RE: [asa] Appeasing TE?

From: Dick Fischer <>
Date: Tue Dec 23 2008 - 15:15:31 EST

What I think we would be safe in saying is that TEs believe in
biological evolution through natural, not supernatural means. That
doesn't mean we can't believe in a supernatural beginning at the
inception of the Big Bang or a divine kick start to the appearance of
life. And we are theists, which recognizes the Creator and an
involvement in the Creation. Beyond that we can agree or disagree as to
how deeply involved the Creator might be.

Dick Fischer, GPA president
Genesis Proclaimed Association
"Finding Harmony in Bible, Science and History"

-----Original Message-----
From: [] On
Behalf Of Stephen Matheson
Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2008 2:03 PM
To: David Clounch;
Cc:; Nucacids
Subject: Re: [asa] Appeasing TE?

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

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

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.

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Dec 23 15:16:41 2008

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Dec 23 2008 - 15:16:41 EST