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

Just an observation: The Jews assert again and again that the Bible is written on a number of levels geared to the apprehension of the reader. The Kabbalists and Talmudists even forbid some stories in genesis to be explained to those Jews who are of insufficient wisdom, and yet here the attempt is being made to find one solution that will satisfy all readers, clearly not the intent of the people whose forebears wrote the Bible and perhaps impossible to do. I would point out that Barna research consistently reports that conservative Christian congregations are growing while liberal denominations are splintering and shrinking. You're never going to satisfy everybody but part of Christian love is not to alienate people of lesser intellect who need God as much as the scientists do. How do you reconcile religion and science without alienating the masses? I don't know the solution to that, but I know Judaism never tried and perhaps that is a lesson you should consider. Among yourse
 lves, you can argue the finer points of scientific Biblical interpretation but you cannot scatter the sheep with the sometimes necessarily provocative conclusions you come to.
From the controversy, it is obvious that you are working your way out of an old paradigm which does not serve anymore. One of the interesting things about the new paradigm is that once you enter it, you'll have more social science in common with the YECS who want to retain the old morality than some of your own colleaugues of a more liberal persuasion.
A God that says "You shall observe my institutions and my laws: the man who keeps them shall have life through them. I am the Lord" and then keeps a tribal people alive for 2,500+ years while other civilizations rise and fall all around them is the most powerful scientifically valid God of all.
These are very exciting times.
Best regards,
rich faussette
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Glenn Morton <glennmorton@entouch.net>
To: 'Randy Isaac' <rmisaac@bellatlantic.net>; asa@calvin.edu
Sent: Thu, 31 Mar 2005 07:53:06 -0600
Subject: RE: CT article: Darwinists, not Christians, stonewalling the facts

I read that article and it verifies something that I have said recently
in the YECs have won thread. The ASA has almost zero influence in the
Christian community today. It is for the same reason that the YEC
churches are growing and the more mainline/liberal ones aren't. People
in general don't see a way to avoid the concept that God is capable of
creating a universe and then communicating what he actually did. A God
who can't do the two things above, isn't very powerful. Today, most
members of the ASA don't put enough historicity into Genesis to satify
most of the laity. Like it or not, but don't kill me, the messenger who
is telling y'all something you don't want to hear or believe.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu
> [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On Behalf Of Randy Isaac
> Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2005 9:39 PM
> To: asa@calvin.edu
> Subject: 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 Thu, 31 Mar 2005 12:52:57 -0500