Re: [asa] How theistic evolution was explained to kids in 1964

From: Rich Blinne <rich.blinne@gmail.com>
Date: Tue Jul 29 2008 - 16:10:11 EDT

On Tue, Jul 29, 2008 at 1:55 PM, Gregory Arago <gregoryarago@yahoo.ca>wrote:

>
> p.s. not sure why you call this 'theistic evolution' as it really seems to
> be relevant merely as 'theism accepting the limited explanation of
> biological evolution' or 'evolution in natural sciences that is friendly to
> theology' rather than a 'marrying of theology with evolutionistic ideology.'
>

That's because the first two definitions you have are pretty good ones for
TE and the last one is merely the strawman you prop up from time to time.
The difference between definition one and definition two is whether you are
a theist or a non-warfare non-theist. So, if you are discussing TE with
people on this list -- I am assuming we are all theists here -- then assume
"theism accepting the limited explanation of biological evolution" as a good
working definition of TE. If you did that our discussions here would be
much, much more profitable.

Rich Blinne
Member ASA

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Jul 29 16:10:38 2008

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Jul 29 2008 - 16:10:39 EDT