> BTW, as an aside I thought I would mention what I hope people
> would understand anyway. My differences with Steve Jones are
> just that and do not apply to intelligent designers in general.
> I have a great respect for (to name just a few) Paul Nelson,
> Mike Behe, Bill Dembski, Walter Bradley etc. I think they're
> trying to do the impossible but at least they're going about
> it in the right way and I certainly believe they deserve a
> chance to take their shot.
Hi Brian,
Just an aside on your aside. I just want to concur despite the fact I am
an utterly committed and thoroughly unapologetic "wicked" evolutionist ...
mind you, a signs and wonders evolutionary biologist.
I have met all these guys, I love their commitment to Christ and have the
greatest respect for their training and intellectual talent. Nelson in
particular never ceases to amaze me. He is living proof you don't have to
be a biologist proper (ie, an experimentalist) to understand evolution.
But here is a guy who is steeped in (sorry, for using this term Jim B.)
the PRIMARY LITERATURE. However, and I've told him this a million times,
I can't help but wonder if there are a couple theological categories
(specifically, YEC hermeneutical ones) that are operative (probably tacit)
in his epistemology. Nevertheless, when Nelson talks, Lamoureux listens
big time all the time.
Regarding Bradley, I had the utter privilege of spending a lot of time
with him at a small conference in Toronto this last February. Wonderful,
wonderful man. When I grow up, I'd like to be just like him. Despite the
fact he's a PC and I'm an EC, we walked away realizing we were alot closer
to one another than what might first be assumed. PCs tend to conflate EC
with dysteleological evolution. But do I believe in intelligent
design? Definitely, but I also see ID in the PROCESS of evolution, not
just in STATIC organisms. And Bradley is quite open to notion there has
been a lot of biological change through process.
Regarding Behe, I love watching him review the amazing details of cell
structure. And I agree cilia do reflect intelligent design. However, and
I am speaking like a total amateur because I am not a biochemist, couldn't
Jesus have loaded the creation in such a way that
delicate structures like cilia could have evolved? That is, why can't
the process of evolution also reflect intelligent design? In my area
of developmental biology, just appreciating the incredible number of
simultaneous processes is more than enough evidence for me life is not a
function of chance--Someone's behind this PROCESS in the creation of an
individual, and He could well be behind the PROCESS in the creation of
life in general . . . I think His name is Jesus.
Unfortunately, I have only met Dembski once (Cambridge 94). Great guy,
but he owes me a beer. He is off doing theology in Princeton, so I am
interested in seeing how he is going to deal with Gen 1-11.
One final comment for the Stephen Jones types on the reflector--if you
want to gain the respect of Brian, Tom and myself learn to play the game
like these guys:
READ THE PRIMARY LITERATURE
In Him,
Denis
----------------------------------------------------------
Denis O. Lamoureux DDS PhD PhD (cand)
Department of Oral Biology Residence:
Faculty of Dentistry # 1908
University of Alberta 8515-112 Street
Edmonton, Alberta Edmonton, Alberta
T6G 2N8 T6G 1K7
CANADA CANADA
Lab: (403) 492-1354
Residence: (403) 439-2648
Dental Office: (403) 425-4000
E-mail: dlamoure@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca
"In all debates, let truth be thy aim, and endeavor to gain
rather than expose thy opponent."
------------------------------------------------------------