Lamoureux: links and labels

December 17th, 2008 | 9 Comments

Mike Beidler over at The Creation of an Evolutionist has a post up with a link to an overall excellent interview with the brilliant Denis Lamoureux, author of Evolutionary Creation, conducted by CanadianChristianity.com. Check it out!

On a side note (and I do think that this is just a side note), Lamoureux has spearheaded an effort to change the term theistic evolution (TE) to evolutionary creation (EC). At the same time, he ardently rejects scientific concordism, which assumes agreement between the science reflected in the Bible and the reality as God knows it; the scientific conceptions of the authors of Scripture that bleed through the pages (e.g., the firmament, the fixed earth, the heart as the organ of thought) were never the intended message and so were not under providential review. He maintains that the science and even some of what is nowadays considered (in violation of cultural/literary context) to be historical accounts were merely culturally relevant vehicles for the “Message of Faith”, the spiritual truth that is the subject of the Bible and the manifestation of inspiration (this is theological concordism). I am on board with this. However, in my oh-so-justifiably-humble opinion, trying to change the name of our belief in both evolution and Christianity is helping folks strain at a gnat while insisting that they swallow the camel of what amounts to the rejection of inerrancy that I just described.

I have a feeling Lamoureux would say that he’s not asking for a change in terminology for P.R. purposes, but because he believes that the noun “evolution” in theistic evolution puts the emphasis on evolution and that EC emphasizes “creation”. However, this doesn’t seem to be a particularly cogent argument, since “evolution” is itself a “creation” of God and no more subject to undue exaltation than anything else created.

Because the popular conception of “creationism” is understandably one of pseudoscience, Lamoureux’s effort to name the movement “evolutionary creation” has the potential to be a turn-off label among the seeking unbelievers, with only a minimal gain of sympathy from believers due to the term’s inability to hide the controversial theology underlying a rejection of Genesis 1-11 as literal history. In the comments of Mike’s post, you can see what so far seems to be a one-sided conversation putting in my two cents on this issue.

For what it’s worth, as I mention in passing on the post, I’m not much of a fan of “theistic evolution”, either. Call me a “Christian evolutionist”, or a “non-concordist”, or something else. But I readily admit I could be wrong. Feel free to weigh in, either here or on Mike’s post.

And by all means, read the interview!

Related posts:

  1. Classifying Christian origins positions Parchment and Pen has a post up that seeks to classify  the different Christian views on origins. C. Michael Patton is usually pretty good at describing...
  2. Review: Evolutionary Creation: A Christian Approach to Evolution Evolutionary Creation: A Christian Approach to Evolution by Denis O. Lamoureux My rating: 4 of 5 stars I have long maintained that we cannot hope...

December 17th, 2008

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

  • AMW

    I think Gordon J. Glover makes the most sense on this topic in his book Beyond the Firmament. He just calls himself an evolutionist. Why does it need a modifier? He believes the account of modern embryology and meteorology, both of which contradict a literal reading of the Bible. But no one insists that he refer to himself as a theistic embryologist, or a Christian meteorologist.

    As the science of evolution becomes more well-known in the popular culture, and more and more Christians accept the evidence, I predict that adding a modifier to one’s stance on evolution will become less popular, fade altogether, and eventually be a semi-comical artifact of Church history.

  • AMW

    I think Gordon J. Glover makes the most sense on this topic in his book Beyond the Firmament. He just calls himself an evolutionist. Why does it need a modifier? He believes the account of modern embryology and meteorology, both of which contradict a literal reading of the Bible. But no one insists that he refer to himself as a theistic embryologist, or a Christian meteorologist.

    As the science of evolution becomes more well-known in the popular culture, and more and more Christians accept the evidence, I predict that adding a modifier to one’s stance on evolution will become less popular, fade altogether, and eventually be a semi-comical artifact of Church history.

  • http://undeception.com/ Steve

    Thanks for weighing in, AMW, here and on Mike’s post.

    I agree with Gordon as well, although I don’t suffer as violent a reaction to “theistic evolution” as he does. I do think that it implies that the version of evolution without the qualifier “theistic” is “atheistic”, which is not the case at all. But used of Christians in contradistinction to special creationists, it’s not all that bad, IMHO. And for that matter, neither is EC in such a context. I’m afraid Lamoureux gets into some gray areas (or “grey”, since he’s a Canuck :D ) when his book sets the various origins positions for Christians on the same shelf as “deistic evolution” and “dysteological (atheistic) evolution” — we’re talking apples and oranges here, it seems to me. Evolution is strictly agnostic, and bundling it together with irrelevant philosophies such as deism, atheism, or theism creates an unholy admixture from what should be an essentially scientific question or an essentially philosophical/theological question.

    And you know, looking back at the post, I originally concluded the OP with a mildly approving statement about the term “Christian evolution”, which doesn’t make any sense: I might well describe myself as a Christian and an evolutionist, or even more concisely as a Christian evolutionist, but there’s no such thing as “Christian evolution”, theologically or scientifically.

  • http://undeception.com Steve

    Thanks for weighing in, AMW, here and on Mike’s post.

