Re: [asa] Interview with Denis Lamoureux

From: Murray Hogg <>
Date: Wed Jun 10 2009 - 07:02:28 EDT

Hi Schwarzwald,

Another point of clarification: I meant naivete on my part!

It's the fact that there might be political maneuvers afoot which took me by surprise - I'd always given people the benefit of the doubt.

The good thing, however, is that as followers of Christ we are called to respond to every person in the same way regardless of their particular agendas. Like yourself, I've not always gotten that right! Unlike yourself, I'm not sure I've gotten better at as time passes!


Schwarzwald wrote:
> Heya all,
> Seconding some of what Murray is saying here, I also think it's
> important to remember (I doubt anyone is unaware of this, but it's worth
> repeating) sometimes "misunderstandings" about these subjects (evolution
> mandating naturalism, some ID views being very far from YEC/creationism,
> etc) aren't always misunderstandings. Like it or not, there are
> calculated political maneuvers involved. When Dawkins and company say
> explicitly that their goal is to make Christians look bad however they
> can rather than engage them intellectually, it gives away that part of
> the game - and that isn't exactly a new attitude. One difference I'd
> have with Murray is that I'm not sure how much of the attitude he's
> encountered (evolution entails naturalism/non-guidance by definition!)
> is naivete/misunderstanding, rather than conscious political posturing.
> If evolution can be guided or part of God's work even in principle,
> quite a lot of intellectual, emotional and political investment in
> "science" goes right out the window for a (small, perhaps, but
> aggressive) number of people.
> Also, I used to be extremely hostile to YECs, and I have never stopped
> regretting letting myself behave like that. Even if I have deep
> disagreements with them (and believe me, I do and then some) I consider
> it of vital importance to approach the issue thoughtfully and
> respectfully. I'll even go so far as biting my tongue in the face of
> some hostility, though thankfully that's pretty rare. The upside has
> been tremendous opportunities to engage people personally on a subject
> and hear out the TE (or quasi-ID) case that they'd typically reject out
> of hand.
> On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 5:32 AM, Murray Hogg <
> <>> wrote:
> Hi Merv,
> Glad we cleared that up!
> I think you're right about the role that TE's can play, but I'll
> offer this observation: many of the TE's I know personally are
> really quite hostile to YEC's and others in the purportedly
> "pseudo-scientific" camp. They would welcome the opportunity to
> engage with even strong anti-theistic evolutionists, but don't
> really seem to appreciate that they have a ministry to fellow
> Christians.
> Please realize that I'm certainly not ascribing such attitudes to
> all TE's - just some who I know in person (nobody on the ASA list,
> in other words!). It's a bit sad, but something I think we should
> work to rectify.
> I've noticed in my brief Wikipedia experience, by the way, that
> there seems to be a tendency on the part of non-theistic
> evolutionists to want to drive a wedge between TE and any other form
> of "creationism" - they simply won't accept that some ID theorists
> AREN'T all that far from the evolutionary mainstream. My read of
> this is that it's a deliberate attempt to isolate all forms of
> evolution from criticism. I hope the Christian community doesn't
> fall for it as I think there might be somethings that TE's can learn
> from other "sides" in the debate.
> Blessings,
> Murray
> Merv Bitikofer wrote:
> Thanks for the extra explanation ... I see your points now --and
> my misunderstanding of your previous post is rectified.
> I don't think the realization of how strong the naturalistic
> assumptions can be shows naiveté. It's good to be reminded of
> how arguments can sound to the ears of those who have long been
> immersed in "the other side" (which includes more than just
> atheists but many Christian anti-evolutionists as well). The
> given predisposition for both is that evolution = "no God" by
> definition! I think TEs can offer a valuable service here (if
> done right) that comes from a significant advantage many TEs
> have here: many have actually been on BOTH sides of that fence
> and hence have some empathy and understanding for where people
> are coming from, which they can hopefully use to gently
> challenge those predispositions and build bridges expanding
> others' intellectual and theological horizons. (I'm assuming
> here that a significant number of Christians who are now TE
> migrated there from the warfare model --probably gradually and
> with bumps and bruises along the way. But those (Christians)
> still caught in the warfare model have probably never been on
> both sides of this fence to see / understand clearly from the
> non-warfare point of view. They are at a disadvantage in
> trying to understand TE. And the self-labeled "anti-religious"
> are at an even larger intellectual disadvantage yet, as they
> have locked themselves into an even smaller box; although many
> of them may have migrated there from early zealous religious
> upbringing. But that will (I'll wager) almost always have been
> a warfare model view of religion that they turned their backs
> on. To them, all religion & Christianity is painted with the
> same brush.
> 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 Wed Jun 10 07:03:05 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Jun 10 2009 - 07:03:05 EDT