Re: [asa] Question for all the theistic evolutionists

From: D. F. Siemens, Jr. <>
Date: Sat Feb 24 2007 - 15:39:29 EST

This is a two for one, or one for two, response.

On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 07:20:06 -0800 (PST) Bill Hamilton
<> writes:
> I have made the same point as well. But I also have a problem with
> "evolutionary creationism" because it mixes a scientific term and a
> theological term. So I'm still looking for a label...
Bill, you won't find a term that does not combine two disciplines, for
the problem is a philosophical one, an overview of the interplay of the
two which belongs to neither discipline by itself. An alternative, again
with the proviso that the initial act of creation involves a First Cause,
is "creation by secondary causes." One can claim that this uses only
philosophical terminology, while others will fuss about overlap. But it
should be recognized that all is there for philosophical study. Some
matters have distinctive names: metaphysics, ontology, aesthetics,
epistemology, etc. For the rest, there is philosophy of, followed by
science, religion, etc. almost ad inf.

>Theistic evolution is a balancing act that few can accomplish and still
fewer master. The fundamental problem is how do you fit Jesus the Christ
in the history of life on Earth? The latter is usually accomplished in
what seems to me a very ad hoc manner.
Moorad <

I got a response to this from Denis: mystery. It's a good New Testament
term. It applies perfectly, Denis noted, to the incarnation and to the
Trinity. How can we explain an individual who is, at one and the same
time, God and man, Creator and created? The attempts to explain the
Trinity tend irresistibly to heresy, such as modalism. I take this to be
ad hoc plus. We need to recognize that we are dealing with the ineffable.

I agree that TE is difficult to pull off, for success requires
sophistication in different areas, while mastering one may demand more
than a lifetime of effort by the brilliant. On the other hand, some of
the problem involves a negative appraisal because of a different set of
commitments. To go to an old example, Newton's work was unacceptable to
those who denied the possibility of action at a distance. However, most
problems arise from more subtle differences, usually ones that we are not
aware of. If an explanation requires commitment to A, B and C, and the
critic recognizes B and C, but not A, the explanation will not come off.
To recognize our own first principles is an exceedingly difficult
intellectual task. I have noted times when your posts have been
challenged, but I do not recall that you changed your mind. This is not
unusual, and applies also to the atheists Glenn wants to reach.

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sat Feb 24 15:45:38 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sat Feb 24 2007 - 15:45:39 EST