Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Denis Lamoureux · 09-07-2002, 01:22 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by pz:


These are all arguments from ignorance. They also require some knowledge of biology to address, which I suspect that Dr. Lamoureux does not present in his class, since it isn't a biology class. Maybe this fellow ought to send his daughter over to the biology department where she can get this information?

PZ,
Brilliant! Yes, yes, yes, to all you've said.

At the beginning of the course I underline that, as PZ notes, my course is not a science course. But I do tease the students with excellent examples of transitory forms and evolutionary evidence. And the end of the course I suggest biology courses worth taking on evolution.

Denis

Amen-Moses · 09-07-2002, 01:22 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Denis Lamoureux:
Most people understand evolution to be dysteleological. That's a categorical error and the conflation of a scientific theory with a secular/atheistic/agnostic world view. You can do that if you wish, fill your boots, BUT DON'T CALL SCIENCE!

Why?

Absent any evidence to the contrary why shouldn't this be the default view?

Amen-Moses

Denis Lamoureux · 09-07-2002, 01:30 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by MilitantModerate:
Prof. L did not quite get through to Ms. Biehler....

Of course, there must be some confidentiality here and I can't tell you guys everything I would like to regarding this situation.

But for the record: I absolutely loved this student. She was delightful, and we came to agree that we would disagree in the end. I teach at a university, and not an indoctrinating Bible school. Students make up their own mind. I will say though, she is the rarity; Jordan LaRue who was in the article is the general rule.

However, there is a communication problem (me to her or her to her father). I addressed all three questions in the class directly. I even brought in Canada's leading young earth creationist at the end of the course (interestingly, that experience usually has YECs kick their YECism).

My job is to inform students and bring them to the edge of the best scholarship. It is not to control their minds and views. I want to build them up to make responsible decisions. Besides, does anyone think they can tell an undergrad what to believe? Worst than pulling teeth . . .

Denis

Taken from the 'Letters' Page of The Edmonton Journal, Sept. 7, 2002

(possible OCR errors as the Journal does not web publish all their letters so I scanned this)

-------

Daughter's faith in creation ushaken by evolutionist

Found no answers to simple questions

Re: "God, Darwin meet in professor's class," Journal, Sept. 1.

This front-page story discusses how Denis Lamoureux dissects conservative Christian ideas of creation and promotes the idea that God used evolution to create life.

My daughter took two of Dr. Lamoureux's courses. She went into his class as a conservative, biblical Christian and she emerged totally convinced that evolution is a myth.

Lamoureux often spoke of but never presented the imagined "staggering evidence for evolution." She often asked the professor for proofs of evolution but he did not supply any.

Evolutionists, whether honest atheists or those masquerading as Christians, like to wrap themselves in the flag of science and proclaim "Evolution is science and creation is religion."

That unsubstantiated and untrue statement is Lamoureux's message. My daughter believes he failed to give meaningful answers to her simple questions. Here are three of them:

1. Even the simplest living organism is almost infinitely complex. How did this first life evolve?

2. If evolution is true, why doesn't the fossil record show gradual change between species? And why don't professors and secular textbooks acknowledge, as did Darwin, that the fossil record is a huge argument against his theory?

3. Evolution requires that beneficial new traits be added to populations of animals. Those traits are transmitted to future generations by complex arrangements of billions of atoms in the DNA of the animal. What is the mechanism bywhich this complex new genetic material appears?

It seems that a 48-year-old with two earned PhDs is no match for an eighteen-year -old armed with the truth.

I would like to suggest a debate in which Lamoureux is challenged to answer my daughter's questions. And perhaps we should ask why our universities do not hire scientists who are also creationists? They would be an "eloquent addition to the educational landscape at U of A."

-Mike Biehler, Edson

-------

[ September 07, 2002: Message edited by: MilitantModerate ]

Denis Lamoureux · 09-07-2002, 01:45 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Amen-Moses:


Why?

Absent any evidence to the contrary why shouldn't this be the default view?

