How much do we really disagree ?

[jason]

It seems that there are lots of arguments and much bad blood between various brands of creationists (YEC, OEC, ID & TE) and much infighting.

Now the question that comes to mind is.

How much do we really disagree over. Obviously the amount if different between different camps, but do we really disagree over all that much ?

We all seem to agree in biblical inerrancy, and we all agree that the age of the earth is not a salvation issue.

So perhaps we should do as the enemy does, put our differences aside, and get stuck into the materialists.

Any takers ? Lets fight the fights that can be won at this point, and settle the rest when the common enemy is vanquished.

Jason

[Socrates]

Today @ 11:43 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=271790#post271790)
jason:

It seems that there are lots of arguments and much bad blood between various brands of creationists (YEC, OEC, ID & TE) and much infighting.

Yes, it's time that biblical compromisers stopped fighting YECs! :lol:

Now the question that comes to mind is.

How much do we really disagree over. Obviously the amount if different between different camps, but do we really disagree over all that much ?

We all seem to agree in biblical inerrancy,

Actually, some of the major TEs here have explicitly attacked inerrancy, NealUnreal; and sometimes even yoked with atheists to attack the Bible, e.g. Meert and Barbarian.

We asked that criticims of specific other members who cannot respond here not be done in this section.



It's impossible to have Christian fellowship with people who undermine what Jesus said "cannot be broken" and was foundational to His teaching.

... and we all agree that the age of the earth is not a salvation issue.

Agreed.

So perhaps we should do as the enemy does, put our differences aside, and get stuck into the materialists.

That's what the IDM says, and AiG's answer is www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/0830_idm.asp For example, evolutionary ideas in geology were a precursor to evolutionary ideas in biology, and refusing to invoke the Fall leaves the IDM helpless against evolutionary examples of deteriorated design or attack/defence structures.

BTW, TEs are for all practical purposes materialists. They believe that matter can form life by itself without intelligent input.

Any takers ? Lets fight the fights that can be won at this point, and settle the rest when the common enemy is vanquished.

Because we have different conceptions of who the common enemy is. It is more foundational -- which authority do we have, or what are our basic presuppositions? For biblical creationists, they are the propositions of Scripture. For all others, it is autonomous human reasoning, essentially the same problem as Israel in the book of Judges.

But as I've pointed out before, I will not yoke with atheists against my Christian brethren who have errant concepts of creation. Alas, some major TEs here do nothing but yoke with atheists against Christians, and are eagerly exploited as useful idiots by atheists in their debates against Christianity.

[jason]

Today @ 01:59 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=271797#post271797)
Socrates:

Yes, it's time that biblical compromisers stopped fighting YECs! :lol:
But here you call me a bible compromiser. When I adhere to biblical inerrancy, I simply disagree with you that the text as a whole teaches a young earth.

Surely this is something that can be put aside because at the end of the day we can cite experts against each other indefinitely and get no where.

Nothing is acheived except effort wasted.

Actually, some of the major TEs here have explicitly attacked inerrancy, *edited by a moderator*. It's impossible to have Christian fellowship with people who undermine what Jesus said "cannot be broken" and was foundational to His teaching.
I agree. But at the same time I do not think the bible is broken by reading it in an OEC light.

That's what the IDM says, and AiG's answer is www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/0830_idm.asp For example, evolutionary ideas in geology were a precursor to evolutionary ideas in biology, and refusing to invoke the Fall leaves the IDM helpless against evolutionary examples of deteriorated design or attack/defence structures.
Hang on, I do believe in a literal fall. And there is no problem with deterioration or attack and defense structures.

Although you don't like to be told this, Hugh Ross is right when he notes the over sentimentality of people when it comes to animals and carnivorious activity. Atheists included here.

BTW, TEs are for all practical purposes materialists. They believe that matter can form life by itself without intelligent input.
That isn't necessarily true. Look at Mike Behe. He would disagree that life could start itself (I think, I would wager money that he would disagree it could start itself anyway), and thinks there are many structures we observe that require intelligence to help it along. Yet would not dispute that some structures could arise naturally.

