Re: [asa] Flood of emails

Um.... Ok..... I'm not sure where this is coming from. Where did I
suggest anything like an online "church?" Is it a bad thing to want to
discuss challenging and sensitive faith questions with fellow believers in a
more private context? Personally, my interest in a private board isn't
driven by a desire to exclude anyone in particular, but rather to have a
safe space for discussion and edification.

On Dec 11, 2007 1:15 PM, Janice Matchett <janmatch@earthlink.net> wrote:

> At 10:34 AM 12/11/2007, David Opderbeck wrote:
>
> The big downside to the email list is that the email list exchanges are
> publicly archived and that the list is unrestricted.
>
>
> *@ *As I have already shown from the ASA archives, that problem has
> historically been "solved" by the success certain prolific restrictionists
> have had using ridicule and intimidation tactics.
>
> Everything you say here becomes a matter of public record, ...
>
>
> *@ *Yeah. That "can" get to be embarrassing. :) For instance:
>
> "The most dishonest thing about ID is they really mean God (the
> intelligent designer), *but they will never say it (publicly or in court)*.
> *I HATE it when people aren't clear and blunt with their true stands. *That
> said, I do have some sympathies with ID arguments.* *~ Bernie Dehler Thu,
> 6 Dec 2007 16:10:35 RE: [asa] Secret Emails Reveal How ISU Faculty Plotted
> to Deny Distinguished Astronomer Tenure
>
> "..*there are "scientists" in abundance who ...are not shy about arguing
> "junkscience," citing only favorable evidence while ignoring the contrary,
> thereby risking not only their own reputations, but also that of the
> profession we all love.* The authors cite an abundance of instances, *some
> involving scientists of nationwide stature.* Frankly, I felt sick as I
> read this book. .. *The authors show how easy it is to buffalo the media,
> and by extension, the public, by pseudoscientific claims made by "real"
> scientists whose intellectual heritage is that of nineteenth- century snake
> oil salesmen.* To conclude this review, I will illustrate its disturbing
> message by telling an old, stale joke. Why do they bury scientists twelve
> feet down? Because, deep down, they are really good people. Oops! Not funny!
> That should be some other profession, not "scientists!" .... *Other
> professions have their share of shysters. So does the scientific profession.
> The public just has not picked up on us yet. *It is clear that far too
> many in our profession have lost their way. Are they a small minority? I
> would like to think so. Do they have a bad influence in our society? Yes. Is
> this a good thing? Clearly, no. .." *~ J. Burgeson *reviewing TRUST US,
> WE'RE EXPERTS... http://www.calvin.edu/archive/asa/200709/0311.html
>
>
> things can get attributed to ASA that shouldn't be, ...
>
>
> *@ *Like this?:
>
> "I don't know how wise it is for him *[Ken Miller]* to be *sewing* this
> *rift and division *in the church among those who are looking for
> justification to discredit and marginalize the Christian faith." "His talk
> was punctuated with a lot of gratuitous political references that were
> wildly popular with the audience like a picture from a magazine that had a
> picture of B ush imposed over the cover of his textbook *~ John Walley *[asa]
> Ken Miller: Evolangelist - Thu, 29 Nov 2007 05:39:31 -0500
>
> and lots of ASA members with* varying perspectives* don't participate as a
> result. ..
>
>
> *@ *I have always found that most people who don't participate in
> discussions (if certain other people are also involved) don't have a thick
> skin and want to be able to continue to hold their pet theories / opinions
> without challenge (they know they can't legitimately defend them), and be
> provided with the cover (a "safe space") to diss those they personally
> despise behind their back. It would blow their "Christian" facade to do it
> in public.
>
> For these reasons, it would be great to have a well-promoted, diverse,
> private ASA board, along with a more diverse, substantive, moderated public
> ASA blog. ..
>
>
> *@ *Who would this completely objective "restrictionist" (or
> restrictionists) be who gets to define the term "substantive"?
>
>
> A private board would also allow for "spiritual" things like mentoring,
> prayer requests, and genuinely tolerant and loving communication among
> people who disagree.
>
>
> *@ *You mean like an on-line "church"?
>
> Unfortunately, one needs to come to the email list with a bit of
> thick-skinned defensiveness, and I'm afraid that many newbies who are just
> beginning to seriously explore the intersection of Christian faith and
> science can get pummeled in a way that isn't faith-enhancing.
>
>
> *@ * The real world *is* a tough place, isn't it.
>
> We've been through this a few times before. ...*My effort to establish a
> private board on my own has floundered..* The boardmaster has to be active
> in letting the community know what's new -- *although bulletin board
> systems allow people to receive emails of recently updated posts if they so
> elect.* ...It would be great to have a genuinely "safe space" for
> exploration.
>
>
> *@ *If they truly "need a safe place" your "private" board should succeed
> as an on-line church.
>
> *~ Janice .... *noting that PBS's Bill Moyers knows where a "safe space"
> is: http://tinyurl.com/72xr4
>
>
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Dec 11 13:21:39 2007