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

In addition to the specific problem of "evolutionist" often being used
to imply an atheistic philosophical position, the phrase "theistic
evolutionist" seems to unduely weight evolution. Evolutionary
creationist puts the more important, theological aspect as the noun,
with evolution in the modifying position. It also has the advantage
of being less conventional phrasing and so being a bit more likely to
get someone asking "what's that?" TE has the disadvantage of
sometimes being used with unspecified additional assumptions in the
definition (see the Philip Johnson quote early in this thread, for
example), so I would want to have a definition in order to use it.

As to the origins versus change component, it is true that evolution
describes the process of change rather than the origination itself.
This process does address the origins of species, but eventually (at
least at the very basic biochemical level) requires something else.
That something else may only be the rules of chemistry.

The exact limits of TE/EC will depend on the definition one selects.
Although it would be logically possible to fully accept biological
evolution while rejecting cosmological evolution, I know of no one
taking such a position. Whether one classifies someone who posits a
miraculous, intervention-style origin of life followed by ordinary
evolution as TE/EC, and if so, how many more instances of
intervention-style action are allowed, is one question of demarcation;
Behe is a suitable real-world example. Then there would be the option
of saying "I don't know of any theological nor scientific reason to
think that intervention-style action was involved in the course of
evolution, but wouldn't say that there could not have been any".
Similarly, various views on the exact processes involved in the origin
of humans as in God's image (e.g., Morton versus Fisher versus
Collins, etc.) exist; where one draws the line for those would be
another issue of demarcation. The inconsistency of ID on the topic of
evolution doesn't help in drawing lines, either.

I suppose the most important point is not to assume that a person
identified in a particular category believes something unless they
have said that they believe it. E.g., assuming that a TE is headed
straight for atheism by way of process theology is no more reasonable
than assuming all those with any sympathy for ID accept Wells' denial
that HIV causes AIDS or that all Muslims approve suicide bombings or
all atheists have no better arguments than Dawkins.

-- 
Dr. David Campbell
425 Scientific Collections
University of Alabama
"I think of my happy condition, surrounded by acres of clams"
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.