Re: [asa] serious talk about ID and TE

I'm with you on the "creeds" Dave -- Nicene and Apostles -- but which
"confessions?"

On Fri, Aug 29, 2008 at 2:14 PM, D. F. Siemens, Jr. <dfsiemensjr@juno.com>wrote:

> Christianity is broad. If something does not contradict the creeds and
> confessions, it is orthodox. However, there is nothing to discuss rationally
> with someone who cannot distinguish empirical measurement from metaphysical
> theory (where there can be no test except internal coherence); who believes
> that methodological naturalism is necessarily atheism. Whether the view is
> tagged TE or Evolutionary Creationism, how can they miss "Theistic" or
> "creationism"?
> Dave (ASA)
>
> On Fri, 29 Aug 2008 09:00:26 -0400 "David Opderbeck" <dopderbeck@gmail.com>
> writes:
>
> I can't understand why being able to detect design in creation would be
> in any way theologically unorthodox. Of course, we have a loaded term here
> in this words "detect" and "design."
>
> Psalm 19 tells us unequivocally that God's "glory" and the "work of His
> hands" are manifestly evident in creation -- creation "declares" and
> "proclaims" them, and "there is no speech or language where there voice is
> not heard." Romans 1:20 tells us that God's "eternal power and divine
> nature" have always been "clearly seen" in nature, though sinful humans
> ignore this evidence. The tradition has always acknowledged this -- see the
> recently released book on the Fathers' understanding of creation, for
> example.
>
> We can debate the fine points of natural theology, an in-house debate that
> has been going on for millennia. Barth said "no," but even Barth's
> disciples on this, Torrance and McGrath, say "yes" in a qualified way. So,
> the theological question shouldn't be whether we can "detect design." It
> should be "is God evident in creation, and if so, how and in what way?" I
> think scripture affirms clearly that God is evident in creation. I don't
> think, however, that scripture affirms that this evidence consists in
> mathematical information theory or biochemical black boxes. IMHO, that
> approach takes natural theology in wrong directions. Yet, IMHO, it remains
> well within the range of an orthodox natural theology.
>
> On Fri, Aug 29, 2008 at 7:16 AM, Steve Martin <
> steven.dale.martin@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> Hi Mike,
>>
>> Here are my own answers to the most salient question FWIW:
>>
>> *1. Is the point of contention between ID and TE (or at least, most TEs)
>> whether or not design is detectable?*
>>
>> No I don't think this is **THE** point of contention. I believe the
>> point of contention is that many ID proponents insist that design *
>> **MUST*** be scientifically detectable for theological reasons. Some /
>> many / most evangelical TE's (at least myself) would say that accepting the
>> ***existence*** of design / purpose is theologically necessary, but that
>> scientific detectability is not.
>>
>> So to answer the flip side of Timaeus's question: Yes, I believe someone
>> can be an orthodox Christian and believe in the possibility / probability /
>> necessity of scientific design detection. From my own understanding, I
>> believe that the insistence on the necessity of scientific design detection
>> is a theologically inferior position (note: NOT theologically heretical).
>> On the other hand, as a rank amateur from a theological perspective (& that
>> may even be stretching the word amateur) I am open to hearing other points
>> of view. So, I'd love to see Ted's initiative proceed.
>>
>> thanks,
>> On 8/29/08, Nucacids <nucacids@wowway.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi PvM,.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "I disagree, but of course we come from different backgrounds which may
>>> likely bias our perceptions."
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> It's not a question of background; it's a question of investment.
>>> Because of my own unique background and position, I have no investment in
>>> either speaker winning. Thus I calls it as I sees it. But I understand that
>>> most are either metaphysically and/or politically invested in this issue,
>>> thus people will cheer for their own side. Perhaps that is what you thought
>>> I was doing.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> You write:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "My biggest disagreement is with Timaeus's statement
>>>
>>> <quote>Be this as it may, I would maintain that Jack's exposition,
>>> however orthodox or accurate, is gloriously irrelevant to the main
>>> point in contention between ID and TE (or at least, most TEs), that
>>> point being whether or not design is detectable.</quote>"
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Then you go on to criticize mainstream ID. Since the ID views you
>>> criticize are not my views, I feel no obligation to respond. But I can note
>>> that you haven't dealt with the core of Timaeus's statement.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Is the point of contention between ID and TE (or at least, most TEs)
