Denis O. Lamoureux 

Surveys Evangelicals 

on Evolution

by David R. Larson

Denis O. Lamoureux, a dentist (DDS, University of Alberta) with earned doctorates in both biology (PhD, University of Alberta) and theology (PhD, University of Toronto) who teaches at Joseph's College at the University of Alberta, surveyed and evaluated what evangelical or conservative Protestant Christians and others are saying about evolution on Saturday night, April 7, 2001.  

He made his remarks as part of the Annual Seventh-day Adventist West Coast Religion Teachers Conference that took place this time at Canadian University College. This campus is located half way between the cities of Calgary and Edmonton on a beautiful bluff beside the primary thoroughfare that links the two cities in the Canadian province of Alberta.

The weekend as a whole was organized by Larry Herr and his colleagues in the Department of Religious Studies at Canadian University College in memory of the life and death of Deane Nelson.  Nelson, a valued friend of mine, instantly lost his life last September when an automobile traveling the opposite direction inadvertently strayed into his lane and struck him and the motorcycle he was riding on one of the highways in the hills above Los Angeles, California.   

A graduate of Columbia Union College, Andrews University, Loma Linda University and McCormick Theological Seminary in Chicago who is survived by his wife, two children and one grandchild, Nelson had been a member of the Department of Religious Studies at Canadian University College for eight years and its chair for five before returning to California.  I am among the many who celebrate his life and mourn his death.

Lamoureux offered a typology of five contemporary views about creation and evolution.  One of these is what he called "Young Earth Creation" or "Scientific Creationism."  It holds that the universe is no more than 10,000 years old, that biological [macroscopic?] evolution does not occur and that God's creation of the world in six literal days was eventually followed by a world-wide flood that caused the fossil records we now encounter.  This is the view of Institute of Creation Research in San Diego, California and authors such as Henry Morris and Duane Gish, he reported.

A second orientation is what Lamoureux called "Progressive Creation" or "Old Earth Creationism."  Those with this point of view hold that the universe is ten to twenty billion years old.  Although they agree that minor biological variations do occur, they reject many aspects of current evolutionary theory.  They hold that God's indirect activity constitutes the configurations of inanimate structures and initially ordained and continues to sustain the natural processes.  God's direct activity, which occurs intermittently over long stretches of time, is responsible for the emergence of new living structures.  According to this point of view, Noah's Flood was probably a local deluge, not a universal one, and the creation days of Genesis 1 probably represent different geological ages.  Lamoureux attributed this view to Bernard Ramm, Hugh Ross and to contemporary Intelligent Design Theorists Philip Johnson and Michael Behe.

A third alternative is what Lamoureux called "Evolutionary Creation" or "Theistic Evolution."  A primary difference between this orientation and the preceding one concerns the role of God in the development of the universe.  According to "Old Earth Creationism," Lamoureux stated, God's creative activity is ongoing with respect to inanimate structures and the natural processes but episodic or intermittent with respect to the emergence of new living structures.  Contrary to this point of view, Lamoureux reported, those who prefer "evolutionary creation" or "theistic evolution" hold that God's creative activity, which ordained and continues to sustains the natural processes, is almost always indirect.  The qualifier "almost" is necessary to make room for miracles, rare though they are according to this stance.  Lamoureux attributed this position, which holds that human beings and other forms of life gradually evolved, albeit with the indirect participation of God at every step along the way, to Howard Van Till and others at Calvin College in Michigan and to Roman Catholicism.

A fourth alternative is what Lamoureux called "Deistic Evolution" or "'Theistic' Evolution" [Please note the extra quotation marks around "'theistic.'"  This is part of what signals a difference between the fourth alternative and the third.]  He attributed this point of view to Charles Darwin at some points in his life as well as to contemporary authors such as Paul Davies and Michael Denton.  Lamoureux identified two primary differences between this fourth alternative and the third one.  One of these differences is that this view puts more emphasis upon God's activity in initially ordaining the natural processes than it does on God's continuing role in sustaining them on an ongoing basis.  The other is that this view, which Lamoureux attributed to deism, humanism and liberal Christianity, is often linked to rejections of major Christian convictions such as the doctrine of the Trinity.

