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

From: David Opderbeck <>
Date: Sat Apr 05 2008 - 18:09:32 EDT

Ok, but I don't want to suggest Denis' basic observations about populist
evangelicalism are off base. Surely we evangelicals do need a more robust
hermeneutic so that we can dialogue with, and perhaps sometimes challenge,
other disciplines, including biology.

On Sat, Apr 5, 2008 at 5:57 PM, Gregory Arago <> wrote:

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

David W. Opderbeck
Associate Professor of Law
Seton Hall University Law School
Gibbons Institute of Law, Science & Technology
To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sat Apr 5 18:11:04 2008

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sat Apr 05 2008 - 18:11:04 EDT