Re: ASA misrepresented in Nature

Randy,

Good job, but you might want to emphasize the "as science" and "not" in the
first sentence of last paragraph. Unfortunately, these distinctions are not
often made at the level of high school, and what is known/knowable by
science is often left sufficiently unclear as to be confused with all that
can be known. I suspect this is part of the cause of the concern of
parents - an implicit assumption that science (from Latin scire, "to know")
is able to encompass all that we might call truth.

Pete Cook

----- Original Message -----
From: "Randy Isaac" <rmisaac@bellatlantic.net>
To: <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2005 8:03 PM
Subject: 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 20:35:43 2005