Re: RATE Vol. II

It sounds like a great idea to me...  I even like the title!  Yes, it's been done before and no,
 it's unlikely to convince any hard-core YEC.  But it seems the publication of RATE II is
 something slightly different to respond to; simply pointing out some of the logical
 inconsistencies in the "scholarly volume" when compared to what's presented at seminars
 and in popular books could be illuminating.
 
 And, at the risk of tooting Ted's horn, as someone who attended his conference for
science
 trachers last year, I think he does have a great approach to presenting the varying
 viewpoints of origins.  He manges to be fair to all sides, does not impugn anyone's
motives
 and does not legitize bad science in the process.  He also manages to keep quiet about
his
 own opinion until someone asks. I wish I could obtain that level of objectivity; it's crystal
 clear where I stand as soon as I open my mouth.  I think it's because I still do genuinely
 and selfishly wish I could create a few more little me-clones, for those times at my SBC
 church when I fel like the only non-YEC in the room.  Some more Democrats would also
be
 nice.
 
 Anyhow, that drifted.  "God did it, but when?" sounds like a great idea.  With cute dinosaur
 pictures.  Several pages before the people.  I think pictures of mammoth and sabretooth
 hunts are cooler, anyway.
 
 __
 Louise M. Freeman, PhD
 Psychology Dept
 Mary Baldwin College
 Staunton, VA 24401
 540-887-7326
 FAX 540-887-7121
 
 
 -----Original Message-----
 From: Jack Haas <haas.john@comcast.net>
 To: George Murphy <gmurphy@raex.com>, ASA list <asa@calvin.edu>
 Date: Wed, 24 May 2006 07:08:56 -0400
 Subject: 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 09:05:12 2006