Re: RE: [asa] Interview with Denis Lamoureux

From: Schwarzwald <schwarzwald@gmail.com>
Date: Mon Jun 08 2009 - 14:34:15 EDT

Bernie,

What if Adam evolved biologically, but still was chosen for a particular
relationship with God? Or if Adam had biological ancestors/precursors, but
God intervened with his particular development? At what point does
evolutionary creation become "special creation"?

I ask this because, frankly, I've seen people argue that what seems to be
your own position (evolution is guided) is a rejection of evolution itself
on the grounds that a key principle of evolution IS that it's unguided. Now,
I disagree with that. I also disagree with one of the criticisms I've seen
of Michael Behe - namely that he doesn't really believe in common descent,
because if he believes that certain evolutionary events were controlled or
intended [even if said events were 'natural'], then descent isn't really
common because such intention/intervention breaks the common relationship.
It makes me wonder what's happening in cases of animal husbandry.

If we're going to take classifications seriously, we should probably face
the fact that probably every single person on this list would be considered
by some to reject evolution, or key aspects of evolutionary theory,
regardless of how we approach the question.

On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 1:50 PM, Dehler, Bernie <bernie.dehler@intel.com>wrote:

> 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.
>
>
>
> …Bernie
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> *From:* dickfischer@verizon.net [mailto:dickfischer@verizon.net]
> *Sent:* Monday, June 08, 2009 10:25 AM
> *To:* Dehler, Bernie
> *Cc:* asa@calvin.edu
> *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, bernie.dehler@intel.com 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.
>
> ...Bernie
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
> Behalf Of Dick Fischer
> Sent: Saturday, June 06, 2009 7:20 AM
> To: 'Douglas Hayworth'
> Cc: ASA
> 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
> 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
> www.historicalgenesis.com
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] 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
> (http://becomingcreation.org). 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 majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Jun 8 14:34:42 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Jun 08 2009 - 14:34:42 EDT