Evolutionary Creation: A Christian Approach to Evolution (Paperback), by Denis O. Lamoureux (Author), $55.00; and McGrath A Fine Tuned Universe: The Quest for God in science and Theology, $39.95
Book Description
In this provocative book, evolutionist and evangelical Christian Denis O. Lamoureux proposes an approach to origins that moves beyond the “evolution-versus-creation” debate. Arguing for an intimate relationship between the Book of God’s Words and the Book of God’s Works, he presents evolutionary creation—a position that asserts that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit created the universe and life through an ordained and sustained evolutionary process. This view of origins affirms intelligent design and the belief that beauty, complexity, and functionality in nature reflect the mind of God. Lamoureux also challenges the popular Christian assumption that the Holy Spirit revealed scientific and historical facts in the opening chapters of the Bible. He contends that Scripture features an ancient understanding of origins that functions as a vessel to deliver inerrant and infallible messages of faith.
Lamoureux shares his personal story and his struggle in coming to terms with evolution and Christianity. Like many, he lost his boyhood faith at university in classes on evolutionary biology. After graduation, he experienced a born-again conversion and then embraced belief in a literal six-day creation. Graduate school training at the doctoral level in both theology and biology led him to the conclusion that God created the world through evolution. Lamoureux closes with the two most important issues in the origins controversy—the pastoral and pedagogical implications. How should churches approach this volatile topic? And what should Christians teach their children about origins?
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 ofmethodological naturalism (as opposed to philosophical ormetaphysical 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 theofficial 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.
Denis O. Lamoureux said…
Hi,
Not sure if authors should get in on this, but here are a few comments.
Mike, your review of my first chapter is accurate and more than judicious. I don’t expect people to agree with me, but it’s sure nice when people take the time to understand what I’m attempting to argue. So, thank you very much.
The “problem” with the book is that it is long and has a lot on shocking new ideas coming from a born-again Christian. I must point out that I have the amazing privilege of being at a Roman Catholic college in a major secular university—which means I’m not looking over my shoulder waiting for anyone to fire me (e.g., Peter Enns at Westminster). So, I get to go wherever the data (scientific or theological) leads me. And, yeah, the thesis statement of the book is a little unusual: The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit created the universe and life through an ordained, sustained, and design-reflecting evolutionary process
Steve Martin wrote:
Looking forward to your reviews on this. Question: You stated that:
“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!” Wow. Can you give some brief background on this? Far be if from me to question Lamoureux, but it seems like a little bit of a stretch to say that “most scientists are teleological evolutionists”.
Actually, I said “a majority of leading scientists.” Here’s the argument:
Landmark papers that were published in two of the most prestigious scientific journals today reveal that scientists are not all atheists embracing a dysteleological worldview. In a 1997 report entitled “Scientists Are Still Keeping the Faith” in Nature, Edward Larson and Larry Witham outline some basic beliefs of scientists cited in the Who’s Who of American Science. Respondents were asked to evaluate the following statement:
“I believe in a God in intellectual and affective [emotional] communication with humankind, expectation of receiving an answer. By ‘answer’ I mean more than the subjective, psychological effect of prayer.”
In all, 40% of the scientists accept the statement, 45% “do not believe in a God as defined above,” and 15% “have no definite belief regarding this question.” In other words, nearly half of leading US scientists believe in a personal God who intervenes in their lives in a way that could be termed miraculous. This study also found that 40% of the respondents believe in an afterlife. Therefore, at least 4 out of 10 scientists surveyed have a teleological worldview.
It is important to emphasize that the Larson and Witham study employs a very narrow definition of God, that of a personal God, known as “theism.” A reasonable speculation based on this research suggests that the percentage of leading American scientists holding a teleological worldview is much higher than 40%. More specifically, this study does not account for those who believe in a Creator who does not intervene personally in the world. This view of God, termed “deism,” is popular among intellectuals, and it would not be surprising that a significant number in the scientific community embrace this belief. This report also places pantheists (those who believe that everything in the universe is God; e.g., Buddhism) and pagans (believers in a divine force or entity controlling the universe; e.g., new age religions) in the so-called “disbeliever” group featuring 45% of the scientists surveyed. Though deists, pantheists, and pagans are not Christians, they nevertheless accept teleology and believe the world features a plan and purpose, including the reflection of intelligent design. Finally, 15% of respondents were agnostic (those who have no belief), which means they are not dysteleologists.
Therefore, since evolution is the only theory of origins in science, it is reasonable to argue that a majority of leading scientists accept that the world was created through a teleological evolutionary process.
McGrath A Fine Tuned Universe: The Quest for God in science and Theology, $39.95
Product Description
Are there viable pathways from nature to God? Natural theology is making a comeback, stimulated as much by scientific advance as by theological and philosophical reflection. There is a growing realization that the sciences raise questions that transcend their capacity to answer them—above all, the question of the existence of God. So how can Christian theology relate to these new developments?
