Freethought & Rationalism Archive

GeoTheo · 09-03-2002, 10:40 AM

Nightshade: Could you e-mail me those links please?
Dennis,
Glad to have you here! I too am an evangelical Christian who has become convinced of thre truth of evolution. What do you see as the prospects of this catching on with the rest of evangelicalism?
I am going through a dificult time now as I may have to change church's If you have time perhaps you could e-mail me if you have any advice.
Thanks

MilitantModerate · 09-03-2002, 05:29 PM

Nice to see you Prof. Lamoureux! Perhaps you might want to refer those in your class to this corner of the net for extra discussion and edification (if you feel they can handle it

). Actually the article does mention that your course is attended by some significant fraction of Agnostics/Atheists/Freethinkers and they might find II quite interesting.

PS. Was that 'Christian physics professor' Don Page by any chance?

scigirl · 09-03-2002, 06:11 PM

Welcome to infidels, and this evolution/creation forum, Denis Lamoureux!

Enjoy your stay. . . .

scigirl

Denis Lamoureux · 09-03-2002, 06:56 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by GeoTheo:
[QB]Nightshade: Could you e-mail me those links please?

Hi Folks,
Here's the page address I promised you.

<a href="http://www.ualberta.ca/~dlamoure" target="_blank">http://www.ualberta.ca/~dlamoure</a>

There are some rough edges that need to be smoothed out. But consider dipping into the paper on Evolutionary Creation. It'll give you an idea of where I coming from . . . hope the infidels don't gag too much!

Classes start tomorrow and, yes, I'll certainly invite the students to visit this site.

Denis

Denis Lamoureux · 09-03-2002, 07:16 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Lizard:
I attended Lamoreaux's concurrent session at "DDD III" in Kansas City in July and saw him on the panel at the same event. He is remarkably well-informed about the context of the Bible, why it was written, how to interpret it in the context of the times in which it was written, etc.

He is an evangelical Christian. I don't know if it's a necessary part of his faith that only that particular brand of faith is valid. I didn't get that out of his lecture or the article.

Hi Lizard,
Not sure what you are saying in "I don't know . . ." Plse explain.
Thanks,
Denis
PS I'd be happy to post my opening and closing statements from DDD III. But being a computer illiterate I haven't figured out how to attach docs in this forum. Someone want to help me?

KnightWhoSaysNi · 09-03-2002, 07:17 PM

GeoTheo,

Just to specify things, <a href="http://www.ualberta.ca/~dlamoure/EvolutionaryCreation.htm" target="_blank">this section here</a> in Lamoureux's site would probably interest you the most.

KnightWhoSaysNi · 09-03-2002, 07:25 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Denis Lamoureux:
I'd be happy to post my opening and closing statements from DDD III. But being a computer illiterate I haven't figured out how to attach docs in this forum. Someone want to help me?

I can do that for you.

What I did was to highlight the text in the document, press Ctrl-C to copy, and paste where you want to put it (press Ctrl-V). As far as I know, you can't attach documents to a post. But you can link to websites or attach images from websites.

If you need help using the various features on the forum, feel free to ask questions <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=forum&f=7" target="_blank">over here.</a>

--------------
Dr. Denis Lamoureux's opening and closing statements at the Darwin, Design, & Democracy Conference:

Quote:

OPENING STATEMENT

Thank you. I am delighted to be here, and I am grateful to John Calvert for extending an invitation to share a few thoughts on a topic that is both personally and professionally dear to my heart.

Let me begin by putting the cards on the table so everyone knows exacting where I am coming from.

First, I am a thoroughly committed and unapologetic evangelical theologian trained to the PhD level.
�I am a born-again Christian
�I believe the Bible is the inspired Word of God
�I believe in miracles.
�And, I believe in Intelligent Design. I see the creation �declaring the
glory� of God�s mind everyday.

Second, I am a thoroughly committed and unapologetic evolutionary biologist also trained to the PhD level.
�I find that the evidence for biological evolution is overwhelming.
�I have yet to see evidence that falsifies the theory of evolution.
�And, I recognize the explanatory power of evolutionary theory. Biology
�makes sense� in the light of evolution.

Therefore, I am a both a creationist and an evolutionist. I believe that God created life, including humanity, through an ordained and sustained evolutionary process, which even reflects intelligent design.

