Re: Question

From: george murphy (
Date: Fri Mar 30 2001 - 13:47:28 EST

  • Next message: Joel Cannon: "Re: Question (fwd)"

    Jack Haas wrote:

    > Perhaps, part of the problem lies in our use of 'theistic' to describe
    > scientific explanations!

            That is indeed a problem. It's why we _aren't_ using the phrase
    "Theistic Evolution" in the title of "Evolution as a Work of the Trinity"
    symposium at the ASA meeting this year (though it is used in the title of one of
    the papers). But I don't know how much that has to do with the point I've been
    trying to make on this thread. In my experience non-Christian critics don't use
    the phrase "theistic evolution" much. It is more often used by Christian
    opponents of evolution as a way to tie together all attempts to understand
    evolution theologically prior to rejecting them _en masse_. Lyman Abbott, C.S.
    Lewis, and Teilhard de Chardin would all be grouped as "theistic evolutionists"
    even though anybody with any sense would recognize that their understandings of
    the matter are very different.



    George L. Murphy
    "The Science-Theology Interface"

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Mar 30 2001 - 13:44:40 EST