Re: RATE Vol. II

Greetings:

I hate to see this discussion come to an end without any "action items."

First: an update. The /Knowing Creation/ project (dealing with the age
of the earth) has more or less come to a stand-still - for a variety of
reasons. So the deck is clear.

We are good at analysis, breast beating and expressions of need but
'where's the beef?' and what should it look like?

Note: /PSCF /has a statement "Papers published in /PSCF /do not reflect
any official position of the American Scientific Affiliation."

Several decades ago I was involved in the production of a collection of
Journal articles called /Origins and Change/ which was published in a
format much like the Journal. Readers
could see where the situation was in these fields via a low cost
publication that one could put in the hands of the laity.

Some of you have felt the need for something of that sort for the age
question. We might call it /God Did it But When? /to go with the book
/God Did It But How?/ that we now
distribute.

What are your ideas?

Jack Haas

George Murphy wrote:
> As Karl says, the fundamental question is theological. Little impact
> will be made on YECs as a group (& on anti-evolutionists generally) if
> we can't convince them that their peculiar (in both senses of the
> word!) notions are not necessary in order for one to be a faithful
> Christian. But good science does make a difference. As long as YEC
> advocates can convince their followers that there are good scientific
> reasons for thinking that the earth is young, they will not feel any
> pressure to re-evaluate their presuppositions about the way scripture
> is to be read.
>
> Shalom
> George
> http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/ <http://web.raex.com/%7Egmurphy/>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* cmekve@aol.com <mailto:cmekve@aol.com>
> *To:* dickfischer@earthlink.net <mailto:dickfischer@earthlink.net>
> *Cc:* asa@calvin.edu <mailto:asa@calvin.edu>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, May 23, 2006 1:16 PM
> *Subject:* Re: RATE Vol. II
>
> Dick,
> I don't really disagree with what you said, but I don't see it as
> particularly useful either. The type of articles you suggest have
> been done over and over and over again. And as has been noted
> time and again on this list, with very, very few exceptions, no
> one committed to YEC is going to listen to them.
>
> I agree with Keith that it boils down to what the aim of the
> organization is. If we are making virtually no inroads into YEC,
> perhaps it's time to reevaluate our goals. Frankly, the question
> is mainly theological not scientific. Until we can provide
> theologically adequate alternatives for YEC folks, they are not
> going to abandon their position on the basis of negative evidence
> alone. It seems to me that this was the approach of the Orr's,
> the Warfield's etc. -- i.e., the classic Evangelicals of the late
> 19th and early 20th century. How many times have we cited those
> folks on this list? Where are their equivalents today? Mostly
> not in ASA. BTW, I'm not trying to bad mouth ASA. It just seems
> sometimes that we're fighting the battles of the 1920's
> incessantly. But perhaps it's just a corollary of the increasing
> shallowness of American evangelicalism -- as pointed out
> repeatedly by such notables as Mark Noll, D.G. Hart, David Wells, etc.
>
> Karl
> ***********************
> Karl V. Evans
> cmekve@aol.com <mailto:cmekve@aol.com>
>
>
>
Received on Wed May 24 07:11:19 2006