To me, the evolution of life is similar to our creation in our mother�s womb. No one thinks that God comes out of heaven to attach a nose or an ear. Rather, most believe that the Creator �knit our fearfully and wonderfully made� bodies through His embryological natural processes.

Many say that my views don�t make sense. And this relates to my first and most important point:

Point #1

The problem with the origins controversy is the way the terms of the debate are set up. Traditionally, this topic has been viewed as �evolution� vs �creation.� And now, it�s being seen as �evolution� vs �design� as promoted by this conference. In other words, �evolution� is being set up in a �no-win situation.� This popular �either/or� approach to origins blinds us from recognizing that evolutionists can believe in a Creator and in intelligent design.

If God did create through a designed evolutionary process, then the popular terms used in the debate are inadequate. And there are serious pastoral and educational consequences should this be the case. The �either/or� approach becomes a �stumbling block� that forces both us and our children into choosing between two inadequate views of origins.

Point #2
Terminology is also a factor that contributes to the popularity of the Intelligent Design Movement. I am convinced that if this movement did not use the term �Intelligent Design,� then it would not be receiving the attention it enjoys today.

Throughout history, the beauty and complexity of the world have impacted people to conclude that nature reflects a rational mind. This experience and belief transcend time and culture�from inspired Hebrew psalmists to ancient Greek philosophers to 21st century physicists.

The ID movement is popular because intelligent design in the world is a reality. However, it is important NOT TO EQUATE this reality reflected in nature with the �theory� being promoted by the ID Movement.

ID Theory is a �God-of-the-Gaps� model of origins. It suggests that nature is not adequately equipped to create life through natural processes. Consequently, there are �gaps� in nature that need to be fixed through Divine intervention. But history reveals the problem with this approach. It fails repeatedly. As science advances, the proposed �gaps� become exposed for what they truly are��gaps� in knowledge.

To be sure, intelligent design in nature is real. However, its origin does not necessitate Divine intervention as suggested by the ID Movement. Intelligent design could emerge through an evolutionary process in the same way that it is manifested through an embryological process in the creation of a beautiful baby bearing God�s Image.

Point #3
Finally, what should we teach our children about origins in the science classroom of public schools? I am sure everyone will agree�the best science available.

The ID Movement claims to be a legitimate scientific research program. Fair enough. But like all new research programs it needs to convince the scientific community of its truthfulness. If there are gaps in nature, and that is logically possible, then ID researchers need to prove it.

Up to this point, the ID Movement has had little to no impact on science other than provoking sharp criticism. Their contribution to the scientific literature is next to non-existent. Consequently, it is premature to present ID Theory in the science classroom as a legitimate scientific theory on origins.

However, this is not to say that ID Theory cannot be mentioned in public school. Science is associated with values and social issues. Public education already deals with extra-scientific topics. For example, environmental policy and reproductive technology. Consequently, there is no reason why that part of the science curriculum could not include the origins debate and the views of the ID Movement. Failing to do so shortchanges children in their education of a significant aspect in American culture today. Thank you.

Quote:

CLOSING STATEMENT
1. Beware of the simple �either/or� approach to origins. It imprisons the mind from seeing all possibilities, including the possibility of a God ordained and sustained evolutionary process that reflects intelligent design.

2. Do not equate the reality of Intelligent Design in nature with acts of Divine intervention. God glorifying design can arise through natural processes as our own creation in our mother�s womb testifies.

3. Do not include ID Theory in public schools as a legitimate scientific theory on origins. It is much too early for that. No one would submit their children to medical research without it having gone through the proper clinical trials. So too, the science being taught to our children.

4. Include the origins debate and the views of the ID Movement in the public school science curriculum as an extra-scientific topic. Not doing so only submits to the agenda driven propaganda of secular humanism, which effectively is a religion in itself.

5. Protect the intellectual foundations of the United States. The Declaration of Independence is rooted deeply in a world view that affirms the existence of God and a teleological universe. That is, a universe with plan, purpose and promise. Any form of public education that dismisses or even disregards God and teleology is clearly an attack on the intellectual foundations of this great nation.

