But don't take my word for it, o Reader. ;)

Proof positive, as though it were needed: Jack Chick rots your brain.

*

Update: Subject has hit rock bottom. Subject last seen reaching for jackhammer.

While I find the article and discussion fascinating, I feel I should point out one thing: Flew became a deist, not a theist. The god in which he believes is not the personal, providential God that we believe in.

Win!

Discuss. Unlike some other bloggers, I allow comments here...and everyone is welcome. That includes you, CWU members!

* * *

Footnote: school's back in, so I'm thinking a certain GS user might post something denouncing evolution as incompatible with Christianity...say...within the next 12 hours.

Update: Original posting time: 11:06 AM MT. Predicted non-article and failed attempt at rebuttal by other GS user posted at: 1:02 PM MT.

Two hours. That's an improvement.

My friend, also a professor with whom I took classes, Dr. Denis O. Lamoureux has finally had his book — Evolutionary Creation: A Christian Approach to Evolution— published. I helped out with this tome in my own little way, as I was one of the committee of students he put together to proof-read a draft copy, and I also supplied some artwork for it after a previous arrangement fell through.

It's an important work, for one simple reason: it demonstrates that faith and reason, science and Religion, can go hand in hand without any kind of conflict. That may sound pedantic to say…but there aren't many authors that attempt to seamlessly bridge Christian Theology, as it pertains to human origins, with the theory of evolution without needing to make use of some kind of caveat.

Denis doesn't do that. He doesn't look at the dialogue between "evolution" and "creation" as one that must inherently be a debate. Instead, he argues that there can be — and is — an intimate connection between the Book of God's Words (the Bible, faith) and the Book of God's Works (science). Evolutionary creationism, then, is the position which asserts that God — Father, Son, and Spirit — created life here (and possibly elsewhere in the Universe; let's face it, we don't know) through "an ordained, sustained evolutionary process."

It's a volatile work, to be sure, especially given that Denis is a member of the Evangelical Theological Society (though for how long is, perhaps, something to be debated). But it's also a necessary work, and I encourage the theologically and/or scientifically minded Reader to buy a copy and give it a read.

The book can be purchased online, either through Amazon.com or through the publisher, Wipf and Stock. It may also be available in various bookstores.

* * *

"Dr. Denis O. Lamoureux is Associate Professor of Science and Religion at St. Joseph's College, part of the University of Alberta. He holds three doctoral degrees — in dentistry, theology, and biology. He co-authored, with Philip E. Johnson, Darwinism Defeated? The Johnson-Lamoureux Debate on Biological Origins (1999). Lamoureux is a Fellow of the American Scientific Affiliation, a member of the Executive Council of the Canadian Scientific and Christian Affiliation, and a member of the Evangelical Theological Society."

Over on the Edmonton Atheists forum, someone else isn't happy with me:

I get a kick out of his assertion that science didn't flourish in non-Christian areas. Does he know nothing of history?
Egypt, Babylon, and Greece really got hings going, and Muslim countries in the middle ages were far ahead of the Christian Europe.
When missionaries got to China, they found that the Chinese already had their own science doing well (think gunpowder).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_science #Science_in_Medieval_Europe

I'm not unaware of the fact that earlier in history, other societies — China, Egypt and various Arabic (it is especially important, regarding this issue, to distinguish between Arabs and Muslims) nations are excellent examples — had made considerable scientific advancement. I'm aware that, for a time, scientific development in non-Christian areas of the world outpaced scientific development in Christian areas of the world.

But that's much earlier in history, isn't it? Looking at those same nations a little later on, what do we see? It was the West, starting in the 12th or 13th century, that began to rise to scientific prominence, while in other parts of the world the early promise of science proved to be stillborn: it's no accident that when one views, for examples, lists of Arabic scientific innovation, such lists tend to stop abruptly after about the 12th century.

That was my point. I don't deny that other cultures gave scientific study a good start; I simply note that it also floundered in those places later on, and that it was out of Christendom that modern science emerged.

Wikipedia is not the most reliable of sources, but since it was cited in the argument against me, let's note what the ol' wiki has to say about scientific development in Christian Europe, shall we?

An intellectual revitalization of Europe started with the birth of medieval universities in the 12th century. The contact with the Islamic world in Spain and Sicily, and during the Reconquista and the Crusades, allowed Europeans access to scientific Greek and Arabic texts, including the works of Aristotle, Ptolemy, Geber, al-Khwarizmi, Alhazen, Avicenna, and Averroes. European scholars like Michael Scotus would learn Arabic in order to study these texts. The European universities aided materially in the translation and propagation of these texts and started a new infrastructure which was needed for scientific communities. As well as this, Europeans began to venture further and further east (most notably, perhaps, Marco Polo) as a result of the Pax Mongolica. This led to the increased influence of Indian and even Chinese science on the European tradition. Technological advances were also made, such as the early flight of Eilmer of Malmesbury (who had studied Mathematics in 11th century England), and the metallurgical achievements of the Cistercian blast furnace at Laskill.

I should pause here and note one important detail: the Church was heavily involved in the development and growth of universities in Europeduring the Middle Ages.

But let's continue:

At the beginning of the 13th century there were reasonably accurate Latin translations of the main works of almost all the intellectually crucial ancient authors, allowing a sound transfer of scientific ideas via both the universities and the monasteries. By then, the natural philosophy contained in these texts began to be extended by notable scholastics such as Robert Grosseteste, Roger Bacon, Albertus Magnus and Duns Scotus. Precursors of the modern scientific method, influenced by earlier contributions of the Islamic world, can be seen already in Grosseteste's emphasis on mathematics as a way to understand nature, and in the empirical approach admired by Bacon, particularly in his Opus Majus. According to Pierre Duhem, the Condemnation of 1277 led to the birth of modern science, because it forced thinkers to break from relying so much on Aristotle, and to think about the world in new ways.

