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

Elaborating my earlier post in response to Gregory's questions & comments:

1st in general: The thrust of my remarks was that TE is a broad popular term, not a precise technical one. That's just a statement of fact, for good or for ill. I am not rejoicing in that fact but it just is. & I'm not rejecting the possibility that a better term may supplant it but I think that that is (a) unlikely and (b) not a high priority.

I don't "prefer" TE over EC as a description of my own position but I don't attach high importance to the matter.

When people use the term TE, the "evolution" they have in mind is generally biological macro-evolution. No one would call a YEC who accepts variation within species a TE.

Beyond that, I certainly agree that serious theologians should go beyond simply "accepting" macro-evolution & try to understand it within an adequate theological context. I also think they should try to do that with anthropology, sociology &c, whether or not they understand those later areas in any kind of "evolutionary" sense.

I mentioned process theology here only to say that not all TEs are process theologians. The merits or demerits of process theology (a category in which the thought of Teilhard can be placed) should be discussed separately but that doesn't affect the point I wanted to make. For myself, I think that Teilhard made some important contributions to science-theology dialogue but I don't accept his overall view.

Shalom
George
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
  ----- Original Message -----
  From: Gregory Arago
  To: Keith Miller ; American Scientific Affiliation
  Sent: Monday, September 03, 2007 1:16 PM
  Subject: Re: [asa] What is exactly is a TE?
  .......................

  George Murphy writes: TE "is simply the view that biological macroevolution has taken place & that God has been involved in the process." . "I am a Christian who thinks that biological evolution has happened and that part of the creative activity of the Trinity takes place through the evolutionary process."
   
  First, I wonder why George didn't suggest that TE is the view that micro-evolution has taken and takes place because there are fewer disputes about micro-evolution's actual occurrence, which I for one do not doubt, than there are about macro-evolution. Second, is that what TE is supposedly about, i.e. simply confirming that 'biological evolution has happened' rather than finding a way to understand the Trinity's creative activity? If all broad-minded theologians ultimately must carry within their sphere of interest some kind of philosophy of biology (i.e. biological evolution HAS happened, the ontological claim), then on the other hand must not all broad-minded biologists carry within their sphere of interest some kind of philosophy of theology (i.e. G-D has created, is creating, continues to create through human beings who are created imago Dei)? I would applaud such an appeal to holistic knowledge (e.g. think Dooyeweerdian again), yet might wonder if we should not also consult culturologists, psychologists and anthropologists, in addition to physicists and biologists, in order to be a little more even-handed.
   
  The notion of '[TE] isn't going to go away' is simply unhelpful, especially coming from a person who calls himself a TE! Merv admits that the label 'TE' "has reached popular and common usage" but also that Keith prefers 'evolutionary creationist' due to ideological reasons. So please, George, do not put unnecessary restraints on the possibility that another 'label' *might* be found or used that explains a popular position better than another and that in principle *could* thus erase TE as improper or that it could become no longer statistically significant in use. If George wishes to be called a TE rather than an EC, then he should explain why he prefers the former term.
   
  George warns us not to assume TE's hold "some maximal view of the importance or scope of evolution like that of process theology." This warning should likely be reserved for another thread that deals specifically with 'process theology' because that is certainly a related but in many ways bigger topic of discussion. I have personally charged A.N. Whitehead for much of the confusion wrt the ideology of evolutionism via his over-prioritization of 'process' thought. The Russian-American sociologist P. Sorokin certainly exposed this type of approach as damaging to an ideational or eternal perspective, i.e. to religious perspectives, because it presumes 'everything changes' (when in fact it doesn't, at least not in relative conditions) and will not admit of anything unchanging (or un-evolving, as according to evolutionists, who are by definition as above, a-priori committed to ideology).
  ..........................

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Sep 4 06:43:25 2007