Process vs. Process vs. Process Re: [asa] Chicago Tribune on TE (and the "Evangelical Statement on Evolution")

From: Steve Martin <>
Date: Tue Jan 29 2008 - 19:50:34 EST

Yes, process is one of those words (like "evolution" and "Darwinism") that
is used as a pejorative all too often. With Polkinghorne, people often
confuse his "free process theodicy" (something I personally find attractive)
with "process theology".

On Jan 29, 2008 6:35 PM, D. F. Siemens, Jr. <> wrote:

> As usual, Gregory, you are foolishly assuming that a term has only one
> meaning, the one you've glommed onto. Yes, organic evolution, whether in an
> atheistic, panentheistic, deistic or theistic view, is a process. But only
> panentheism fits the notion of process theology, Ted's reference. Have you
> never encountered the notion that the meaning of terms is partly determined
> by the context in which they appear?
> Dave (ASA)
> On Tue, 29 Jan 2008 17:09:24 -0500 (EST) Gregory Arago <
>> writes:
> Though I appreciate the article and Ted's willingness to accomdate,
> satisfaction with the defence of TE is still lacking. Please, can you or
> anyone else explain to me how a person can accept the notion of 'non-process
> evolution'? This seems to me a blatant contradiction in terms! Evolution by
> definition simply must proceed. (Though dis-invoke A.N. Whitehead at your
> leisure.)
> We hear so often the concept duo 'evolutionary process' that one might be
> convinced they would be in a political or ideological counter-movement to
> deny them appearing together.
> It would be helpful not to confate TE (theistic evolution-ism) with PT
> (process theology), but for goodness sake, let's not pretend they're
> un-related! Everybody in the TE camp can in reality be safely considered as
> a 'process' person, can't they? If not, why not?
> 'Evolution' - the greatest concept ever constructed for the historicist
> doctrine (Popper et al.).
> Change is not necessarily evolutionary but all evolution involves change.
> Just the same as with process...or isn't it?
> Gregory A.
> p.s. the word 'design' is not anywhere in the above message
> p.p.s. it is possible that I may have mis-copied the referenced article,
> but the word 'process' appears only 3 times! Where are you drawing your
> conclusions from?
> *Ted Davis <>* wrote:
> "there are some evangelical, non-process, approaches to
> evolution...But process (inaccurately) is what TE mainly is. That's simply
> wrong."
> 'Please excuse the editing for clarity & effect...' - G.A.
> ------------------------------
> Looking for the perfect gift?* Give the gift of Flickr!*<>

Steve Martin (CSCA)
To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Jan 29 19:51:20 2008

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Jan 29 2008 - 19:51:20 EST