustrate item (3).
It would also be appropriate to challenge our theological brothers and
sisters in the ETS to hone and /support /the/ '/sound Bible
hermeneutics' Dick mentions. ASA and ETS held annual meetings together
in the early 50s. A variety of reasons led to a parting of the ways
resulting in significant loss to both sides and ultimately the way the
ASA is perceived by the evangelical shapers of opinion.

Jack Haas

Dick Fischer wrote:

> Randy wrote:
>
>> Dick/George,
>>
>> Neither position papers nor the exclusion of people from ASA seem
>> appropriate to me. We do need to enable, empower, and encourage our
>> members to speak out. We need to continue to find effective ways of
>> doing that. Isn't there a middle ground between individuals being on
>> their own and an organization being of one single frame of mind?
>
>
> I think you would have to formalize it some way. The only way I can
> think of is to expand the statement of faith to include what we don't
> have faith in, or to define our view of science that excludes certain
> pseudoscientific endeavors in the Bible-science debate. It would
> certainly be controversial, and we will all be squashed in the
> process, however, the publicity would probably be beneficial in the
> wrong run. So if you want to run it up the flagpole ...
>
> You could add a fifth article (or more) to the statement of faith. We
> could probably generate something and then present it for approval and
> get shot down for trying, but who knows, the endeavor could be worthy
> of the effort. I have probably been one of the most vocal in
> opposition to YEC, the article
> <http://www.genesisproclaimed.org/resources/YEC%20Article.pdf> in
> Perspectives, "Young-Earth Creationism: A Literal Mistake" is on our
> website.
>
> So I'll suggest something and then you all can flail away at it.
>
> 5. We applaud the honest efforts of conscientious scientists who have
> strived to solve origins of life problems and have contributed
> positively to the Bible-science debate. We feel compelled to reject
> the misguided efforts of certain groups and individuals who have
> placed a strain on Bible credibility by resorting to pseudo science
> and what could best be called "biblical distortionism." We
> specifically reject the notions of 24-hour days of creation, and flood
> catastrophist models of creation as repugnant both to genuine science
> and sound Bible hermeneutics.
>
> There's my two cents.
>
> Dick Fischer - /Genesis Proclaimed Association/
> Finding Harmony in Bible, Science, and History
> www.genesisproclaimed.org
> <http://www.genesisproclaimed.org/>
Received on Mon Feb 14 14:28:27 2005