Re: ASA misrepresented in Nature

Here's a draft of a possible letter to the editor. I don't know if we could
get it published but it might be worth a try. Comments?

Randy

Sir:

Michael Lynch points out in his letter, Nature 435, 276 (19 May 2005) ,
that readers can learn more about Intelligent Design (ID) from Perspectives
on Science and Christian Faith, (http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF.html), the
journal of the American Scientific Affiliation (ASA). Our organization is
dedicated to the integration of science and Christian faith, providing a
forum for dialog of diverse views that are consistent with the orthodox
Christian creeds and with integrity in science. Accordingly, we strive to
publish peer-reviewed papers by both proponents and critics of views such
as Intelligent Design, but we do not advocate any particular position. For
example, we have published papers (e.g.,
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1997/PSCF9-97Dembski.html) that attempt to
define ID as well as papers (e.g.,
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1999/PSCF12-99Roberts.html) that critique the
movement.

While some prominent ASA members such as George Murphy and Keith Miller,
both cited in Nature 434, 1062-1065 (28 April 2005), are critics of ID,
other members such as William Dembski are advocates of the
movement. Yet we are all united in our belief in the Creator, in
commitment to integrity in science, and in the conviction that science and
Christian faith are intimately and positively related. We encourage
scholarly debate with respect for each others' views as we search for
deeper understanding of the truths that underlie our disciplines.

We urge that evolution be taught in our public schools as science and not
as a proxy for any particular religious philosophy, be it metaphysical
naturalism, atheism or theism. By teaching evolution as science, it is
subject to the same scientific method of inquiry and critique as all other
scientific knowledge. Scientific criticism of evolution should not be
muted for fear of being labeled a creationist. Nor should support of
evolution be avoided for fear of being branded an atheist. The scientific
theory of evolution is based on a vast and complex array of data but its
metaphysical implications are not established.

Randy Isaac
Executive Director
American Scientific Affiliation
www.asa3.org
Randy@asa3.org
Received on Thu May 19 20:05:54 2005