Re: [asa] What Does ID Add?

I think I have made it clear in my posts on this topic that I have been talking about the terminology of "theistic evolution" and "evolutionary creationism." (Note, e.g., my parenthetical remark below.) When I said "TE is not going to go away" it was quite clear that I meant that people are not going to stop using the phrase "theistic evolution" for a position which accepts the reality of biological macroevolution and holds that God is involved in that process. I did not mean that that position itself will eventually have to be discarded - though I also think that that is the case.

My position with regard to biological evolution and its relationship with a Christian view of creation has been made abundantly clear in things that I have posted here and in things that I've written over more than 25 years. I am not greatly disturbed if people call this position either TE or EC, though neither of those terms (as I've often said here) is ideal or would be my first choice to describe that position.

But since you obviously do think that these terms are important and want to discuss them here, I strongly suggest that you yourself say what you mean by both of them in unambiguous language. I.e., when you ask me or anyone else "Are you a theistic evolutionist?" what are you really asking? I can't tell you if I'm a TE according to your definition if I don't know what that definition is.

I hasten to add though that I think a great deal of time can be wasted by arguing about such matters of terminology. It's like getting into heated debates about whether we say "Communion" or "Lord's Supper" or "Eucharist." The issue is non-trivial but OTOH not of the highest priority.

Your pairing of "George's 'divine hidden-ness' and non-interventionists/deists" in contrast to other views suggests that there is some commonality between my view and deism. There isn't.

I do not recall "mocking" you in any private posts, though I have made some critical statements

Shalom
George
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
  ----- Original Message -----
  From: Gregory Arago
  To: George Murphy
  Cc: AmericanScientificAffiliation
  Sent: Sunday, September 09, 2007 4:01 PM
  Subject: Re: [asa] What Does ID Add?

  I do not wish to misrepresent you, but sometimes I get mixed messages from you. So, what you're saying then is that you are not a TE. Do I properly understand you, George? You do not promote TE views, is that right?

  If you are not a TE, then I will stand corrected and offer you an apology. If you are neither an EC nor a TE, then I will stand corrected. And if you are none of the above, then I was also wrong. If you are a TE, however, then my statement is not misrepresenting you and perhaps you should apologize to me.

  Second, I did not call you a 'deist.' The notion of 'divine hidden-ness' is shorthand for what I believe you have repeatedly claimed, that G-D's actions are hidden. You use the notion of kenosis, 'emptying' to explain your views.

  Third, you said TE "is not going to go away." Do you not stand by what you wrote anymore or was it a kind of exaggeration using abolute language? I guess the notion that "established terminology, ideal or not, is hard to change" is a kind of stepping back from your statement, something less definite, less certain. This possibility of TE being eventually overwritten I find rather interesting, and yet you dismiss it as "not a high priority". I hope you may someday come to respect how my views differ from yours (noting the considerable differences between physics/theology and sociology/philosophy), rather than simply calling them 'wrong'.

  Respect, yes George. I respect authorities and elders. But if you can't send respectful messages off-list instead of mockery, then please don't send anything at all!

  Here hopefully we can agree.

  With faithful wishes,
  Gregory

  George Murphy <gmurphy@raex.com> wrote:
    Gregory -

    I respectfully request that you stop misrepresenting my views on this list, as in the 2 examples below. I do not, & have never said that I do, "prefer" the term TE to EC. (I have pointed out that both terms have their limits, & have observed that established terminology, ideal or not, is hard to change.) & secondly, my view of divine action is not remotely "deist." I have repeatedly said that God is involved in everything that happens in the world.

    If you can't say anything accurate about my views then please don't say anything at all.

    Shalom
    George
    http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
      ----- Original Message -----
      From: Gregory Arago
      To: Steve Martin ; John Walley
      Cc: Peter Loose ; David Opderbeck ; AmericanScientificAffiliation
      Sent: Sunday, September 09, 2007 1:19 PM
      Subject: Re: [asa] What Does ID Add?

      .........................
      Thus, I propose that EC be added to this thread's scope (i.e. not just OEC/ID and TE) in order to give a more accurate picture of those who dialogue at ASA, i.e. who commonly prefer EC (this includes Keith Miller and David Campbell among others) to TE (this includes George Murphy's 'you're not going to get rid of TE' rhetoric).
      .........................

      My two-bits for concepts/ideas that I think should be added in answer to David O.'s OP question are those of 'intervention' (vs., e.g. George's 'divine hidden-ness' and non-interventionists/deists) and 'pattern recognition.'

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Be smarter than spam. See how smart SpamGuard is at giving junk email the boot with the All-new Yahoo! Mail

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sun Sep 9 17:21:54 2007