Albion

Well, I understand what you're saying, but there seems to be a general problem about the term "creationist" and the general distinction between creation and creationism. You often see web sites claiming that Pasteur and Newton and all the gret scientists pre-Darwin were creationists. Of course these sites don't bother to mention that those scientists were looking for natural causes in the same way that modern ones do but that they were also devout Christians. They're trying to imply that the likes of Newton and Pasteur were members of the "Goddidit" school of scientific explanation. It seems to me that something like "theistic evolution" is safer in that respect, or you're going to find yourself co-opted by YECs who see the word "creation" and assume it really means "creationism."

GeoTheo

Well hopefully we can steal it back from them.
Then hopefully "creationist" will simply mean someone who looks out side and praises God for the beauty she sees, and not as it stands now a synonym for "unscientific ignoramus".

Albion

Yes, but I think we still need some sort of distinction between people who think that naturalistic explanations are sufficient to explain the diversity of life but that supernatural intervention isn't ruled out and the people who think that naturalistic explanations are insufficient (especially the ones who think there's a scientific basis for thinking this).

GeoTheo

I use YEC as a designator.

Denis Lamoureux

Bullshit Rufus!!! It's in the Bible!!! Don't you dare edit me out!!!

Lamoureux

Kevin Dorner

I think that their board software might do the editing. It hasn't read the original Greek.

[ September 06, 2002: Message edited by: Kevin Dorner ]</p>

Albion

Geo, thre are a number of creationist positions that aren't YEC but that don't admit that natural processes could have been sufficient. Old-Earth creationism and day-age and gap creationism, as well as the intelligent-design movement, are not YEC based but they all deny the ability of natural processes to explain the diversity and interrelatedness of life.

MilitantModerate

Prof. L did not quite get through to Ms. Biehler....

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 ]</p>

pz

No, it isn't. Mycoplasma genitalium has fewer than 500 genes, which is rather far short of "infinite".
We don't know. There is good evidence that it evolved from even simpler forms: there are redundancies even in the Mycoplasma genome, and many of even our genes retain vestiges of a prior ribozymal metabolism.
It does, for some well preserved forms. Some molluscs, for instance, were sufficiently numerous and possessed readily fossilized hard parts that make the fossil record relatively complete. Other forms either lack distinguishing hard parts (as you might imagine, the fossil record for jellyfish is a bit spotty), or were sufficiently scattered and small in population size that we don't expect to find a complete record. Mammals, and humans specifically, are good examples of that.
Because that conclusion is false. The fossil record was a great support to his theory in the 19th century despite the many gaps, and it has only gotten better since.
Those "complex arrangements" occur routinely, and are very well documented. I don't think this is the place to regurgitate a molecular genetics textbook, but mechanisms to generate all kinds of variation, from neutral point mutations to duplications and translocations, happen all the time and are understood in detail.

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?

Denis Lamoureux

Albion,
You're right on. The terms/categories are just a can of worms. Most would equate 'creation' with Young Earth Creation. But as an evolutionary creationist, I am first and foremost a creationist. I believe in a Creator. Here's some of the category set I use:

First, it's so utterly important to separate the term 'evolution' from all the metaphysical baggage. Science only deals with nature & its processes. This BTW is the professional defintion of evolution. I recently got a paper accepted by _J of Vert Paleo_. One of the co-authors is Michael Caldwell (of snake with legs fame). Mike's one on my best friends and he's a skeptic (He tells me I'm full of skubala, and I tell him Jesus loves him). When Mike and I were working on fossil teeth, we worked on fossil teeth and that's it. That's science. Our paper hasn't got a hint on religion/philsophy/metaphysics in it. If it did it would be rejected immediately.

However, when Mike and I are in the faculty club sipping whatever, the rockets start firing on whether evolution is:
(1) teleological--Gr _telos_ carrying nuances of plan, purpose & promise.
OR
(2) dysteleological--no plan, purpose & promise.

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!

Now, on to the term 'creation.' And again, I will appeal to the professional use of the term. "Creation" for a theologian is simply that 'stuff' which the Creator created. Theologians are not into the "how" questions (though they are certainly interested). That's what scientists do.

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 . . .

So, here's the bottom line: you've got to qualify the terms 'evolution' & 'creation.' Otherwise you will fall prey to the culture's simplistic conflations & dichotomies.

Best,
Denis