Category Archives: Uncategorized

My contention is this: embracing some theory of evolution is one of the logical outcomes of embracing a “go with the evidence” approach I learned from my fundamentalist Bible teachers.

Now, apply that principle to science and the Bible. Go with the evidence. Let it guide you. So, when I got to Genesis 1-11 the evidence led me to think that the interpretation of those texts, the tradition I had received that evolution is a hopper of hooey, was wrong. A good long draft of Enuma Elish and Atra Hasis, two ancient texts about such matters, led me to say, “This is not about history as we would write it.” Scientists prove that either God made the world incredibly old (which makes it look like evolution) or God guided the creation of the earth through evolution. Either way you’ve got evolution. But, the first view makes God something close to a deceiver; the second one makes God a creator-by-evolution.

Denis O. Lamoureux’s recent tome, Evolutionary Creation: A Christian Approach to Evolution, is a masterpiece. Although I disagree with certain nuances of Lamoureux’s position and its implications, they are extremely minor when the entirety of his argument is laid out for theological inspection. Although I finished the book over a month ago, it’s taken me this long to really digest it. I half-expected to dismiss some of Lamoureux’s arguments after some time away from the book, but it ends up that I’ve added some of his more controversial views to my paradigm. Because there is so much to discuss, I’ve decided to review the book one chapter at a time.

The entire creation/evolution debate is not new. It has, in fact, been heavily debated for nearly 150 years. However, it is clear that one of the most dreadful developments in this scientifico-theological debate is the singular ability of both sides to redefine scientific and theological terms and categories in order to create false dichotomies and tear the other side down with ease:

Today the origin of the universe and life is often seen in black-and-white categories. For many people, the cosmos and its living organisms came about through one of two ways—either evolution or creation. In other words, the subject of origins is cast as a dichotomy . . . . It is an issue that is divided into only two simple positions. Regrettably, this either/or type of thinking fuels the popular perception that modern science and Christian faith are entrenched in an endless war. On one battle line, science is seen not only as a secular and godless enemy, but the theory of evolution is thought to have dealt a fatal blow to the existence of a Creator. On the other, Christianity and the biblical creation accounts are perceived as a hostile force against every new scientific discovery dealing with origins. This categorization has led numerous individuals into believing that they are forced to choose between two opposing sides: evolution or creation, science or religion, a world without God or one in which He reveals Himself through Scripture. (pp. 1-2)

This characterization of the debate is spot-on. I’ve been on both sides of the argument. Regular readers know how long I was entrenched in young-earth creationism and how recently it was that I abandoned the position with no regrets. Although I don’t subscribe to atheistic materialism, I do subscribe to a vibrant form of methodological naturalism (as opposed to philosophical or metaphysical naturalism) in which our universe is filled with readily observed causes and effects, available for inspection and rational explanation. As such, I’ve been able to look afresh at my old YEC position and recognize just how opposed the position is to the vast majority of scientific endeavors. What makes the YEC position considerably dangerous is its ability to compartmentalize the mind and allow ideology to override one’s intelligence. Don’t mistake my meaning—young-earth creationists aren’t intellectual idiots; there are plenty of extremely intelligent YEC scientists out there. My IQ didn’t suddenly change when I accepted the truths evolutionary science had to offer; rather, my paradigm changed. The way in which I viewed the world became un-compartmentalized, allowing me to relish scientific discovery and theological insight with a much more holistic view of the cosmos and natural history, as well as God’s hand in it all.

