George et al.--
First, note that the silly words you're discussing weren't written by Denyse
O'Leary but by a commenter (StephenB).
Second, if you want to see an ASA-er having an adult conversation on UD, go to
the thread called "Theistic Evolutionists, Your Position is Incoherent..."
[http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/theistic-evolutionists-your-position-is-incoherent-but-we-can-help-you/
] I come in at comment 50.
I'd be interested in feedback,
Steve Matheson
>>> "George Murphy" <GMURPHY10@neo.rr.com> 06/29/08 5:30 PM >>>
Let me repeat for a start that I have no interest in defending the term
"theistic evolution" or its derivatives. They are simply a popular terms that,
for good or ill, we're stuck with. I don't identify my own position in that
way but OTOH if I go out of my way to say "I'm not a theistic evolutionist"
it's likely to confuse people. If anyone wants to characterize my position on
creation and evolution they ought to read some of the numerous things I've
written about it.
Much of the ambiguity of the term is the fault of anti-evolutionists who use
it to lump together people with widely varying views so that they can
caricature all of them. I think it's significant that the group most reviled
by the crude anti-evolutionists like Ham or O'Leary as well as the crude
atheists like Dawkins is not their opposite number - i.e., one another, but
those who accept evolution and believe that God is active through that
process.
It will surprise no one who has read anything of O'Leary's that a great deal
of what she says is either demonstrably false or succeeds in misrepresenting a
situation by critical omissions. Some of the supposedly humorous statements
she makes below are just absurd sentences that no "TE" has ever uttered.
Others demonstrate her profound ignorance of theology. E.g., "If you believe
that God can do the selecting and, at the same time, nature can do the
selecting, you might be a TE" could be paralleled with "If you believe that you
can write something and your pencil can write something, you might be a
whatever you're ridiculing." Or "If you believe that a purposeful, mindful
creator would use a purposeless, mindless process, you might be a TE" could be
matched with "If you believe that a purposeful, mindful carpenter would use a
purposeless, mindless saw, you might be whatever you're ridiculing."
Note that the parallels I'm drawing there do not require any exotic
theological speculations. They are simply expressions of the extremely
traditional idea that God acts in the world by cooperating with creatures, as a
human worker uses a tool, so that both the worker and the tool are causes of
what happens. (This is what Barbour calls the Neo-Thomist view of divine
action, though it's hardly limited to Neo-Thomists.)
Not is her ignorance of theology limited to that. "If you think God revealed
himself in Scripture and hid himself in nature, you might be a TE" is actually
correct. What she doesn't seem to realize is that one could also say, "If you
think God revealed himself in Scripture and hid himself in nature, you might be
the writer of Isaiah 45:15, or Luther, or Pascal, or Bonhoeffer, or quite a lot
of other Christians who have spoken of the hiddenness of God."
& I don't think anyone has said - certainly I haven't - "that ID advocates
don't (read: aren't willing to) talk about theology or religion." They are of
course quite willing to appeal to religious ideas & emotions when talking to
their supporters and are happy to condemn & caricature the beliefs of
Christians who don't accept ID. & when they do the latter they're still
talking to their own troops. & that is precisely why they are so hypocritical.
They make all kinds of religious claims when talking to their own supporters -
e.g., Dembski's statement that that “intelligent design is just the Logos
theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory” or
Johnson's thing about God leaving his fingerprints all over the evidence. But
if anyone challenges the underlying theology of ID they immediately start
playing the "nobody here but us scientsists and philosophers" game. The one
thing that they won't do - & I know from experience of trying to make this
happen - is engage in any actual theological discussion or debate about what is
obviously a religiously driven program.
Shalom
George
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
----- Original Message -----
From: Gregory Arago
To: asa@calvin.edu
Sent: Sunday, June 29, 2008 2:49 PM
Subject: [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.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 Mon Jun 30 09:58:16 2008
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Jun 30 2008 - 09:58:16 EDT