Though I appreciate the article and Ted's willingness to accomdate, satisfaction with the defence of TE is still lacking. Please, can you or anyone else explain to me how a person can accept the notion of 'non-process evolution'? This seems to me a blatant contradiction in terms! Evolution by definition simply must proceed. (Though dis-invoke A.N. Whitehead at your leisure.)
We hear so often the concept duo 'evolutionary process' that one might be convinced they would be in a political or ideological counter-movement to deny them appearing together.
It would be helpful not to confate TE (theistic evolution-ism) with PT (process theology), but for goodness sake, let's not pretend they're un-related! Everybody in the TE camp can in reality be safely considered as a 'process' person, can't they? If not, why not?
'Evolution' - the greatest concept ever constructed for the historicist doctrine (Popper et al.).
Change is not necessarily evolutionary but all evolution involves change. Just the same as with process...or isn't it?
Gregory A.
p.s. the word 'design' is not anywhere in the above message
p.p.s. it is possible that I may have mis-copied the referenced article, but the word 'process' appears only 3 times! Where are you drawing your conclusions from?
Ted Davis <TDavis@messiah.edu> wrote:
"there are some evangelical, non-process, approaches to evolution...But process (inaccurately) is what TE mainly is. That's simply wrong."
'Please excuse the editing for clarity & effect...' - G.A.
---------------------------------
Looking for the perfect gift? Give the gift of Flickr!
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Jan 29 17:10:12 2008
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Jan 29 2008 - 17:10:12 EST