Re: [asa] Education, Medicine, and Evolution

Please add ASA member Hugh Gauch Jr to the list of those who respectfully
and coherently discuss the official views of the AAAS and other scientific
organizations. He wrote this article which is online now and will be part of
a special issue from Springer early next year. Hugh will also have an
article in that issue responding to other authors in the issue.
Check it out at http://www.springerlink.com/content/p668904p854h5t6x/

Randy
----- Original Message -----
From: "Donald F Calbreath" <dcalbreath@whitworth.edu>
To: "Ted Davis" <TDavis@messiah.edu>; "asa" <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Monday, June 02, 2008 1:20 PM
Subject: RE: [asa] Education, Medicine, and Evolution

> Ted:
>
> I agree with you. I have been a scientist and a Christian for over forty
> years and see no problem in integrating the two on a practical basis as
> long as I keep my theology as the priority. My point is that "official"
> definitions of science, as offered by AAAS and NAS, are not being
> challenged openly by Christians who are scientists. We Christians try to
> dance around the problem and end up with some form of "supernatural
> explanations have no place in science". But what are we saying when we
> say this? What are the implications of these kinds of statements? The
> comments of individuals are one thing. But I don't see anyone saying that
> there should be wide-spread disagreement among Christians with these
> statements made by organizations that claim to speak for science.
> Debating individuals is valuable, but where do we take on the
> Establishment (good grief! I sound like a hippy of the 60s. I did go to
> college in the 60s, but my only "mind-altering substance" was black coffe!
>
> e and I had a crew-cut).
>
> Do I make any sense with my basic question?
>
> Don
> ________________________________________
> From: Ted Davis [TDavis@messiah.edu]
> Sent: Monday, June 02, 2008 10:02 AM
> To: asa; Donald F Calbreath
> Subject: RE: [asa] Education, Medicine, and Evolution
>
> Now, I respond directly to Donald Calbreath, who asks:
>
>
> And then there are the recent statements by Coyne who says that religious
> and science cannot exist together. He goes on to advocate that religion
> be abolished since it is incompatible with science.
>
> Now, who are we to believe?
>
> ***
>
> My reply, Don, is taken from one of the blurbs for Giberson's book, as
> follows:
>
> "Few writers have poured more fuel on the recent science-religion
> controversies than such religion-bashers as Richard Dawkins, Carl Sagan,
> and
> Stephen Weinberg. In six perky profiles two Christian scholars critically,
> but fairly, examine the anti-religious claims of these and other
> scientific
> "oracles," finding them no more "scientific" than the mutterings of
> creationists."" --Ronald L. Numbers, author of The Creationists: From
> Scientific Creationism to Intelligent Design
>
> As Ron says, these claims are not scientific, any more than the mutterings
> of Ken Ham are scientific.
>
> Ted
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Jun 2 13:56:25 2008