Re: [asa] What is exactly is a TE?

Keith Miller was the Editor of that text (Perspectives...), and he does
frequent this list on occasion, so maybe he will see your query
eventually. Meanwhile, I will share his response with you when I
referred to him as a TE. He responded to this effect -- (and I may be
expanding on his words). While the TE label has reached popular and
common usage, he (& I think he included others who authored essays in
that text) preferred "evolutionary creationist" because the term
"evolutionist" carries the implication that a person has an ideological
commitment to Evolution. As such, it is a term applied to scientists by
those who are hostile to evolution and who wish to imply exactly that --
that there *IS* an ideological commitment underneath the supposed
science. Whereas Keith & Co., if I am correct, would describe
themselves as scientists who merely accept evolution as the best
scientific theory of origins we have at present. If or when evidence
ever leads in other directions, they will follow the evidence and suffer
no a-priori commitment to "evolutionism" whatsoever (or at least that is
the ideal a scientist does humanly aspire to when he/she is thinking
scientifically.) So the use of the term "evolutionist" already implies
hostility to that theory on the part of the speaker **OR** the
acceptance of the term "evolutionist" for oneself may often also imply a
welcoming of the warfare mode of thought between science and
Christianity by one who is anti-Christian and enjoys full agreement with
modern YECs that evolutionary theory and Christianity are absolutely
mutually exclusive. Hence they gladly welcome the label "evolutionist"
and where it as a badge of ideological pride --(hardly a scientific mode
of thinking!) While YECs will generally not welcome evolutionary
creationists as legitimate creationists, they (the "TE"s) are,
nevertheless Creationists in the full ideological sense. And this is as
it should be, because they DO retain a religious commitment in that
direction by which they will stand regardless of shifting times or
paradigms. --Unlike the scientific process which at least aspires to
get away from ideological commitment. They deserve to choose their own
label according to their ideology -- Creationist, rather than by some
scientific theory that dominates at present. They aren't
"Evolutionists" any more than you or I are "Gravitationists" because we
believe in gravity (as if we were prepared to get our dander up and
religiously defend Newtonian gravity from attack when some other
explanation like Einstein's threatens to supplant it.)

(Keith, I'll send this to you as well -- hopefully you won't have too
much to undo of what I said above.)

--Merv

Gregory Arago wrote:
> What exactly is a TE? This is a great question, David, and one I would
> love to see addressed at ASA. If it is true that ASA is home to many
> of the scientists/scholars who contributed to the volume "Perspectives
> of an Evolving Creation" and if that is the (or a) definitive text for
> the TE (theistic evolution or theological evolution) perspective, then
> it should be an excellent place to address this question. Surely,
> those who hold to TE will be able to mention the names of the most
> prominent TEs in history and point out the main ideas that TE represents.
>
> David Campbell addresses two categories in answer to 'what exactly is
> a TE?' 1) "A Christian who acknowledges that evolution provides the
> best current physical description of the origin and diversification of
> organisms," and 2) "Someone who seeks to revise theology to conform to
> a purportedly more evolutionary mold. This is anchored in evolution..."
>
> In response to these two categories, I wonder first if a TE is one who
> simply acknowledges evolution as a (successful) descriptive theory of
> natural history. I'm also curious how to differentiate between 'more
> evolutionary' and 'less evolutionary' and if the distinction is worth
> making in the sense that a TE still ultimately accepts evolution in
> general. Personally, I don't think evolution has anything to do with
> 'origins,' despite the title of C. Darwin's most well-known text. It
> is rather predominantly about 'processes' of change, while it should
> be clearly noted (as was done in a thread months back at ASA) that
> 'change' and 'evolution' are not synonymous.
>
> Does a TE accept ALL forms of evolutionary theories or just some
> forms? That is, does a TE accept just biological evolution or also
> cosmological evolution, technological evolution and cultural
> evolution? Or does a TE not differentiate between various types of
> evolution and rather inevitably hold to a kind of ideological,
> 'universalistic evolution,' of the type that Pierre Teilhard de
> Chardin meant when he wrote:
>
> "Is evolution a theory, a system or a hypothesis? It is much more: it
> is a general condition to which all theories, all hypotheses, all
> systems must bow and which they must satisfy henceforward if they are
> to be thinkable and true. Evolution is a light illuminating all facts,
> a curve that all lines must follow." (The Phenomenon of Man, 1940)
>
> It might be worthwhile distinguishing a TE from an EC ('evolutionary
> creationist' -- see Denis Lamoureux's definition here: ), but to do so
> may distract from the topic, at least at first.
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sat Sep 1 15:44:37 2007