Mr. Murphy,
The question is not whether or not ASA should be a big tent and admit
non-traditional scientists such as astrologers in the ASA membership.
Those who will want to become members will be ultimately screened by
what ASA's mission, vision and values are. ASA will attract a specific
crowd if ASA is clear on what it is trying to achieve. For example, if
the theological side of the science/theology link ASA is endeavouring to
explore is clearly Bible-based theology, then the astrology question
will take care of itself because the Bible-broken ASA member would know
God's view on astrology, and, the astrologer would not feel in his place
as an ASA member.
george murphy a écrit:
> The following item, headed "Astrology schools wins
> accreditation", appeared in the Akron Beacon Journal of 28 August
> 2001.
>
> "The Astrological Institute, a modest school in downtown
> Phoenix where students learn to write horoscopes and give advice about
> the future, has won accreditation from a federally recognized body in
> what's believed to be a first for a school of astrology.
> The Accrediting Commission of Career Schools and Colleges of
> Technology has certified that the school's teachers are qualified and
> that its graduates can be placed in jobs.
> The institute where students take courses such as 'master
> class on the asteroid goddesses' and 'how to write an astrological
> column' can now seek approval from the U.S. Education Department for
> its students to get federal grants and loans."
>
> In view of this, and in the spirit of a recent post to this
> list saying that ASA should be a "big tent", should people who have
> degrees in astrology from an accredited institution and fulfill other
> criteria for membership qualify for ASA membership?
>
> "But seriously folks" - that "big tent" appeal was on behalf
> of YECs. Yes, a person who believes the universe to be ~6000 years
> old can be a member of ASA. The organization is a broad tent in that
> sense & I don't suggest that we change that. & yes, a person who
> believes in the scientific validity of astrology can also be a member
> - though I don't know of any who are. But are we, for that reason,
> required as scientists to take seriously the claims of astrology? Of
> a young earth view? Is there really any substantive difference?
>
> Shalom,
>
> George
>
> George L. Murphy
> http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
> "The Science-Theology Interface"
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Sep 06 2001 - 06:42:16 EDT