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

Gregory posted: "I would contend exactly this as Merv writes, that an evolutionist, that is, any type of evolutionist, including theistic or theological evolutionists, have ‘an ideological commitment to Evolution.’ If anyone would argue this point, please could they explain why or how an evolutionist does not/need not have ‘an ideological commitment to Evolution.’ "
   
  Burgy responded: “The key word here is "evolutionist." The "ist" ending of that word indicates a commitment to the first part. / On that basis, I am not a TE. But I'm not convinced that the "ist" part belongs in the label. / I am, on that basis, a theistic gravitationalist. Also a theistic old eartherist. Hmmm.”
   
  Burgy, I like ‘theistic old-eartherist.’ :-) Glad you noted that ‘ist’ may not belong in the TE label. However, as simply a linguistic issue, a ‘theistic evolutionist’ involves an ‘ist’ whereas holding a position of ‘theistic evolution’ alone does not. The former implies ideology. I was glad for David C.’s references to some TE originators and students of G-D’s action-through-nature theorists. Unfortunately, most naturalists are not theists today. Otherwise it is really difficult to answer the question of the title of this thread because ‘what a TE is to you may be different than what it is to me.’ And so we must respect diversity of views.
   
  Some folks out there may dismiss the semantic issue, but it is important for communicative purposes (just as equating ‘Darwinism’ with ‘evolutionary biology’ is faulty, so equating TE and EC is somehow to conflate) to be as clear as possible. There is some flexibility here in that a Darwinist accepts most (if not all) of Darwin’s particular contributions to evolutionary theory, a person who uses ‘theistic’ as the modifier to ‘evolution,’ as noted in this thread is prioritizing in a particular way (e.g. David Campbell wrote: “the phrase "theistic evolutionist" seems to unduely weight evolution.”). It appears then from the comments of people in this thread that at the ASA the label ‘evolutionary creationist’ is preferred over ‘theistic evolutionist,’ though probably, in my observation, carrying neither label is preferred to carrying either one.
   
  The notion that people who accept Einstein’s general or special relativity theories is not called an ‘Einsteinian’ is granted. It just so happens that ‘Darwinist’ and ‘evolutionist’ have been so commonly stretched and mangled to such degrees, in various areas of study, not only biology, that now we are still stuck with needing to clarify what we mean.
   
  I agree with David C.’s caution “not to assume that a person identified in a particular category believes something unless they have said that they believe it.” I guess what I have really been trying to tease apart is the reasoning behind which people move from being a TE or EC into being a ‘universal evolutionist,’ i.e. those who exclude nothing from evolutionary processes. People here at ASA over a year ago came up with several examples of ‘things that don’t evolve,’ yet for process theologians and process philosophers, undertaking such a thought exercise is very difficult. I personally think ‘universal evolutionism’ is a larger problem than TE (i.e. the problem is that TE mis-priorities the theology) because it swallows up theology rather than allowing theology’s autonomy in world history.
   
  With hope that we will not be swallowed in our belief,
   
  Gregory

       
---------------------------------
All new Yahoo! Mail
---------------------------------
Get news delivered. Enjoy RSS feeds right on your Mail page.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu Sep 6 17:07:30 2007