Theistic evolutionist tilts at the God of the Gaps (again)
|June 10, 2018||Posted by News under Intelligent Design, theistic evolution|
Last November, Crossways published a collection of essays, Theistic Evolution: A Scientific, Philosophical, and Theological Critique, which is critical of that tendency in theology.
Theistic evolutionist Denis O. Lamoureux published a review of the book in American Scientific Affiliation’s Perspectives, “Intelligent Design Theory: The God of the Gaps Rooted in Concordism,” of which this excerpt gives some sense:
But the root of ID Theory has now been publically revealed. About one-quarter of Theistic Evolution is a strident defense of a concordist hermeneutic, which ultimately undergirds this antievolutionary God-of-the-gaps view of origins. Evidence of the theological underpinnings of ID Theory is demonstrated by the inclusion in this book of a seven-page scripture index that cites over 1,500 Bible verses. [Note: The rest is mostly paywalled.] More.
Many people think that if scholars set out to write a long book about an argument within Christianity, citing Scripture is helpful and that an index to the citations is helpful too. But apart from that, no ID theorist actually thinks in terms of a god of the gaps. That’s an accusation that Lamoureux has made for what now seems like two decades when the serious arguments have grow more sophisticated. So one wonders why Perspectives publishes this stuff at all.
… There are many other issues I have with his review (particularly his rather blithe conflation of speciation patterns and the origins of novel features and body plans), but I want to end on one honest query I have for Dr. Lamoureux. There’s an old saying that, if you’re good at something, you don’t have to tell others. They’ll tell you. Now, I’ve never mentioned at any point (anywhere) that I’m an evangelical Christian. I don’t have to. It’s known. Yet, Lamoureux reminds readers that his view is evangelical eight times in a single article. It’s clear that he’s self-conscious about the opinion that TE is not seen as evangelical (he never defines what “evangelical” means to him).
If he is worried about this perception, I think it’s for good reason. For several pages, Lamoureux deals with Wayne Grudem’s hermeneutics. he even outlines Grudem’s charge that there are twelve “historical and scientific facts” about origins that contradict TE. We don’t need to list them all, but the main items are that human beings were created de novo, that Adam & Eve are historical real people, that human death begins with the fall of Adam & Eve, etc. Now, Grudem is but one contributor to the Theistic Evolution book, and I won’t say that I completely agree with his arguments (I haven’t read him enough to say that). But the issue of human origins and Adam & Eve are critical. … More.
Note: Theistic evolution means, so far as I (O’Leary for News) can see, finding a job for God in a cosmos that is adequately explained by randomness (optional Jesus-hollering). A church closer, for sure, but a source of academic appointments at religious colleges, not to be sneezed at in these times.
See also: Revolving the evolving God at Biologos (Wayne Rossiter)