Wednesday, September 15, 2010

Review of I Love Jesus and I Accept Evolution

Lexis-Nexis is providing a free link (I think) to an American Scientific Affiliation review of the book by Denis Lamoureux called I Love Jesus and I Accept Evolution, the book that I am currently working through. The reviewer, Callee Soltys, writes:
If you struggle to connect with young-earth creationists beyond agreement that "it's not how God created, it's that he created," fear no more. In I Love Jesus and I Accept Evolution, ASA Fellow Denis Lamoureux is on a mission to engage anti-evolutionists in the process of coming to terms with evolution, his main premise being "God created the universe and life through evolution, and this fact has no impact whatsoever on the foundational beliefs of Christianity" (p. 149). Lamoureux is the right man for the job: who better to meet these readers where they are than someone who, twenty-five years ago, left a professional career to become a creation scientist "with the intention of declaring war on everyone who accepted evolution!" (p. 2)
This is not unlike the story of Michael Dowd, the author of Thank God for Evolution, who wrote that it was not until he studied evolution that he began to see the mystery and grandeur of the whole process. I am about a third of the way into the book and have not really gotten to the meat of it. He makes an impassioned argument for using the term "evolutionary creationist" instead of "theistic evolutionist" because he argues that the emphasis is on creation rather than evolution. After having discussed this with my wife, I believe he is correct in this assessment. This way, we think of "young earth creationist," "progressive creationist," and "evolutionary creationist." Whether I change the name of my blog or not remains to be seen.

Ms. Soltys points out that the main sticking point for most Christians who read this book will be that Dr. Lamoureux does not accept an historical Adam. A bit back, Steve Martin held a symposium on the nature of original sin with a lead paper by George Murphy. I know that Denis did not arrive at this conclusion in a vacuum and am curious to read how he came to this conclusion. I will let you know.

Now playing: Bill Conti - Glider, Pt. 2
via FoxyTunes


  1. You have changed your blog title haven't you :).

    Evolutionary Creationist contrast with other types of creationists. Theistic Evolutionist contrasts with other kinds of evolutionists, namely atheistic.

    Both labels are useful when talking to different audiences. However in as much that creation implies God, I would tend to see EC as more descriptive.

    Glad to see you have an open mind on these things. It's an evolution of sorts.

    Looking forward to your review.

  2. If you're reading Lamoreaux, I'd actually recommend "Evolutionary Creation: A Christian Approach to Evolution". The book you're reading is (from what I can tell) a more condensed version of Evolutionary Creation. I expected Evolutionary Creation to be heavy on science, but it's actually very heavy on theology - and he does deal with the issue of not having a historical Adam.

    I had a really hard time with Dowd's book because his Christianity is very weak. He certainly does not hold to "orthodox" Christianity, and certainly not to any Evangelical-type of faith. When I talk to people about this issue, I steer them toward Lamoreaux and the ASA - scientifically and theologically rigorous.

    I've enjoyed your blog for several months, but never wanted to comment till today. Keep writing!!


  3. "Glad to see you have an open mind on these things. It's an evolution of sorts."

    HAW!! (Best Dr. Bombay impression I can muster)

  4. Catherine, you are correct. The problem at the time was/is that I cannot free up fifty dollars for the biggie. I plan to get that down the road. What I wanted for the moment was a boiled down version of his theological arguments. I can recite the fossil arguments in my sleep.

    Regarding Michael Dowd's book: i agree and said as much to my wife last night. When he was interviewed and asked some point black questions about Christianity, he evaded them. There are some things about his book that I do like, though. I like the concept of "Flat Earth Religion," which dovetails with Gordon Glover's "Christian Folk Science."

  5. Jim, don't know what you heard that made you think I vas being evasive. I'm an unabashed Christian naturalist, an evolutionary Christian (as apposed to being a Christian unnaturalist or biblical Christian).

    You may be interested in my public debate with Dr. Albert Mohler, president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, where I distingish biblical and evolutionary Christianity:

    (See links at the end)

    Keep up the good thinking and writing!

    ~ Michael

  6. Catherine,

    I would invite you to consider this question: Which is "weaker": a worldview that requires believing in magical, unnatural events and places or one that is measurably, undeniably real? See my public debate with Al Mohler mentioned in the post above. Also here:



    In Christ,

    ~ Michael

  7. Michael,

    Great to hear from you! I am familiar with Mohler's "work" and his logical problems. I felt, reading your book that there was much more of an emphasis on the cosmic elements of belief in God an not specifically on the divinity of Jesus. Maybe I just misread what I read. Question: how would you distinguish your view of Christianity from Denis Lamoureux's? How is your own personal epic struggle going?


  8. Thanks for asking, Jim. I'm doing fabulously! A recent CT scan and blood test both reveal no sign of cancer. I've gained my weight back. My hair has grown back a little grayer and curlier. And I'm feeling 100%. Grace abounds!

    I'm only superficially aware of Denis Lamoureux's approach so I don't have a good sense as to where we agree and where we differ. I'm sure you'll be able to tell, however, if you read my exchange with Mohler. Connie thinks it's the most important thing I've written since my book.

    Would love to hear your radically honest feedback on it, if you are so led.


    ~ Michael

  9. BTW... there's no need to "believe" in God when one has an evolutionary Christology. I experience! I know! I don't merely believe. Again, see my response to Mohler.

  10. That is wonderful to hear. I will keep praying for your recovery and will listen to the debate as soon as I get a chance.