Re: [asa] (ancient theodicy, 'ancient theology') Deism, Apologetics, and Neglected Arguments

From: David Clounch <>
Date: Wed Aug 26 2009 - 10:47:37 EDT

Bernie's questions have led me down two forks in the road.

In this post is fork #1.

1) It seems the TE position is that evolution has a purpose. That is the
main tenet of TE.
The materialist position is evolution has no purpose.

What then happens to the Kenneth R Miller's argument in Dover where Miller
challenges design based on arguing against purpose? How is it that Miller
isn't arguing against TE?

On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 7:53 AM, Dave Wallace <>wrote:

> Murray Hogg wrote:
>> But as for the alternate responses, I personally think it's a very hard
>> question: why WOULD God choose to create through evolution when the process
>> is intrinsically competitive and contrary to the command to love one's
>> neighbour?
> Sometimes I wonder if, given all the constraints, God's creating through
> evolution was the only way he could get the kind of people he ultimately
> wanted. The kind of constraints I am thinking of are things like moral
> imperatives. As I see it God does not want determinism to rule the people
> he looks for although our freedom is quite limited.
>> Again, "I don't know" is, to me, an appropriate response and one I can
>> live with.
> I think we often have to live with I don't know. Too often we attempt to
> go beyond our limitations, not only in science but it theology, some things
> are simply mysteries. I do think that mankind's breaking of the law has
> made the situation worse, much worse and that the results of such sin go
> down through the generations.
> Dave W
> 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 Aug 26 10:48:35 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Aug 26 2009 - 10:48:35 EDT