Re: Fw: [asa] Appeasing TE or TE Appeasement?

From: Michael Roberts <michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk>
Date: Wed Dec 24 2008 - 04:20:43 EST

I cannot remember when I first heard the term Theistic Evolution. Having
been converted through a university Christian Union, shortly before
graduating in geology, no one mentioned evolution etc though at times people
like Donald Mackay spoke to the CU on science. Evolution etc was not an
issue as the emphasis was rightly on Christ as saviour.

I was dimly aware that some poor people believed in 6/24 creation but never
met anybody and in my Englishness assumed they were only in hillbilly land.
This was confirmed when I met a fundamentalist American missionary in Uganda
who lent me a load of magazines. I then read O Barclay's review of The
Genesis Flood while doing field geology in South Africa and thought it
hysterical and daft.

I was only challenged on evolution when I went to L'Abri to study under
Schaeffer and soon found YEC to be worthless.

Back in England at seminary evolution was a non-issue and evolution was
assumed until the early 80s when we imported the stuff here:) Among
Anglicans I have found only one possible YEC from 1855 and 1970 and he only
became such when he emigrated to the USA (WH Griffith Thomas)

I do not know when TE was first used but theologians have accepted evolution
as far back as 1856 (Baden Powell) . Since then evolution in one form or
another has been widely accepted, but I don't think the term TE was widely
used. If we go back further we will find those who accepted a view very
close to evolution - including Sedgwick in 1831, which is fascinating
because of his opposition to Darwin 30 years later.

The term TE is more used today and is a convenient label and that is why I
eschew it.

Rather than play with words we should consider our faith in relation to
science and draw on the great wealth of good Christian thought on science in
relation to faith over the last 350 years from Boyle to Berry (Sam of
course)

Anyway it is Christmas Eve . I shall now focus on something more important
and that is the incarnation of our Lord.

Michael

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ted Davis" <tdavis@messiah.edu>
To: <asa@calvin.edu>; <michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk>;
<gregoryarago@yahoo.ca>
Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2008 11:52 PM
Subject: Re: Fw: [asa] Appeasing TE or TE Appeasement?

>>>> Gregory Arago <gregoryarago@yahoo.ca> 12/23/08 10:07 AM >>> writes:
>
> Yes and no, Michael. It is surely not accurate to suggest that all
> treatments of 'evolution' by theologians, philosophers and scientists
> (along
> with 'common men and women on the street') who accept the reality of
> natural
> history according to evolutionary theory qualify as 'theistic
> evolutionists.' Let's not forget that 150 years ago the concept duo
> 'theistic evolutionist' *did not exist*. Retro-diction seems to be a
> preferred style employed by TEs.
>
> Ted is wondering where this is going. I do not know precisely when the
> term
> "theistic evolution" was first used, but it was in use at least by the
> 1890s. That isn't 150 years ago, Gregory, but it's plenty long.
>
> What's your point?
>
> Ted
>
>
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed Dec 24 04:21:16 2008

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Dec 24 2008 - 04:21:17 EST