Ancient Science in the Bible? Really?
Posted on August 22, 2009 at 2:17 pm by Dr. Jim
Ed Babinski, who contributes to Debunking Christianity and has scribed a chapter for the book, The Christian Delusion, reported on in an earlier post, emailed me the other day to tell me about an essay posted on BeliefNet in its weekly guest essay section.
In “Ancient Science in the Bible” Denis O. Lamoureux discusses the biblical view of a rather flat earth. I have no quibbles with his depiction of Biblical cosmology. On the other hand, he concludes:
So what’s the bottom line? Don’t go to the Bible to find scientific facts; go to Scripture to meet Jesus. In the same way that the Lord personally meets each of us wherever we happen to be, the Holy Spirit came down to the level of the ancient biblical writers and employed their understanding of the physical world in order to communicate as effectively as possible life-changing spiritual truths. By using an ancient science in the Bible, God revealed the inerrant Message of Faith that He created the world, not how He created it.
And that kind of bugs me.
Lamoureux is an assistant professor at St. Joseph’s College in Edmonton AB, a Catholic school attached to the secular University of Alberta. He is “assistant professor of science and religion” and has published two books through Wipf and Stock. Here are parts of the blurbs:
Evolutionary Creation
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.
~~~~~~~~~
I Love Jesus and I Accept Evolution.
In this thought-provoking book, born-again Christian Denis O. Lamoureux argues that the God of the Bible created the universe and life through evolution—an ordained, sustained, and design-reflecting natural process. In other words, evolution is not the result of blind chance and our creation is not a mistake. Lamoureux challenges the popular assumption that God disclosed scientific facts in the opening chapters of Scripture thousands of years before their discovery by modern science. He contends that in the same way the Lord meets us wherever we happen to be in our lives, the Holy Spirit came down to the level of the inspired biblical writers and used their ancient understanding of origins in order to reveal inerrant, life-changing Messages of Faith. Lamoureux also shares his personal story and struggle in coming to terms with evolution and Christianity.
Lamoureux’s work has been poo-pooed by some in the completely anti-intellectual wing of Evangelical Christianity here in Alberta, and presumably beyond.
Both the Big Valley Creation Science Museum and the Red Deer based Creation Truth Ministry have on their websites a big black and yellow image of dangerous looking waste barrels with a label promising a debunking of “Dangerous Theology in Alberta”. The link goes to a now defunct website, www.emperorswithoutclothes.com, where apparently once resided an “expose” of Lamoureux by a certain Mike Biehler. Alas, a very quick google could not find a new home for the piece.
(Also, see my posts on these two “museums” BVCSM and CTM.)
As far as I’m concerned, it is nice that Lamoureux is convinced of the overwhelming amount of evidence for evolution, and anything he can do to minimize the damage to education in Alberta at the hands of the creationist fringe, the better. On the other hand, he hardly seems a champion of academics in general, and his program to convince evangelical Christians of the reality of evolution and an old earth should not be taken as too much of a victory for those interested in comprehensive educational standards.
I’ve gotten used to the idea that the University of Alberta (where I graduated in 1993 from Religious Studies a BA and did post-doctoral and sessional work from 1998-2002) has affiliated Christian colleges. I don’t like it, but what is one going to do?
(Correction:) A number of their courses ARE acceptable to Religious Studies at the U of Alberta. When I studied there, I was told this was not the case, but that might have been wrong too.
At least their courses are not transferable to a degree in Religious Studies (well, they weren’t when I attended).
When I finished my BA, however, the university was facing massive budget cuts. There was some talk of farming parts of Religious Studies off to the Christian colleges. Fortunately, nothing came of this and although the dept. of Religious Studies eventually disappeared, the program of R. S. retained its academic integrity.
What really bugs me about Lamoureux’s article is the way the biblical cosmology is called a “science”.
In fact, Holy Scripture features an ancient science of the structure, operation, and origin of the universe and life. The diagram presents the world as conceived by ancient Near Eastern peoples, including God’s chosen people, the Hebrews. It may come as a surprise to most Bible-reading Christians, but a 3-tier universe is found in the Word of God.
I really don’t think that term “science” is at all applicable to ancient cosmologies, biblical or otherwise. It seems to be an effort to cash in on the prestige “science” has in the modern world (at least among most folk). He seems to say that even though the Bible is to remain relevant without being a science book, it can still be a kind of science all the same. The Bible’s cosmological passages (along with a whole lot more) are myth. Why not call them that?
The Bible has virtually no “science” or “engineering” in it. Christian scripture has no astronomical treatise. There is no detailed taxonomy of different kinds of animals, insects or plants. No discussion of metallurgy, animal breeding, or the appropriate soils for each kind of crop. There is nothing on designing an irrigation system. Not a thing.
Lamoureux is right, the Bible is a book of religion. But rather than analyze the ancient religion from which the diverse biblical texts derived in its own right, he reads his own religion into it. None of the writers of any of the creation accounts in the Old Testament had a clue about the doctrine of the trinity let alone the myth of Christian salvation. They were not Christians. His is a deliberately anachronistic view of the Bible routed in Evangelical doctrine. God has to work behind the scenes, leading ancient scribes to write what they could not understand.
