RE: [asa] Interview with Denis Lamoureux (TE definitions)

From: Dehler, Bernie <>
Date: Wed Jun 10 2009 - 20:26:22 EDT

Murray said a TE could say:
"Theistic Evolution is the claim that evolution (a process unguided/unplanned by God) is a process guided/planned by God which explains the origin and development of life."

How about this:
"Theistic Evolution is the claim that God personally directs some aspects of evolutionary development in the world or that God has planned/designed all of life to unfold naturally (without His interference) starting from the big-bang."


-----Original Message-----
From: [] On Behalf Of Murray Hogg
Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2009 2:33 AM
Subject: Re: [asa] Interview with Denis Lamoureux

Hi Merv,

Glad we cleared that up!

I think you're right about the role that TE's can play, but I'll offer this observation: many of the TE's I know personally are really quite hostile to YEC's and others in the purportedly "pseudo-scientific" camp. They would welcome the opportunity to engage with even strong anti-theistic evolutionists, but don't really seem to appreciate that they have a ministry to fellow Christians.

Please realize that I'm certainly not ascribing such attitudes to all TE's - just some who I know in person (nobody on the ASA list, in other words!). It's a bit sad, but something I think we should work to rectify.

I've noticed in my brief Wikipedia experience, by the way, that there seems to be a tendency on the part of non-theistic evolutionists to want to drive a wedge between TE and any other form of "creationism" - they simply won't accept that some ID theorists AREN'T all that far from the evolutionary mainstream. My read of this is that it's a deliberate attempt to isolate all forms of evolution from criticism. I hope the Christian community doesn't fall for it as I think there might be somethings that TE's can learn from other "sides" in the debate.


Merv Bitikofer wrote:
> Thanks for the extra explanation ... I see your points now --and my
> misunderstanding of your previous post is rectified.
> I don't think the realization of how strong the naturalistic assumptions
> can be shows naiveté. It's good to be reminded of how arguments can
> sound to the ears of those who have long been immersed in "the other
> side" (which includes more than just atheists but many Christian
> anti-evolutionists as well). The given predisposition for both is that
> evolution = "no God" by definition! I think TEs can offer a valuable
> service here (if done right) that comes from a significant advantage
> many TEs have here: many have actually been on BOTH sides of that
> fence and hence have some empathy and understanding for where people are
> coming from, which they can hopefully use to gently challenge those
> predispositions and build bridges expanding others' intellectual and
> theological horizons. (I'm assuming here that a significant number of
> Christians who are now TE migrated there from the warfare model
> --probably gradually and with bumps and bruises along the way. But
> those (Christians) still caught in the warfare model have probably never
> been on both sides of this fence to see / understand clearly from the
> non-warfare point of view. They are at a disadvantage in trying to
> understand TE. And the self-labeled "anti-religious" are at an even
> larger intellectual disadvantage yet, as they have locked themselves
> into an even smaller box; although many of them may have migrated there
> from early zealous religious upbringing. But that will (I'll wager)
> almost always have been a warfare model view of religion that they
> turned their backs on. To them, all religion & Christianity is painted
> with the same brush.

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 Wed Jun 10 20:26:53 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Jun 10 2009 - 20:26:53 EDT