Re: [asa] ASA stance

From: George Murphy <gmurphy@raex.com>
Date: Fri May 11 2007 - 17:15:14 EDT

I'm not sure who the "you" you refer to is but since I initiated the discussion I assume I'm included. But I answer (below in red) only for myself.

Shalom
George
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
----- Original Message -----
From: "Donald F Calbreath" <dcalbreath@whitworth.edu>
To: "George Murphy" <gmurphy@raex.com>; "AmericanScientificAffiliation" <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Friday, May 11, 2007 4:23 PM
Subject: RE: [asa] ASA stance

I've been following the discussion about YECs, ID, ASA and who should be in it as well as all the connected issues for some time now. Let me see if I have everything straight.

1. You don't really want anybody who supports YEC or ID to be in ASA. You talk about allowing them in only as long as they don't say much or don't push their views.

My recent suggestions said nothing about ID. I also made it clear in my most recent post that I was not proposing that YECs be expelled & have said nothing about silencing them.

2. You want a statement about the age of the earth that does not make any assumptions about evolution.

It needn't say anything about evolution.

3. Many of you seem confused or uncertain about exactly when Adam and Eve lived, if they lived, or when a soul was somehow placed into humans, or when they became human, created in God's image.

I think we can make a rough estimate but I don't think that pinning this down precisely, either in time or space, is critical theologically. For further details see my PSCF article at http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2006/PSCF6-06Murphy.pdf .

4. You place a strong emphasis on scientific integrity, but seem to have some problems with placing the same emphasis on integrity of the Scriptures.

False.

5. Various modern theologians appear to be the major sources of your Scripture interpretation (and they are all very liberal theologians).

False.
 
Have I left anything out of importance?

Yes - trying to gain any understanding of what my actual position is or my reasons for it.
 
Some conclusions I come to:

1. Apparently, you don't support the statements that ASA has made about positions they take and the importance of inclusion and theological diversity.

I have suggested that ASA change its position on one particular issue.

2. You are very disdainful of people in ASA who take different positions than you do on some of these issues.

I don't think that a YEC position can be maintained in a coherent way. If you choose to see that as disdain for people, that's your problem.

3. I am having a difficult time seeing what distinguishes your position (is it Old Earth Creationism or Theistic Evolution or what?, I can't really tell) from the secular scientific community. It is not at all clear to me where God fits in to your position.

Have you made any attempt to find out where God "fits in" to my position?

The whole notion of "fitting in" God is completely inadequate. An adequate understanding of God, based upon God's self-revelation, should instead be the context in which a scientific understanding of the world is set. I've published a number of articles in PSCF & other places which set out my views pretty clearly. Besides the one I noted above, another that sketches my overall approach is at http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2000/PSCF9-00Murphy.html . Or you could look at my book The Cosmos in the Light of the Cross, whose very title belies the claim that my position is indistinguishable from that of the secular scientific community.

4. The recent conversations with AAAS and ASA must have been very comforting to the secular folks in AAAS (I have not seen anything specific about what was said in the conversation). My guess would be that they know now that they have co-opted a major Christian organization and can now get on with the task of eliminating any talk of God being involved in the world. If I am wrong, please let me know. I've raised the question at least once on this listserv within the last month and never got any response.

What "question"? You've asked no question here but just made an assertion, and a baseless one at that.

5. You are driving another wedge between science and conservative Christians. You will not convince more Christians to go into science; you will simply help many of them walk away from a story they already do not buy into.

The truth is nearly the opposite of this. If a "wedge" is driven between real science & conservative Christianity, it might be due to the fact that something is wrong with what you understand conservative Christianity to be. & one thing that drives people away from Christianity is finding out that they've been misled by, among others, YECs.

6. After over forty years of being a member of ASA, I will be submitting my resignation when the "official statement" comes out in June if it reads anywhere close to what has already been clearly stated on this listserv. I definitely no longer feel welcome here.

The issues you raise would be worth discussing but you aren't approaching them in a way that suggests that you want any serious discussion. Instead you're just making unjustified assertions about "you" with no references to back them up.

 

Don Calbreath

________________________________

From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu on behalf of George Murphy
Sent: Fri 5/11/07 11:18 AM
To: AmericanScientificAffiliation
Subject: Re: [asa] ASA stance

Further comments on the issue, with reference to those who've posted on my original suggestion:
 
Ted D: I'm glad that Randy is going to be saying aomething about this in PSCF. However -
    a) That doesn't have the status of an official position statement of the organization.
    b) In any case, a concerted PR effort will be needed if we want an ASA statement (official or not) to have a significant impact.
Speaking of impacts, of course there will also be some negative fallout. But Dembski & O'Leary may have already gotten about as mileage from their disinformation campaign as they're going to get.
 
Bill H: First, I don't think that an endorsement of evolution should be made in connection with a statement in favor of an old earth. I certainly accept evolution myself, but it's possible for an honest, intelligent & scientifically literate person to hold some version of OEC or PC without the distortions or doublethink that YEC requires. Besides, separating the two issues has some tactical advantages. It would mean that we wouldn't have to provoke Christians who react viscerally to the E word.
        Second, adopting a statement on age doesn't mean that we have to kick YECs out of the organization. That wouldn't be part of the statement of faith. They could even be advised privately that they were welcome to stay. But including a welcome to them in the original statement would cloud the message.
 
Jack: I agree that "biblical interpretations that claim that the earth MUST be young, are incorrect," but don't think that we should state this explicitly. It would be better to stick to a statement about the science. Among other things, we should remember that most members of ASA are scientists & not professional theologians. OTOH, on drsyme's comment, I don't think we should make an explicit statement about their being multiple valid interpretations of scripture. That's true, but not all interpretations are valid.
 
Dave S: The theological commitments involved in our statement of faith include theological validation of scientific investigation of the world. (In a way the older statement of faith was stronger in that regard: "Certain laws are discernable in the manner in which God upholds the world. The scientific approach is acapable of giving reliable information about the natural world.")
 
Dick F & Jack H: I would hope that the council would give serious consideration to the type of statement I suggested.
 
David O: I can't say that I really understand the type of "old & young" view you're proposing but it makes me nervous. Any view that makes sin, or Satan, or any evil power responsible for the present condition of the world, including the way fundamental physical processes operate, verges on the Manichean heresy because it makes something other than God the effective creator of the empirical world.
 
James M: Offering fellowship to the few YEC scientists who honestly face the difficulties of their view would be fine, but we can't do everything. & at this point I think it's more important to maintain the public credibility of the ASA & if possible put a spoke in the wheel of the well-financed & publicized YEC movement whose integrity is, at the very least, open to question.
 
Terry G: The previous 2 comments also apply, mutatis mutandis, to your response. We can respect the fact that some Christians think the authority of scripture requires a young earth without remaining officially neutral on the subject.
I disagree with you about the viability of apparent age arguments (see my earlier post on Oklo) but don't want to get off track on that now.
 
Jim A: A young earth view is very helpful, though not essential, for anti-evolution. If the earth has only been around for ~10^4 years then significant macroevolution couldn't have happened. The type of statement I suggest would thus remove some support from anti-evolution positions, & so much the better, but we don't have to point that out explicitly.
 
Hope there are no stupid typos this time!
 
Shalom
George
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/ <http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/>
 

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 Fri May 11 17:15:59 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri May 11 2007 - 17:15:59 EDT