Re: ASA statement

I enjoy describing myself as a biblical and scientific creationist, because
I am

Michael
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ted Davis" <tdavis@messiah.edu>
To: <asa@calvin.edu>; <kbmill@ksu.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2005 12:18 AM
Subject: Re: ASA statement

> In response to my comments about the ASA language and how it might be
> perceived, Keith wrote:
> The problem with all of this is
> unfortunately how the ID and anti-evolutionary proponents have
> manipulated and misused the language of critical thinking and
> "critically evaluating evolutionary theory."
>
> Ted replies:
> I agree, and the same thing has happened/will happen in other states.
>
> (This is not to say that some ID rhetorical points might contain some
> truth--is it not true, e.g., that many biology texts have used the
infamous
> Haeckel diagrams that have long been known to be misleading?)
>
> So, given the fact that ID is mainly being used at the popular level to
> promote traditional creationism (the genuine article, not the wrongly
> labeled "intelligent design creationism"), how will the ASA statement be
> perceived at this point in time? Should we draw attention to our
"official
> statement," when it is likely IMO that we ourselves will be labeled a
> "creationist" organization?
>
> This, I say, is the politics of the situation, the same kind of politics
> (driven by a refusal even to try to state things fairly and obviously)
that
> some years ago led a writer for the NCSE reports to classify one of Howard
> Van Till's books as a creationist book. Ludicrous, but true. When truth
> calls for careful discernment, leave it to politically driven individuals
to
> do their very best to obscure the nuances and obliterate the complexities.
>
> ted
>
>
>
>
>
Received on Tue Feb 15 16:48:59 2005