RE: [asa] ID question? - TE does or doesn't 'limit evolution'?

I'm not sure the analogy with QM helps much here. In any case you're right that we don't have A theory of how Christian faith & evolution cohere - i.e., no single theory. Instead there are a lot of different ways. Which is again to say just that treating "theistic evolution" as a single well-defined theory or philosophy is a mistake. Theistic evolution is really just a catch-all category for all the viewpoints that say that belief in God & evolution cohere somehow.

Shalom,
George

---- "Alexanian wrote:
> Theistic evolution is like the wave-particle duality in quantum mechanics but we do not have a theory of how, say, the Christian faith and evolutionary theory are combined. Note that in quantum mechanics, the wave-particle duality is a consequence of the superposition principle. However, we do not have any such principle or concept in theistic evolution that leads to the unification of its supposedly two components.
> Moorad
> ________________________________________
> From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On Behalf Of Ted Davis [TDavis@messiah.edu]
> Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2009 1:43 PM
> To: asa; Gregory Arago
> Subject: Re: [asa] ID question? - TE does or doesn't 'limit evolution'?
>
> The only short response that occurs to me, Gregory, is to say that the term "Theistic evolution" means quite different things to different people. In many ways it's not a satisfactory term. Denis Lamoureux, e.g., refuses to describe his own position as TE. Instead, he calls it "evolutionary creation." I still use the term often, perhaps b/c I'm an historian, and historically a lot of people have used the term to mean the belief that God created humans and other organisms through evolution (i.e., through descent with modification).
>
> As you may know, Gregory, the term "creationist" or even "creation" has been co-opted quite forcefully by the YECs, such that the rest of us who believe the universe is a divine creation have to take time to explain what we mean by "creation," in order not to be misunderstood when we talk about it. No one likes to be misunderstood, and we're no exceptions.
>
> To echo George, however: the kind of thinking you are calling on ASA members to do, if I correctly understand what you are calling for, is what we've been doing for a long time--probably longer than you've been alive. This is one of those cases, Gregory, in which a visitor to the ASA list has almost no idea who the ASA is, in reality; no idea of what sorts of ideas our members have affirmed, debated, and discussed. It is people like us, not Michael Ruse (who used the term in a recent book), who have routinely used the term "evolutionism" to separate legitimate biological theory from unwarranted extrapolations of it into other realms. If you don't realize this, Gregory, it's only b/c you haven't been reading our journal for decades as many here have been doing.
>
> It's high time, Gregory, for you to join the ASA and learn a lot more about who we are. Then, you won't be dropping in here calling for us to do what we have already been doing for decades. A lot of us have been puzzled by some of your "requests," if I can put it that way.
>
> Ted
>
>
>
> 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.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu Oct 29 14:49:54 2009