Evolution under fire? -- Part 5

Previous interviews: Kirk Durston | Denyse O'Leary | Ed Neeland | Laurence Tisdall

Denis Lamoureux

CanadianChristianity.com: Judging from your statements on human origins, you could be described as a 'theistic evolutionist' -- i.e. someone who believes God used evolution as his mechanism for creation. How do you reconcile this position with scripture?

Denis Lamoureux: First, a comment on terminology. The better term for born-again Christians who accept evolution is 'evolutionary creationist.' This is to distinguish us from deists (those who believe in the impersonal God-of-the-philosophers) and liberal Christians. Evolutionary creationists believe in miracles. I'm charismatic and have often experienced signs and wonders. We believe that the Bible is the inerrant and infallible Word of God, inspired by the Holy Spirit. I drink from it daily, for my spiritual nourishment. And we believe in intelligent design in nature, as revealed in Psalm 19 and Romans 1 -- for example, that complexity within the cell declares the glory of God. In fact, evolutionary creationists will even say the Big Bang and the evolution of life reflect the mind of God.

The problem with the term 'theistic evolution' is that the substantive -- the more important term -- is a scientific theory (the noun 'evolution'); and God is only the qualifier (the adjective 'theist'). I refuse to have the Lord as secondary to a human theory about the origin of the physical world. I am first and foremost a creationist. I believe in the Creator. I believe the world is His creation. From my perspective, it is clear to me that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit created the world through an ordained and sustained evolutionary process, in the same way that God created each of us in our mother's womb through an ordained and sustained embryological process.

Now to your question, and it is a very good one. I am in complete agreement with Billy Graham's approach to the Word of God: "The Bible is not a book of science, but a book of redemption."

For example, I do not go to God's Word to find out about the size of mustard seeds (Matthew 13:31-32 and Mark 4:30-32 say it is the smallest of all seeds), or how they germinate (John 12:23-24 and 1 Corinthians 15:34-37 state that they must die before growing). Moreover, I do not go to Scripture to understand reproductive problems (only women are barren in Scripture: Genesis 11:30, 25:21, Isaiah 54:1, Luke 1:7, 23:29, Galatians 4:27, Hebrews 11:11). And I do not use the Bible to inform my understanding of the structure of the cosmos (the earth is immovable, in 1 Chronicles 16:30, Psalms 93:1, 96:10 and 104:5; the sun moves across the sky in Joshua 10:13, Ecclesiastes 1:5 and Psalms 19:6; a solid firmament exists overhead in Genesis 1:6-7, 14-16, and Psalms 19:1).

Therefore, if I do not use the Bible to understand the structure and function of the world, I will not use it to find out about how the Lord created the world. The scripture simply reveals that God created everything in the universe. During the Biblical inspiration process, the Holy Spirit employed the science of the Hebrews as a vessel to deliver this foundational theological fact. In other words, the Holy Spirit accommodated to the intellectual level of ancient peoples. This is the very same communication technique that parents use to answer a four-year-old's question about where babies come from. They spare all the physical details of the sexual act, but reveal the most important point: that babies are a gift from God, because mom and dad love each other.

Back to Reverend Graham. He also said: "I believe that God created man, and whether it came by an evolutionary process . . . or not, does not change the fact that God did create man. Whichever way God did it makes no difference, as to what man is and man's relationship with God." I applaud Dr. Graham's honesty. He is not a biologist, so he will not make a statement about an issue that is not his area of expertise. However, he understands the purpose of God's Word perfectly. It is to reveal that we have been created in God's Image, and that we have sinned against God.

To conclude, I do not reconcile my position with Scripture -- because the intention of the Bible was never to reveal scientific facts generations prior to their discovery by modern scientists. Thus, there is no need for any reconciliation. Of course, the belief that the Bible is scientifically correct is a common assumption (termed 'concordism' -- or better 'scientific concordism') held by the majority of evangelical Christians. But it is a mistaken interpretive principle. In fact, it is an un-biblical assumption, because the science in the Scripture features an ancient science from 3,500 years ago.

CC.com: There are various theories of evolution, including the traditional Darwinist concept; the notion of Punctuated Equilibrium; and the conjecture involving the Cambrian Explosion. Which theory do you support, and why?

