Re: [asa] O'Leary's nonsense

Steve -- wow, outstanding. Yet at the same time one can only sigh at the
disconnect -- how many times do you have to say "random" doesn't mean
"random to God" and how many examples of other "random" processes in nature
do you have to point to, before people stop confusing you with a
panentheist?

On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 9:57 AM, Stephen Matheson <smatheso@calvin.edu>
wrote:

> 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/ <http://web.raex.com/%7Egmurphy/>
> ----- 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.
>
>
>
>
>
> http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/expelled-why-are-americans-allowed-to-care-so-much-about-freedom-and-other-thoughts/
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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.
>

-- 
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.