Re: CT article: Darwinists, not Christians, stonewalling the facts

Thank you, Pattle. It's good to hear from you again. Thanks for the
encouraging words.

Perhaps I misunderstood Colson but I was concerned that he was in effect
disenfranchising a significant portion of our ASA members, denying them a
seat at the table. When he said "Instead, from the start, evolution 'has
primarily been an
attack on religion by militant atheists who wrap themselves in the
mantle of science in an effort to refute all religious claims concerning
a creator-an effort that has also often attempted to suppress all
scientific criticisms of Darwin's work.'"
it seems that he's dismissed all consideration of scientific aspects of
evolution as a viable part of the dialog.

It is important that at ASA we ensure the acceptance in the dialog between
science and Christian faith all those who come under the umbrella of the
doctrine of creation, as per the orthodox creeds, and integrity in
commitment to science. We do not take a position advocating particular
views within that umbrella but encourage the honest expression and exchange
of ideas. Our goal is to stress Christian unity around the central doctrine
of creation, the teaching that God exists and created all things. Whether
or not you and I consider theistic evolution to be the best perspective, it
is important that we recognize it as a legitimate option for discussion and
not heresy, provided they affirm the core statement of faith. YEC's are
also welcome provided they are consistent with the integrity of science.
(Generally, that's tough to do aside from an appearance of age approach.)

Dick Bube protested that he wasn't trying to say he was a TE but only that
TE was a viable possibility for Christians. He took a lot of lumps for that
but I think it's an important message and a good example for us. I would
suggest that ASA needs to be pro-active and articulate about the parameters
within which the science/Christianity debate should legitimately take place,
but without advocating any position within those parameters.

Randy

P.S. But to what extent does a society of tolerance need to tolerate
intolerance?

----- Original Message -----
From: "Pattle Pak Toe Pun" <Pattle.P.Pun@wheaton.edu>
To: "Randy Isaac" <rmisaac@bellatlantic.net>
Cc: <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Monday, March 28, 2005 10:08 PM
Subject: Re: CT article: Darwinists, not Christians, stonewalling the facts

> Dear Randy,
>
> As a fellow of ASA who has written about the issues of evolution, I
> happened to agree with Colson excepting for minor details. Since ASA does
> not hold an official position on evolution other than the publication
> "Teaching evolution" which encourages open-mindedness and critical
> evaluation, may I humbly suggest that ASA not respond as an organization
> to
> the article but let individual ASA members respond if they
> so desire. In my humble opinion, this list serve has been dominated by
> the theistic evolutiion perspective which may not represent the majority
> opionion of ASA membership.
>
> God bless you as you prepare to serve as executive director of ASA.
>
> Pattle.P.T.Pun, Ph.D.
> Professor of Biology,
> Wheaton College,
> Wheaton, IL 60187
> phone: 630-752-5303
> fax: 630-752-5996
> email: pattle.p.pun@wheaton.edu
> http://www.wheaton.edu/Biology/faculty/ppp/web/index.html
>
> On Mon, 28 Mar 2005, Randy Isaac wrote:
>
>> How do all of you feel that ASA should respond to editorials such as
>> Colson's?
>>
>> a) Ignore it?
>> b) Encourage members to write letters to the editor clarifying some of
>> the
>> issues so that maybe one of them might be published?
>> c) Just discuss it/criticize it among ourselves but keep quiet publicly?
>> d) Use it as a basis for discussion in our respective churches?
>> e) Encourage the director to write a letter to the editor? (not an ASA
>> position but a personal opinion, identified as the ASA director)
>> f) None of the above? any combination of the above? other?
>>
>> I do believe that Colson doesn't frame the issue very well and that CT
>> readers deserve a better perspective.
>> Thinking beyond Colson and this article, how pro-active should ASA be, as
>> an
>> organization, to articulate the relevant perspectives and issues without
>> advocating any particular view?
>>
>> Randy
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "jack syme" <drsyme@cablespeed.com>
>> To: <asa@calvin.edu>
>> Sent: Monday, March 28, 2005 7:49 PM
>> Subject: Re: CT article: Darwinists, not Christians, stonewalling the
>> facts
>>
>>
>> > The rhetoric and ignorance displayed by Colson here, strikes me exactly
>> > the same way his rhetorical BreakPoint commentary on the Schiavo case
>> > on
>> > Friday did.
>> >
>> > Either he doesnt care about the truth, or he is in serious need of a
>> > fact
>> > checker.
>> >
>> > In either case, this is irresponsible commentary. Another
>> > embarassement
>> > for Christianity IMO.
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>
>
Received on Wed Mar 30 22:40:03 2005