DL: This is much too simplistic an understanding of evolution. It forces gradualism and punctuated events into a false dichotomy. In the light of the new developmental biology, gradual genetic change can result in dramatic morphological change. Regarding the Cambrian Explosion, the fossil evidence is very impressive for the appearance of many new body plans. However, this occurred over 10 million years, and the creatures that evolved were very simple. For example, the cordate body plan was in a worm-like animal, from which all creatures with a nerve cord in their back later evolved -- like humans.

CC.com: What would you say to anti-evolutionist evangelicals who reject the concept of theistic evolution?

DL: First, I would emphasize that the origins debate is not the core of our faith. Christianity is about a personal and living relationship with Jesus. It is about the transforming blood of the Lamb of God cleansing our souls from our sins. It is about walking with the Lord daily, as we follow his call. The different views of origins in our fellowships (young earth creation, progressive creation, evolutionary creation) are differences between us -- and should never lead to divisions, as 1 Corinthians 11:18-19 says. I have an audio lecture on my website that explains the different views, and deals with this pastoral issue.

Second, I would call my brothers and sisters to a self-examination of their knowledge of origins. If they have never studied Scripture or science in a well-respected academic institution, then they should be cautious in not bearing false witness (thus breaking the 9th Commandment) on these issues. For example, if any evangelical Christian had a dental infection, they certainly would not go to a lawyer, engineer, astronomer, pharmacologist, philosopher, mathematician, historian, journalist or school teacher. I picked these professions because they represent the training of the majority of leaders in the modern evangelical anti-evolutionist movement. In this situation, all evangelicals would go to a dentist who graduated from a good university dental school. This should also be the case with regard to origins. Let those born-again Christians trained in Old Testament (Genesis 1-11) and science (cosmology, geology and evolutionary biology) lead the Church in our understanding of origins.

CC.com: You have previously stated that the Book of Genesis is essentially mythological, and that Adam and Eve were not historical figures. This would imply that humanity's fall into sin was also not historical. Critics of theistic evolution -- such as broadcaster John MacArthur, in Battle for the Beginning -- say that such a position violates scripture, because it renders Christ's sacrifice for the sins of humanity meaningless. What is your response to such criticism?

DL: I object. Never have I said -- in print or orally -- that Genesis is 'mythological.' That is a misrepresentation of my position. In fact, I firmly believe hard history begins about Genesis 12, with the calling of Abraham from Ur of the Chaldees. Genesis 1-11 is the Holy Spirit-inspired Word of God, revealing who humans are and their relationship to one another and their Creator. These chapters set the theological foundations of Christianity, and not the foundations of scientific research. Regarding Adam and Eve, their De Novo creation reflects an ancient understanding of origins. More precisely, this ancient science of human origins is a vessel transporting the theological facts that we bear the Image of God, and that we have fallen into sin.

I once held and propagated MacArthur's position. However, today I am a fully committed evolutionist, and the Lord's sacrifice for my sins on the cross is utterly meaningful because it is the core my worldview and psychological stability. My becoming an evolutionist has had no effect whatsoever on my love for Jesus.

CC.com: As you know, evolutionary theory is under attack by people with legitimate scientific and scholarly credentials. As someone who supports evolutionary theory, do you believe these people are simply misinformed?

DL: Actually, the evangelical community is misinformed. The theory of evolution is not under attack. To be sure, many evangelicals believe this is the case, but within the biology department of universities there is no such attack. If fact, the evidence for evolution grows every day.

Regarding "people with legitimate scientific and scholarly credentials," start looking at their training. To be sure, many are very well educated, but in disciplines that are not relevant to evolutionary biology. Again, if you have a dental infection you will not go to a lawyer, engineer, et cetera. What very much saddens me is that many of these anti-evolutionists are professional academics, and they should know better than to misappropriate their academic authority outside their discipline. Clearly, that is a breaking of the 9th Commandment.

Let's talk about one of the most important anti-evolutionists today -- my friend Mike Behe. To be sure, he is a good scientist, and has something to say about biochemistry. In 1996, he became internationally famous for writing Darwin's Black Box. Most evangelicals are quick to point out that Behe's notion of 'irreducible complexity' is scientific evidence against evolution. However, most evangelicals do not even read the book. In fact, Behe is a total evolutionist -- except for his view of the first cell. Ironically, this was Darwin's position in his famed 1859 book, On the Origin of Species.