Lamoureux continues his introduction by distinguishing between two different ways of viewing the biological and cosmological evolutionary processes: teleological evolution, in which the cosmos reflects plan and purpose, or “intelligent design” (not to be confused with Intelligent Design [ID]), and dysteleological evolution, in which the cosmos is seen as purposeless, with apparent design as being merely illusory. Lamoureux then provides the reader with statistics from secular scientific journals revealing something that most traditional evangelicals may not realize: The majority of scientists are teleological evolutionists! How then could there be a godless conspiracy driving scientific discovery? Many evangelicals argue that so-called Darwinism is essentially atheistic, and it is only natural for those who subscribe to evolutionary theory to dive headlong into godless existentialism. However, it’s my suspicion that 99% of evangelical Christians haven’t read but a few Darwin quotes selectively chosen (and taken out of context) by those who disagree with him. Lamoureux writes:

Only a few years before his death in 1882, [Darwin] openly admitted, “I have never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of God.” Though Darwin’s religious views changed over the course of his life, the historical record reveals that he never embraced dysteleological evolution. (p. 9; emphasis mine)

Let me make this very, very clear: Evolution does not require one to become an atheist. Although Darwin may very well have dismissed belief in the God of the Bible and rejected Christianity, he was no atheist, and no one should feel pressured into believing otherwise. Materialism is, by nature, atheistic; but so-called Darwinism and evolution is not. Those who continue to utilize such phrases as “atheistic Darwinism” as a means of equating the two are only doing so in order to fuel the false dichotomy.

The term creationism is also the subject of unfair dichotomization. Certainly, creationism in its popular sense refers to so-called “special creationism,” which is characterized by either miraculous intervention to transform a material-less void over the course of six 24-hour days or miraculous intervention at certain stages of cosmic and biological history; but the evolutionary creationist (EC) position also affirms the existence of a Creator, albeit one who set the cosmos in motion at the moment of the so-called Big Bang and continues to sustain it by His power. Sadly, as Lamoureux points out, the conflation of certain interpretations of Genesis 1 with the concept of creation regrettably “leads to the common misperception both inside and outside the Church that six-day creation is the official Christian view of origins” (p. 10; emphasis in the original). However, evangelicals need not worry about the EC position; it is well within the boundaries of theological orthodoxy (for lack of a better term), as it affirms the historic Church’s position that the eternal Creator is distinct from His temporal creation, which is utterly dependent upon the Creator for its existence in terms of both origin (ex nihilo) and continuation; the main difference is that EC does not conflate the manner in which cosmos was created with the fact that it was created. What sets EC apart from other special creationists is that the existence of God and His hand in its governance is not something to be scientifically proven. Nor can it be.

The last subject Lamoureux discusses in his introductory chapter is the necessary distinction between different types of concordism: scientific, historical, and theological. Prior to reading Lamoureux’s book, my position on the inerrancy of the Bible was vague at best. Upon rejecting YEC in favor of EC, I began to differentiate between biblical inerrancy and biblical infallibility, leaning more toward the latter at the expense of abandoning entirely the concept of inerrancy. However, Lamoureux’s position that Genesis 1-11 concords only theologically with the rest of Scripture made me realize that the difference between inerrancy and infallibility was too simplistic. Certainly, I could adopt the common stance that the Bible is infallible in matters of faith and practice, but the concept of infallibility didn’t assist me in understanding the relationship of Genesis 1-11 with the rest of the Bible, especially when I recognized that those opening chapters don’t concord with either science or history (more on this in later chapters). What assisted me in coming to terms with the unscientific and unhistorical nature of Genesis 1-11 is the recognition that timeless eternal truths (what Lamoureux labels “inerrant and infallible Messages of Faith”) are present alongside ancient science and ancient history, both of which are, by modern standards, untrue. Thus, Lamoureux holds to a very unique understanding of biblical inerrancy, one that is counter-intuitive but makes sense of what we read as well as what we experience:

