Science, Creation & EvolutionEvolution vs. Intelligent Design for DummiesFor the record, someone on another board I posted had this viewpoint on the ASA:
And the journal itself seems pretty suspect to me. For example, here's one of their position statements:
Quote:
It should be well known to readers of the Journal ASA that the ASA does not take an official position on controversial questions. Creation is not a controversial question. I have no hesitancy in affirming, "We believe in creation," for every ASA member.
The Biblical doctrine of creation is one of the richest doctrines revealed to us by God. It reveals to us that the God who loves us is also the God who created us and all things; at once it establishes the relationship between the God of religious faith and the God of physical reality. It is because of creation that we trust in the reality of a physical and moral structure to the universe, which we can explore as scientists and experience as persons. It is because of creation that we know that the universe and everything in it depends moment-by-moment upon the sustaining power and activity of God. It is because of creation that we know that we are not the end-products of meaningless processess in an impersonal universe, but men and women made in the image of a personal God. It is by the formulation of "creation out of nothing" that we affirm that God created the universe freely and separately, and reject the alternatives of dualism and pantheism. To worship God as Creator is to emphasize both His transcendence over the natural order and His imminence in the natural order; it is to recognize that His mode of existence as Creator is completely other than our mode of existence as created. To appreciate God as Creator is to recognize that which He created as intrinsically good; the rationale for scientific investigation, the assurance of ultimate personal meaning in life, and the nature of evil as an aberration on a good creation are all intrinsic to such an appreciation. We believe in creation. It is unthinkable for a Christian to do otherwise.
While this later goes on to define "creation" so broadly as to be almost meaningless, the attitude is clear. They include under the same banner several views: "Young Earth View, Old Earth View, Theistic Evolution View, and Intelligent Design View". This is ridiculous, since no good scientific organization would present such blatantly anti-scientific views as valid theories. Their peer-review process isn't up to snuff, either; articles which display blatant misunderstandings of science are actually published instead of being properly ripped apart and spat upon.
| View Parent Message View dfilename Return Home |