Curiously, David, I consider myself to be a theistic evolutionist (or
preferably an evolutionary creationist) and I do not have the absolutist
commitment to continuity that you suggest is the case for TE's (EC's). My
point always is that God does and can do much of his creative work through
ordinary means where the means (not just the starting and ending points)
can be studied by scientific methodology. I don't particular care for the
word "intervention" but if you must use it, then I am of the opinion that
God is continuously "intervening". The how of this is somewhat of a
mystery (OK by me) and leads us back to the long forgotten theological
notion of concurrence.
The taxonomy of these various positions is extremely complicated as has
been shown by Loren Haarsma and others. It seems to me that you are
working with a much too "clean" view of TE (EC).
Another point has to do with design. Even Richard Dawkins admits to
design--he just has an explanation for it that doesn't require an
intelligent agent. TE's only deny design if you define design in such a
way as rule out God's involvement in ordinary (or natually occuring
processes) which PJ implicitly does as evidenced by his all out attack on
those of us who hold this view.
Just because I can account for some phenomenon in naturalistic terms does
not mean that it comes without the plan, purpose, or design of God.
As to the lumping together of the seemingly disparate types of
creationists--you seem to suggest that it is opposition to a mechanical
view of things that links them together. I think that it more reasonable
to suggest that the thing linking them together is common belief that one
must resort to some kind of special intervention by God in order to explain
some features of creation and that this is required by scripture (YEC) or
provides some important apologetic function (ID).
In my opinion Del's chapter on TE accurately recognizes this faulty
understanding on the part of the Johnson crowd. These are extremely
important issues that to me undergird a Christian perspective on science.
I don't really understand why we keep going round and round on this one--I
suppose it ultimately comes down to TE's willing to keep company with those
atheistic naturalists on some of the scientific claims.
TG
_____________________________________________________________
Terry M. Gray, Ph.D. Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry
Calvin College 3201 Burton SE Grand Rapids, MI 40546
Office: (616) 957-7187 FAX: (616) 957-6501
Email: grayt@calvin.edu http://www.calvin.edu/~grayt
*This mission critical message was written on a Macintosh with Eudora Pro*
A special message for Macintosh naysayers:
http://www.macworld.com/pages/july.96/Column.2204.html