>>> whether or not design is detectable?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> If that it not the point of contention, it means that TEs agree that
>>> design is detectable, only that the main ID players have failed to deliver
>>> when it comes to cosmology or biology (which is what I got out of your
>>> reply). Am I correct?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Look, perhaps the thread was too long and I did not read carefully
>>> enough, so what was the answer to Timaeus' question?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "Do you, Jack, assert that Christian faith logically necessitates that
>>> design in nature (not necessarily design by the Christian God, just design
>>> by some intelligence) can be perceivable only through the eyes of faith, and
>>> can never be established by scientific means? Or do you concede that someone
>>> can be a fully orthodox Christian, holding a "correct" view of creation, and
>>> yet believe that at least some parts of God's design can be demonstrated by
>>> reasoning from scientific data? I am not asking whether you agree that
>>> design is scientifically detectable; I am asking you if a person can believe
>>> in the possibility of design detection, and still be 100% orthodox in
>>> Christian doctrine?"
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Yes, I would very much like to hear the answer to that question.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -Mike Gene
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I disagree, but of course we come from different backgrounds which may
>>>> likely bias our perceptions.
>>>>
>>>> I am quite impressed by Jack Krebs providing such a compelling defense
>>>> or at least compelling description of theistic evolution and showing
>>>> how the UcD posters are quick to reject TE based on a misunderstanding
>>>> of their position. Jack does a great job at describing the concept of
>>>> randomness in evolution, so commonly misunderstood by the common ID
>>>> proponent.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Nevertheless both Jack and Timaeus stand heads and shoulders above the
>>>> common crowd.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> My biggest disagreement is with Timaeus's statement
>>>>
>>>> <quote>Be this as it may, I would maintain that Jack's exposition,
>>>> however orthodox or accurate, is gloriously irrelevant to the main
>>>> point in contention between ID and TE (or at least, most TEs), that
>>>> point being whether or not design is detectable.</quote>
>>>>
>>>> While some forms of design are quite open to empirical detection by
>>>> science, a point well presented by Wilkins and Elsberry in
>>>> http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/theftovertoil/theftovertoil.html, they
>>>> also point out that rarefied design suffers from a major shortcoming,
>>>> namely that it cannot compete with our ignorance, or in other words,
>>>> as so well explained by Gedanken on the now mostly defunct ISCID site,
>>>> the design inference, lacking a positive hypothesis cannot be compared
>>>> to the hypothesis that a yet to be explained pathway, or mechanism can
>>>> explain the observations. From history we have seen countless examples
>>>> that show why such an inference is doomed to be unreliable, even
>>>> Darwin understood that attributing thunder and lighting directly to
>>>> God(s) was caused by an unfamiliarity with the scientific principles
>>>> behind thunder and lightning.
>>>>
>>>> By conflating common design with rarefied design, Timaeus is making
>>>> the same mistake as so many ID proponents before him. And yet it is
>>>> this bait and switch which is the foundation for ID's approach. First
>>>> argue that science is ill equipped to detect design, then point out
>>>> how the design inference promises a 'reliable' detection of design
>>>> (where design is now redefined to become the set theoretic complement
>>>> of regularity and chance) and then point out that such an approach is
>>>> scientific because that's how science supposedly detects design, where
>>>> design is now redefined once again and ignores that not only is the
>>>> design inference ill equipped to detect design reliably but also that
>>>> the design which science has succesfully detected is fundamentally
>>>> different from the design proposed by ID.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Pim
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
>>> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Steve Martin (CSCA)
>
>
>
>
> --
> David W. Opderbeck
> Associate Professor of Law
> Seton Hall University Law School
> Gibbons Institute of Law, Science & Technology
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> Click here to find the satellite television package that meets your needs.<http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2142/fc/Ioyw6i3mzvzQwOxfyvaOsc4BJuRkzpsQAj16VCVE4aOy58xsMne0L1/>
>

-- 
David W. Opderbeck
Associate Professor of Law
Seton Hall University Law School
Gibbons Institute of Law, Science & Technology
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.