He would fall (I suspect the way you define it) into the theistic evolution camp (he does not deny common descent) yet clearly he is not a materialist.

Because we have different conceptions of who the common enemy is. It is more foundational -- which authority do we have, or what are our basic presuppositions? For biblical creationists, they are the propositions of Scripture. For all others, it is autonomous human reasoning, essentially the same problem as Israel in the book of Judges.
I agree the foundation is the proposition of scripture. I do not disagree with you here. Yet you seem to think I do.

What I disagree with is the way you are interpreting it. I do not think scripture teaches a young earth. (Or at the very least, does not require it be a young earth).

I'm not putting "autonomous human reason" above scripture as you endlessly accuse. That is simply not the case at all. I simply disagree that scripture says exactly what you say it does.

Alas, some major TEs here do nothing but yoke with atheists against Christians, and are eagerly exploited as useful idiots by atheists in their debates against Christianity.
From what I have seen the materialists, outside this forum, like the YEC position as it is simpler to lampoon and don't like any other approach at all.

Jason

[Socrates]

Today @ 03:40 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=271911#post271911)
jason, replying to:

Soc: Yes, it's time that biblical compromisers stopped fighting YECs!

But here you call me a bible compromiser.

Yes, because you impose outside ideas onto the text. Not all OEcs are like that -- many simply haven't thought through the ideas, as we saw with Geisler arguing like a YEC about original vegetarianism in animals. See why Ross is wrong about gnosticism and carnivory (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?action=showthread&postid=254069#post254069).

And I was pointing out that it goes both ways. It is intensely hypocritical for the likes of Ross to call for a truce while continuing to fire rockets at YECs.

When I adhere to biblical inerrancy, I simply disagree with you that the text as a whole teaches a young earth.

I accept that you believe in inerrancy, and will join with you against any skeptic, churchian or not, who opposes this. but while you may even think you follow the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy (http://www.kulikovskyonline.net/hermeneutics/csbe.htm), you still go against this clause:

Article XII.

WE AFFIRM that Scripture in its entirety is inerrant, being free from all falsehood, fraud, or deceit.

WE DENY that Biblical infallibility and inerrancy are limited to spiritual, religious, or redemptive themes, exclusive of assertions in the fields of history and science. We further deny that scientific hypotheses about earth history may properly be used to overturn the teaching of Scripture on creation and the flood.

Surely this is something that can be put aside because at the end of the day we can cite experts against each other indefinitely and get no where.

You have cited no Hebrew experts giving reasons within the text for long ages or gaps in the chronogenealogies.

Soc: That's what the IDM says, and AiG's answer is www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/0830_idm.asp For example, evolutionary ideas in geology were a precursor to evolutionary ideas in biology, and refusing to invoke the Fall leaves the IDM helpless against evolutionary examples of deteriorated design or attack/defence structures.

Jason: Hang on, I do believe in a literal fall.

Not really, since you don't believe it brought bodily death into creation--the same sort of death that Jesus conquered in His Rez (1 Cor. 15:21-22).

And there is no problem with deterioration or attack and defense structures.

But the materialists love to use these as "proof" that God is a lousy designer.

Although you don't like to be told this, Hugh Ross is right when he notes the over sentimentality of people when it comes to animals and carnivorious activity. Atheists included here.

He's talking crap. There is no sentimentality involved at all, simply the biblical teaching that animals were created vegetarian, and will be restored to that state (Isaiah 11, 65). And why not abuse Ross supporter Geisler for saying the same thing, and Strobel for citing it as a definitive answer.

Soc: BTW, TEs are for all practical purposes materialists. They believe that matter can form life by itself without intelligent input.

That isn't necessarily true. Look at Mike Behe. He would disagree that life could start itself (I think, I would wager money that he would disagree it could start itself anyway), and thinks there are many structures we observe that require intelligence to help it along. Yet would not dispute that some structures could arise naturally.

I wasn't counting him, although I guess he is a TE sensu lato. I was, like you, distinguishing TEs from IDs, and Behe is definitely one of the latter.

