Re: [asa] Appeasing TE?

From: David Clounch <david.clounch@gmail.com>
Date: Mon Dec 22 2008 - 16:05:26 EST

On Sun, Dec 21, 2008 at 8:28 PM, John Walley <john_walley@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
> 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. :)

Well, he said the onus is on me to explain my theory of TE. But I dont
really have any theory. I only have an impression. I wanted to say that
the reason I ask questions is because I am missing a definition and any
list of tenets of TE. So for me to make any statement there is no context.
I'd have to provide the definition myself so folks could know what I was
talking about. I said I have an "impression" of what TE means. But does
it correspond to what true promoters of TE would say? I have no idea. It
would be better to go to just a reference source.

There are 8 books listed on Amazon. But do any of them explicitly develop
a definition and a list of tenets? Or do they merely allude to the idea?
I have no idea.
Somehow I expected someone to say "get the standard work: TE 101, a
Primer". But lacking that recommendation.....

What I would suggest is someone should make a rigorous definition. A
manifesto. Or something like that. Or is that too much?

My personal (unstated) definition of TE, BTW, is a theory I think is
plausible, and i'd guess it probably is similar to yours. So although I
don't think the theory is something I can champion, I also wouldn't attack
the theory. But I am troubled by the issues within Christianity the theory
doesn't seem to adequately address. I am personally not intellectually
satisfied. Worse, I think I could sometimes take the position held by the
skeptics.

Soooooo... sign me ambivalent and ambiguous. I could very well expect
someone would get angry with me for wanting to, on the one hand, defend PZ
Meyers, and on the other hand, defend Dembski. It would certainly look like
flip flopping - like I am all over the place. :)

What I really seek is the reason those skeptical people in that meeting
Dick mentioned should change their minds. If I were them I would not
change my mind.
:(

Best Regards,
Davids Clounch
PS, Merry Christmas to all.

>
> 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 Mon Dec 22 16:05:47 2008

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Dec 22 2008 - 16:05:47 EST