Lamoureux: links and labels

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. My position on the origins question Josh recently commented on another thread, “I want to hear your explanation of the origin of life on earth. I have heard the positions you...
2. Dembski on theodicy and a young earth William Dembski, a father of the Intelligent Design movement, has recently become comfortable calling himself an old earth creationist who, as a good Baptist, accepts...
3. Mohler on theistic evolution In a recent post on his popular blog, Al Mohler, the president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, presented a predictable take on the origins...
4. Another one bites the dust Do you believe that the theory of evolution has never been observed? That it is purely theoretical and has never been, can never be, demonstrated...
5. The return of the evolutionist — for real this time! My friend Mike Beidler’s not busy enough being a military diplomat in the Middle East right now. You know, things going so swimmingly, he doesn’t...