Soc: Because we have different conceptions of who the common enemy is. It is more foundational -- which authority do we have, or what are our basic presuppositions? For biblical creationists, they are the propositions of Scripture. For all others, it is autonomous human reasoning, essentially the same problem as Israel in the book of Judges.

I agree the foundation is the proposition of scripture. I do not disagree with you here. Yet you seem to think I do.

Maybe you don't, but the effect is the same. And Ross explicitly says that nature is a 67th book of Scripture.

I'm not putting "autonomous human reason" above scripture as you endlessly accuse. That is simply not the case at all. I simply disagree that scripture says exactly what you say it does.

Every time you impose modern ideas about uniformitarian geology onto the text, you are doing so. This is in total contrast to how people like JP Holding answer skeptics by showing how the Bible would have been understood by people of the time, which is not necessary "literal" by 21st century standards.

Soc: Alas, some major TEs here do nothing but yoke with atheists against Christians, and are eagerly exploited as useful idiots by atheists in their debates against Christianity.

From what I have seen the materialists, outside this forum, like the YEC position as it is simpler to lampoon and don't like any other approach at all.

Actually, they attack YEC because that's the only real opposition to atheistic evolutionism. They don't bother to attack theistic evolutionists, because there is so little difference between them, and in fact none at all for practical purposes. That's why so many atheists love to use Morton's bilge against Christians, with not the slightest 'danger' of atheists converted as a result of his junk.

It's also why the humanists squawked loudly to try to stop the Creation Museum (http://www.answersingenesis.org/museum/) built. Some said they would have no objection to building a church, but this Museum would actually tell people that the Bible can be trusted, and why!

[jason]

Today @ 06:12 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=271929#post271929)
Socrates:
WE DENY that Biblical infallibility and inerrancy are limited to spiritual, religious, or redemptive themes, exclusive of assertions in the fields of history and science. We further deny that scientific hypotheses about earth history may properly be used to overturn the teaching of Scripture on creation and the flood.[/box]
No I don't. As I said I disagree that it says young earth and global flood.

You have cited no Hebrew experts giving reasons within the text for long ages or gaps in the chronogenealogies.
Would you like me to ?

Not really, since you don't believe it brought bodily death into creation--the same sort of death that Jesus conquered in His Rez (1 Cor. 15:21-22).
The death of man was conquered by Christ. And the death of man resulted from the fall.

But the materialists love to use these as "proof" that God is a lousy designer.
So what ? They are mistaken.

He's talking crap. There is no sentimentality involved at all, simply the biblical teaching that animals were created vegetarian, and will be restored to that state (Isaiah 11, 65). And why not abuse Ross supporter Geisler for saying the same thing, and Strobel for citing it as a definitive answer.
If you like. I think they are mistaken.

I wasn't counting him, although I guess he is a TE sensu lato. I was, like you, distinguishing TEs from IDs, and Behe is definitely one of the latter.
I agree, but the line is not as clear as you assume.

Maybe you don't, but the effect is the same. And Ross explicitly says that nature is a 67th book of Scripture.
It is said with tongue slightly in cheek. The point was simply that special revelation and general revelation cannot conflict.

Actually, they attack YEC because that's the only real opposition to atheistic evolutionism. They don't bother to attack theistic evolutionists, because there is so little difference between them, and in fact none at all for practical purposes. That's why so many atheists love to use Morton's bilge against Christians, with not the slightest 'danger' of atheists converted as a result of his junk.
But of course an OEC such as my self, or an ID proponent is at least as much danger as any YEC, and worse yet, have a better chance of being listened to.

It's also why the humanists squawked loudly to try to stop the Creation Museum (http://www.answersingenesis.org/museum/) built. Some said they would have no objection to building a church, but this Museum would actually tell people that the Bible can be trusted, and why!
Sure. I disagree the earth is young, but suvh a museum would place the materialists dirty linen on display for all to see.

Jason

[Socrates]

11-06-2003 @ 08:05 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=272450#post272450)
jason:

No I don't. As I said I disagree that it says young earth and global flood.

