The American Scientific Affiliation:
Positions on Controversial Issues?
Creation-Views and
Actions on
Evolution, Design, and Age
A POSITION ON CREATION
The most important view of ASA is explained
in
a
1971
editorial: "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. ... We believe in creation. It
is unthinkable for a Christian to do otherwise. {quoted
from We
Believe in Creation by Richard Bube, editor
of
ASA's
journal,
1969-1983} Are we creationists? (yes, maybe, and no)
AN OPEN FORUM
As an organization,
the ASA does not take a position when there is honest disagreement between
Christians on an issue. We are committed to providing an open forum where
controversies can be discussed without fear of unjust condemnation. Legitimate
differences of opinion among Christians who have studied both the Bible and
science are freely expressed within the Affiliation in a context of Christian
love and concern for truth." { from ASA Beliefs }
In August 2005 the new
executive director of ASA, Randy Isaac, reaffirmed this policy
and explained that ASA is committed to careful
studies
of
scripture
& nature, in a pursuit of quality in theology & science: "The
ASA policy of neutrality... does not mean wishy-washy relativism. ... We
have a strong platform with two planks: We have a strong statement of
faith... and a commitment to integrity in science. ... The
role of ASA is to encourage and enable dialogue, in an atmosphere of trust
and respect,
about the honest differences regarding these two key planks."
He is explaining why neutrality
is not passivity, and even though ASA does not advocate a conclusion,
we do enthusiastically endorse a process of respectful discussion, so
we can better understand the similarities and differences in our views of theology
and science, so we can learn from each other, and about each other.
ACTIONS OF ASA
Since
1949, consistent with the neutrality
policy and educational philosophy of the American Scientific Affiliation
("we are committed to providing
an open forum where controversies can be discussed") the ASA journal
has provided an open forum by publishing papers with a variety of views about
origins. { The ASA's journal is Perspectives on Science
and Christian Faith, and you can explore its history and contents. }
Since 1994 we have
provided a similar forum in the ASA Website — mainly due to
the work of Jack Haas (editor of the ASA journal, 1990-1999, and an editor
for the
website from 1994 until now) and Terry Gray (webmaster who keeps everything
working, and is also an editor for content & structure) — as
explained in its history
and current status (in 2006); since 1999, Whole-Person Education
for Science and Faith (with Craig Rusbult as editor) is a "website
within the website" with 7 areas,
including Creation Questions. As
our disclaimer explains, in our multi-perspective websites "you'll
find links to resource-pages expressing a wide range of views, which don't
necessarily
represent
views of the American Scientific Affiliation." Our websites
are educational resources, but are not declarations of policy.
Compared with Christian faith-and-science organizations who specialize in promoting a particular view of origins by boldly proclaiming that they have The Answer, the actions of ASA have been limited by our neutrality policy. But, as explained above, we do have a strong commitment to intellectual integrity in both science and theology. These commitments have motivated and guided the actions of ASA from its early days until the present:
• Despite pressure
to endorse young-earth flood geology, the strong scientific support for
an old earth was clearly explained
in
ASA's early meetings and publications,
including Modern Science and Christian Faith (ASA's first book,
in 1948), A Symposium on
"The
Age of the Earth" (1948), Deluge
Geology by Laurence Kulp (1950),
and
more.
• Instead of simply
opposing "
evolution" as a whole, which was common in the Christian community at the
time,
in
1951
many scientific claims
of
modern
evolutionary
theory,
but
not
all,
were
accepted
by Russell Mixter in
an
early
ASA
monograph, Creation
and
Evolution. In its first two decades, 1941-1961, views
of ASA members evolved, as they carefully evaluated the
scientific evidence and prayerfully examined potential ways to harmonize
evolutionary science and Bible-based theology. { You can find journal
articles
about
evolution
by
Mixter
and others, from 1949 onward, by browsing our online journal
archives. }
• In 1986, responding to the first edition
of Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy
of Sciences (1984), ASA published Teaching Science in a Climate
of Controversy: A View from the American Scientific Affiliation, written
by David Price, John Wiester, and Walter Hearn. This 48-page booklet
did not take a position on evolution. It did encourage a logical
process of open-minded scientific evaluation, willing to ask critical questions
about evolution
and to consider
intermediate positions, not — as advocated by both extreme positions —
just the extreme positions of young-earth creation and atheistic evolution. The
beginning of Teaching
Science... (the first 8 pages:
Coping with Controversy, The Teacher's Dilemma, and Classroom Guidelines)
explains why a climate of controversy
exists, and how
a teacher can "teach with openness while upholding
standards of scientific integrity."
• In 1991 the Executive Council of ASA — motivated
by a desire "to promote excellence and integrity
in science education as well as in science" and "[to
avoid] inappropriate entanglement of the scientific concept of evolution
with political, philosophical, or religious perspectives" — adopted
the resolution, A Voice for Evolution as Science: "...
