George:
I agree. Can we think of partitioning TE into mutually exclusive sets.
Or is even that problematic?
bill powers
On Thu, 19 Feb 2009, gmurphy10@neo.rr.com
wrote:
> Howard is far from the best representative of a TE position. If I'm not mistaken he now wants to talk about "the Sacred" rather than God, so "theism" is not an accurate description of his view in general.
>
> I doubt the value of picking any single representative of a TE position since views that are commonly put in that category are so varied. (& that would still be the case if the term Evolutionary Creationism" were used.)
>
> Shalom,
> George
>
>
> ---- "Dehler wrote:
>> List of positions on Origins:
>>
>>
>>
>> Young Earth Creationist:
>>
>> Ken Ham (Answers in Genesis ministry)
>>
>>
>>
>> Old Earth Creationist:
>> Hugh Ross (Reasons to Believe ministry)
>>
>>
>>
>> Theistic evolutionist:
>> Howard Van Till (author & scholar)
>>
>>
>>
>> Deistic Evolutionist:
>>
>> ???
>>
>>
>>
>> Atheistic Evolutionist:
>> Richard Dawkins (RichardDawkins.net "ministry")
>>
>>
>>
>> Who would be a good representative candidate for the DE position?
>>
>>
>>
>> ...Bernie
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu Feb 19 17:57:14 2009
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Feb 19 2009 - 17:57:14 EST