There are more creeds, and the so-called "Apostles" is so late and
Western that it has not been recognized in the Orthodox Church. But it is
not heterodox. As to the confessions, I've encountered Lutheran, Reformed
and Anabaptist ones, and the later Westminster. There are variations on
baptism and the eucharist, but otherwise they seems to agree closely. To
these may be added the classic Protestant catechisms. Baptists came along
too late to have a confession from the Reformation, and they have
objected to creeds, but they have generally been orthodox. Modern
developments have made changes and led to schisms in many denominations.
Dave
On Fri, 29 Aug 2008 14:36:00 -0400 "David Opderbeck"
<dopderbeck@gmail.com> writes:
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. -- David W. Opderbeck Associate Professor of Law Seton Hall University Law School Gibbons Institute of Law, Science & Technology ____________________________________________________________ Click now to choose from thousands of designs for your checks! http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc/Ioyw6i3m7AkQEQGtIFBBvn8a8I3AKm42HAPfUKJoME1K1hqxd0p5qt/ To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.Received on Fri Aug 29 23:35:00 2008
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Aug 29 2008 - 23:35:00 EDT