Re: [asa] Appeasing TE?

From: David Clounch <david.clounch@gmail.com>
Date: Mon Dec 22 2008 - 16:09:34 EST

John,
You said:

"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."

Basically I agree with that approach. The real problem becomes "what makes
solid epistemology?"

Thanks,
Dave

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. :)
>
> 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 16:13:46 2008

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Dec 22 2008 - 16:13:46 EST