For Lamoureux, the ancient cosmology might be seen as a product of its own time, but the religion behind it must be Christianity. Folks concerned with the incursion of creationism in schools might be encouraged in some respects by Lamoureux’s writings, but if his books are reflective of his professional work, then he is really as far away from academic work on religion as creationism is from real science.
Technorati Tags: Denis+Lamoureux, creation, cosmology, University+of+Alberta, science, ancient+science, religion, religion+science, St+Joseph’s+College, trinity, Christianity, theology, apologetics, intelligent+design, evolutionary+creationism, Bible, Old+Testament, science+book, Religious+Studies
August 23, 2009 at 10:00 am
The creationist reps are just ignorant of even the most basic science, and logic, and history, etc., so that is not an issue. However, Denis Lamoureux is an interesting thinker who is informed in his specialty. He has been persuaded by the facts to change his mind, and that capability is a trait that is valued in science, to say the least (it comes to some scientists more easily than to others). I tried to bring Denis (he pronounces it Dennis) to U of L as a speaker, in 2002, 2003, 2004… There was no interest… So, I went to see him in Edmonton. He gave a great public talk, and invited bible school students (or whatever the various religious reading groups call themselves). Some of them were all charged up to dispute his science points, and were visibly deflated (to my view) when he opened the seminar with prayer. I have to admit, he has me there – I would never do it, and it did quiet them, I think. Anyway, the bottom line on his background that impressed me was that he was an ex-military man and ex-dentist but full-on fundametalist Christian who went to get his paleo degree in order to debunk evolution and show it up as false. His work was going to be on vertebrate teeth, etc. Instead, he was won over by the massive assembly of coherent facts that is evident in even an intro course, and unavoidable during graduate work. He changed his mind and accepted evolution as a fact. Whatever his personal reasons are for retaining deep Christian views about some distant cause, I don’t know, but he has meshed that in. But I guess if the science of evolutionary theory can be clear to animists, gun-colectors, taxi drivers, Republicans, reporters, MD’s, and all manner of odd groups, then why not fundamentalist bible-thumpers, too, I reckon. The part of his talk that I liked the best was on the poetry and manner of wording and writing of sections of the Bible. Most of that was new to me, and I think he convinced some members of the audience to accept that it is a pretty story, but not at all about science. So, if anyone got this far… I like Denis, and think there is room for diversity, and I really like seeing how the self-appointed holies are stunned and defused by his approach.
By the way, the part that has always amazed me about the inerrancy nonsense, is the argument that not only did they have truth revealed to them by The Bearded One or whoever, but that the ancients just knew so much, yada yada. In fact, it was not even written by the science minds of the day, who could have done a much better job.
August 23, 2009 at 10:00 am
But a great post as always, Jim.
August 23, 2009 at 10:01 am
“Denis (he pronounces it Dennis”
at least back then – maybe I have this wrong.
August 23, 2009 at 10:36 am
Maybe I was a bit hard on the guy, but my negativity comes from my seeing the needs of a secular education including not only the sciences, but the humanities as well. In fact, I think the need for secular humanities is at least as important as secular sciences.
Yeah, I do respect the guy for changing his mind, and his books are addressed to a very conservative Christian audience, and it bugs the crap out of me that St. Joes remains part of the U. of Alberta.
By claiming that a deity had to use the language of an “ancient science” to convey other truths clears the way for fundamentalist Christians to take a serious look at evolution, thus defusing some of the issues faced by scientists in their classes. Still, he does nothing for Religious Studies profs who want to teach the Old Testament as a product of human culture within its ancient setting.
The trinitarian doctrine he reads into the OT is hopelessly anachronistic. One cannot understand the old religion properly in trinitarian terms. Except for the opening of the Gospel of John and maybe a few other NT passages, Christians share the same creation mythology as Jews. Why find the trinity implicit in Genesis and not the Oral Torah of the Mishnah and Talmud?
Religions “evolve” and modern humans are no more a necessary or inevitable outcome of the first creature hauling itself up on dry land in the primordial long ago than are chickens.
Modern Christianity and Judaism are equally accidental products of the “evolution” of the religion of ancient Israel. The ancestry of both include a wide assortment of other religious and philosophical traditions, political, military and economic developments and so forth.
I can’t ask Lamoureux to deny his beliefs that there is a special status for Christianity in the scheme of things. But I do protest institutions promulgating that status within secular universities.
August 29, 2009 at 5:50 pm
Dear Jim,
You write:
” . . . and it bugs the crap out of me that St. Joes remains part of the U. of Alberta. . . . But I do protest institutions promulgating that status within secular universities.”
Protest all you want, UofA is a PUBLIC university. Reference to God remains in the grad ceremony, as the issue was debated this past year.
My St Joe’s courses are accepted in Religious Studies.