6. I close with comment for my brothers & sisters in Christ. Church history reveals that we been through a similar science-faith controversy before. If this were the 17th century we would debating Galileo�s science. But we eventually came to terms with the notion that earth moved around the sun even though there were passages in Scripture that stated otherwise. And we eventually came to understand a saying popularized by Galileo, �The intention of the Holy Spirit is to teach us how one goes to heaven and not how heaven goes.� Is it possible that history is being re-cycled today with only the science in question being different�biological evolution instead of astronomy? If this is the case, then we can rewrite the famed 17th century saying for our generation:
The intention of the Bible is to teach us that God is the Creator,
and not how the Father, Son and Holy Spirit created.

[ September 03, 2002: Message edited by: Nightshade ]

KnightWhoSaysNi · 09-04-2002, 07:34 AM

Quote:

Denis Lamoureux:
First, I am a thoroughly committed and unapologetic evangelical theologian trained to the PhD level.
�I am a born-again Christian
�I believe the Bible is the inspired Word of God
�I believe in miracles.
�And, I believe in Intelligent Design. I see the creation �declaring the
glory� of God�s mind everyday.

Second, I am a thoroughly committed and unapologetic evolutionary biologist also trained to the PhD level.
�I find that the evidence for biological evolution is overwhelming.
�I have yet to see evidence that falsifies the theory of evolution.
�And, I recognize the explanatory power of evolutionary theory. Biology
�makes sense� in the light of evolution.

Therefore, I am a both a creationist and an evolutionist. I believe that God created life, including humanity, through an ordained and sustained evolutionary process, which even reflects intelligent design.

Vanderzyden,

Assuming you're reading this, would you still consider Lamoureux's views on evolution "naturalistic dogmatism"?

mb · 09-04-2002, 02:29 PM

Hello. This is my first post at the Infidels DB.

I am a Christian (no modifiers needed, but others might say a "conservative evangelical fundamentalist Xian") and an Intelligent Design proponent. Please read on before unleashing your broadsides!

I confess that I registered here in order to respond to the ID-trashing going on in the "The ID whining continues..." thread. A pretty un-Christian thing to do, and I thought better of it. Anyhow, a funny thing happened on the way - I stumbled into this discussion and am truly impressed by Dr. Lamoureux's take on the Bible, creation, and evolution.

I have always viewed the controversy in the same terms as the title of this forum: "Evolution vs. Creation". I guess my strong opposition to naturalistic evolution is more to "naturalistic" than to "evolution". OTOH I have never really been totally comfortable with the literal 6 days / < 10 Kya. It seems to me that we have done a lot of violence to geology, physics, and biology in shoehorning all discoveries, somehow or other, into that orthodoxy.

In some ways I find Evolutionary Creation to be similar to the view laid out by Ken Miller in Finding Darwin's God. Evolutionary Creation is superior, though, in that it acknowledges the extraordinary directedness and purposefulness of the evolutionary past. Dr. Lamoureux's term "teleological evolution" captures this quality without the baggage and confusion attached to theistic evolution - as he says, it puts the emphasis where it belongs, on Creation, while acknowledging evolution.

Dr. Lamoureux, I differ with your opinion that ID is a "God-of-the-Gaps" explanation. I feel that ID's central tenet - that the Darwinian mechanism by itself is insufficient to explain specified complexity - is valid.

A note aside: I was an atheist for the first 30 years of my life, an agnostic for a little while, then a Deist (Unitarian/Universalist, which amounts to the same thing) and finally a born again Christian. I understand your attitudes towards "fundies". I would like to say, though, that there is a style that is very prevalent here (and which some of the regulars here have exported to other boards), that consists of a highly supercilious, sarcastic and sometimes crude manner. At ARN I referred to this as "sneers and jeers". Folks, this is no way to win the hearts or even respect of people with opposing views. It is possible to state your views forcefully and eloquently without resorting to this tone, which is frankly offensive and from your point of view counterproductive.

ps418 · 09-04-2002, 03:13 PM

Quote:

I have never really been totally comfortable with the literal 6 days / < 10 Kya. It seems to me that we have done a lot of violence to geology, physics, and biology in shoehorning all discoveries, somehow or other, into that orthodoxy.

No damage has been done to geology, physics, etc. They are getting along just fine, ancient earth and all.

On the other hand, it seems to me that much damage has been done to the credibility of Christianity. Frankly, the danger of YEC to Christianity is that it tends to make Christians look like a bunch of damned fools, fools who would deny that water was wet if it conflicted with their interpretation of Genesis. No offense to you personally, of course. That's just my perspective, as an 'outsider.'

