Re: [asa] Appeasing TE?

From: John Walley <john_walley@yahoo.com>
Date: Sun Dec 21 2008 - 21:28:49 EST

I agree these are interesting characteristics and I see myself in them as well, at work and even on this list somewhat.

I'm curious though, how exactly did Stephen imply that you are promoting TE? I must have missed that email. I wonder if that is possibly your peculiar perception and if Stephen would agree with that? That strikes me as being out of character for both him and you. But there I go being a #9. :)

Like you do, I accept a gap when it comes to the VB and the Resurrection and I agree it is a big gap but I can tolerate this ambiguity. What I can't tolerate however is insisting on miracles for every aspect of God's Creation when a natural explanation does just fine and is in fact pointed to by the evidence.

Thanks

John

--- On Mon, 12/22/08, David Clounch <david.clounch@gmail.com> wrote:

> From: David Clounch <david.clounch@gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [asa] Appeasing TE?
> To: "Nucacids" <nucacids@wowway.com>
> Cc: asa@calvin.edu
> Date: Monday, December 22, 2008, 11:55 AM
> *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 21:29:29 2008

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun Dec 21 2008 - 21:29:31 EST