In this landmark work, based on his 2009 Gifford lectures, Alister McGrath examines the apparent “fine-tuning” of the universe and its significance for natural theology. Exploring a wide range of physical and biological phenomena and drawing on the latest research in biochemistry and evolutionary biology, McGrath outlines our new understanding of the natural world and discusses its implications for traditional debates about the existence of God.
The celebrated Gifford Lectures have long been recognized as making landmark contributions to the discussion of natural theology. A Fine-Tuned Universe will contribute significantly to that discussion by developing a rich Trinitarian approach to natural theology that allows deep engagement with the intellectual and moral complexities of the natural world. It will be essential reading to those looking for a rigorous engagement between science and the Christian faith.
About the Author
Alister E. McGrath is Professor of Theology, Ministry, and Education, and Head of the Centre for Theology, Religion, and Culture at King’s College, London. He holds doctorates from Oxford University in both the natural sciences and Christian theology. His recent works include the three volumes of A Scientific Theology and The Open Secret: A New Vision for Natural Theology.
The material here forms a sequel to McGrath’s recent extended essay, The Open Secret: A New Vision for Natural Theology(Blackwell 2008), where he argued that a new “natural theology” could provide not a causal explanation for the cosmos but instead an “explanatory unification” which makes sense of various (otherwise very strange) observable phenomena. Nature can thus become a bearer of transcendence – not through any inherent capacity in nature itself (after all, there is no mereuninterpreted nature, but only different constructed “readings” of nature); but when nature is seen through the lens of a Christian trinitarian ontology. This whole approach to natural theology is best summed up in C. S. Lewis’s famous remark: “I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen, not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.”
A Fine-Tuned Universe develops this approach through a particular case study: the so-called “anthropic principle”, which describes the universe’s peculiar and puzzling friendliness towards life.
McGrath’s argument is that the universe’s fine-tuning is consonant with a Christian picture of the world. At the core of the book is a scientific-theological reading of Augustine. In a series of engagements with contemporary science (the constants of the universe; the origins of life; the chemistry of water; the constraints of evolution; the teleology of evolution; and emergence), McGrath argues that Augustine’s creation theology provides resources for making theological sense of both the origins of the universe and the processes of Darwinian evolution.
There is no notion here of “proving” the existence of God or the truth of Christian teaching; instead, McGrath’s claim is that there is a coherent “fit” between the observable world and the imaginative resources of Christian tradition. “What is observed within the natural order resonates with the core themes of the Christian vision of God” (p. 95). More than that, he also argues that Darwin’s theory of natural selection opens the way to a theological reevaluation of Augustine’s creation theology: read retrospectively in the light of biological evolution, Augustine becomes an important resource for thinking of creation in terms of “both primordial actuality and emergent possibility” (p. 216).
One of my own discomforts with “natural theology” lies in the romanticism with which it is usually undertaken: theologians reflect on an imaginary world of idealised peace and harmony and perfection, instead of taking seriously the apparent blindness and ugliness and brutality that is so easily perceived in the created order. Even a thinker as probing and sensitive as T. F. Torrance – with his immense ruminations on the order and structure and rationality of the natural world – seems far too little impressed by what Karl Barth called the “shadow side of creation,” the fact that creation’s “goodness” is a difficult and demanding article of faithrather than an observable phenomenon.
So it’s to his credit that McGrath – unlike most exponents of natural theology – underscores the fact that Christian theology must try somehow to account for these “two sides” of nature. Nature is, as Luther put it, simul bona et mala: it is marked by “beauty and ugliness, joy and pain, good and evil” (p. 80). McGrath suggests that nature should thus be interpreted within the context of the economy of salvation, so that we perceive the created world to be “decayed and ambivalent,” a “morally and aesthetically variegated entity whose goodness and beauty are often opaque and hidden, yet [is] nevertheless irradiated with the hope of transformation” (p. 82).
I’m not sure McGrath’s approach – which leans so heavily on notions of coherence, rationality and order – provides a full response to the forceful criticism (as developed, e.g. by Hauerwas and Jüngel) that natural theology tends towards a theologia gloria, leaving no place for the cross of Christ. But his remarks about creation as both bona et mala are surely a step in the right direction, and, hopefully, a step away from any mere romantic “re-enchantment” of the world. (As far as I can tell, nothing could be less “enchanting” than the idea that Christ’s bloody death on a cross discloses the true grain of the universe.)
In any case, this is a significant and very fascinating book. McGrath has been working around the theme of “nature” for several years now – but his best work is found in these two latest volumes, The Open Secret and A Fine-Tuned Universe.