Re: [asa] RE: Public questions for Denyse O'Leary

From: Michael Roberts <>
Date: Fri Dec 22 2006 - 14:56:56 EST

I find O'leary's comments totally unreasonable and out of order. They
reflect very badly on ARN Dembski and all the rest who use her as an ally.

I am not a member of the ASA as I live across the pond and thus am in
Christians in Science. I have great regard for both as organisations and
gratitude to those from both groups who have helped me. I have also had to
research the history of the ASA and I also have great respect for their
founders and members of earlier generations.

The ASA has always tried to present a constructive apologetic for Christ and
to avoid where possible internecine conflict. The latter becomes impossible
when one group of Christians slags off another group, with accusations of
denying their faith swallowing atheistic Darwinism etc. Unfortunately this
is what so many in YEC have done and increasingly those who adopt ID and
Denyse's comments are a bad example of this. Another is when Paul Nelson
denigrated the faith of the late Arthur Peacocke, a Christian I had great
respect for and disagreed with strongly - often in person. (Those who don't
know Arthur was very liberal, but a strong opponent of everything Dawkins
which was his rationale for founding the Society of Ordained Scientists.
Sadly his first secretary of SoOSc died in November as well) Nelson also was
unreasonable to Keith Miller. This type of thing is intolerable.

This is not from a passive stance and I am quite happy to disagree and
diverge from those I respect, but knock their Christian integrity NO!

It does seem that those of us who are neither ID or YEC get demonised both
by Dawkins et al and ID and YEC.

I will ask Denyse a question.

Are you happy to savage the body of Christ?

----- Original Message -----
From: "D. F. Siemens, Jr." <>
To: <>
Cc: <>; <>
Sent: Friday, December 22, 2006 5:57 PM
Subject: Re: [asa] RE: Public questions for Denyse O'Leary

>I think we can take the argument further, for most of what we do is
> necessarily secular. Farming, buying groceries, banking, sleeping, etc.
> indefinitely, are all secular activities. Maybe we should either desist
> or keep on our knees while doing them!?
> Dave
> On Thu, 21 Dec 2006 20:18:12 -0800 PvM <> writes:
>> What is this secular neoDarwinian paradigm? Isn't all science
>> 'secular' really? And why should faith be interested in
>> overthrowing
>> science?
>> Just because something is founded in a secular approach, does not
>> mean
>> that it has no place in religious faith. Many religious people have
>> found it possible to reconcile their faith and this 'secular
>> neoDarwinian paradigm'.
>> Sure, such messages may resonate amongst some Christians who are
>> (mis)led to believe that there is somehow a necessary conflict
>> between
>> (secular) science and Christianity but such a stance invariable
>> comes
>> at a cost both to science and to religion.
>> I'd say that such a stance has already done significant damage to
>> religious faith and is fueling much of the recent atheist
>> 'revivals.
>> On 12/21/06, James Mahaffy <> wrote:
>> >While I think ID would like to overthrow the secular neoDarwinain
>> paradigm, I sadly suspect they >will be more effective among the
>> Christian layity than the scientists. I am not sure either that
>> ASA
>> >will or can be a united voice there, but it certainly provides
>> fellowship and support for evangelical >scientists and that is
>> important.
>> To unsubscribe, send a message to with
>> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
> To unsubscribe, send a message to with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri Dec 22 15:01:33 2006

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Dec 22 2006 - 15:01:33 EST