Re: RE: [asa] Interview with Denis Lamoureux

From: Schwarzwald <schwarzwald@gmail.com>
Date: Tue Jun 09 2009 - 14:44:03 EDT

Bernie,

This seems incorrect to me. I can provide you with quote after quote from
various theist scientists who saw their enterprise as, in essence, "finding
out how God accomplished" what we see in the universe. Not every act of God
needs to be an utterly inscrutable miracle. In fact, TEs are usually the
first ones to point out that giving a natural description of an event does
not mean you're removing God from the picture, or saying God wasn't
sovereign over what unfolded. I think this also introduces a curious problem
between science on the blackboard and science as describing particular
events - especially with regards to evolution.

Basically, you can both say 'God did it' while at the same time have no
roadblock in your way towards investigating the physical aspects and
processes of what's going on. On the other hand, a naturalistic outlook is
no guarantee that you won't put certain ideas beyond science. Look at the
New Mysterians and their approach to, among other things, consciousness.
Where they basically say "We are only so evolved and so intelligent and
there's no guarantee our intelligence is able to solve every problem so we
should expect that some problems may have an explanation but we'll never
discover it due to those natural limits." Which is pretty much a
naturalistic version of the very problem you're attributing to a theistic
outlook.

On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 2:01 PM, Dehler, Bernie <bernie.dehler@intel.com>wrote:

> Schwarzwald:
> “But why must it be regarded as unguided scientifically, when there's a
> more apt third option available: "Science can't determine whether it's
> guided or unguided."?”
>
>
>
> On one hand I agree that science can’t determine it- mainly because it has
> no way to measure anything supernatural.
>
>
>
> On the other hand, any hypothesis has to be naturalistic- since that is the
> job of science: finding out the natural methodology behind everything,
> assuming a naturalistic explanation is out there. The more we look, the
> more it appears there are natural rules for everything. Progress comes in
> assuming it and looking for it; progress stops when you think God did it so
> there’s no need to look further into it (if God did it, it would be stupid
> and pointless to look further into it, since it was a miracle).
>
>
>
> …Bernie
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> *From:* asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] *On
> Behalf Of *Schwarzwald
> *Sent:* Tuesday, June 09, 2009 10:40 AM
>
> *To:* asa@calvin.edu
> *Subject:* Re: RE: [asa] Interview with Denis Lamoureux
>
>
>
> Heya Bernie,
>
> Sure, I admit you don't demand it. On the other hand, Dick doesn't demand
> Adam be made out of dust either. You say being open to the possibility alone
> is enough to bar Dick from being viewed as accepting evolution - but then
> your being open to the possibility of evolution being guided would seem to
> put you in the same situation with quite a lot of pro-evolution types.
> (Probably not TEs - then again, you're the one who asked Miller about this.)
>
> I also agree that science is utterly incapable of determining whether or
> not God was involved with evolution, or any particular event. But why must
> it be regarded as unguided scientifically, when there's a more apt third
> option available: "Science can't determine whether it's guided or
> unguided."? Science can be done without either assumption in play, so why
> make one? And if we're going to make any assumption, and neither view can be
> determined scientifically, why not go with guided? You no more have to put a
> miracle into your equations than an atheist has to assume
> intelligent/willful beings are a likely outcome of naturalistic evolution.
> (Indeed, evolution were viewed as likely to produce such beings, it would no
> longer really be naturalistic.)
>
> Either way, I'm mostly saying that we shouldn't be so quick to demand
> people bow to our views of evolution lest they be accused of not really
> believing in it. Ken Miller of all people was essentially accused of this by
> Coyne, and I think it's clear he went too far in that case - and that it is,
> after all, possible to go too far. I also think it's important to know the
> difference (as you seem to) between "science cannot determine whether it is
> or isn't true" and "science has determined it is false". Far too many times
> the former gets magically turned into the latter, despite nothing - not even
> the power of deep time - being able to decide this question.
>
> On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 12:27 PM, Dehler, Bernie <bernie.dehler@intel.com>
> wrote:
>
> Hi Schwarzwald,
>
>
>
> You said:
> “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.”
>
>
>
> I don’t demand that evolution be guided- I’m just open to the issue, as I
> don’t think science can tell one way or the other. In other words, if you
> win the state lottto, there’s no way to scientifically determine if you just
> randomly won or if God made it happen that way.
>
>
>
> Pro for guided evolution: The complexity we see (brain, eye, etc).
>
>
>
> Con for guided evolution: the incomprehensible power of deep time. We
> can’t really grasp millions of years. It is beyond our sensory everyday
> experience.
>
>
>
> Scientifically, by definition, it must be regarded as unguided because
> otherwise a miracle would be involved and science can’t use miracles in
> equations, since they are indeterminate. But what is scientific and what is
> true can be too different things (evolution is scientifically unguided, but
> may be really guided in truth). And if God did guide it, He’d be twiddling
> DNA bits in the right way to make something new and useful, so it would look
> totally naturalistic. He may have to do it because it may be impossible to
> naturalistic get what we have today in humans, or to start biological life.
>
>
>
> …Bernie
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> *From:* asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] *On
> Behalf Of *Schwarzwald
> *Sent:* Monday, June 08, 2009 11:34 AM
> *To:* asa@calvin.edu
>
>
> *Subject:* Re: RE: [asa] Interview with Denis Lamoureux
>
>
>
> 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 Tue Jun 9 14:44:40 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Jun 09 2009 - 14:44:40 EDT