Theological concordism is the most important type of concordism. It claims that there is an indispensable and non-negotiable correspondence between the theological truths in the Bible and spiritual reality. The central purpose of Scripture is to reveal God, including His character, laws, and acts. Divine revelation also discloses the spiritual nature of the physical world. It declares that the cosmos and living organisms are creations of God and that they are very good (Gen 1:1, 31). Scripture affirms that the universe reflects the Creator’s glory, workmanship, and divine nature (Ps 19:1; Rom 1:20). And most significantly, the Bible reveals the two defining spiritual characteristics of humanity—we bear God’s Image and we are sinful (Gen 1:26-27; Gen 3; Rom 3:23). Despite the many ways Christians interpret the Bible and understand God’s creative method, these foundational theological truths always transcend the origins debate. Grasping the deepest truths in Scripture is not only an intellectual activity, but involves conviction and submission at a spiritual level. It takes “ears to hear” (Matt 11:15) the inerrant and infallible Messages of Faith, and it demands that we read the Bible on our knees. The primary purpose of the Book of God’s Words is to deliver spiritual Truth. (p. 15)

Thus, the vessels in which these spiritual truths are delivered are purely incidental. Through the use of ancient concepts of natural science and human history, God accomodated his theological message to an ancient people. To do otherwise—to reveal the scientific facts surrounding the true origin of the cosmos and life on earth—would have been to confound them to no end. Instead, God spoke to mankind in its scientific, historical, and intellectual infancy, much as a parent would take great pains not to overexplain things to a young child:

When revealing to the early Hebrews that God created the world and their community, the Holy Spirit descended to their level of understanding and employed their scientific and historical categories in order to communicate as effectively as possible. Our challenge as modern readers of the Bible is to identify these ancient vessels and to separate them from the life-changing Messages of Faith. (p. 19)

And this Lamoureux does very, very well. As a famous Jedi Master once said, “You must unlearn what you have learned.”

In the interest of full disclosure, my readers should know that I support the McCain/Palin ticket for President and Vice-President of the United States. (Please don’t hold it against me!) And as readers of this blog well know, I’m also strongly opposed to the teaching of Creationism and Intelligent Design in our public high schools, colleges, and universities. (Of course, I’m all for discussing Creationism and Intelligent Design in the science classroom . . . as long as it’s for the purposes of highlighting the necessity for the scientific method, contrasting the testable theories of evolutionary mechanisms and the untestable theories of Creationism/ID, and exposing Creationism/ID as the pseudo-science it is.)

So, how is it that I would support a VP nominee who believes in Creationism and/or Intelligent Design? Easy. Elections are about more than one issue and, in the case of Gov. Palin—and Sen. McCain, for that matter—I’m not too worried that either one is going to pursue a policy of granting Creationism/ID “equal time” in the classroom.

Over the past two presidential election cycles, I’ve greatly appreciated the folk at FactCheck.org and their dedication to separating the “wheat” from the “chaff” in the world of politics. I also appreciate their recent investigation into Gov. Palin’s “Creationist credentials,” which should put my fellow Creationism detractors at ease (bold italics mine):

No Creationism in Schools

On Aug. 29, the Boston Globe reported that Palin was open to teaching creationism in public schools. That’s true. She supports teaching creationism alongside evolution, though she has not actively pursued such a policy as governor.

In an Oct. 25, 2006, debate, when asked about teaching alternatives to evolution, Palin replied:

Palin, Oct. 25, 2006: Teach both. You know, don’t be afraid of information. Healthy debate is so important and it’s so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both. And you know, I say this too as the daughter of a science teacher. Growing up with being so privileged and blessed to be given a lot of information on, on both sides of the subject – creationism and evolution. It’s been a healthy foundation for me. But don’t be afraid of information and let kids debate both sides.

A couple of days later, Palin amended that statement in an interview with the Anchorage Daily News, saying:

Palin, Oct. 2006: I don’t think there should be a prohibition against debate if it comes up in class. It doesn’t have to be part of the curriculum.

After her election, Palin let the matter drop. The Associated Press reported Sept 3: “Palin’s children attend public schools and Palin has made no push to have creationism taught in them. … It reflects a hands-off attitude toward mixing government and religion by most Alaskans.” The article was headlined, “Palin has not pushed creation science as governor.” It was written by Dan Joling, who reports from Anchorage and has covered Alaska for 30 years.

