RE: RE: [asa] Interview with Denis Lamoureux

From: Dehler, Bernie <>
Date: Mon Jun 08 2009 - 13:50:32 EDT

Dick said:
"Whether he had natural parents or was created out of the dust is something I leave as an open question. "

Then you are not a firm evolutionist if you reject (or think the rejection is reasonable) the evolutionary biological origins for Adam and Eve.

If you accept that Adam did not evolve biologically, then there's no reason to understand the other animals also having been evolved. If God made man unique, He could have done the same for other animals.

A pillar of "evolutionary creation" is that biological evolution is true and special creation (by fiat) is false.

Your views sound closer to "Old Earth Creationism," or is "Old Earth Creationism" off the rails... a very liberal brand of OEC.


From: []
Sent: Monday, June 08, 2009 10:25 AM
To: Dehler, Bernie
Subject: Re: RE: [asa] Interview with Denis Lamoureux

Hi Bernie:

The historical Adam I accept lived about 7,000 years ago near the Euphrates River as delineated by Genesis. That is the man who Denis and others reject as having lived at all.

Whether he had natural parents or was created out of the dust is something I leave as an open question. When God "created" great sea creatures they were created out of an evolutionary process. They had precursors and Adam may have had forerunners too, but I wouldn't know how to confirm that. If Adam had natural parents and Eve derived from him she would have his genetic makeup, psudogenes, processed pseudogenes, retro viral sequences, the lot.

The mitochondrial issue presents no difficulty either way. There is a point in the Adamic line where the indigeonous population joins up. That would be either at Noah or the wives of his three sons or perhaps all four took wives genetically connected outside the Adamic line. So the mitochondrial DNA for all women would go back to the Eve of antiquity not Adam's wife. Jubilees names the wives of all four, and the names of the wives of the three sons are not Hebrew or Akkadian names.

Jun 8, 2009 11:13:17 AM,<> wrote:
Hi Dick-

You accept a historical Adam, but it really isn't the Adam mentioned in Genesis, because that Adam was created by God scooping-up dirt and breathing life into it. On that score- Denis is right that EC by definition disallows a historical Adam, because evolutionists believe Adam evolved rather than being made uniquely by fiat. Same goes for Eve- evolved, not made from a rib. You are not fully evolutionary as you still consider Eve coming from the rib of Adam as a possibility. Evolutionists would not consider that a possibility for Eve at all. Such a action would have major ramifications for the human genome, which are absent (Mitochondrial Eve traceability would only be a few thousand years if she came unique from fiat- plus other things wouldn't make sense like pseudogenes and human chromosome #2).

But this is all playing with words (EC- and what it means)- and people make up new words and phrases all the time, like "Evolutionary Christian" and "Biologos." Why did Francis Collins have to make up a new word "Biologos?" If you find out why, and also agree with his reason for crating a new word, then you'll find yourself coming up with a new word or phrase for your position too.


-----Original Message-----
From:<> [<>] On Behalf Of Dick Fischer
Sent: Saturday, June 06, 2009 7:20 AM
To: 'Douglas Hayworth'
Subject: RE: [asa] Interview with Denis Lamoureux

Hi Douglas:

It's precisely this comment that riles me: "EC by definition rejects a
historical Adam, because this view of origins rejects scientific

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.

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 Mon Jun 8 13:50:41 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Jun 08 2009 - 13:50:41 EDT