Denis Lamoureux - The Sin-Death Problem: Toward an Evolutionary Creationist Solution - Part 1

Denis O. Lamoureux is an assistant professor of science and religion at St. Joseph's College in the University of Alberta. His appointment is the first tenure-track position in Canada dedicated to teaching and research on the relationship between scientific discovery and Christian faith.

Lamoureux's academic specialty focuses on the modern origins controversy. In "Beyond the 'Evolution vs. Creation' Debate" he argues that the simple either/or approach to origins inhibits everyone from making informed choices. He asserts that if the limits of both conservative Christianity and evolutionary biology are respected, then their relationship is not only complementary, but also necessary. This view of origins is known as Evolutionary Creation. Concisely stated, it claims that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit created the universe and life through an ordained and sustained evolutionary process.

Lamoureux holds three earned doctoral degrees: dentistry, theology, and biology. He is a member of the executive council of the Canadian Scientific and Christian Affiliation, a Fellow of the American Scientific Affiliation, and is cited in the Who's Who of Theology and Science. Lamoureux lectures throughout Canada and the United States in both Christian and secular academic institutions. In 2001 he received the University of Alberta Students' Union 'Recognizing Talented Teaching' Award.

Category:

Science & Technology

Tags:

• science
• christian
• christianity
• creation
• creationism
• evolution
• evolutionism
• darwin
• bible
• intelligent
• design
• answers
• genesis
• biology
• scripture
• jesus
• christ
• original
• sin
• death
• fall
• adam
• eve

[Daytimeofnight]

Great stuff. Thanks for all these excellent video series. Are you in Canada?

[JT898]

No, the UK.

[bobdaugherty820]

Right! I am on the unusual a part of Youtube again.

[dailypinoyshowbiz]

This video went viral on Bogota

[AA32m7io1]

@OldEarthCreationist

To be clear, I don't think one's position (YEC or OEC) determines salvation. For example, Romans 10:9-10 says nothing about this issue. As a former OEC, I am not calling you on the carpet - I just find the discussion interesting. Obviously I hold to a literal interpretation of the entire Bible starting at Genesis 1:1 and, as a result, believe that the genealogies presented indicate a young earth. But you clearly don't, and so we agree to disagree.

.

Take care - AA32

[OldEarthCreationist]

It would seem you have assumed again, if there were any sort of natural explanations for Christ's miracles, that I would have more faith in them than believing any supernatural possibility. But you'd be wrong about me again. And finally, since we're no longer actually debating YEC versus OEC anymore, but you're really only just calling me on the carpet to see if I agree with your interpretation of the scriptures or not, then like I said before, it's been fun. But this debate is over. Take care.

[AA32m7io1]

@OldEarthCreationist

One last question regarding the "scientific reason" you mentioned in your last reply. How does it explain all the miracles Jesus performed including raising Lazarus and Himself from the dead?

[OldEarthCreationist]

(1) Pandas are omnivores. And while some evolved to eat fruit, most eat insects (which is a kind of carnivore ) making bats omnivores too. And (2) God "prepared" the fish (Jon.1:17) which could mean Jonah was supernaturally "preserved" inside. So regardless whether it was natural (which some say is possible) or God's hand which kept Jonah safe those 3 days & 3 nights, there is therefore no scientific reason to question Christ's account of the event as fact. Nor do I. It's been fun debating you !

[AA32m7io1]

@OldEarthCreationist

"2 Since God created animals with sharp teeth & claws, it would be inconsistent if His original plan was for them to eat ONLY green herbs."

.

Giant pandas and fruit bats have sharp teeth, so do they eat meat?

.

Now you said previously that you believe Genesis 1-11 is 50-50 allegory and literal. But what about other accounts like the story of Jonah? Is that also allegorical, or did it really happen as Jesus said in Matthew 12:40?

[OldEarthCreationist]

1a Ps104:9 does not refer to Gen9:11. It refers to Gen1:9&10. Which means the flood was not global. But it was universal in what God wanted to accomplish. 1b So too will be the judgment in Matt24. 1c Yes ALL flesh was destroyed. But not the entire globe. Just the whole earth. 2 Since God created animals with sharp teeth & claws, it would be inconsistent if His original plan was for them to eat ONLY green herbs. And so Gen.1:30 must be inclusive not exclusive. 3 Baraminology is pseudo-science.

[AA32m7io1]

@OldEarthCreationist 1 of 3

"2. Local Ps.104:9"

.

Why did Noah have to build an Ark?

.

Since Jesus mentions Noah and the flood, will the judgment in Matt 24:37-39 be local?

.

Why did God say in His covenant, “Never again shall ALL flesh be cut off by the waters of the flood; never again shall there be a flood to destroy the earth... the waters shall never again become a flood to destroy ALL flesh” (Gen. 9:11 & 15).

.

Hasn’t God utterly broken that covenant thousands of times?

[AA32m7io1]

@OldEarthCreationist 2 of 3

"but that doesn't mean there wasn't carnivorous activity in the beginning (Job38:39 & Ps.104:21)"

.

Yes, lions eat prey now, but what did God originally give humans and animals to eat in Genesis 1:29-30 before the fall?