    I agree with Gordon as well, although I don’t suffer as violent a reaction to “theistic evolution” as he does. I do think that it implies that the version of evolution without the qualifier “theistic” is “atheistic”, which is not the case at all. But used of Christians in contradistinction to special creationists, it’s not all that bad, IMHO. And for that matter, neither is EC in such a context. I’m afraid Lamoureux gets into some gray areas (or “grey”, since he’s a Canuck :D ) when his book sets the various origins positions for Christians on the same shelf as “deistic evolution” and “dysteological (atheistic) evolution” — we’re talking apples and oranges here, it seems to me. Evolution is strictly agnostic, and bundling it together with irrelevant philosophies such as deism, atheism, or theism creates an unholy admixture from what should be an essentially scientific question or an essentially philosophical/theological question.

    And you know, looking back at the post, I originally concluded the OP with a mildly approving statement about the term “Christian evolution”, which doesn’t make any sense: I might well describe myself as a Christian and an evolutionist, or even more concisely as a Christian evolutionist, but there’s no such thing as “Christian evolution”, theologically or scientifically.

  • http://recoveringyoungearthers.blogspot.com/ tom

    While evolution as a science is agnostic, our understanding of our origins and the way we have become sentient and empathetic beings certainly raises philosophical and religious issues. If TE, ET, or EC is not the correct label for people who believe and study evolution and Christianity, is “Evolutionist Christian” perhaps a better one?

    tom´s last blog post..Reason’s Greetings?

  • http://recoveringyoungearthers.blogspot.com tom

    While evolution as a science is agnostic, our understanding of our origins and the way we have become sentient and empathetic beings certainly raises philosophical and religious issues. If TE, ET, or EC is not the correct label for people who believe and study evolution and Christianity, is “Evolutionist Christian” perhaps a better one?

    tom´s last blog post..Reason’s Greetings?

  • http://undeception.com/ Steve

    Originally Posted By tom:If TE, ET, or EC is not the correct label for people who believe and study evolution and Christianity, is “Evolutionist Christian” perhaps a better one?

    Here again, I am not sure of the need to come up with a single term that conflates these two issues into one. Embryology likewise raises questions about the Creator’s role in the creation of life, but even if we had a significant and vocal constituency of the Christian community who denied the science of embryology for biblical reasons, I daresay that those who did not feel the need to take this tack would be unlikely to assume the label of “Embryologist Christian”.

    Here in the South, iced tea is sweetened as a matter of course. There are exceptions, one being people who want to drink it sweet but for diabetic considerations have to use artificial sweeteners, although transplants like my wife just drink it unsweetened. Because sweet is the default, when we go to a potluck in which multiple people bring tea, which type of tea do you suppose gets labeled? Which does not? Now, if you were to go up north, you might run into the opposite situation. But in both places, I suspect that “(un)sweet” is the only part that ends up on the label: there’s no need to mark it as “tea” once you’ve got that part nailed down.

    I suppose that, at heart, what I’m arguing is that if we believe that our view is the most natural, the default, why do we need a label? Like “tea”, when we’re talking about the different Christian views on origins, the fact that they’re Christian views should require no explicit affirmation; further, surely it’s unnecessary to specifically call out the aspect that affirms God as the author and sustainer of the universe as part of the already assumed “Christian” as is done with terms like “creation(_)”, just like tea bags are assumed when a visitor to the potluck drink table sees a jug of brown liquid labelled “unsweet”.

    Do you see where I’m going with this?

  • http://undeception.com Steve

    Originally Posted By tom:
    If TE, ET, or EC is not the correct label for people who believe and study evolution and Christianity, is “Evolutionist Christian” perhaps a better one?

    Here again, I am not sure of the need to come up with a single term that conflates these two issues into one. Embryology likewise raises questions about the Creator’s role in the creation of life, but even if we had a significant and vocal constituency of the Christian community who denied the science of embryology for biblical reasons, I daresay that those who did not feel the need to take this tack would be unlikely to assume the label of “Embryologist Christian”.

    Here in the South, iced tea is sweetened as a matter of course. There are exceptions, one being people who want to drink it sweet but for diabetic considerations have to use artificial sweeteners, although transplants like my wife just drink it unsweetened. Because sweet is the default, when we go to a potluck in which multiple people bring tea, which type of tea do you suppose gets labeled? Which does not? Now, if you were to go up north, you might run into the opposite situation. But in both places, I suspect that “(un)sweet” is the only part that ends up on the label: there’s no need to mark it as “tea” once you’ve got that part nailed down.

    I suppose that, at heart, what I’m arguing is that if we believe that our view is the most natural, the default, why do we need a label? Like “tea”, when we’re talking about the different Christian views on origins, the fact that they’re Christian views should require no explicit affirmation; further, surely it’s unnecessary to specifically call out the aspect that affirms God as the author and sustainer of the universe as part of the already assumed “Christian” as is done with terms like “creation(_)”, just like tea bags are assumed when a visitor to the potluck drink table sees a jug of brown liquid labelled “unsweet”.

    Do you see where I’m going with this?

  • Pingback: How useful are "pointers"? | Undeception