Re: [asa] Appeasing TE?

From: David Clounch <david.clounch@gmail.com>
Date: Sun Dec 21 2008 - 19:55:53 EST

*1.* Seen as thinking tangentially, approaching tasks from unsuspected
angles; undisciplined, unpredictable.

*2.* Could be said to discover problems and discover less consensually
expected avenues of solution.

*3.* Tends to query a problem's concomitant assumptions; manipulates
problems.

*4.* Does things differently.

*5.* In pursuit of goals liable to challenge accepted means.

*6.* Capable of detailed routine (system maintenance) work for usually only
short bursts. Quick to delegate routine tasks.

*7.* Often challenges rules. May have little respect for past custom.

*8.* Appears to have low self-doubt when generating ideas, not needing
consensus to maintain certitude in face of opposition; less certain when
placed in core of system.

*9. *Appears insensitive to people when in pursuit of solutions, so often
threatens group cohesion and cooperation.

*10.* Provides the dynamics to bring about periodic radical change, without
which institutions tend to ossify.

Wow.. Its quite a list. I feel in my professional life I suffer from most
of these.

Ergo #8,#9 is going on at work right now. Its going to get me fired or
RIF'd at the next rif. Still, I would have guessed I have a low tolerance
for ambiguity.

However, right now on the list John Walley thinks I have been attacking TE.
Whereas Stephen thinks I have been promoting TE? How much more ambiguous
can it get? I love it. It's absolutely hilarious. So I haven't responded
to either one. Not sure what to say. I dont know who advocates TE versus
some other concepts. If TE has different camps I dont know what they are or
who is in any given camp. With so many people allegedly believing
everything is an alleged miracle I dont know what to say. Of one thing I am
absolutely certain. If Jesus Christ didn't have only 1/2 a human genome then
there is no way he could be a propitiation for anybody's sins. Only of he
was 1/2 not descended from a human could he accomplish that. I wonder ...
if all his genetic material came from his mother then why isn't he a
clone? There I go, being irritating and making mischief again. But I see
the engineering of the non-human half of the Messiah who was fully human and
fully divine as the Ultimate Intelligent Design event. Except it pales
compared to the re-engineering of a trillion decomposed cells. If these
things are natural events that happen without an outside agent, but just
happen in the universe from time to time, then it is the skeptics and
naturalists who are suggesting the real miracles. Isn't it a grandiose
case of what used to be called spontaneous generation? If we believe these
things were real then don't we have a gap? A whopping gap? I can live
with the ambiguity of that gap. I'm not sure I can believe the alternative
- spontaneous generation. How scientific is that? But there I am being #9
again. Insensitive.

Anyway, thanks for your blog. It sure makes a person think.

On Sat, Dec 20, 2008 at 9:08 PM, Nucacids <nucacids@wowway.com> wrote:

> Hi Gregory,
>
>
> "I sympathise with all of what you've said in reply to Michael. I'm
> curious in particular with the last point, if you would consider adding
> IDists of the 'mainstream' variety into your analysis:
>
> "I wonder if someone has ever tested YECs, TEs, and Atheists and IDists]
> for ambiguity tolerance." - Mike Gene"
>
> Sure. Hey, this all led me to fire this up:
>
> http://www.thedesignmatrix.com/content/the-10-signs-of-ambiguity-tolerance/
>
> :)
>
> Mike
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sun Dec 21 19:56:28 2008

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun Dec 21 2008 - 19:56:28 EST