[asa] You might be a TE if...

From a recent UD thread, a caricature of 'theistic evolutionists' (TEists) was offered. First, I don't agree with D. O'Leary's definition of 'theistic evolution,' but when considering some on this list, PvM for example, it might not be too far off the mark. One difficulty, which was recently highlighted here at ASA, is that TE is rather ambiguous. One can accept TE and widely vary in one's view of both theology and evolution, not to mention the role one concedes to evolutionistic ideology. So, in post the list below, let it be said upfront that I don't totally accept the caricature. There are some over-the-top statements, while others seem to contain at least grains of truth. Denyse's, however, is simply propoganda when she says: "Put simply, if “theistic” evolution is true, religion is bunk."
 
The UD thread commentary that follows the 'You might be a TE if...' surely debunks the notion that IDadvocates don't (read: aren't willing to) talk about theology or religion, which has been often repeated here on the ASA list. Some TEists find a need to take the high road and defend the sphere of theology against ID, while at other times going silent about theology at ASA (Joker of the Sciences?) too! I find it difficult to understand the degree to which some participants at ASA wish to villify IDists (meaning, turn them into academic villains, i.e. their fierce opponents). Perhaps some folks at ASA will discuss how their theology is influenced by process theology or open theology, rather than merely saying things like 'it's not as bad as some people say.'
 
Perhaps attempting to engage in discussion rather than adding to marginalisation (really, polarisation), each 'side' (TEists and IDists) one to the other would serve as improved grounds for future dialogue? Though even posting this 'You might be a TE if...' offering might seem to be divisive rather than unifying, if you (TEists) can successfully answer to their (IDists) complaints a type of common ground may appear that is currently absent. For me, there are unanswered questions by both TEists and IDists; neither side exists above the sting of legitimate criticism. Will TEists defend themselves from the humour-ful charges below?
 
- G.A.
 
 
From UD:
—–Denyse: “The film’s strongest point is that Stein is way too smart to waste a second on “theistic” evolution - the idea that we know that God exists by faith alone. On that view, God’s actions in the world around us are supposedly indistinguishable from chance events, so design is an illusion and faith means taking a leap without evidence.”
 
In the spirit of, “You might be a redneck.” (If your family tree doesn’t fork)
You might be a theistic evolutionist if:
 
If you believe that God can do the selecting and, at the same time, nature can do the selecting, you might be a TE.
 
If you believe that evolutionary process can be both conscious and intentional and unconscious and unintentional, you might be a TE.
 
If you believe that a process can be both guided and unguided, you may be a TE.
 
If you believe that design can produce evolution and that evolution can produce design, you might be a TE.
 
If you believe that contingency is objective when doing your science and subjective when doing your theology, you might be a TE.
 
If you believe that a purposeful, mindful creator would use a purposeless, mindless process, you might be a TE.
 
If you believe that any given plan can provide for many possible outcomes and only one possible outcome, you might be a TE.
 
If you use the language of teleology while arguing on behalf of non-teleology, you might be a TE.
 
If you think God revealed himself in Scripture and hid himself in nature, you might be a TE.
 
If you unjustly accuse ID scientists of having religious motives, while, ironically, falling back on the theological objection of “bad design,” you might be a TE.
 
If you insist that there is “no conflict between religion and science,” while embracing methodological naturalism, which depends on a conflict between religion and science, you might be a TE.
 
If you believe that evolution, which cannot be seen, is empirically detectable, while intelligent design, which can be seen, is empirically undetectable, you might be a TE.
 
If, when asked how an empirically based design inference could possibly be a faith based presupposition, you answer, “because Judge Jones said so,” you might be a TE.
 
If you appeal to Mr. Design, St.Thomas Aquinas, to argue against intelligent design, you might be a TE.
 
If you believe that a proposition can be true and false at the same time and under the same formal circumstances, you might be a TE.
 
If your atheist friends insist that you are a “devout” Christian, you might be a TE.
 
If you deny that these formulations are fair, or if you claim to have no idea what I am talking about, you are definitely a TE.
 
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/expelled-why-are-americans-allowed-to-care-so-much-about-freedom-and-other-thoughts/ __________________________________________________________________ Reclaim your name @ymail.com or @rocketmail.com. Get your new email address now! Go to http://ca.promos.yahoo.com/jacko/

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sun, 29 Jun 2008 11:49:49 -0700 (PDT)