But you and Ross explicitly say that you need to go to "science" to find out what Scripture says. So you are violating the Chicago Statement.

Would you like me to ?

Of course. No one has answered my post showing that the genealogies must be tight.

The death of man was conquered by Christ. And the death of man resulted from the fall.

You still have problems because radiometric "dates", if reliable as Ross believes place undoubted Homo sapiens well before even his date for Adam.

And you have not dealt with the fact that the animals were created vegetarian as well.

It is said with tongue slightly in cheek. The point was simply that special revelation and general revelation cannot conflict.

He plainly said what he said! And that is placing science (which he wrongly equates with general revelation) on the same level as Scripture, and in practice on a higher level.

[jason]

Today @ 06:37 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=286952#post286952)
Socrates:

But you and Ross explicitly say that you need to go to "science" to find out what Scripture says. So you are violating the Chicago Statement.
Not at all.

Of course. No one has answered my post showing that the genealogies must be tight.
I'm not a hebrew scholar. Why would I even try ? As I said, we can play cite the expert if you like.

You still have problems because radiometric "dates", if reliable as Ross believes place undoubted Homo sapiens well before even his date for Adam.
When you produce the figures in question I will believe you.

And you have not dealt with the fact that the animals were created vegetarian as well.
I disagree 1:29 need be read in that fashion.

He plainly said what he said! And that is placing science (which he wrongly equates with general revelation) on the same level as Scripture, and in practice on a higher level.
And your use of the word churchian is plainly adding YEC as a condition of salvation.

If you want to ignore the context of what people say I can play that game as well.

Jason

[Jedidiah]

But you and Ross explicitly say that you need to go to "science" to find out what Scripture says. So you are violating the Chicago Statement.

Actually I have heard Hugh explicitly back off of the 67th book of the Bible statement and spell out that what he really means is that general revelation and special revelation can never contradict one another. It is in that sense that nature is "like" a 67th book of the Bible.

I am sad to see the emotionally charged nature of some of these OE/YE threads.

beeman

[markporter]

TEs are for all practical purposes materialists. They believe that matter can form life by itself without intelligent input.

hmmm, not necessarily....life yes, but some of us still leave room for the special creation of a human spirit or summat like that.

[Socrates]

11-17-2003 @ 08:40 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=290488#post290488)
markporter:

TEs are for all practical purposes materialists. They believe that matter can form life by itself without intelligent input.

hmmm, not necessarily....life yes, but some of us still leave room for the special creation of a human spirit or summat like that.

I emphasised for all practical purposes. You can leave a gap for God in the way you do, but it hasn't the slightest practical effect on your view of history. In which case I dispute your eligibility to post here:

So in other words, the question that a poster must ask himself is this: In what significant ways do my views on the origin of life and the universe differ from a non-theistic materialistic view practically speaking? If there are no significant differences, then this forum is not for you. The purpose is for persons who believe in an active “creation” process in some form. If a belief in evolution is included, it must include the belief (contra naturalism) that there is a goal or purpose to evolution and that God actively used and controlled it to produce certain desired and planned results, at least in some circumstances, i.e. there is a supernatural element included.

[Amazing Rando]

Today @ 07:53 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=333896#post333896)
Socrates:

I emphasised for all practical purposes. You can leave a gap for God in the way you do, but it hasn't the slightest practical effect on your view of history. In which case I dispute your eligibility to post here:

So in other words, the question that a poster must ask himself is this: In what significant ways do my views on the origin of life and the universe differ from a non-theistic materialistic view practically speaking? If there are no significant differences, then this forum is not for you. The purpose is for persons who believe in an active “creation” process in some form. If a belief in evolution is included, it must include the belief (contra naturalism) that there is a goal or purpose to evolution and that God actively used and controlled it to produce certain desired and planned results, at least in some circumstances, i.e. there is a supernatural element included.

Soc, I'd dispute your judgment here. Mark, as a Christian theistic evolutionist (And Mark, if I'm misrepresenting your postion, please let me know), has a significantly different worldview than materialsts. For example, from what I've read of his before, I don't think he doubts the miraculous events in the OT and NT as being genuine. That right there is a huge practical departure from metaphysical naturalism: i.e. he believes God can and does act and intervene in the world. This is enormously different than the deistic notion of God. That is one practical difference.