Amen-Moses

Ah lovely!!!
This is such a classic statement arising from a positivist epistemology.
Amen-Moses, do recognize the assumption you've made here? It's subtle. You state, "Absent any evidence", but what type of evidence are you talking about? And what are your cannons for determining good evidence.
If you say, scientific evidence and the cannons of science, then you've not only loaded the epistemological dice but you've disqualified yourself from knowing a realm that might be known only through non-scientific means/methods.
Furthermore, the positivist position suffers from self-referential incoherence. You can't use the scientific method to justify the scientific method?

Over to you,
Denis

(

Skeptical · 09-07-2002, 01:59 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Denis Lamoureux:


Hi,
First, just a comment with regard to the term 'evolutionary creation.' It's out there, but not often heard. As most of you guys know, the common term is 'theistic evolution.' But I find that unacceptable because the substantive is a scientific theory and God is just a qualifier.

Denominations with schools/seminaries in REAL universities with REAL science programs have no trouble with EC or TE. Eg, Catholics, Anglicans, etc.

Here's the bottom-line (and sorry if this offends my brothers & sisters in Christ): evangelical Christianity shot itself in the foot by walking out of the major universities in the early 20th century to create Bible schools. before that, evangelicalism was front an center in universities (eg Princeton). Instead of having the balls to 'fight the good fight' (1 Tim 6:12), evangelicals went off to build little indoctrination centers to memorize Bible verses & stop thinking. And of course, after some time this intellectual incest bore the sour fruit of what we now know as 'fundamentalism.'

The shame of all this is that evangelicals are always chirpping about God's Two Books--Book of God's Word and Book of God's Work--and the Bible school movement as effectively closed the latter. Bluntly, North American evangelicalism as a whole is intellectual incompetent. It disqualifies itself from the academy because simply hasn't done its homework.

And if anyone thinks I'm nuts, go read Mark A. Noll's (professor of intellectual history at WHEATON COLLEGE--a very evangelical school) book
_The Scandall of the Evangelical Mind_. First sentence goes something like this: "The scandal of the evangelical mind is that there is not much of an evangelical mind."

Now, before the evangelicals reading this loose their mind, remember: I am an evangelical. I love evangelicalism's focus on living holy lives, reading Scripture and sharing Jesus with everyone. But, and here's the 'but', we've got to clean up our academic act. We're about two centuries behind everyone on soooooo many scientific issues.

Bluntly, (and yea, many too bluntly) all this anti-evolutionism coming out of evangelicalism is blasphemy to the Lord God who graciously gave us a mind to know Him and His world. You anti-evolutionists out there are STUMBLING BLOCKS(in the fullest Pauline sense; 2 Cor 6:2-3) to my scientific colleagues. You put a stumbling block between them and Jesus!!!You are STUMBLING BLOCKS to children who are indoctrinated in anti-evolutionism and then see the evidence for evolution at a REAL university . . . and then they leave the faith because of your incompetence. Sorry for the passion, but I've this shit* too many times at my university.

OK, I think I've said enough.

Over to you guys,
Denis
*And if this word offends any evangelical, plse learn to read God's Word in the original language and you'll see that _skubala_ is not 'rubbish' as evangelical Bibles translate in Phil 3:8.

Wow.

That was bloody brilliant. If I were a theist, I'd say "Amen brother!".

Oh what the hell. Amen brother!

I couldn't agree with your sentiments more. I have never understood what was "christian" about ignorance nor why more theists did not take the sort of stance that you propose.

Kudos on an excellent post, I'm saving this one for future reference. <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" /> <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" />

Skeptical · 09-07-2002, 02:17 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Denis Lamoureux:


Ah lovely!!!
This is such a classic statement arising from a positivist epistemology.
Amen-Moses, do recognize the assumption you've made here? It's subtle. You state, "Absent any evidence", but what type of evidence are you talking about? And what are your cannons for determining good evidence.
If you say, scientific evidence and the cannons of science, then you've not only loaded the epistemological dice but you've disqualified yourself from knowing a realm that might be known only through non-scientific means/methods.
Furthermore, the positivist position suffers from self-referential incoherence. You can't use the scientific method to justify the scientific method?

Dennis, IMO, nothing can be "known" through non-scientific (I prefer the term non-empirical) means. That is, I submit that if you cannot know it through empirical means, you cannot know it at all, you can only think you know it.

