>> If a theist believes in a totally-MIRM evolution (which I consider DE),
>> does this automatically convert it into TE?
>
>IMO, the transformation from DE to TE boils down to this: Mindful
>Intention. For TE, mindful intention can be achieved in a variety of
>ways. (I mentioned "designed outcome," "determined outcome," and
>"flexible outcome.")
I like this "Mindful Intention" concept, but it does clash with the
non-teleological assumptions of conventional science. (even without any
type of "theistic action" thown in as a mechanism) How many TEs are
willing to challenge the scientific community about these contrasting
theories of evolution, about whether it is or isn't guided by teleology?
>>If God wanted humans to have certain characteristics (mental, emotional,
>>physical,...), could MIRM-deistic evolution accomplish this?
>
>My scientific intuition is that some STA (or MTA) during pre-human
>history is required to accomplish this. I'll be interested to see, over
>the next few decades, whether evolutionary psychology (the scientific
>field relating genetics and neuroscience, *not* the pop-psych junk
>usually pushed under that name) will shed any light on that question.
Human characteristics (and whether MIRM could accomplish this) seem to
be a theologically essential question for a "Mindful Intention" teleology.
Unless, of course, God only cared approximately (but not more precisely)
what humans would be like, as in your "flexible outcome" scenario.
******************************************************
>Your posts seem to put MIRM under the banner of deism.
If a process is "100% MIRM from beginning to end", yes.
>Like Terry Gray,
>I have problems with that. Consider the doctrines you mentioned:
>Sustenance, Concurrence, and Governance. MIRM must surely fall under
>sustenance and Concurrence. If humans can devise computer programs
>employing random elements to achieve a desired outcome, God can
>certainly design systems where MIRM achieves what he mindfully intended.
>Realizing that MIRM falls under the doctrines of sustenance and
>concurrence begins to move MIRM from deism into theism.
I would define TE as a process that combines MIRM-evolution (with the
usual mechanisms proposed by scientists) with some type of "guidance" by
God that changes the result from "what it would have been" (check my post
on random-ness) to "what God wants it to be" for his mindful-intention
goals. With this combination, I would call it TE. But with no non-MIRM
guidance-by-TA it seems to be DE -- with the clockmaker sitting back and
watching everything unfold, from beginning to end. { As I've emphasized, I
consider DE to be consistent with theism, but is it the combining of DE
with theistic theology that converts the DE into TE? }
>But there is an
>even more important point lurking in "concurrence."
>
>Everything that happens by MIRM, every little detail, still happens
>within God's will. This would seem to follow logically from God's
>omnipotence.
A while back, George defined omnipotence as the idea that God *does*
control everything. But I've always thought of it as God *being able* to
control everything, although not necessarily choosing to do so. {thereby
leaving some room for human choice, for non-puppet humans to freely choose
that they will love God}
>If someone believes that cosmological & biological history was "100%
>MIRM" --- MIRM within the context of sustenance, concurrence, and
>mindful intention --- *and* believes that God exerts "additional"
>theistic action (STA and/or MTA) in human life and human history, I
>would call that belief theistic evolution (or evolutionary creationism)
>rather than deistic evolution.
I've been calling this "DE + theism --> TE", but maybe after further
thought I'll see why this really is authentic-TE instead of nominal-TE. Or
maybe I'll continue to think that theistic evolution should involve some
sort of functional goal-oriented theistic action.
>I suspect, however, that most TEs on this list believe in some amount of
>STA in pre-human history.
Really? If so, it would be nice if this was clearly stated.
>And I'd be willing to bet that Howard Van
>Till would say that "Functional Integrity" as he envisions it can
>include quite a bit of STA.
If so, my concept of FI is wrong; if God did not think TA was needed
(which would indicate a lack of functional integrity) to get the creation
"the way he wanted it", then why would he do any STA?
*******************************************************
>I frequently wonder whether the distinction between MIRM
>and STA is even useful! (given the doctrine of omnipotence)
>
>I'll keep using such a distinction, however, because I can imagine that
>there is a difference (from God's perspective) between, say, when the
>eleven apostles cast lots to choose Matthias, and when my friends and I
>drew straws to see who would have to wash the dishes. Someday, perhaps,
>this list can debate whether such a distinction is theologically
>justified.
And we could ask whether it is justifiable to view the resurrection of
Jesus as "more theistic action" than a leaf falling from a tree.
>For now let's keep some distinction between STA and MIRM ---
>provided we don't forget that MIRM events are still every bit within
>God's will. (I would prefer a different name for it, but for this post
>I'll keep using MIRM.)
This is an important-and-difficult question. I've tried to address this
in my "random-ness post" (the second of the TD#1 posts for today).
Also, the first of my TD#1 posts discusses the practical value of a
MIRM/NATA distinction. One place where this might be useful is in
discussing theories with non-believers; I feel more comfortable saying that
"it would be OK, in my belief-system/worldview, if evolution was either
guided (with some TA) or unguided (with only MIRM)." But without both of
these concepts, it would be more difficult to say this. And maybe a
different perspective on MIRM (that this doesn't mean God is totally
un-involved, as you and several others have emphasized) could be worked
into such a conversation, also.
Craig R