Re: [asa] Appeasing TE?

From: Stephen Matheson <>
Date: Tue Dec 23 2008 - 14:02:55 EST

John Walley:
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. :)

David Clounch:
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.

David, you misunderstood completely. The onus that you bear is not to "explain" your "theory of TE." What you need to do is explain why "TE" is in need of "explanation" at all. Like most critics of evolutionary creation, you believe there is something unique about evolutionary theory, as though its mode of explanation or its overall epistemlogical nature is wholly unique. In fact, the real reason that you and others take this position is that you seek to reserve phylogenetic development as an arena for miraculous intervention. (Oddly, no one wants to reserve human embryonic development as such an arena, despite explicit biblical assertions that God is directly involved in the process.) So, read what I wrote again; it's reposted below.

Before we get to that, let me make you this offer. You seek "tenets" of "TE." Maybe you could get the ball rolling by posting a list of tenets of a position that we both share. That position is Theistic Embryology, also designated "TE." Once I see how you've articulated the tenets of this position, I can tackle the tenets of my Theistic Evolution position.

Reposted from another thread:
The problem, I think, is that you see evolutionary explanation as somehow categorically different from other kinds of scientific explanation. And so you ask all sorts of bizarre questions about "TE" because you are sure that "TE" is something that needs to be specially examined and justified. In fact, the onus is on you, not me, to explain why there is even such a term as "theistic evolution" when no sane Christian would propose the same nomenclature for microbiology, gravitation, meteorology, chemistry or any other area of scientific inquiry. It is you, not me, who needs to defend your peculiar notions of "intervention" in one particular area of scientific study and not in hundreds of others. Unless you are prepared to confess that pharmacology and particle physics, embryology and endocrinology, geophysics and grassland ecology are all "based on miracles," your interrogation of "TE" will be intellectually indefensible.

Steve Matheson

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Dec 23 14:04:11 2008

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Dec 23 2008 - 14:04:11 EST