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

From: Gregory Arago <>
Date: Sat Apr 05 2008 - 18:24:28 EDT

Fair enough. Let it be calmly said that you, David, are likewise not an evangelical-only, to the exclusion of everything else that is Christian. This thought is expressed in the words of Martin Luther King, Jr., "the most segregated hour of Christian America is eleven o'clock on Sunday morning." Yes, a robust hermeneutic is needed for dialogue and criticism of biology, so that it doesn't, for example, swallow-up theology with its Dobzhansky and Teilhard de Chardin-inspired, etc. TE/ECism. 'Populist evangelism' may well be a real phenomena in America (I am not qualified to speak on this), but it is a sociological phenomena, and not something that a biologist, theologian, dentist, physicist, psychologist or geologist can speak with wisdom about. Surely you are not suggesting that 'evangelism' is just an-other 'discipline' in the academy?!

David Opderbeck <> wrote: 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.
  p.s. I am not endorsing 'intelligent design' anywhere in the above message.

Be smarter than spam. See how smart SpamGuard is at giving junk email the boot with the All-new Yahoo! Mail

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sat Apr 5 18:26:05 2008

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sat Apr 05 2008 - 18:26:05 EDT