he agrees with Terry's original suggestion:
>I hope that we applaud this move as strongly as we
>criticized the original version. I am especially intrigued by the line
>"they had not intended the statement on evolution to include theological
Maybe Terry and George are right; it's an important question -- and
(re: ATTITUDES) I'll have to think about this carefully, and maybe revise
some of what I've said, or at least say it in a different way.
But (re: LOGIC) I think NABT and Scott are continuing to "include
theological positions" in their statements. Maybe -- if they really "had
not intended" to do this in the past, and do not intend to do it in the
present or future -- there will be further revisions.
In the long run, maybe attitudes are more important than logic; in any
case, attitudes are important, and probably the NABT revision (small as it
is) should be applauded.
But can we also ask for clarifications, such as what is meant when
evolution is declared (without qualification) to be "a natural process,"
and whether this is just an alternative way to say "unguided"?