A theistic view of God, even if it is viewed through the eyes of an evolutionist, is also significantly different than metaphysical naturalism- allow me to requote from the forum guidelines you posted:

If a belief in evolution is included, it must include the belief (contra naturalism) that there is a goal or purpose to evolution and that God actively used and controlled it to produce certain desired and planned results, at least in some circumstances, i.e. there is a supernatural element included.

If Mark believes that God had a hand in controlling evolutionary forces, or if he believes that God is in explicit control of evolutionary forces, according to Mark's worldview, this would seem to indicate that God does have a purpose- to produce "desired and planned results," in which case, Mark is perfectly eligible to post here.

[Socrates]

Yesterday @ 11:40 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=334122#post334122)
Amazing Rando:

Soc, I'd dispute your judgment here. Mark, as a Christian theistic evolutionist (And Mark, if I'm misrepresenting your postion, please let me know), has a significantly different worldview than materialsts.

That's not the point. The guidelines don't dispute that one can be a Christian yet be ineligible to post here. The point was, as far as the origin and history of life are concerned, in what practical way does his version of history differ from the atheists'? Sure, he may well believe that a horse is invisibly pulling the tractor, but his view seems no different for all practical purposes from the tractor pulling all by itself (see The horse and the tractor: Why God and evolution don’t mix (http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v22/i4/horse_tractor.asp)).

For example, from what I've read of his before, I don't think he doubts the miraculous events in the OT and NT as being genuine. That right there is a huge practical departure from metaphysical naturalism: i.e. he believes God can and does act and intervene in the world. This is enormously different than the deistic notion of God. That is one practical difference.

You're missing the point -- the guidelines concern the history of geology and biology.

If Mark believes that God had a hand in controlling evolutionary forces, or if he believes that God is in explicit control of evolutionary forces, according to Mark's worldview, this would seem to indicate that God does have a purpose- to produce "desired and planned results," in which case, Mark is perfectly eligible to post here.

Read the guidelines. It's not that one must believe that God "guided" evolution (as oxymoronic as this is) but that His guiding actually produced something different in practice not metaphysics from the atheistic notion.

[Jedidiah]

Soc,

Article XII.

WE AFFIRM that Scripture in its entirety is inerrant, being free from all falsehood, fraud, or deceit.

WE DENY that Biblical infallibility and inerrancy are limited to spiritual, religious, or redemptive themes, exclusive of assertions in the fields of history and science. We further deny that scientific hypotheses about earth history may properly be used to overturn the teaching of Scripture on creation and the flood.

I affirm the infallibility of scripture. I also deny that this is limited to spiritual, religious, or redemptive themes. I accept the Bible as accurate in the fields of history and science. I also reject the idea of using any human science or history to "overturn" the teachings of scripture on creation and the flood. This has been my stand since shortly after my salvation. It was my stand for some years in a liberal Lutheran church, even though I was out of step with the pastor and those around me.

Having said that, I do not see any problem with using scientific or historical discoveries to help in interpreting what the Bible actually says when questions arise. I also opt to use linguistic discoveries when interpreting scripture. I can hold firmly to Article XII of the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy and still believe in an old earth. I can do this whether you agree or not.

Forgive me for being a bit late with this, but I lost my computer and spent a few days getting back on line.

beeman

[Socrates]

Today @ 03:25 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=334478#post334478)
beeman:

Article XII.

WE AFFIRM that Scripture in its entirety is inerrant, being free from all falsehood, fraud, or deceit.

WE DENY that Biblical infallibility and inerrancy are limited to spiritual, religious, or redemptive themes, exclusive of assertions in the fields of history and science. We further deny that scientific hypotheses about earth history may properly be used to overturn the teaching of Scripture on creation and the flood.

