Re: RATE Vol. II

George Murphy wrote:
> IMO we've reached a point with the age of the earth at which ASA's
> position of not taking an official stance on disputed matters no longer
> applies.
> There is no scientific dispute about the order of magnitude of the age of
> the earth. The ASA should take the stance - & take it forcefully - that
> the earth is billions of years old, and that supposedly scientific claims
> to the contrary are without merit. Of course this does not mean that a
> position would be taken on biological evolution.

I'm not convinced that we need to take any stand on a scientific result.
Once we start, where does it end? Do we also need to endorse quantum
mechanics? Newton's laws? plate tectonics? anything else that isn't
disputed in science but is disputed by some religious organization?

Rather, I think it is incumbent upon us to aggressively insist on a
"commitment to integrity in science." That means we need to take a stand
against the dishonesty of representing that science has shown the validity
of a young earth when, in fact, the opposite is true. We'll look for an
appropriate way to do that. And then, where will this lead us? We must
also stand against the dishonesty of representing that evolution has shown
the validity of atheism.

Randy
Received on Sun May 21 15:29:35 2006