Re: ASA positions on science/faith issues

Randy,

If it's not clear from my previous post, I want us to be an active
voice in the public debate with the proviso that our official voice
suitably reflects our diverse membership.

TG

>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: <mailto:SteamDoc@aol.com>SteamDoc@aol.com
>To: <mailto:asa@calvin.edu>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"

-- 
_________________
Terry M. Gray, Ph.D., Computer Support Scientist
Chemistry Department, Colorado State University
Fort Collins, Colorado  80523
grayt@lamar.colostate.edu  http://www.chm.colostate.edu/~grayt/
phone: 970-491-7003 fax: 970-491-1801