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

09-03-2002, 10:40 AM	#21
GeoTheo Veteran Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: Bemidji Posts: 1,197	Nightshade: Could you e-mail me those links please? Dennis, Glad to have you here! I too am an evangelical Christian who has become convinced of thre truth of evolution. What do you see as the prospects of this catching on with the rest of evangelicalism? I am going through a dificult time now as I may have to change church's If you have time perhaps you could e-mail me if you have any advice. Thanks

09-03-2002, 05:29 PM	#22
MilitantModerate Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: Edmonton, AB Posts: 603	Nice to see you Prof. Lamoureux! Perhaps you might want to refer those in your class to this corner of the net for extra discussion and edification (if you feel they can handle it ). Actually the article does mention that your course is attended by some significant fraction of Agnostics/Atheists/Freethinkers and they might find II quite interesting. PS. Was that 'Christian physics professor' Don Page by any chance?

09-03-2002, 06:11 PM	#23
scigirl Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Seattle Posts: 4,261	Welcome to infidels, and this evolution/creation forum, Denis Lamoureux! Enjoy your stay. . . . scigirl

09-03-2002, 06:56 PM	#24
Denis Lamoureux Junior Member Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Edmonton, AB. Canada Posts: 46	[QUOTE]Originally posted by GeoTheo: [QB]Nightshade: Could you e-mail me those links please? Hi Folks, Here's the page address I promised you. <a href="http://www.ualberta.ca/~dlamoure" target="_blank">http://www.ualberta.ca/~dlamoure</a> There are some rough edges that need to be smoothed out. But consider dipping into the paper on Evolutionary Creation. It'll give you an idea of where I coming from . . . hope the infidels don't gag too much! Classes start tomorrow and, yes, I'll certainly invite the students to visit this site. Denis

09-03-2002, 07:17 PM	#26
KnightWhoSaysNi Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Edmonton, Canada Posts: 2,767	GeoTheo, Just to specify things, <a href="http://www.ualberta.ca/~dlamoure/EvolutionaryCreation.htm" target="_blank">this section here</a> in Lamoureux's site would probably interest you the most.

09-04-2002, 02:29 PM	#29
mb Junior Member Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Chicago Posts: 13	Hello. This is my first post at the Infidels DB. I am a Christian (no modifiers needed, but others might say a "conservative evangelical fundamentalist Xian") and an Intelligent Design proponent. Please read on before unleashing your broadsides! I confess that I registered here in order to respond to the ID-trashing going on in the "The ID whining continues..." thread. A pretty un-Christian thing to do, and I thought better of it. Anyhow, a funny thing happened on the way - I stumbled into this discussion and am truly impressed by Dr. Lamoureux's take on the Bible, creation, and evolution. I have always viewed the controversy in the same terms as the title of this forum: "Evolution vs. Creation". I guess my strong opposition to naturalistic evolution is more to "naturalistic" than to "evolution". OTOH I have never really been totally comfortable with the literal 6 days / < 10 Kya. It seems to me that we have done a lot of violence to geology, physics, and biology in shoehorning all discoveries, somehow or other, into that orthodoxy. In some ways I find Evolutionary Creation to be similar to the view laid out by Ken Miller in Finding Darwin's God. Evolutionary Creation is superior, though, in that it acknowledges the extraordinary directedness and purposefulness of the evolutionary past. Dr. Lamoureux's term "teleological evolution" captures this quality without the baggage and confusion attached to theistic evolution - as he says, it puts the emphasis where it belongs, on Creation, while acknowledging evolution. Dr. Lamoureux, I differ with your opinion that ID is a "God-of-the-Gaps" explanation. I feel that ID's central tenet - that the Darwinian mechanism by itself is insufficient to explain specified complexity - is valid. A note aside: I was an atheist for the first 30 years of my life, an agnostic for a little while, then a Deist (Unitarian/Universalist, which amounts to the same thing) and finally a born again Christian. I understand your attitudes towards "fundies". I would like to say, though, that there is a style that is very prevalent here (and which some of the regulars here have exported to other boards), that consists of a highly supercilious, sarcastic and sometimes crude manner. At ARN I referred to this as "sneers and jeers". Folks, this is no way to win the hearts or even respect of people with opposing views. It is possible to state your views forcefully and eloquently without resorting to this tone, which is frankly offensive and from your point of view counterproductive.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.