I affirm the infallibility of scripture. I also deny that this is limited to spiritual, religious, or redemptive themes. I accept the Bible as accurate in the fields of history and science. I also reject the idea of using any human science or history to "overturn" the teachings of scripture on creation and the flood. This has been my stand since shortly after my salvation. It was my stand for some years in a liberal Lutheran church, even though I was out of step with the pastor and those around me.

Good. I hope you eventually joined a Bible-believing congregation.

Having said that, I do not see any problem with using scientific or historical discoveries to help in interpreting what the Bible actually says when questions arise.

But if you reject the traditional teaching that the days were 24-hours or less and were instead millions of years long, you are doing just that.

I also opt to use linguistic discoveries when interpreting scripture.

Of course you can. What has this to do with anything?

I can hold firmly to Article XII of the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy and still believe in an old earth. I can do this whether you agree or not.

Of course you can do this -- many people are very good at holding two mutually contrary thoughts in their head.

Forgive me for being a bit late with this, but I lost my computer.

What a pain.

[Amazing Rando]

Today @ 04:05 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=334384#post334384)
Socrates:

That's not the point. The guidelines don't dispute that one can be a Christian yet be ineligible to post here. The point was, as far as the origin and history of life are concerned, in what practical way does his version of history differ from the atheists'? Sure, he may well believe that a horse is invisibly pulling the tractor, but his view seems no different for all practical purposes from the tractor pulling all by itself (see The horse and the tractor: Why God and evolution don’t mix (http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v22/i4/horse_tractor.asp)).

What practical way, you ask? The practical difference between a TE view and a materialistic view is that for TE's, there is a purpose to the processes shaping the earth. Many of them believe that the development of the earth, both living things and non-living things, is intimately guided by the hand of the Creator, and that furthermore, as accords Genesis 1, this Creation is good. This contrasts the materialists who believe that random chance created the wonders of life that we experience on earth.

An example of a TE who does NOT differ significantly from materialists in this regard is Kenneth R. Miller. He believes, despite his claimed Christianity, that God simply designed the natural "laws" that govern the universe, and kickstarted it, allowing most of it to occur by chance.

You're missing the point -- the guidelines concern the history of geology and biology.

They don't explicitly say this. Perhaps they should be ammended to do so if that is, in fact, their purpose. It seems to me that they bend over backwards to allow theistic evolutionists as long as they hold significantly different viewpoints than materialists. This suggests to me more a question of purpose than anything else. If I'm wrong on this, could a Mod please let me know? Dee Dee? Thanks!

Read the guidelines. It's not that one must believe that God "guided" evolution (as oxymoronic as this is) but that His guiding actually produced something different in practice not metaphysics from the atheistic notion.

The differences I see are that, as I mentioned above, the "allowable" TE's in this forum believe in the possibility, indeed the actuallity of miracles, especially in regard to Biblical events. This alone is a strong practical reason to separate them from the materialists and allow them to post in this forum. Secondly, purpose is a practical reason, as opposed to purposelessness. Can you provide me with any examples of TE viewpoints you believe would be allowed in this forum according to your interpretation of the guidelines?

[bigsplit]

Mine

[Amazing Rando]

Cool, Biggie! Can you elaborate? How do you perceive your TE views as being different from those of a materialist?

[bigsplit]

In my TE, God is the Alpha and the Omega. In my TE the laws of nature are the law of God, and not even he will break them. In my TE Mankind has the power to choose his destiny as the law will treat all of mankind based on their Actions. Transcendence is through all of creation by way of the holy spirit. Nature does not have free will and thus fully under the power of God through the holy spirit. Man on the other hand has Free Will and can choose to follow the holy spirit or not. As far as evolution and creation of man goes, the difference is that creation has a purpose and evolution is the fullfillment of that purpose.

[dizzle]

Okay I have been asked to make a ruling here. In order to do so, one must back up to the purpose of this forum. Its purpose was to give creationist advocates the opportunity to discuss in-house science issues without having to deal with true naturalism or theism but that for all practical scientific purposes (not metaphysical ones - of course a Christian is going to have a different metaphysics than an nontheistic naturalist) is not really different from naturalism. This would not include an exception for a Christian who basically accepts evoluation for all intents and purposes but believes in the special creation of a soul. This is a metaphysical issue. It also did not completate the possibility of miracles, for I do not think one can be a Christian and deny that.