Jim, we are now in the 21st century (if you haven’t noticed), and good-old-boy 1940s positivists like you have been left behind (do you get it?) a long time ago.
Cordially,
Denis
August 29, 2009 at 8:49 pm
I FIXED THE ERROR ABOUT THE COURSE CREDIT FOR RELIGIOUS STUDIES IN BIG BOLD, RED LETTERS. Sorry for assuming my memory on that matter was accurate.
The continued reference to a god in the convocation address at the U. of Alberta is a perfectly asinine situation whose only defence appears to be the perceived need in some quarters to preserve the social privilege of Christians.
The U of A is a public university but that hardly helps your case. Maybe the Discovery Institute could start offering courses. I suspect a non-postitivist like yourself would lobby St. Joes to make space available. Or, better yet, how about an Islamic Madras?
I’m well aware of what century this is and that is part of the reason why I’m so damned angry at the persistence of deference to Christianity in education and politics.
My complaint with your post is that you are interpreting Genesis anachronistically and selectively. You seem to take a very secular, scientific approach to natural history but then conjure up a conspiracy theory to explain the Bible.
Would the people who wrote Genesis really understand notions of the trinity? No. Would they appreciate being told that they didn’t really know what they were writing about? Probably not. But 2400 years later or so, you come along and say regardless of what they thought they were writing about, God is just using them to say something completely different, the fullness of which could not be realized for centuries.
Next to that, I’m quite happy being inaccurately labelled a 1940s positivist. Retorts of “Obsolete Positivism!” is a standard reply in defence of theological boundaries to critical investigation. One gets used to it.
I’m always amazed at how religious claims – including those concerning a deity reputed to make numerous statements of absolute truth – are often defended by the selective appeal to post-modernism and ridiculous levels of relative truths.
Now, in case you’ve been “left behind” (got it) by developments in Religious Studies, religions “evolve” (get it?) in a myriad of ways. Christianity is a very different religion from that of the ancient Judeans. Christianity is an accidental byproduct of that old religion – unless, of course, one wants to positively pull the Christian deity out of one’s hat like a bunny rabbit. But then, where does that leave rabbinic Judaism, as an obsolete dead end with another misconception about the nature of the bunny?
I’m actually more of a humanist, and I think that it would be far better to let the past be the past. All views on the past are subjective, but not all views of the past are equally valid in academic terms.
Ancient people’s religions are what they are. We should try to understand them as best we can. Knowledge about them is valuable in understanding humanity. Whatever the ancient Judean’s religions was it does
not need to be “corrected” by the anachronistic imposition of a later theology, least of all by someone who works at a public university. That is a trick far older than the 1940s.
August 29, 2009 at 9:28 pm
I won’t call names, positivist or negativist, but I will express my great regret, coming from a long Scandinavian line, that we STILL do not have any mention whatsoever of Thor in the University mission statements (at least a technical reference to Mjölnir would do), in the grad ceremony, the motto, or other holy words. That really gets my sparks flying. I’m tempted to put a nid on the whole lot. Uff da!!
August 29, 2009 at 9:46 pm
PS. I’m not kidding. I think it would be good for diversity, even though I admit, it’s hard but, I admit, Thor was made up by story-tellers a long time ago.
August 29, 2009 at 9:51 pm
And lets throw in a few goddesses!
August 30, 2009 at 9:33 am
That’s a friggin good idea.
http://images.quizfarm.com/1126647306GodFrigg.gif
Sorry to make light of your discussion, though.
August 31, 2009 at 2:47 pm
[...] Dr. Jim illustrates this principle handily in a blog post at his “Thinking Shop,” in his response to Dr. Denis O. Lamoureux’s books. [...]
September 1, 2009 at 9:37 am
Hello.
The DR writes to me:
“The U of A is a public university but that hardly helps your case. Maybe the Discovery Institute could start offering courses. I suspect a non-postitivist like yourself would lobby St. Joes to make space available.”
We don’t have to agree on personal metaphysical commitments, but we should agree on at least getting the FACTS right. If you would actually have read my books that you cite above, you would realize that I have debated many connected with the Discovery Institute: Phil Johnson, Mike Behe, Jon Wells, Paul Nelson, and Canada’s leading ID guy, Robert Larmer. I’ve been hammering these guys for 15 years. Get up to speed with the FACTS . . . DR.
So, saying I’d lobby for them at Joes reflects your sorrowful grasp of the FACTS, and how your positivistic fundamentalism clouds your “thinking.”
Have a good day, DR.
Denis
September 23, 2009 at 1:41 pm
Dr. Jim,
Stumbled across your blog and read with interest your criticism of Lamoureux.
What can we do about the existence of this publically funded catholic college that gives university CREDIT courses??? I am a U of A alumni, and took courses at St. Joe’s (including Dennis’) . I know that there is no seperation of church and state in this country, but public money paying for catholic indoctrination — this is sick. These courses are a joke, have little academic standards / integrity, and exist solely to serve the catholic community.
I believe that certain groups (secular humanists, for sure the muslims) would have standing to file a case against the university for discrimation. What thinkest you?