Evolutionary Creationism rather than Theistic Evolution?

[Vance]

Here is a VERY interesting article by a professor at the University of Alberta which describes his view of the "Evolutionary Creationist" perspective:

http://www.ualberta.ca/%7Edlamoure/3EvoCr.htm

It is rooted in Conservative Christianity and is based on the idea that we are still "Creationists" in the very real and important sense that we believe God created everything. As a conservative Christian, I would love to hear any responses to this well-stated and well-reasoned argument.

Here are a few quibbles, though:

One part I would take some issue with is the degree to which God's design is scientifically observable. While I believe that this design is obvious to one who knows it is there, I don't think it is compelled by the physical evidence alone. I don't think God makes it that easy. I think there is a strong matter of faith involved. You can't reason your way to God, as the ID people would have us believe.

To me, the process of evolution just screams out wonderful design and I am awestruck with its amazing complexity and purpose. Yet, I think that a person can still honestly review this same evidence and fail to see God in it. So, I disagree with the idea that the design is somehow "self-evident" for the observation. I think it is like faith itself, you have to take that leap, then it all becomes clear.

I also think the author too quickly concedes the literal reading of Scripture throughout the history of the Church, and in the NT references to Adam. This does not take into consideration the cultural aspects of the times. Still, even with those concessions, the author does a good job of explaining why these are not real problems when properly considered.

 

[Remus]

How does this differ from TE? I thought this was addressed, but I can't find it now.

 

[Vance]

I think this says it best:

"[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The most important word in this category is the noun 'creation.' Evolutionary creationists are first and foremost thoroughly committed and unapologetic creationists. They believe that the universe is a created reality that is absolutely dependent for its every moment of existence on the will and grace of the Creator. The qualifying word in this term is the adjective 'evolutionary,' indicating the method through which God created the world. This view of origins is often referred to as 'theistic evolution.' However, that categorization places the process of evolution as primary term and makes the Creator secondary as only a qualifying adjective. Such an inversion in the order of priority is unacceptable to evolutionary creationists."

This is how must of us "TE's" feel, but it is important to point this out. Also, the author is attempting, I believe, to assign this term to conservative Christians in particular, like myself and Herev, and a few others here, wheras Theistic Evolution is a more general term which can apply to a broader group of Christians, and even Jews or Muslims who are "theists".[/font]

 

[mhess13]

wow, heartwarming

 

[Vance]

wow, heartwarming

About the level and depth of response we have come to expect from you. Careful, though, some might not read the sarcasm and think you actually approve of this approach.

 

[mhess13]

About the level and depth of response we have come to expect from you. Careful, though, some might not read the sarcasm and think you actually approve of this approach.

glad to help out

 

[SBG]

About the level and depth of response we have come to expect from you. Careful, though, some might not read the sarcasm and think you actually approve of this approach.

And this is what i have come - in my one day here - to expect from you. Return a sarcastic remark with one better, rather than follow any kind of commandment in the Bible.

I expect you will blame this on being weak or something only to do it again when you see another creationists making a sarcastic remark.

 

[PaladinValer]

SBC, you just did the same, do realize.

 

[Remus]

As a conservative Christian, I would love to hear any responses to this well-stated and well-reasoned argument.

It looks to me that this position attempts to claim all labels for itself. This allows it to be able to claim any position depending on need. Makes for an easily defensible position.

One thing that wasn’t clear. It states “evolution is an uninterrupted process that was sustained through time by the Creator.” Does this position believe evolution to be a naturalistic process or not?

This article and many of the things that you’ve written are very similar. I think you should adopt this label.

 

[SBG]

SBC, you just did the same, do realize.

I realize that I didn't put down Vance by making comments about his level and depth of reponses. Rather I said I expect him to respond as he did previously.

And I am not a telephone company, thank you.

 

[Vance]

It looks to me that this position attempts to claim all labels for itself. This allows it to be able to claim any position depending on need. Makes for an easily defensible position.

One thing that wasn’t clear. It states “evolution is an uninterrupted process that was sustained through time by the Creator.” Does this position believe evolution to be a naturalistic process or not?

This article and many of the things that you’ve written are very similar. I think you should adopt this label.

I think what he is saying is that God built into the process its full potential from the beginning so that it would happen via a natural process, but that being God and knowing what that end result would be, the process He designed was, indeed, goal oriented and, thus, was "controlled" in an overarching sense. I think the development in the womb analogy shows what he means. I think it is clear that God does not micromanage the development of the fetus into the baby, it happens via a natural process. But would it be appropriate to say that the process happens without God's guidance? In one sense, yes, but in the more important sense, it is HIS process all along.

But I don't really think the writer is attempting, as Paul did, to "be all things to all people". I can attest that this entire approach is something a person can honestly believe is most likely how God did it, and is still doing it.