Thus this forum truly was intended for creationists as it is understood in general theological vernacular. Such would exclude most theistic evolutionists, Christian or otherwise, but we were reluctant to exclude such entirely, for like was pointed out ID is a subset of theistic evoluation and I have seen other variations which would be accepted here.... ones that would say that God completely or at significant points guided the process tangibly, ie they have a reason other than metaphysics for rejecting sheer randomness or sheer naturalistic explanations.

However I am considering though another subforum here for consideration of strictly theological issues amongst theist only dealing with creation and origins. In such area theistic evoluationists would be free to post on theological issues...... this area though was more for science and seems to have branched off more into theology.

It does not seem fair to exclude Christians from the theology, thus my consideration of a subforum which I have to run by my partners. But it would be totally counterproductive to allow most theistic evoluationists in this section as it regards science........

These are my thoughts. Thus for now, everyone carry on in this particular thread. I am not going to exclude anyone already participating from this one. Please keep the above in mind when evaluating one's purpose in light of this particular forum. I will let you guys know if we decide to discuss the theological issues separately, though perhaps that should just stay in Christianity 201.

[/notice]

[Socrates]

Here is an idea, and I think it is in the spirit of the original intent of this board. This forum could be restricted to those who deny that matter/energy has the tendency within itself to form the biological features of the living organisms we see today.

This would include those normally regarded as creationists in the broad sense--most IDs would be OECs since they believe that matter CANNOT form the intricately designed features we see without intelligent input. For example, Michael Behe believes in some form of evolution, but that God directly made the first life and some of the biological designs of living organism. So he would be eligible to post here.

It would exclude those normally known as theistic evolutionists, such as Howard Van Till, who believes that God created matter with an inbuilt capacity to evolve into living organisms. I emphasized biological features, because some TEs have a role for God to create the human spirit, but there is no practical difference as far as science is concerned as far as the origin of the physical form and functions of living creatures.

This forum could both propound the wonders of design in creation that YECs, OECs and IDs could agree upon, as well as debate the timescale and order of events of the Designer and the nature of this Designer.

[bigsplit]

Would someone who says that the law of Nature is the law of God and one cannot separate the two be one who supports intelligent design?

Would someone who says that if God created the Universe and all the matter in it and without God no matter could exist to begin with be included in this Proposal?

Would one who says secular cosmologists are completely deceived about the activities of our physical Universe and believe that God is active not periodically or impulsively, but rather constantly in the material Universe be excluded in your proposal?

And since God is spirit and all of his actions must take place "spiritually" even if he is working on biological activities, how would this forum handle those such issues?

By the way mate, why do you and I keep clashing, we seem to be interested in a lot of the same issues?

[Socrates]

Today @ 03:29 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=335891#post335891)
bigsplit:

Would someone who says that the law of Nature is the law of God and one cannot separate the two be one who supports intelligent design?

No, the ID movement clearly teaches that matter plus energy alone is not sufficient to produce the lifeforms we see today. As I said, there are theistic evolutionists like Van Till who think that God designed matter with an inherent capacity to evolve. But for all practical purposes, their view of history is no different from atheists who believe exactly the same thing about matter and invoke Ockham to reject God as an unnecessary hypothesis. The historical theories of both sides can take evolvable matter as a given and how the matter got there makes no practical difference.

Would someone who says that if God created the Universe and all the matter in it and without God no matter could exist to begin with be included in this Proposal?

Nope. Once again, for all practical purposes, their theories of cosmic history would be identical once the matter is there.

Would one who says secular cosmologists are completely deceived about the activities of our physical Universe and believe that God is active not periodically or impulsively, but rather constantly in the material Universe be excluded in your proposal?

That would be very wide ranging. YECs believe that God also sustains His creation (Col. 1:15-15, Hebrews 1:3), but these sustaining processes are different from His creative processes.

And since God is spirit and all of his actions must take place "spiritually" even if he is working on biological activities, how would this forum handle those such issues?

