Re: ASA positions on science/faith issues

I agree with those who affirm the "big tent" nature of the ASA, and would not
want ASA to issue a statement that excluded any Christians based solely on
their view of how God created or the way they interpret Genesis.

However, it seems to me that what is most harmful to the body of Christ is
not the views I disagree with (YEC and to a lesser extent ID), but the *way* in
which they are often held. Often they are put forth in such a way as to claim
(or at least strongly suggest) that their position is a *necessary* part of
Christianity, and that is a huge barrier to the Gospel for the scientifically
literate. I am thinking in particular of those who say that a YEC reading of
Genesis is *essential* to Christianity, and of those who take a "God of the
Gaps theology" approach in saying that evolution *must* be false in order for
Christianity to be true. These are harmful enough, and contrary to our own "big
tent" approach, that I think a graceful repudiation would be helpful. This
sort of goes with Randy Isaac's suggestion about what are acceptable parameters
for the discussion.

Maybe the repudiations can be paired with positive affirmations (taking my
cue from the Theological Declaration of Barmen). I'm not sure if "repudiate" is
the word I want in the statements below, but I definitely want something less
harsh than "condemn".

I would envision something like the following:

--------------------------------
[Introductory paragraph affirming our Christian commitment and our commitment
to all of God's truth, both in Scripture and in his creation. And maybe
saying that we regret the way science and faith are often portrayed (both inside
and outside the church) as "at war"]

We affirm that Scripture (particularly the early chapters of Genesis) teaches
that God is the "maker of heaven and earth," the creator of all that exists.
This foundational truth is independent of the manner and timing of God's
creative work. We also recognize that faithful Christians have read the early
chapters of Genesis in many different ways over the years, and that a good case
can be made that these passages were not intended to be read as a scientific
account.

We therefore repudiate any view that claims a recent creation in six 24-hour
days is *essential* to the truth of Christianity or to the integrity of the
Bible. More generally, we believe it is unwise to consider any specific
scientific claims based on the interpretation of Genesis as foundational to the
faith.

We affirm that God is sovereign over nature, and that therefore God is
present in physical processes even if science can explain them "naturally." While
the ASA takes no official position on the truth of the theory of evolution, we
affirm that the scientific theory (when stripped of the naturalistic
philosophy sometimes attached to it) is not inconsistent with the Christian faith. God
is capable of using natural processes to do his creating, and the evidence
suggests he has done so in many areas.

We therefore repudiate any view that claims the scientific theory of
evolution must be false in order for Christianity to be true, and more generally any
view that suggests it is necessary to find inexplicable "gaps" in natural
history in order to keep Christianity from being falsified.
--------------------------

So, what do people think about a proposed statement along those lines?

Allan, moved to delurk for the first time in a while.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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 Wed Mar 30 22:59:10 2005