Re: [asa] TE The Future

From: Ted Davis <TDavis@messiah.edu>
Date: Thu May 21 2009 - 12:36:25 EDT

Gregory,

Your objection to my comments is well taken, in light of what I had said in
that earlier post. Indeed, many TEs are process-oriented. I should have
made my point without bringing you into it. I apologize.

What is also true, however, is that many TEs are *not* process oriented.
They seem to be ignored in all of this. It's wrong to represent TEs as
process oriented, as a generalization, just as it would be wrong to
represent IDs as "creationists," despite that fact that quite a few
"creationists" are involved with ID, including at leadership levels.

So, Gregory, now that I've clarified my point and withdrawn my shot at you,
let me propose something. As you probably know, I am one of those
(relatively few) non-ID proponents who is always quick to point out, to any
audience where it is relevant, that ID is not "creationism in a cheap
tuxedo," despite some features of ID (including some I have mentioned
recently here) that might suggest that it is. You appreciate the fact that
I do this, yes? If so, then I propose that you now take the opportunity to
point out, to any audience where it is relevant, that TE is not "process
oriented" as a generalization, that in fact many TEs reject process theism
in favor of a traditional Christian understanding of God (namely, God as
creator, God as incarnate in Christ, God as the one who literally raised
Christ from the dead, and God as the source of our own hope for a future
embodied existence).

There is nothing inaccurate about that claim, and I hope you will begin to
acknowledge it as an important truth that ought to be better understood by
many in the ID camp.

Could we agree on that, Gregory?

Ted

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu May 21 12:37:01 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu May 21 2009 - 12:37:01 EDT