Re: [asa] ICR for May, 2007

From: Jack <drsyme@cablespeed.com>
Date: Thu May 10 2007 - 22:37:09 EDT

I think this is an excellent point. If there is anything in this matter that is incontovertibly true, it is that the Earth and universe are old. We should be emphasizing that point, without compromise.

  ----- Original Message -----
  From: George Murphy
  To: asa@calvin.edu
  Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2007 7:27 PM
  Subject: Re: [asa] ICR for May, 2007

  I think the time has come to ask if ASA can continue to remain silent on the age issue. This is merely an academic discussion, as shown by the upcoming opening of the AiG museum. We really have to ask if the organization is acting in a responsible way if it allows such blatant, well-financed & well-publicized activities to mislead people and give Christianity a bad name among the scientifically literate without speaking out.

  It is very important to realize that official acceptance of an old earth would not mean taking a official stance on biological evolution.

  A good deal has been made of the fact that there are a few scientifically trained YECs who are honest about the fact that present-day science points to an old earth but who themselves believe in a young earth because of their theological position. It might be unfortunate if they had to leave ASA because of the organization taking an old-earth position but that may be the prcise for organizational integrity and credibility. & there have always been intelligent fellow Christians who didn't meet the criteria for membership.

  Shalom
  George
  http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/

  ----- Original Message -----
  From: "Dave Wallace" <wdwllace@sympatico.ca>
  Cc: <asa@calvin.edu>
  Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2007 5:26 PM
  Subject: Re: [asa] ICR for May, 2007

> 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.
>

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 22:37:11 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu May 10 2007 - 22:37:11 EDT