Talk:J. Laurence Kulp

Not dead yet?

Laurence Kulp is not dead. According to the New York Times this morning (February 2, 2008) he has just resigned his position at the NAPAP.

He resigned days after the acid rain report was published in 1987. See New York Times Dec 31, 1989

Please recheck your source and post reference. The ASA did produce an obituary in Feb 2007 <http://www.asa3.org/ASA/newsletter/janfeb07.pdf> —Preceding unsigned comment added by Another berean (talk • contribs) 09:47, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

So, we have a dispute between Old Kulp Decompositionalists and Young Kulp Vivisionists! 11:32, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Kulp and Old Earth creationism

The lead currently states: "He was a prominent advocate in creationist circles in favor of an Old Earth and against the pseudoscience of flood geology." with "Old Earth" linking to Old Earth creationism.

These claims don't appear to be substantiated by the section on 'Criticism of flood geology'. I am therefore changing this to "in American Scientific Affiliation circles" and linking "Old Earth" to Age of the Earth, to avoid making an unsubstantiated claim of Kulp's ties to OEC. If sources explicitly supporting Kulp's creationism can be found, then it can always be changed back. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 13:27, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

• There was nothing amiss in calling Kulp a creationist. As Christians all members of the ASA pledge as much. Check:

• A POSITION ON CREATION from the The Creation-Views of ASA.
• "We Believe in Creation". Richard H. Bube. JASA 23:121-122 (1971).

--Firefly322 (talk) 14:24, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

It might help if you actually read the documents you cite:

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, maybe, and no" 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)"
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 evolution 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) claim that an authentically "creationist" view must propose some miracles during creation, so a totally natural evolutionary creation wouldn't really be creation.
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.

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.

— [1]

That is hardly an unequivocal statement that all ASA members are creationists. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 15:07, 10 July 2009 (UTC)