RE: [asa] Are TE and ID Really That Far Apart?

From: Gregory Arago <gregoryarago@yahoo.ca>
Date: Fri Apr 25 2008 - 09:57:15 EDT

Yes, please excuse the misprint - I left out a word (which as you all know after my insistence that 'biological evolution' and 'evolution' are different, indeed can make a big difference)! I can think of no TE/EC "who argues for no purpose or guidance." Well, unless does anyone know H. Van Till's currently free thought on this topic of guidance and purpose?
   
  What I wrote should have read:
  "This may be more difficult to 'prove' that Rich imagines. For every TE/EC who posits 'guided evolution' (without saying who the designer, oops 'Guider' is), there are (apparently) many, many more evolutionists (i.e. biological and other types of evolutionists) who argue for no teleology, no guidance of any kind allowed. It becomes a linguistic puzzle to unravel the way some people use 'random,' 'purposeless,' 'unguided,' 'chance' and other terms in their constellation of evolutionary logic. It would be a challenge to show how "mainstream, evolutionary theory" is in your favour here, but saying this opens the door to proving me wrong, which I would welcome."

  Hopefully this clarifies the meaning! Does Rich's proposal aim to change or adapt 'mainstream, evolutionary theory' to include the terms 'guided' and 'purposeful' (the term 'non-random' seems less significant), i.e. a TE/EC definition of 'evolution,' and even perhaps 'teleological,' without the NCSE noticing it and whaling with their harpoons against it??
   
  Going a bit further in response to Rich, who said: "While there's debate within the TE position on how it's guided there is no debate on that it is."
   
  This doesn't sound that much different from the IDMs position that there's no (or very little) debate that 'design exists' (think cosmological design instead of biological design, if it seems more acceptable), yet how that 'design' occurred is open to question. So, maybe a rule of thumb could be: don't ask an IDist to talk about the 'process of design' and don't ask an TE/EC to speak about how the guiding is done and if it has a goal (teleology), at least not when speaking about scientific-TE/EC (if that even makes sense!), instead of about theological-TE/EC. Both perspectives appear to jump back and forth between theology and science when it best suits their needs.
   
  If one takes an non-scientific line and believes that 'God guides evolution' and also concludes that 'God can guide any evolution,' as per the meaning of omnipotence, and that 'everything (except God) evolves' then this is a type of 'universal evolutionism' that I oppose. The IDM generally opposes it too. And I've yet to hear a satisfying TE/EC answer to this dilemma. My suspicion is that if TE/ECs were to drop the insistence on Darwinian ideas and Darwinism, while nevertheless still embracing those things that are currently valuable in biology, botany, geology, etc. that Darwin indeed greatly contibuted knowledge to, then their case would be easier to make.
   
  For all the studies that have been done on his life and work, it appears that Darwin did not, at least in his older years, think: "Evolution is guided by God." One might conclude from this, as Moorad does wondering aloud, that "'Darwinian evolution' is inconsistent with guidance by God."
   
  
"Alexanian, Moorad" <alexanian@uncw.edu> wrote:
  TE = Darwinian evolution + guidance by God. ID=Design + Intelligence
behind creation. The real issue is if Darwinian evolution is
inconsistent with guidance by God. It is a fine line and I do not know
how people (TE) walk it.

Moorad

-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of Rich Blinne
Sent: Friday, April 25, 2008 8:33 AM
To: Gregory Arago; Randy Isaac
Cc: Don Nield; David Opderbeck; asa
Subject: Re: [asa] Are TE and ID Really That Far Apart?

On Apr 25, 2008, at 12:16 AM, Gregory Arago wrote:

>
>
> This may be more difficult to 'prove' that Rich imagines. For every
> TE/EC who posits 'guided evolution' (without saying who the
> designer, oops 'Guider' is), there are (apparently) many, many more
> who argue for no teleology, no guidance of any kind allowed. It
> becomes a linguistic puzzle to unravel the way some people use
> 'random,' 'purposeless,' 'unguided,' 'chance' and other terms in
> their constellation of evolutionary logic. It would be a challenge
> to show how "mainstream, evolutionary theory" is in your favour
> here, but saying this opens the door to proving me wrong, which I
> would welcome.
>
>

Name one and cite references of the TE who argues for no purpose or
guidance. While there's debate within the TE position on how it's
guided there is no debate on that it is. It's only a linguistic
puzzle because people outside of our position obfuscate it. This is
precisely why we are so frustrated by ID because they misrepresent our position and that misrepresentation makes us wonder if people outside our position also get misrepresented and, hey, what do you know? It happens there, too. We have already described what we mean by "random" ad nauseum, so do some research and check our archives, noting particularly Randy Isaac's letter to Christianity Today.

Rich Blinne
Member ASA

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.

       
---------------------------------
Be smarter than spam. See how smart SpamGuard is at giving junk email the boot with the All-new Yahoo! Mail

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri Apr 25 09:58:43 2008

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Apr 25 2008 - 09:58:43 EDT