Re: [asa] Question for all the theistic evolutionists

From: Dave Wallace <>
Date: Sun Feb 25 2007 - 11:13:19 EST


Somehow I have trouble understanding what the difference is between a TE
and an Evidentiary Realist unless you are making the distinction based
upon the fact that you take a concordist view of the early chapters of
Genesis. I doubt that anyone on the list comes to a TE position driven
by theological or philosophical concerns but rather because the evidence
convinces them.

My answer to Glenn's question:
When we moved to Ottawa 9+ years ago we tried to buy a bungalow in the
suburbs since my wife is an artist and needed space for her studio and
she also has fibromyalgia so going up stairs is a problem. After two
deals fell through over a couple of months we looked in the city core
area and found/bought a two storey house in three days. Not only did we
get enough space for her studio but the house also has an unused
elevator shaft and cost less money than the places we looked at in the
burbs. This is one of only a few times in my life that the hand of God
appeared obvious. However, our area in the city has about 80% of the
social housing beds for the homeless. Frequently I take one or both of
our little dogs, fill my pockets with packaged snacks and walk by one or
two of the local missions. The dogs are a good icebreaker as they are
not threatening and the homeless like to pet them. The street people are
pathetically glad that someone takes the time to talk to them, in fact
sometimes if I wear grubbies they take me for one of themselves.
Frankly I don't meet many atheists among the homeless. I don't really
have the skills to take on atheists online but this is what I do.

Dave W

Dick Fischer wrote:
> I haven't responded to this thread because I don't consider myself a TE.
> I'm more of an Evidentiary Realist. The mass of evidence falls on the
> existence of God, therefore I believe in Him. The historicity of Christ
> can't be easily denied, so He lived. His teachings are consistent and
> meaningful, His life was exemplary, His death and resurrection were
> reported by witnesses who were martyred for their unshakeable testimony.
> So I believe.
> The evidence for the interconnectedness of life is overwhelming so I
> believe all life forms are connected by mutual shared common ancestry.
> If God intervened in the progression of life I can see some good places
> where he could have and didn't, so I don't think He does. Or if He does
> He certainly has been clandestine about it.
> There is quantitative evidence to suggest that Genesis 2-11 comes
> directly from and is embedded in the history of the ancient Near East,
> therefore Genesis is believable and has historical integrity.
> In short, I go with the flow of evidence wherever it leads and I would
> rather devote my remaining time on God's green planet to getting the log
> out of our eyes giving us a better message with which to win the critics
> over whether they be atheists or misguided Christians.
> Dick Fischer, Genesis Proclaimed Association
> Finding Harmony in Bible, Science, and History
> To unsubscribe, send a message to with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sun Feb 25 11:14:05 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun Feb 25 2007 - 11:14:05 EST