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

Can you summarize Robin Collins's interpretation of the Fall?

 
Moorad

________________________________

From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu on behalf of d.nield@auckland.ac.nz
Sent: Sat 9/1/2007 11:28 PM
To: Gregory Arago
Cc: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: [asa] What is exactly is a TE?

Other people such as Keith Miller and Terry Gray have already responded
eloquently on this thread, so I confine myself to some personal comments.
My position is similar to those espoused by the group of contributors to
the book "Perspectives on an Evolving Creation". If that is taken as the
definition of a TE then I accept the term, and I see it as also
encompassing Lamoureux's position.

My theological views are not driven by my views on evolution but they are
consistent with them. My view of God is based on what God has revealed in
the Books of Scripture and Nature. These books together indicate that God
has used accomodation in Scripture and is the sort of God who allows his
Creation to evolve -- a kenotic God. The Fall is to be interpreted along
the lines taken by Robin Collins in the book mentioned in the previous
paragraph.

Teihard de Chardin goes well beyond a typical modern day TE view. The
Kuyper quote has no relevance to my position. The quote by Phillip Johnson
is an illustration that Johnson himself is confused -- notably in his
failure to distinguish adequately the distinction between methodological
naturalism and metaphysical naturalism.

The E in TE refers to Evolution in its scientific sense. It includes
cosmological evolution and biological evolution and also those aspects of
cultural revolution that are scientific -- it does not include the
non-scientific extensions made by some sociologists such as Herbert
Spencer or such people as Ken Ham.
Don

> 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.
>
> Here are two additional quotes on this topic to perhaps stir up
> discussion:
>
> "Theistic evolution is woefully-even perniciously-confused." - Phillip
> Johnson
>
> "Our nineteenth century is dying away under the hypnosis of the dogma of
> Evolution." - Abraham Kuyper (Vrije University, Presidential Address,
> 20/10/1899)
>
> Looking forward to your responses!
>
> Warm regards,
>
> Gregory
>
>
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sun Sep 2 10:43:32 2007