It should also be pointed out that both Sens. McCain and Obama believe that the process of biological evolution resulted in the creation of mankind and don’t believe Creationism/ID should be taught in the classroom as part of any school’s science curriculum:

Sen. Obama: I’m a Christian, and I believe in parents being able to provide children with religious instruction without interference from the state. But I also believe our schools are there to teach worldly knowledge and science. I believe in evolution, and I believe there’s a difference between science and faith. That doesn’t make faith any less important than science. It just means they’re two different things. And I think it’s a mistake to try to cloud the teaching of science with theories that frankly don’t hold up to scientific inquiry. (“Obama on ID”)

Sen. McCain: I happen to believe in evolution. . . . I respect those who think the world was created in seven days. Should it be taught as a science class? Probably not. (“McCain talks war, religion, immigration: Music Festival crowd peppers former presidential candidate with questions,” Aspen Times, 2 July 2006)

Sen. McCain: Darwin helped explain nature’s laws. He did not speculate, in his published theories at least, on the origin of life. He did not exclude God, for Whom the immensity of time is but a moment, from our presence. The only undeniable challenge the theory of evolution poses to Christian beliefs is its obvious contradiction of the idea that God created the world as it is in less than a week. But our faith is certainly not so weak that it can be shaken to learn that a biblical metaphor is not literal history. Nature doesn’t threaten our faith. On the contrary, when we contemplate its beauty and mysteries we cannot quiet in our heart an insistent impulse of belief that for all its variations and inevitable change, before its creation, in a time before time, God let it be so, and, thus, its many splendors and purposes abide in His purpose. (Character Is Destiny by John McCain, 2005)

A friend of mine recently asked, “Homo sapiens has been present [on this earth] for at least 100,000 years and probably longer . . . . So man, who had the mental and physical characteristics [to be considered made in the ‘image of God’], had to wait 98,000 years to hear the truth and be taught ‘the Way.’ For 98,000 years, he was denied truth and free to live in any manner he desired. The concept of a god watching this go on for so long and then, a mere 2000 years ago, [decide] to enlighten man, just seems odd to me. Why not let his creation get the benefit of this wonderful message sooner and not have to wallow in ignorance? I know you can’t speak for God, but it’s this aspect of theistic [evolution which] I am questioning.”

Good question. And it recalled to mind an article by Dinesh D’Souza that I read recently. Although D’Souza initially ignored this question, posed in similar fashion by atheist Christopher Hitchens during their debate, he revisits the question after considerable thought and research:

Here is the thrust of Hitchens’ point: God seems to have been napping for 98 percent of human history, finally getting his act together only for the most recent 2 percent? What kind of a bizarre God acts like this? . . . The Population Reference Bureau estimates that the number of people who have ever been born is approximately 105 billion. Of this number, about 2 percent were born in the 100,000 years before Christ came to earth. “So in a sense,” [Erik] Kreps [of the Survey Research Center of the University of Michigan’s Institute for Social Research] notes, “God’s timing couldn’t have been more perfect. If He’d come earlier in human history, how reliable would the records of his relationship with man be? But He showed up just before the exponential explosion in the world’s population, so even though 98 percent of humanity’s timeline had passed, only 2 percent of humanity had previously been born, so 98 percent of us have walked the earth since the Redemption.”

D’Souza goes on to discuss some other issues connected with this concept, such as possible reasons behind the apparent explosion of civilization approximately 6,000 years ago. Good stuff. Speculative, but still good.

Some there are who presume so far on their wits that they think themselves capable of measuring the whole nature of things by their intellect, in that they esteem all things true which they see, and false which they see not. Accordingly, in order that man’s mind might be freed from this presumption, and seek the truth humbly, it was necessary that certain things far surpassing his intellect should be proposed to man by God.