The fifth and final option in Lamoureux's typology is what he called "Dysteleological Evolution" or "Atheistic Evolution."  According to his summary of it, this point of view holds that there is no purpose to life, all apparent meaning is an illusion and the "design" we think we detect in things of nature is the result of nothing but time plus chance.  This orientation, which regards Christian Scripture as prescientific mythology in the worst sense, is frankly and sometimes aggressively atheistic.  Lamoureux attributed this option to contemporary authors such as Richard Dawkins, Carl Sagan, Stephen Jay Gould, E. O. Wilson and Daniel Dennett.

Lamoureux indicated that his own pilgrimage began with something like "Scientific Creationism," passed through a period of "Dysteleolgocical Evolution" which was accompanied by conduct he now regards as destructive for himself and others, returned to "Old Earth Creationism" and now rests at "Evolutionary Divine Creation," a term he prefers to "Theistic Evolution" because it makes "God" the noun instead of the adjective.  As he indicated in the discussion that followed his presentation, and as the book he edited with Philip Johnson exhibits (Darwinism Defeated:  The Johnson-Lamoureux Debated on Biological Origins published in 1999 by Regent College Press), his differences with his colleagues in the contemporary Intelligent Design Movement have sometimes become pointed and painful.  

Lamoureux's general impression is that many in the Intelligent Design Movement are insufficiently informed about biological matters.  One of his more specific criticisms of the views of Philip Johnson, and others with similar convictions, is that it is both biologically and theologically inadequate to depict God as intervening every now and then in the development of the universe instead of indirectly participating in this process on a continuing basis in each of its succeeding moments.

I learned much about current evangelical thought regarding evolution from Lamoureux's presentation and from the discussion that followed it.  My general impression is that he is on an active pilgrimage that is likely to continue, hopefully with positive results.  I particularly appreciated his candor, his cheerfulness and his evident commitment to integrating the reliable findings of science, on the one hand, and Christian views and values, on the other.  Lamoureux is an effective communicator, one that will be well-received by many campuses and congregations.  Both for what he has to offer, and for the stimulation and companionship it would provide him, I recommend him as a speaker on these issues.

 If I were to make a suggestion, it would be that Lamoureux consider expanding his typology so that it includes seven instead of five alternatives.  I say this for at least three reasons.  First of all, seven strikes me as a more perfect number than five, something that will surprise no one who knows that I am a Seventh-day Adventist!  

Second,  I think it would be helpful to split what Lamoureux calls "Deistic Evolution" or "'Theistic Evolution'" [Again, please note the extra quotation marks.] into two categories, one that is truly deistic and the other that is more characteristic of process theology in particular, or what he calls liberal Christianity in general.  

Partly because it focuses on evangelical options, and partly because it is not yet complete, Lamoureux's typology does not now do justice to the views of liberal or ecumenical Christianity.  Process theology, for instance, repeatedly and vigorously rejects both deism and atheistic evolution. Not to mention this and similar options, or worse yet to refer to "Liberal Christianity" under the heading of "Deistic Evolution," leaves room for further research and refinement.  

Where, for instance, do the views of contemporary authors like Ian Barbour, John B. Cobb, Jr. and David Ray Griffin fit in Lamoureux's scheme?  Adding another column to his typology would helpfully include this additional alternative and distinguish it from the others.

Although I am less confident about this next suggestion, I do believe it would be helpful to divide what Lamoureux calls "Dysteleological Evolution" or "Atheistic Evolution" into two categories as well.  One of these would identify the views of those who apparently see little or no value in theological interpretations of the universe and our lives within it.  The other would pinpoint the convictions of those who acknowledge that theological views and values may have their place but that this academic location is distinct from the sciences and necessarily separate from them. Although I defer to those who are more widely read in this literature than I now am, my impression that a Stephen Jay Gould, for instance, is able to make more room for theology "in its proper place" than is, say, a Richard Dawkins or a Carl Sagan.  If so, I think it would be helpful if Lamouruex's typology displayed this difference.