Whether or not God guided evolution and whether or not God acted in the evolutionary process are 2 separate questions. It's the distinction between "governance" and "cooperation" (or "concurrence") in classical doctrines of providence (together with "preservation"). It's the latter that expresses the idea of secondary causation - i.e., that God is the primary cause operating with created causes. To say that "God just waited until a sufficiently advanced species appeared" would be a denial of governance (at least as far as evolution leading to humanity is concerned) but not of cooperation & thus not of secondary causation. A denial of secondary causation in evolution would mean that God was not active in the specific genetic, environmental &c events of the process, though perhaps it would be said that God "preserves" the entities which are involved.
If one is going to make the latter claim then for consistency one should say that God is not active in natural processes at all. It would be quite arbitrary to say that God is active in other natural processes but not those of evolution. & such a consistent claim is for all intents and purposes deism.
Whether or not that actually is Ken Miller's view is another matter. I would have to say though that, from what I've read of his and from brief conversations with him, I wouldn't be surprised if it were - though I hope it isn't.
Shalom
George
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
----- Original Message -----
From: David Heddle
To: David Opderbeck
Cc: ASA
Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2008 3:51 PM
Subject: Re: [asa] Theistic Evolutionists Clos e Ranks — Let the Bloodletting Begin!
He didn't provide a label. But I think it is fair to say he outright rejects the evolution-as-a-secondary-cause view that, to me at least, defines theistic evolution. I think in his view God knew that evolution would succeed in producing intelligence, and God just waited until a sufficiently advanced species appeared. Lucky for us, it was the human species.
David Heddle
Associate Professor of Physics
Christopher Newport University, &
The Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility
On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 3:37 PM, David Opderbeck <dopderbeck@gmail.com> wrote:
What does Miller call himself then?
On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 3:33 PM, David Heddle <heddle@gmail.com> wrote:
Dembski is "sort of" going after TEs yet again:
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/theoevo-vs-id-hey-who-started-this-anyway/
But not really, because at the 99% level he is going after Ken Miller. I talked with Miller not long ago. He said (paraphrasing) "Even my friends call me a theistic evolutionist, but I am not a theistic evolutionist."
So Dembski is bashing TEs—by using quotes from Miller—who by his own words is not a TE. It makes no sense.
David Heddle
Associate Professor of Physics
Christopher Newport University, &
The Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility
On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 10:03 AM, David Opderbeck <dopderbeck@gmail.com> wrote:
Right. We all know that the history of "war" in the Church is long, sordid and sad. Sigh.
As to name calling here -- yes its different because it's not a major "movement" website and the name-callers weren't public figures. It's also significantly different because when I complained to the ASA leadership, they reprimanded the person and there were both public apologies and private reconciliation.
I don't often agree with Ed Brayton, but he's spot on about this one, unfortunately: http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2008/06/dembskis_latest_silliness_1.p
hp#more
On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 11:32 PM, Stephen Matheson <smatheso@calvin.edu> wrote:
David O. asks:
"What I don't understand is, why respond this way? Why not let a soft answer turn away wrath?"
I assume that David is referring to the disturbing words of Bill Dembski. And I think the answer to David's question is very clear. Indeed, I don't think Dembski left any doubt. If the question is "why not let a soft answer turn away wrath?" the answer is "because WAR IS THE GOAL." In fact, Dembski's crazed rage is so unrelated to the actual words to which he is "responding" that I think it's reasonable to assume that he wants nothing more than an "ugly war" and is willing to set aside both rudimentary ethics and basic reason in that wicked pursuit.
How sad that the regular defenders of ID on this listserv haven't stepped forward to condemn Dembski's virulent speech. It's not too late, and now is the time. I'm afraid that Bill Dembski is beyond our help, but those who might look to the ASA for leadership/guidance on how to discuss design and natural explanation, in the context of Christian unity and devotion to the Creator, can be expected to carefully observe our response to the viciousness of his rhetoric.
For Christ's sake, let's make it clear that Dembski's behavior is the antithesis of the ASA's basic values, and that no matter what we might think of the proposals of the ID movement, we will never countenance such destructively malicious conduct in the Lord's name.
Steve Matheson
P.S. David, I'm sorry that you've been called names here, and if I'd been here I would have strongly condemned it. But we're in a different galaxy here, don't you think?
>>> "David Opderbeck" <dopderbeck@gmail.com> 06/15/08 7:33 PM >>>
What I don't understand is, why respond this way? Why not let a soft answer
turn away wrath? The LAST thing the Church needs is an additional ugly war
between two "camps" that really have more in common than not at the end of
the day.
On Sun, Jun 15, 2008 at 6:45 PM, Dave Wallace <wmdavid.wallace@gmail.com>
wrote:
>
> http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/theistic-evolutionists-close-ranks-let-the-bloodletting-begin/
>
> Quote from Dembski:
>
> You know, I would be happy to sit down with theistic evolutionists and
> discuss our differences. I think they are wrong to baptize Darwin's theory
> as God's mode of creation. But I don't think they are immoral or
> un-Christian for holding their views.
>
> It seems to me that in earlier parts of his posting he did question or come
> close to questioning the faith of ECs. Did not people like Ted, Rich and
> other try to have a dialogue a few years back on UCD and get booted and had
> their Christianity doubted, or am I becoming senile. Miller may well have
> gone too far in his attack on ID but Dembski's taring all of us the way he
> does seems very unfair.
> Could someone please explain how if ID is supposed to be religiously
> neutral, this post belongs on UcD.
> Dave W (ASA member)
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>
--
David W. Opderbeck
Associate Professor of Law
Seton Hall University Law School
Gibbons Institute of Law, Science & Technology
--
David W. Opderbeck
Associate Professor of Law
Seton Hall University Law School
Gibbons Institute of Law, Science & Technology
--
David W. Opderbeck
Associate Professor of Law
Seton Hall University Law School
Gibbons Institute of Law, Science & Technology
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Jun 17 17:07:25 2008
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Jun 17 2008 - 17:07:25 EDT