SJ> Since TE/ECs virtually rule out God's supernatural intervention in
creation, I would not regard their position as "thoroughly Christian".
LH> TEs/ECs in general do not _a_priori_ "rule out" God's supernatural
intervention in creation. After studying nature and scripture, they
conclude that he probably didn't supernaturally intervene (beyond normal
providential overisght) in biological history, and that this is the best
assumption from which to move forward
scientifically and theologically. That is an important distinction."
FWIW, that's how I "see" the exchange also. I have a "gut feel" that the
TEs/ECs have done this (conclude) in most cases with sobor reflection &
study; I talked with several and heard others at the NTSE conference who
fit this description. "Face to face" discussions, (where you can see skin)
are terribly helpful in this respect; e-mail and reflector postings have an
unfortunate tendency to polarize. One's opponents become one's enemies all
too easily!
An instance of this at the NTSE (for me) came when I listened to
Schafersman speak, asked him a question or two, and talked with him both
after his presentation and in an exchange at another presentation. I came
to appreciate his concern, even though I do not (obviously) agree with it,
that, on moral grounds, theists (including TEs) ought not do science at
all. For details of this -- look at his paper. BTW, Rob Koons tells me the
papers will be posted on that web site "indefinitely" but, by implication,
not forever. I advise downloads of anything you want to read within the
next few weeks.
Loren says that "this is the best assumption from which to move forward
scientifically and theologically." If he would agree that it is not the
only assumption possible, that competing ideas have a place of
respectibility, then I would agree. If, OTOH, it is changed to read " this
is the only possible assumption from which to move forward" I would not
agree. I think Loren would not agree to that alternate reading, although it
is possible some here might. Some at the NTSE certainly thought so.
Burgy
Burgy's "rules" of e-mail / reflector conversation:
1. Irony NEVER works. Never never never. Someone will always take you
seriously.
2. Often your direct conversationalist will take you seriously.
3. Don't use it.
4. Smiley icons do not help. Not at all.
5. At least one "face to face" meeting improves subsequent dialogs
immensely.
6. Just a photograph is better than nothing! (Does anyone here have a web
site with a picture?)
7. ALWAYS assume the best interpretation of what the other guy says and
does. Always. If you are wrong, and he/she is a real nasty, that will show
up eventually.
8. Take every opportunity to apologize/back down when you perceive that
either you've said something less clearly than you should have, thus it's
been misinterpreted, or imputed the wrong meaning to someone else's
posting.
9. BE BRIEF!