In 1999 I debated Behe in the Canadian Catholic Review. I challenged him with regard to his belief in the creation of a so-called 'super cell,' from which all of life evolved. Behe responded: "I do not think there had to be a 'super cell.' ID is compatible with a lot of different scenarios for how the information was placed into the system. It could have been present in the initial conditions of the Big Bang, or added over time somehow . . . My official position is agnostic: I think we don't have enough information yet to decide how the design was implemented."

So, when you say evolution is "under attack," note that one of the most important leaders in the eyes of evangelicals does not even have an "official position" on origins -- and that he could accept an entirely evolutionary model, beginning from the Big Bang. Yes, there is a lot of misinformation circulating in our evangelical churches.

CC.com: Anti-evolutionists make a distinction between 'micro-evolution' (physical changes within a single species) and 'macro-evolution' (transformation from one species into another). Creationists generally accept micro-evolution as scientifically provable. However, they maintain that there is no genuine scientific evidence for macro-evolution. How do you respond to this claim?

DL: This is simply not true. The fossil evidence for evolution is very solid. Moreover, the new molecular data further supports evolution. We are like cousins with chimps, sharing 99.3 percent the same genes. We also have many identical pseudogenes - for example, the precursor enzyme for Vitamin C -- indicating that the genetic errors arose in our common ancestors.

I know very well what is being taught in our evangelical churches. But check out who is making these statements, and who they are reading. The vast majority of the time, you will see that the critic of evolution does not even have an undergraduate degree in a biological science that is relevant to evolution.

CC.com: In your experience, are a significant number of pro-evolution scientists open to the idea that there is a Creator behind the origin of the universe?

DL: In 1996, leading American scientists were asked whether they accepted the following statement: "I believe in a God, in intellectual and emotional communication with God -- i.e., a God to whom one may pray in expectation of receiving an answer. By 'answer,' I mean more than the subjective psychological effect of prayer." Some 40 percent of scientists affirmed this statement. In addition, 40 percent believe in life after death.

Thus, not only are scientists "open" to the belief in a Creator, 40 percent have a personal relationship with God!

CC.com: As someone who has debated proponents of the Intelligent Design movement, what are your main reasons for disagreeing with their ideas and approach?

DL: There are a number of problems with the ID movement. It wants to be seen as a contributor in science. Fair enough. But I have known -- and have been friends with -- the main leaders since 1994, and I have yet to see a theory of origins outlined. If they are going to inspire a scientific revolution and usher in 'theistic science,' then they need to present a theory. And here is where they are in deep trouble. ID leadership includes young earth creationists (Paul Nelson); progressive creationists (Phil Johnson, Stephen Meyer & Bill Dembski); and some who almost accept evolutionary creation (Michael Behe).

Another problem with ID theory is that it is a 'God-of-the-gaps' model. Its primary argument is that the cell is so complex -- 'irreducibly complex,' to use Behe's term -- that it could not have evolved by only natural processes. Thus, a Divine intervention is necessary to put the cell together. To be sure, the cell is incredibly complex, and the scientific community has much work ahead in understanding the evolution of biochemical pathways. However, there is an important lesson to be learned from history. Every time someone has claimed the existence of a gap in nature (for example, retrograde motion due to angels moving planets) science has shown it to be a gap in knowledge. Science is just beginning to understand the cell. It is presumptuous at this point in time to claim 'God did it,' when in fact we are just beginning to understand cellular biology.

Finally, ID anti-evolutionism is theologically motivated -- despite what they will tell you. In fact, ID leaders are doing apologetics and defending the faith -- again, despite what they will tell you. Most IDers are evangelicals, and our tradition has an 11th Commandment: "Thou shall not believe in biological evolution." I know this is the case because I have been an evangelical for over 25 years. I use to be an anti-evolutionist -- actually a young earth creationist. If I had not studied theology (Genesis 1-11) and biology (evolution of teeth and jaws), then I am sure I would be an IDer today.

