Comments on: Interview with Denis Lamoureux http://becomingcreation.org/2009/06/interview-with-denis-lamoureux/ Exploring and promoting the scientific, theological and personal meaning of creation. Wed, 17 Mar 2010 19:35:23 -0700 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: MairnĂ©alach http://becomingcreation.org/2009/06/interview-with-denis-lamoureux/comment-page-1/#comment-167 MairnĂ©alach Sun, 12 Jul 2009 15:52:27 +0000 http://becomingcreation.org/?p=93#comment-167 I disagree that concordism is an homogenous problem which must be universally avoided. Some of the language in the Adam/Eve story is primeval and stylized; some of it, on the other hand, is intensely personal. Given that ambiguity, no EC should feel a sense of philosophical shame about accepting Adam and Eve as historic. The bald fact is that, while the modern scientific evidence does support common descent, it also gives no firm reason to doubt the garden story. One might doubt the textual assertion that a particular couple were the parents of all living, but still have a confidence in that couple's particularity, even if the geneological heralds were a bit overzealous. Personally, I don't know whether they were particular or not, and I don't think I find a particular comfort in thinking they were, but if someone does think it, they're perfectly within the realm of scientific reason. I disagree that concordism is an homogenous problem which must be universally avoided. Some of the language in the Adam/Eve story is primeval and stylized; some of it, on the other hand, is intensely personal. Given that ambiguity, no EC should feel a sense of philosophical shame about accepting Adam and Eve as historic. The bald fact is that, while the modern scientific evidence does support common descent, it also gives no firm reason to doubt the garden story. One might doubt the textual assertion that a particular couple were the parents of all living, but still have a confidence in that couple’s particularity, even if the geneological heralds were a bit overzealous. Personally, I don’t know whether they were particular or not, and I don’t think I find a particular comfort in thinking they were, but if someone does think it, they’re perfectly within the realm of scientific reason.

]]> By: David R. Vinson http://becomingcreation.org/2009/06/interview-with-denis-lamoureux/comment-page-1/#comment-166 David R. Vinson Fri, 03 Jul 2009 05:23:36 +0000 http://becomingcreation.org/?p=93#comment-166 Hi Doug, Thanks for the interview. It's good to see another Christian able to integrate creation and evolution. I'm eager to explore more of your site! --David Hi Doug,
Thanks for the interview. It’s good to see another Christian able to integrate creation and evolution. I’m eager to explore more of your site!
–David

]]> By: Douglas http://becomingcreation.org/2009/06/interview-with-denis-lamoureux/comment-page-1/#comment-157 Douglas Sat, 06 Jun 2009 18:10:26 +0000 http://becomingcreation.org/?p=93#comment-157 Hi Dave, Thanks for the comment. I think Denis' point here (which I agree with) is that belief in an historical Adam (i.e., an actual single individual) is fundamentally a concordist assertion about historical events based on a theological preconception; it is not supported by science. There is no scientific evidence for an historical Adam, while there is increasing scientific evidence that makes an historical Adam implausible (again, from a scientific perspective). In his book, Denis does address the doctrinal/biblical concerns about Adam. Doug Hi Dave,

Thanks for the comment. I think Denis’ point here (which I agree with) is that belief in an historical Adam (i.e., an actual single individual) is fundamentally a concordist assertion about historical events based on a theological preconception; it is not supported by science. There is no scientific evidence for an historical Adam, while there is increasing scientific evidence that makes an historical Adam implausible (again, from a scientific perspective). In his book, Denis does address the doctrinal/biblical concerns about Adam.

Doug

]]> By: Dave W http://becomingcreation.org/2009/06/interview-with-denis-lamoureux/comment-page-1/#comment-156 Dave W Sat, 06 Jun 2009 15:00:29 +0000 http://becomingcreation.org/?p=93#comment-156 Re Question 6: "Adding an Adam at the end would make one a Progressive Creationist that is nearly an Evolutionary Creationist." I would take strong exception to the above statement, although I would agree if what Denis means is that Adam/Eve were specially created. However if God selected some appropriate (likely Homo sapiens) descendant(s) of Lucy as being ready for a relationship with God and if one also assumes that the garden story is a mythological recounting of a real story then that seems to be a very reasonable interpretation to me. (Note Lucy is an /*Australopithecus afarensis,*/ an extinct hominid which lived between 3.9 and 2.9 million years ago in Ethiopia, to which I am somewhat partial as I grew up only a few hundred miles from where she was found.) Dave Re Question 6:
“Adding an Adam at the end would make one a Progressive Creationist that is nearly an Evolutionary Creationist.”

I would take strong exception to the above statement, although I would agree if what Denis means is that Adam/Eve were specially created. However if God selected some appropriate (likely Homo sapiens) descendant(s) of Lucy as being ready for a relationship with God and if one also assumes that the garden story is a mythological recounting of a real story then that seems to be a very reasonable interpretation to me.

(Note Lucy is an /*Australopithecus afarensis,*/ an extinct hominid which lived between 3.9 and 2.9 million years ago in Ethiopia, to which I am somewhat partial as I grew up only a few hundred miles from where she was found.)

Dave

]]> By: steve martin http://becomingcreation.org/2009/06/interview-with-denis-lamoureux/comment-page-1/#comment-155 steve martin Thu, 04 Jun 2009 22:43:58 +0000 http://becomingcreation.org/?p=93#comment-155 "Design-reflecting" ... I like that term. “Design-reflecting” … I like that term.

]]>