Re: [asa] Interview with Denis Lamoureux

From: Douglas Hayworth <>
Date: Sun Jun 07 2009 - 19:06:00 EDT

Hi Dick,

Thanks for taking the time to read the interview and give your
reaction. There certainly are some clear differences among us who
otherwise accept evolution (common descent). I won't deny that I am
closer to Lamoureux than to you with regard to how I view the
historicity of individuals in early Genesis, and I freely admit that I
have not read your materials.

And I suppose it would rile me, too, if I were as convinced as you are
of your view. However, what I very much respect about Lamoureux and
his book is that he does not pussy-foot around this issue of Adam's
historicity like so many other TE/EC writers. Most -- I presume in
order to cast a broader net in presenting the case for evolution --
stop short of making a case one way or another about Adam, and in so
doing do not present the strongest possible argument for any
particular view. So I'd encourage you to accept Lamoureux's
contribution if only for clearly presenting the alternative view to
your own.

In my own case, it's been several years now since I've abandoned
trying to interpret early Genesis in a way that preserves single
individuals for Adam and Eve, Cain and Abel, etc. For me, that was/is
the necessary FIRST step toward approaching the text in a manner which
makes sense (historically and theologically) of the context and
message. The talking snake, the two special trees, the source for
Cain's wife, the contrast between agrarian and pastoral cultures, and
so many other themes only make sense if the named people are
archetypes, not individuals.

None of this argues against any of the archeological and other kinds
of evidences for names and places mentioned in Scripture, about which
you are an expert; it just indicates a difference between you and
Lamoureux in how to interpret those references. For you, they are
plain play-by-play history; for Lamoureux, they are motifs (some real
places and some based on real events) that are passed down and then
redacted as message-laden stories.


On Sat, Jun 6, 2009 at 9:19 AM, Dick Fischer<> wrote:
> Hi Douglas:
> It's precisely this comment that riles me: "EC by definition rejects a
> historical Adam, because this view of origins rejects scientific
> concordism."
> Adam is only one of the Genesis patriarchs listed in Abraham's line of
> ancestry.  Since Denis eliminates Adam as a human being who once breathed
> air I would be curious as to how many other patriarchs EC would eliminate.
> Assuming Abraham was a real person at what point would Denis propose that
> mythological forebears gave birth to live human beings.
> Also, since I spent 27 years of my life searching for evidence that supports
> the historicity of Genesis 2-11, naturally I am somewhat miffed by one who
> rejects Genesis historicity out of hand without doing any relevant research.
> Biological evolution looks to be on solid ground because we have an
> abundance of data and evidence to confirm it.  The central theme of
> Christianity has support with biblical and historical evidence which upholds
> it.  And the historicity of the Genesis patriarchs likewise has evidence in
> support.  On the flip side, there is an absence of evidence that biological
> evolution is untrue or that Jesus Christ had no ministry or that Adam didn't
> live.  So what I would suggest is that we support the things, all things,
> for which we have we have a database of supporting evidence and avoid
> signing on to things for which there is no evidence in support - such as the
> historicity of Adam, for example.
> Perhaps Douglas you'd be so kind to as to take a glance at what I've written
> and conduct a similar interview?
> Dick Fischer, author, lecturer
> Historical Genesis from Adam to Abraham
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [] On
> Behalf Of Douglas Hayworth
> Sent: Tuesday, June 02, 2009 9:06 PM
> To: AmericanScientificAffiliation
> Subject: [asa] Interview with Denis Lamoureux
> Hi Everyone,
> If you're interested in Denis Lamoureux's views and his book
> Evolutionary Creation, you may be interested in reading an interview
> that I did with him for my blog Becoming Creation
> ( I invite you to leave comments and
> questions (no long rants, please).
> I don't join the conversations very often here on the ASA list -- I'm
> always amazed at how much some of you are able to write! You're all
> either very fast keyboarders or you've got a lot more time on your
> hands than I do -- but I do lurk and follow most threads. I'm
> especially interested in the discussions about education, especially
> those relating to homeschooling. I mention this because I plan on
> devoting most of my blogging efforts in the coming months to
> developing content (short essays, etc.) for homeschooling students and
> parents. If you are interested in that topic, please add Becoming
> Creation to your RSS-feed and comment to provide corrections or
> suggestions for improvement.
> Doug Hayworth
> ASA member
> Rockford, IL
> To unsubscribe, send a message to with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sun Jun 7 19:06:19 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun Jun 07 2009 - 19:06:19 EDT