This is OT for this thread, but there is already a thread dedicated to this topic <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=58&t=001333" target="_blank">here</a> if your interested.

[ September 07, 2002: Message edited by: Skeptical ]

Albion · 09-07-2002, 05:38 PM

Quote:

Therefore, qualification of the word 'creation' is needed in the origins debate:
1. Young earth creation.
World created in 6 literal days, geological strata caused by Noah's flood, very strict literalists. Strong anti-evolutionists.

2. Progressive creation (or old earth creation)
Universe 12 billion years old--thus, they accept cosmology & geology. The flood a local event in middle east. Life created in stages at different points in geological history. Usually, day-age interpreters of Gen 1. BTW, this was Darwin's position boarding Beagle. Srong anti-evolutionists.

3. Evolutionary creation (theistic evolution)
Accept all the sciences. Science in the Bible is ancient. Believe in a personal God. Go to my web page and read the paper for more details if you wish.

4. Deistic creation/evolution(or theistic evolution)
Accept all sciences. God is impersonal. Starts the show but never enters it.

And just to make the list complete:
5. Dysteleological evolution or atheistic evolution. No God or teleology. In the beginning hydrogen . . .

How about another one, cos I don't see anything here that I agree with.

4a. Not sure what to call it. Accept all sciences. Neutral on the question of whether God did anything on account of that can't be determined by the scientific method.

I mean, I don't feel comfortable with any of your five alternatives. I don't believe in God, but I don't reject the possibility of God's existence or his ability to create in terms of alternatives 3 and 4. However, I wouldn't be able to agree that either of them is what actually happened because Ihave no idea how you'd know. Equally, I'm not about to say definitively "No God or teleology" because I don't know that either.

And they say being agnostic is the easy option!

BTW, have ordered Mark Noll's book from Amazon. Sounded interesting. And the Lamoureux/Johnson one too. With the backlog I have here, I expect to get to them in about 2008, but I'm looking forward!

Albion · 09-07-2002, 06:05 PM

Quote:

It seems that a 48-year-old with two earned PhDs is no match for an eighteen-year -old armed with the truth.

Pathetic, isn't it? Why even bother to send her to university? Well, I guess you can't win 'em all. Actually, I think a debate between this know-all kid and a professor of evolutionary biology would be quite amusing. Better still, send here here and get her to address her questions to Scigirl. We could do with a laugh.

Denis Lamoureux · 09-07-2002, 07:11 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Skeptical:


Wow.

That was bloody brilliant. If I were a theist, I'd say "Amen brother!".

Oh what the hell. Amen brother!

I couldn't agree with your sentiments more. I have never understood what was "christian" about ignorance nor why more theists did not take the sort of stance that you propose.

Kudos on an excellent post, I'm saving this one for future reference. <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" /> <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" />

Hey Skeptical,
You can judiciously say "Amen brother." 'Amen' simply means 'true' or 'truely,' and we are afterall brothers. If chimps are our cousins, we gotta be brothers.

Blessings,
Denis

Denis Lamoureux · 09-07-2002, 07:23 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Albion:


How about another one, cos I don't see anything here that I agree with.

4a. Not sure what to call it. Accept all sciences. Neutral on the question of whether God did anything on account of that can't be determined by the scientific method.

I mean, I don't feel comfortable with any of your five alternatives. I don't believe in God, but I don't reject the possibility of God's existence or his ability to create in terms of alternatives 3 and 4. However, I wouldn't be able to agree that either of them is what actually happened because Ihave no idea how you'd know. Equally, I'm not about to say definitively "No God or teleology" because I don't know that either.

And they say being agnostic is the easy option!

Ablion,
Really appreciate this comment. Occasionally in public lectures I've had guys take a run at me for not making reference to an agnostic position.

Of course, you can hold an agnostic position. But the problem with it is that it's a suspension of belief, and in reality a non-position. It says dick all, and adds dick all to the discussion, and therefore doesn't deserve dick consideration. If you don't know, well then, don't say anything. All the other positions are at least sticking their necks out and making definitively statements.

Over to you,
Denis

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.