RE: [asa] Appeasing TE or TE Appeasement?

From: Gregory Arago <gregoryarago@yahoo.ca>
Date: Tue Dec 23 2008 - 16:50:29 EST

Hi Dick,
 
If you don't mind, I'd like to ask what you mean by 'supernatural.' The reason is simply because by 'superman' is meant an amplified entity, or greater than human being. Yet the 'supernatural' seems for some people to suggest 'transcendence,' whereas for others it could just mean something greater than 'regular' nature. E.g. superstar. I checked the definitions of 'super' and 'supra' and the latter term seems more approriate; 'supra' also involves the idea of 'before,' in addition to above, beyond or greater than.
 
Jesus of Nazareth was more than a super-human! And 'before' seems to be appropriate...
 
So, when we speak of the limitations of naturalistic evolutionary theory (NET), we can ask the quite fair and provocative questions: when did nature begin or originate? And what existed before nature?
 
For a natural scientist, who studies 'nature' (i.e. as a MNist, according to your philosophy) I am curious to hear whether or not this seems to be a non-sensical (or 'cannot compute') question. For a NETist, there need be no supra-natural dimension identified. In this way, the trump card greater than MN is 'scientific naturalism' (SN), which is more powerful since science consists of more than just methods (and it also involves more than simply 'nature,' a claim which all of the natural scientists on the list will likely close their ears to).
 
Otherwise it is quite easy to see how TE appeasement would be a common practise by atheistic evolutionists (i.e. the majority of American biologists, according to statistics), since TE accepts biological evolution almost without exception. Do TEs reject or question anything about biological evolution or is theirs rather simply a voice of outsiders who have no real say in what goes on within biology; e.g. they could not convince professional biologists that 'guided' or 'purposeful' or 'teleological' are useable terms?
 
The real basic issue is then with whatever knowledge of HPS that a given biological evolutionist has gained (on purpose) in order to understand 'the nature of things' more holistically, i.e. to integrate the limited domain of naturalistic science with the other legitimate and important domains of non-naturalistic knowledge.
 
Theology, I hope most will agree, is clearly not a 'naturalistic' field.
 
Gregory
 
p.s. Dick, is the phrase 'kick-start' meant as a mechanistic one? 
 
 
Super-man: “The youth, intoxicated with his admiration of a hero, fails to see, that it is only a projection of his own soul, which he admires.”- Emerson

--- On Tue, 12/23/08, Dick Fischer <dickfischer@verizon.net> wrote:

From: Dick Fischer <dickfischer@verizon.net>
Subject: RE: [asa] Appeasing TE?
To: "'Stephen Matheson'" <smatheso@calvin.edu>
Cc: "ASA" <asa@calvin.edu>
Received: Tuesday, December 23, 2008, 11:15 PM

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"
www.genesisproclaimed.org __________________________________________________________________ Yahoo! Canada Toolbar: Search from anywhere on the web, and bookmark your favourite sites. Download it now at http://ca.toolbar.yahoo.com.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Dec 23 16:51:14 2008

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Dec 23 2008 - 16:51:14 EST