 

[Vance]

Edit, wrong thread

 

[Remus]

But I don't really think the writer is attempting, as Paul did, to "be all things to all people". I can attest that this entire approach is something a person can honestly believe is most likely how God did it, and is still doing it.

I don't mean that it's trying to be all things to all people. What I'm pointing out that it is a position that can claim IDist, Creationist, and evolutionist at the same time. The author attempts to redefine terms from their “popular meanings” which should raise a red flag. A position should stand on its own and shouldn’t rely on “hijacking” terms.

After more thought, I wonder how this position would affect apologetics. Can it stand up to the scrutiny of an atheist?

 

[Remus]

...

 

[Vance]

I think he is simply being honest. He does see himself as someone who believes in Creation, in Intelligent Design and in evolution, and is simply refusing to let those labels have the confining nature people have given them.

He believes in Creation in the sense that all Christians do, and it is "Creationism" in the most important and basic sense. He believes this Creator God is also an Intelligent Designer and that this design is self-evident (which is where I differ a bit). What we need to keep in mind is that most of the leading ID movement scientists think very much along this "Evolutionary Creationist" lines. They all accept an ancient earth and that species developed over billions of years. Some even accept a common ancestor. So, the lines are already kind of blurry.

 

[gluadys]

How does this differ from TE? I thought this was addressed, but I can't find it now.

I don't think it does differ from TE. I think it is a parallel label which many TEs prefer because it puts the emphasis in the right place. We are first and foremost creationists since we affirm belief in a Creator God. We are secondarily evolutionists in that we affirm that the scientific theory of evolution is the best current description of how God created or provided for the creation of diverse species.

The phrase "theistic evolutionist" seems to imply that evolution is the primary affirmation and theism secondary to it. It is the older and more traditional term, but I personally prefer "evolutionary creationist" as a more accurate term.

Evolution, after all, is the current scientific understanding of the origin of species. It may one day be replaced by a better understanding. So evolution is something science and TEs/ECs can let go of, if necessary. But the doctrine of creation is not. Whatever the science of the time, we will always affirm creation.

 

[gluadys]

One thing that wasn’t clear. It states “evolution is an uninterrupted process that was sustained through time by the Creator.” Does this position believe evolution to be a naturalistic process or not?

May I ask what "naturalistic process" means to you? Do you see "naturalistic process" as excluding the Creator?

 

[Remus]

May I ask what "naturalistic process" means to you?

I'd say that a naturalistic process is a process that does not have any interference from something supernatural.

Do you see "naturalistic process" as excluding the Creator?

Not necessarily.

 

[Dracil]

I dislike the term "evolutionary creationist" because of the connotations of the word creationist. AFAIC, Creationist = ID, OEC, and YEC only. Once you move beyond that, you still believe in Creation, but you are no longer a creationist.

There's also the fact that TE and AE/NE are constantly at odds with ID, OEC, and YEC.

 

[California Tim]

Herein is one of the foundational differences between "Evolutionary Creationists" (what's really the difference with TE?) demonstrated in the following quote from the article in the OP:

"Similarly, evolutionary creationists believe that both the manifestation of God's Image and the entrance of sin during human evolution are also mysteries. Christian evolutionists firmly uphold these spiritual realities, but admit that understanding their origin fully is beyond our creaturely capacity to know."​

These same folks claim to be a combination of "Biblical scholars and scientists" as seen in this quote:

"Within Protestant evangelical circles, evolutionary creation is held by a small but growing number of individuals educated in both science and Scripture. In particular, a majority of these Christians trained in the biological sciences accept this position."​

To remain ignorant of "when" sin entered the world when the Bible tells us the "how and when" rather plainly, demostrates the unsusually visible paradigm held by the vast majority of Theistic Evolutionists and their offshoots. They interpret the Bible based only on the PRESUMPTION that evolution is true and the Bible MUST therefore conform to this reality or risk losing all credibility.

It is simply preposterous to suggest that God was somehow vague in His description of the origin of sin and the need for mankind to know it and reflect upon its consequence thereafter. In fact the ENTIRE purpose of the Holy Scriptures might well be summed up in the one concept - Mankind is sinful by nature and hopeless without a redeemer. Sin is the ESSENTIAL element of the Bible, without which all doctrine crumbles. Yet we have a clear confession that it remains a "mystery" to those who wish to reconcile the Bible with evolution. It is a rather stark rebuttal to anyone who'd suggest, contrary to reality, that it is the Creationist who risks diluting or endangering the message of the Gospels.

Here's the manifest basic definition of TE and now EC:

THEISTIC EVOLUTION

"The belief that the evolutionary account of origins (where everything ascends from a very imperfect state to a more nearly perfect state) and the Biblical account of origins (where everything descends from a perfect state to a very imperfect state) are both true."​