I'm not sure of your question. :huh: Feeding the 5000 was a miraculous act involving the generation of many biological molecules, so how is this merely "spiritual"?

Anyway, I was trying not to invent any new proposal but trying to clarify what I thought was the spirit of the original aims of the Cosmogony board.

By the way mate, why do you and I keep clashing, we seem to be interested in a lot of the same issues?

Possibly because we have different views of ultimate authority, it seems. :hrm:

[Paul]

"How much do we really disagree?"

As Socrates has mentioned already, it seems we have different approaches to the authority of the scriptures versus the authority of the man-made natural sciences. Lower sciences ought to accept the truths taught by the higher sciences. The theological science in the Bible ought thus to be accepted by natural scientists just as it ought to be accepted by social scientists (such as historians). Theology is a science and the data in theology is all the data in divine and supernatural revelation.

Also we have different understandings of how God created the world and various aspects of it. Theistic evolutionists seem to think that God created it through natural means however "guided" they may be. Creationists and I would count myself as one in this sense think that God created it and the various aspects mentioned on each day of creation through supernatural means -- by the power of his Spirit and the Word just as it says in Genesis. God's Spirit or "wind" moved and created and God spoke his word and things came into being. I don't see how this is preserved at all in a theistic evolutionary account.

[bigsplit]

[QUOTE]Today @ 06:26 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=335906#post335906)
Socrates:

I'm not sure of your question. :huh: Feeding the 5000 was a miraculous act involving the generation of many biological molecules, so how is this merely "spiritual"?

Anyway, I was trying not to invent any new proposal but trying to clarify what I thought was the spirit of the original aims of the Cosmogony board.


What I am saying is that God is not in human form, Jesus told us clearly that he is spirit. So how does his Spirit interact in the material world. This question is the central point of this entire debate. How does YEC propose God performed these actions. And in the YEC interpretation of God's Transcendennce, how does he interact as an active creator and miricle worker in the World today. It must be through spirit, or was Jesus not accurate in his description of God?

[dizzle]

I have revised the guidelines. I am not restricting anyone who was participating on this thread from doing so since it has already started, but I can that the inclusion of the words 'theistic evoluationists' was causing confusion so they are removed. The thread starter may wish to place this thread in Christianity 201 for a wider audience.

[dizzle]

They ahve been further refined. I once again ask fervently that no one takes this personally at all, this is a complete secondary issue, many Christians will differ and this forum is for a distinct subset within Christianity (or theism) and is not meant to divide the brethren salvationally.

[Chi_Cygni]

Perhaps you would have less problems in this forum if you titled it differently.

What this forum is supposedly for is in no way defined by the word 'cosmogony'.

It's a classic case of square peg and a round hole.

[Paul]

I really like the word Cosmogony though :) And there's a sub-titlte explanation so I don't see how it's confusing. I hope the word Cosmogony stays ;) I like it almost as much as "Things that make you go hmm ..." And I think cosmogony is the right word:

"The creation of the world or universe; a theory or account of such creation" Websters from dictionary.com

[dizzle]

But one has to click that they read the guidelines before they can post here, and the forum dscription on the index page says it is a creationist section. If you have further suggestions/comments, please PM me.


Now back to our regularly scheduled thread. Again, anyeone who was participating here is free to remain.

[GrayPilgrim]

Today @ 09:02 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=342446#post342446)
Paul:

I really like the word Cosmogony though :) And there's a sub-titlte explanation so I don't see how it's confusing. I hope the word Cosmogony stays ;)

/ot As the originator of the title of this forum, me too. And I for one see a complete connect, it is discussions of the birth of the Cosmos--hence cosmos + genos = cosmogony.

GP

[Amazing Rando]

I say- call it "Creationism 201." That'd scare off the people who aren't supposed to be posting in here anyway!

[dizzle]

:grin:

[Amazing Rando]

Aww! That was only half of a jest!

[Socrates]

:bounce:

[dizzle]

Hmmm <okay, I will resist inserting a preterist comment, but I am going to snag that cartoon for my own evil purposes>