The Condemnation of 1277was issued by Bishop Tempier in Paris, and was a comprehensive response to teachings deemed heretical by the Bishop after due investigation. Its effects were far-reaching, but basically signaled a rejection of Aristotelean Peripatetic physics.

This paved the way for new ways of looking at the natural world. As Duhem went on to note, "if we must assign a date for the birth of modern science, we would, without doubt, choose the year 1277 when the bishop of Paris solemnly proclaimed that several worlds could exist, and that the whole of heavens could, without contradiction, be moved with a rectilinear motion." And indeed, several principles of reasoning which are still applied today — being, perhaps, the most familiar one — can trace their origins to the philosophical ramifications of the 1277 condemnation.

The Church, then, allied herself with reason even at this early stage. And while at later times, the Church certainly made its share of mistakes with regard to science (the case of Galileo being the most famous example thereof), she also laid the foundations for science to transform itself into its modern form, and to progress with the breakneck pace that has characterized it ever since.

My atheistic detractor is here hoist, somewhat, on his (?) own petard; he notes, among his list of "counter"-examples to my point, that the ancient Greeks made an early start at science. He is correct in this observation…but modern science emerged in part from a rejection of the scientific tenets one of the major philosophical schools of the ancient Greeks.

Wikipedia continues:

The first half of the 14th century saw much important scientific work being done, largely within the framework of scholastic commentaries on Aristotle's scientific writings. William of Ockham introduced the principle of parsimony: natural philosophers should not postulate unnecessary entities, so that motion is not a distinct thing but is only the moving object and an intermediary "sensible species" is not needed to transmit an image of an object to the eye. Scholars such as Jean Buridan and Nicole Oresme started to reinterpret elements of Aristotle's mechanics. In particular, Buridan developed the theory that impetus was the cause of the motion of projectiles, which was a first step towards the modern concept of inertia. The Oxford Calculators began to mathematically analyze the kinematics of motion, making this analysis without considering the causes of motion.

In 1348, the Black Death and other disasters sealed a sudden end to the previous period of massive philosophic and scientific development. Yet, the rediscovery of ancient texts was improved after the Fall of Constantinople in 1453, when many Byzantine scholars had to seek refuge in the West. Meanwhile, the introduction of printing was to have great effect on European society. The facilitated dissemination of the printed word democratized learning and allowed a faster propagation of new ideas. New ideas also helped to influence the development of European science at this point: not least the introduction of Algebra. These developments paved the way for the Scientific Revolution, which may also be understood as a resumption of the process of scientific change, halted at the start of the Black Death.

And the foundation for that revolution? It is a comprehensive thing, which many different scholars contributed to, to be sure. But the Church was certainly one such element, and then a rather pivotal one. And at the core of the modern scientific method, there remains a rather Christian sensibility in the belief that the Universe itself is, to a certain extent, rationally ordered, such that scientific inquiry will in due season be rewarded with evidence or information of some kind. The scientific method, it seems, is built on the expectation that we will find when we seek.

Just as Christ promised.

You know, it never ceases to amaze me. Okay, let me disclaim: I getthat Protestants and Evangelicans have their particular doctrines and traditions with which I disagree. There's the Five Sola adherents, and the KJV Onlyists, and all the rest. And that's fine...no, I'm not saying that I think they're all necessarily correct, but whatever; they've anchored themselves in a particular harbour, and will weather the waves that come.

But here's what is always so amusing to me. Say you have a disucssion about why the King James is the only valid English-language translation of Scripture. It always seems to be the case that, lingering just beneath the surface of the various bits of reasoning and justification that go in to such arguments, there exists a strain of anti-Catholicism.

This is just the latest example, but the amusement it brings is palpable. What begins as a discussion over why the KJV is the only acceptable Biblical translation (with naysayers winding up belittled and/or shouted down) has turned -- yet again -- into a full-on anti-Catholic rant.

I'm just surprised I haven't been mentioned in it yet. That would be a perfect trifecta for the CWU.

It's kind of alarming, how amused and relieved I feel at seeing GS blog after GS blog headed up with an "Oh Noes: teh School is Back!" post. I never have to go back to school again, if I don't want to.

Of course, as a tradeoff, I have to go to work every day, even during the summer months. So I can't say I get off totally unscathed.

Still, it's kind of a nice feeling. Don't get me wrong: I loved school, for the most part, and still enjoy learning new things. But there still comes a point where one just wants. To. Get. Out.

I just got an email from Dr. Denis O. Lamoureux, my principal theology professor during my years of university education. I did some contract Photoshop work for him a while back, related to some illustrations for a book (a demonstration of evolutionary mutations in chicken wings was one of them, and another had to do with how the ancient Babylonians imagined the world was shaped -- this is relevant to interpreting Isaiah's mention of "the circle of the earth").

As you can imagine, O Reader, the book deals with the philosophy of evolutionary creationism, which I think affords us the most accurate understanding of just how God went about creating the world and all that lives upon it.

That book — Evolutionary Creation: A Christian Approach to Evolution — has finally been published, and I should be getting my copy in the next day or so. And I encourage the good Reader to order a copy as well, as it is a must-read; an excellent analysis of how and why Christian theology and the discoveries of evolutionary biology are compatible and complementary, and not at all in conflict with one another.

Too cool!

Questions/kudos/criticisms in the comments, please!