To make classroom instruction more stimulating while guarding it against the
intrusion of extra-scientific beliefs, the teaching of any scientific subject,
including evolutionary biology, should include: (1) forceful presentation
of well-established scientific data and conclusions; (2) clear distinction
between evidence and inference; and (3) candid discussion of unsolved
problems and open questions." {the
full resolution}
• In 2000 the ASA Creation Commission released a Statement on Creation (written by Bill Dembski, Keith Miller, Paul Nelson, Bob Newman, and Dave Wilcox) summarizing general creation principles and four specific positions: three views of creation (young-earth, old-earth, evolutionary) plus intelligent design. / Independent from this project, one of the authors describes ASA's approach to controversial questions about creation, and explains why theistic evolution (evolutionary creation) is a creationist view, in The American Scientific Affiliation and the Evangelical Response to Evolution (also in PDF) by Keith Miller.
• From 2000 to 2005, the ASA Lay Education Project worked to develop a book that would explain our scientific knowledge about age of the earth & universe, with scientific integrity but at a level so the science could be understood by intelligent nonscientists. Two main objectives were "to show that scientific evidence supports an old Earth and Universe, and diminish the misuse of science to support a young Earth; to show that scripture does not require a young-earth interpretation. (from ASA's 2004 Annual Report)" This book project was abandoned in 2005, for reasons that were not related to these two objectives.
• In June
2007, Randy Isaac (Executive Director of ASA) wrote an essay-review
about the technical report of RATE, a project in which young-earth scientists
try
to
show that
radiometric
dating supports a
young earth, not (as in mainstream science) an old earth. Before
this review was published the author sent it to
members of the ASA Council, and they did not object to him expressing his personal
views
in the final paragraph: "The
ASA does not take a position on issues when there is honest disagreement
among
Christians provided there is adherence to our statement of faith and
to integrity in science. Accordingly, the ASA neither endorses nor
opposes young-earth creationism which recognizes the possibility of a recent
creation
with appearance of age or which acknowledges the unresolved discrepancy between
scientific data and a young-earth position. However, claims that scientific
data affirm a young earth do not meet the criterion of integrity in science. Any
portrayal of the RATE project as confirming scientific support for a young
earth contradicts the RATE project’s own admission of unresolved problems. The
ASA can and does oppose such deception." {from Assessing
the RATE Project}
Some
principles
of Integrity
in Science are outlined by Isaac in an 8-part
series that concludes with "Age of the Earth" where
he explains why,
in his review of RATE,
he "is
concerned
primarily
with the integrity of the reporting of the work [by RATE] rather than
the claims themselves. ... Though it is clearly stated [in the technical
report of RATE] that the young-earth scenario is not consistent with known
scientific processes, the result [of their research] is being presented at
RATE conferences,
dubbed ‘Thousands not Billions’, as if RATE has confirmed the biblical
message of a young earth. It is this duplicity [in a "false reporting
of
conclusions"] which
the
ASA
opposed
in
the article." {a
response from RATE plus replies by Randy Isaac & Kirk Bertshe, and more,
are
in RATE
and
Radiometric Dating}
• If you look
at
papers about Age and Evolution/Design in the journal of ASA, you'll
see
two
stories. During
the past few decades our journal has published almost exclusively old-earth
papers, although it sometimes
includes young-earth responses in letters. By contrast, the number of
papers has
been roughly equal for differing views of evolution and intelligent design. This
difference in our treatment of questions about AGE and EVOLUTION/DESIGN is
consistent with the consensus views of our members, as described
below
in NO and MAYBE.
CREATIONISM
Are we creationists? The
ASA's 1991 resolution for teaching "Evolution
as Science" recommends a "candid discussion
of unsolved problems and open questions." Does this willingness
to ask questions mean we are creationists? The
answer is "yes, no, and
maybe" because
it depends on how creationism is defined.
YES. All members
of ASA are Christians, so (as explained above)
we all believe that
God designed, created, and sustains natural process, and (sometimes or always)
guides it: "Creation is not a controversial question. I
have no hesitancy in affirming, ‘we believe in creation,’ for
every ASA member. (Richard
Bube, in editorial for ASA's journal, 1971)"
NO. If a creationist must believe
the earth is young, then most ASA members are not "creationists" because
most of us think there is a wide variety of scientific evidence strongly
indicating that the earth and universe are billions of years old. Scientists
with young-earth views are welcome in ASA, but most Christian scientists (both
inside
and outside ASA)
think the earth is old.
MAYBE. How
did God create? There
is disagreement when we ask, "did God design the universe so
it would be totally self-assembling by natural process?" Some
members of ASA are evolutionary creationists who think totally-natural evolution
(where natural does not mean "it happened without God") was God's method of creation, but some think occasional miraculous-appearing
divine action was necessary (*)
and it was used by God during the formative history of nature. (* Maybe
a universe designed for optimal operation would be only partially
self-assembling.) Jack
Haas, a website editor for ASA, says "The
ASA has no official position on evolution; its
members hold a diversity of views with varying degrees of intensity." But
we can agree that "evolution" and "design" should
be carefully
defined. This paragraph begins with "MAYBE" because
some people (but not most ASA members, and not the editor for this page) claim that an authentically "creationist" view must propose
some miracles during creation, so a totally natural evolutionary
creation wouldn't
really be creation.
a summary:
ASA
won't tell you what to conclude, but we will provide educational resources
so you can make an informed evaluation
and reach your own conclusions.