Re: [asa] Conversation with Timaeus

From: D. F. Siemens, Jr. <>
Date: Mon Sep 29 2008 - 14:59:04 EDT

As a philosopher, I think I know something about the difference between
philosophy, theology and biological science. TE, by virtue of specifying
"theistic" has to depart from pure science, in the contemporary sense. So
to argue that TE is more philosophy that science is totally irrelevant to
discrediting it. On the other hand, to claim that we can test for the
presence of God in repeated phenomenal observations is not scientific. I
rate it as philosophical without any sophia. You may want to repeat that
in more earthy terms.

First causes are not what science studies.
Dave (ASA)

On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 02:26:59 -0500 "Jon Tandy" <>
Further to this, Gregory wrote:
"TE may be mainly philosophy and it may be mainly theology, but it has
yet to be shown that it is mainly science."
This is not fair to the discussion, because perhaps by definition (or at
least by implication) theistic evolutionists basically accept the
findings of mainstream science on the evidence for common descent,
genetic development and mutation, natural selection, gene transfer, and
etc. So to say that they haven't shown that it's "mainly science" is
misleading, and off the mark anyway because who says it should be
"mainly" science? Most of the difficulty for believers (at least
believing scientists) is on the theological issues, which is where more
of the time is spent in discussions such as this. In this sense, from my
perspective I think Theistic Evolution is mainly philosophy, because it
accepts the mainstream science pretty much as found (and which continues
to develop over time), but posits that God is providentially in charge of
it all.
So Ken Miller may be right that it's mainly philosophy, but I would be
interested in how others who characterize themselves as TE would respond
to that statement.
Jon Tandy
Click here to find Medical Transcription Training programs.

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Sep 29 15:03:09 2008

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Sep 29 2008 - 15:03:09 EDT