Re: ASA positions on science/faith issues

Yes, the statement needs to be formally presented through the Executive Council but . . . I still like it.
 
Sheila
 
(also momentarily delurking)

Randy Isaac <rmisaac@bellatlantic.net> wrote:
Allan,
 
    Thank you very much for your comments. I appreciate that.
    However, I don't think it's appropriate for us to be discussing the wording of an ASA position statement. I wasn't suggesting that. It may be appropriate at some point but, if and when we do decide a formal statement is needed, the request will come from the Executive Council and will be done with the entire membership, not just this list.
    At this time, I'm just interested in feedback from all of you about what kind of an organization you want ASA to be. A passive publisher of the PSCF or an active voice in the public debate? or something in between?
 
    Randy
----- Original Message -----
From: SteamDoc@aol.com
To: asa@calvin.edu
Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2005 10:58 PM
Subject: 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"

Sheila McGinty Wilson
sheila-wilson@sbcglobal.net
Received on Thu Mar 31 09:13:41 2005