Re: [asa] Fw: Message to Jennifer M. Granholm, Governor of Michigan

From: Gregory Arago <gregoryarago@yahoo.ca>
Date: Sat Apr 05 2008 - 17:57:15 EDT

Denis Lamoureux makes sociological observations: 'most of those clergy' and 'a majority of those scientists' - there is no escaping this classification. Yet he is not trained in sociology. He likely knows little about the theories in that field. David's challenge to his 'numbers' is a legitimate one.
   
  One of the first rules in HPSS is to ask questions: Which science? Whose science? These are fundamental in our epoch, which has endured (is enduring) the hermeneutic turn, the cultural turn and the linguistic turn, not to mention feeling the impress of feminism, relativism and post-positivism (among other -isms). Objectivist-ic natural scientists can pretend to ignore these 'movements,' but the motion is nevertheless a reality.
   
  When one mocks a 'thou shalt not accept evolution' 11th commandment, however, one displays an obvious insensitivity to the 'fact' that evolution is not merely a theory in natural science-only. Biology, theology and dentistry hold no authority (this is obvious) in anthropology, economics or political science, where evolutionary theories are also used. What to do with anti-evolution and post-evolution theories in those realms? (Probably you have no answer for this, Denis?)
   
  I've watched Denis worked-over and unresponding wrt concordism by non-theistic IDists. His theology appears to have embraced evolution to such a strong degree that, after doubting it for many years, i.e. as a young earther (not only in America?), to now dis-intwine his theology from evolutionary biology would seem impossible. How badly this view is mistaken, given that biology is only a small (yet significant) realm in the contemporary academy, with alternative, relevant realms open(ing) to contradict evolutionary universalism (cf. TE/EC).
   
  How does one claim to get 'beyond' the creation-evolution debate by promoting 'evolutionary creation,' i.e. by using those same terms? It seems rather impossible (a strange 'beyond'), aside from rhetoric and theatrics. Yet outside of those three fields (dentistry, theology, biology), to doubt and even oppose evolution is a reality, not something worth mocking. Perhaps this knowledge will trickle down to Denis', Dick's and others' TE/EC pov's some time in the future.
   
  Gregory
   
  p.s. I am not endorsing 'intelligent design' anywhere in the above message.
  

"Denis O. Lamoureux" <dlamoure@ualberta.ca> wrote:
        
  @font-face { font-family: Tahoma; } @page Section1 {size: 8.5in 11.0in; margin: 1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; mso-header-margin: .5in; mso-footer-margin: .5in; mso-paper-source: 0; } P.MsoNormal { FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman"; mso-style-parent: ""; mso-pagination: widow-orphan; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman" } LI.MsoNormal { FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman"; mso-style-parent: ""; mso-pagination: widow-orphan; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman" } DIV.MsoNormal { FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman"; mso-style-parent: ""; mso-pagination: widow-orphan; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman" } A:link { COLOR: blue; TEXT-DECORATION: underline; text-underline: single } SPAN.MsoHyperlink { COLOR: blue; TEXT-DECORATION: underline; text-underline: single } A:visited { COLOR: blue; TEXT-DECORATION: underline; text-underline:
 single } SPAN.MsoHyperlinkFollowed { COLOR: blue; TEXT-DECORATION: underline; text-underline: single } SPAN.EmailStyle17 { FONT-WEIGHT: normal; COLOR: black; FONT-STYLE: normal; FONT-FAMILY: Arial; TEXT-DECORATION: none; text-underline: none; mso-style-type: personal-reply; mso-style-noshow: yes; mso-ansi-font-size: 10.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt; mso-ascii-font-family: Arial; mso-hansi-font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; text-line-through: none } SPAN.GramE { mso-style-name: ""; mso-gram-e: yes } DIV.Section1 { page: Section1 } Nice observation Dick.
   
  Most of those clergy were trained in seminaries with a non-concordist hermeneutic of Gen 1-11, while a majority of these scientists are evangelicals, and this (my) tradition is concordist and embraces an 11th Commandment: Thou shall not accept evolution.
   
  Denis
   
   
    ----- Original Message -----
  From: Dick Fischer
  To: ASA
  Sent: Saturday, April 05, 2008 8:18 AM
  Subject: RE: [asa] Fw: Message to Jennifer M. Granholm, Governor of Michigan
  

    Let’s see, 714 scientists dissent from evolution while over 11,000 clergy have signed the clergy letter in support of it. I wonder what the scientists know that the clergy don’t and vice versa. Maybe our species hasn’t evolved enough that we yet have the brains to figure these things out,
   
    Dick Fischer. author, lecturer
  Historical Genesis from Adam to Abraham
  www.historicalgenesis.com

       
 
              
---------------------------------
    
       
Yahoo! Canada Toolbar : Search from anywhere on the web and bookmark your favourite sites. Download it now!

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sat Apr 5 17:58:37 2008

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sat Apr 05 2008 - 17:58:37 EDT