Re: [asa] ICR for May, 2007

From: Dave Wallace <wdwllace@sympatico.ca>
Date: Thu May 10 2007 - 17:26:05 EDT

Michael Roberts wrote:
> George this is a totally fair response. I am still waiting for any YEC
> arguments who are not nonsense or a total ignoring of the evidence .
> Having read Genesis Flood in 1971 I have been waiting a long time.
>
> Yet I am not supposed to say all this.

 From ASA web site:

ASA's unique mission is to integrate, communicate, and facilitate
properly researched science and biblical theology in service to the
Church and the scientific community.

As an organization, the ASA does not take a position when there is
honest disagreement between Christians on an issue...

===============
At this point in history I have real problems seeing how ASA can manage
to resolve the tensions between the two above statements wrt YEC. There
does not seem to be any way, in general, that an article dealing with
science from a YEC perspective could be considered to be properly
researched and have integrity. Sure a person holding the YEC position
could well author a paper on an unrelated part of science or theology
and I for one would not want to exclude such.

A part of me wants strongly to agree with George, John and Michael but I
also feel very conflicted as they are brothers in Christ. I definitely
would not want to exclude OEC or ID. If the issue ever comes up for a
vote, probably in the end I would opt for excluding YEC at least from
voting membership especially considering that they have formed their own
organizations to deal with origins.

I think the document Terry referenced:
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/topics/Evolution/commission_on_creation.html
is a very fair statement of the various positions and is not an
"embarrassment" from that point of view, however, IMHO allowing YEC does
seem to weaken ASA position and outreach with respect to integrity of
science.

I only suggested a YEC ASA listserv to remain in compliance with ASAs
official policy, although a safe place for them to ask questions of
those with other positions still seems like a good idea.

On the past Tuesday and Wednesday I took the train on my way to see my
dad in a nursing home in southern Ontario. When I started out the
countryside, in the valley of the Ottawa river was lush and farms were
prosperous and well kept. The valley mostly has 15 to 20 feet of clay
and soil on top of the rock. The train climbs to get over the Canadian
shield (also called the Precambrian Shield) watershed where the soil is
very thin on top of metamorphic base rock. One passes by lots of swampy
areas with stunted trees or shrubs. In many places the forest is dying
since the beavers change the drainage patterns over time. Frequently
hardscrabble farms are seen but with a few more prosperous farms if the
soil is deep and dry enough. Typically the few railway cuts, go through
hard rock although in some places eskers are obviously visible. The
highway follows the old settlements and thus only a little of the rough
swampy area is seen whereas the tracks were pushed through with much
less consideration for the terrain. The only explanation that seems to
account for the deep soil in the valley is that it was under water at
the end of the last ice age, which also accounts for the eskers.
Somehow a young earth and appearance of age does not correspond to the
kind of God I worship.

Dave W

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu May 10 17:26:35 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu May 10 2007 - 17:26:36 EDT