Re: ASA misrepresented in Nature

Thanks for bringing this to our attention.
On one hand, this may not be such bad publicity as it seems on the surface.
Those who do peruse the link will be introduced to our journal and will
discover quite a range of thought. I haven't discovered in the PSCF a "good
idea of what IDers would have the face of science look like" so I wonder
which articles he's thinking of.
On the other hand, we don't want to be considered as an ID advocate
organization. But I'm glad that we do give ID advocates a forum to present
their ideas for consideration and I don't believe we need to apologize for
that.

I'm willing to listen to all your opinions, but I would think if there is
any response to be made, it would be of the following types:

1) An official ASA clarification of our role as a forum for a spectrum of
ideas. This should only go out under my name, if at all.

2) Any of you could write your own letter that would get more specific,
citing both ID papers and ID critiques published in PSCF, but not
representing ASA.

Randy

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ted Davis" <tdavis@messiah.edu>
To: <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2005 8:46 PM
Subject: ASA misrepresented in Nature

>........ To get a good idea of what IDers would have the face of science
>look like, check out the journal Perspectives on Science and Christian
>Faith (http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF.html).
>
> ............
>
> So, my friends, how should we respond to this? How can we best educate
> both Nature and Dr. Lynch about this? We can obviously point out that
> Keith Miller is an ASA Fellow, and we can note that so is George
> Murphy--both men were mentioned in the Nature article on ID, and both
> pretty clearly as not supporters of ID. Furthermore, we might point out
> that PSCF has lots of articles that dispute key tenets of ID, along with
> (yes) articles that favor ID in various ways. Frankly, one could say the
> same thing about a prestigious secular journal such as Biology and
> Philosophy, or the books published by Cambridge University Press. This is
> a cheap shot by someone who is either ignorant of the ASA (in which case
> we can educate him graciously) or has an ideological axe to grind against
> people like us (religious people in the sciences); several other letter
> writers would fit this latter description.
>
> I'd be happy to respond myself, esp since I have my doctorate from a
> department located in the building adjacent to the one in which Dr. Lynch
> is located (I assume he's located with other biologists in Jordan Hall).
> However, I cannot do this for at least a week, I really can't. I am
> presently now a week overdue on a paper that really must get done this
> week (it goes onto a conference website that others will be accessing
> already), and simply must take the next few days to finish it, regardless
> of how important it is for us to respond to Dr. Lynch.
>
> So, who will respond? I propose conversation here about the
> content/wording of the letter.
>
> Ted
>
>
Received on Wed May 18 22:00:07 2005