But the question I think you should be asking is: 'Why is ID so popular?' It is because the historic understanding of intelligent design is a reality. The Word of God affirms it in Psalm 19 and Romans 1. Note, there is no mention of 'gaps' in either of these passages. They both support a non-verbal -- that is, without words -- revelation from the creation. In particular, nature's beauty, complexity and functionality reflect the mind of God. The ID movement conflates -- unconsciously blends -- this revelation in the creation with their anti-evolutionism. And of course, this will be very popular in evangelical circles, since our tradition rejects evolution and affirms Psalm 19 and Romans 1.

CC.com: Even though you disagree with ID proponents, do you believe the movement has helped challenge non-believers to consider the possibility that there is a Creator?

DL: Now this is a great question, and one I have wrestled with a lot. Let me be very frank with regard to evolutionary creationists. Rarely are they out there defending the gospel and challenging a dysteleological worldview, the way the ID folks are. Of course, there is a reason for that. The evangelical constituency that supports colleges will not allow professors like myself to develop the schoolarship. It is no coincidenc that I teach at a Roman Catholic college -- praise the Lord! In fact, when I finished university after 20 years and three earned doctoral degrees, I offered to teach for free at my denomination's college, but I was turned down -- because, I was told, my evolutionary views would upset the constituency.

So, I give ID credit for fighting the good fight. I even say as much in my debate with Phil Johnson. However, ID is just plain bad science. I can't help but wonder how many non-Christians who know the science are being held back from meeting the Lord -- because of ID's science being a stumbling block.

To a personal story: In 1977, young earth creationist Duane Gish came to my university to debate an evolutionist. At that time, I was an atheist. Gish opened my eyes to the fact there were people with real PhD degrees who did not accept evolution or atheism. To be sure, my intellectual world was rocked. Eventually I read his famed book, Evolution: The Fossils Say No!, and it was a factor in my conversion to the Lord. In 2000, I met Dr. Gish and thanked him. I even asked him to sign my book. But I also gave him a copy of my debate with Johnson, and suggested that we view origins and the reading of God's Word a wee bit differently!

So how do I feel about Gish? Well, both grateful and troubled. The same can be said about how I feel about ID.

CC.com: Many in the scientific establishment believe in strictly naturalistic evolution -- i.e. the idea that all life evolved through completely random mutations, with no guiding intelligence behind the process. Do you foresee a time when the majority of scientists will come to accept the concept of a Creator, and will then publicly acknowledge that belief?

DL: Your categories are insufficient. The term 'naturalistic' does not necessarily mean dysteleological. Surely, you believe you were created in your mother's womb through "strictly naturalistic" embryological processes. I doubt any Christian thinks the Lord comes out of heaven to attach a nose or an ear.

I would also like to know what percentage you associate with the term "many." As noted earlier, 40 percent of U.S. scientists are theists, which is a narrow definition of God. How many are deists, pagans, pantheists, and simply agnostics? In other words, individuals who are not dysteleologists. In a 1996 Princeton study of American adults, 96 percent believed in God or a Universal Spirit. Thus, I suspect the level of belief in some sort of teleological principle -- the Foundation of a plan or purpose in the cosmos -- is already quite high among scientists.

Regrettably, evangelicals have been led astray by the rhetoric of Carl Sagan and Richard Dawkins, into believing that scientists embrace a dysteleological metaphysic. These two atheists do not represent the majority of scientists. Moreover, evangelical anti-evolutionists like Phil Johnson further aggravate this myth that the majority of modern scientists believe that evolution is the result of completely random mutations. However, this myth is just not true. There are a good number of scientists who believe in a Creator.

CC.com: What do you think is the most important aspect of the origins debate?

DL: The pastoral aspect. In fact, this is the primary motivation of my work.

Let us assume for a moment that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit created through an evolutionary process. Can you imagine how much of a stumbling block -- as it says in Romans 14:13 and 2 Corinthians 6:3 -- that we as evangelicals have been with our anti-evolutionism? What happens to children who are educated in evangelical schools, and then see the evidence for evolution at university? I tell you what happens: they lose their faith. And what about non-Christians who see the evolutionary evidence everyday in their laboratories? Our anti-evolutionism is a stumbling block between them and Jesus. If we can't even get the age of the rocks right, why should they trust us with regard to the Rock of Ages?