Evolutionary Creationism rather than Theistic Evolution?

[Gold Dragon]

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.

Agreed. I use TE because people readily recognize what it means. But Evolutionary Creationism probably is a more accurate label.

 

[gluadys]

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."​

That would accord with my belief.

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.

This is incorrect. We do not interpret the bible on the presumption that evolution is true, but on the conclusion that evolution is true. A conclusion based on the testimony of God's creative work.

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.

Tim, you are conflating two different concepts. ECs/TEs fully agree with the doctrinal point that humanity is sinful by nature and hopeless without a redeemer. The text above does not cast any doubt on that. What is said is that the introduction of the image of God and of sin during human evolution are mysteries. It is not saying these things did not happen, only that it is difficult to pin down at what point in our evolutionary history they happened.

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."​

Is this the description as given or are the parenthetical remarks your own?

Leaving aside the parenthetical remarks it reads:

"The belief that the evolutionary account of origins and the biblical account of origins are both true."

That definition of TE I would agree with, and I see no conflict between it and the definition of Evolutionary Creationism.

But when it comes to the remarks in parentheses, they are totally wrong. That is not a correct description of evolution. Nor do I think it is a correct description of the biblical account.

 

[Vance]

Yes, Gluadys, the theory of evolution does not in any way present a model in which things move from imperfect to perfect. Another strawman. Evolution does not even present a model in which the world gets better as a whole. I think the Creationists teaching these things have some 'splainin' to do. Now, it may be that some vey poorly written textbooks and equally misinformed presenters of evolutionary thought have used similar langauge (although I have never seen it), which would provide some excuse, but all that means is that it is our job to better educate them as to what evolution really says.

And you are right, Tim, God was not vague in His teaching of sin entering the world and us being separated from God as a result and in need of redemption. This message comes through loud and clear. What He did not need to tell us was the literal history of exactly how and when it happened. A figurative presentation of these truths was MORE than sufficient.

 

[California Tim]

Yes, Gluadys, the theory of evolution does not in any way present a model in which things move from imperfect to perfect. Another strawman. Evolution does not even present a model in which the world gets better as a whole.

Is this the "new" evolution argument? I can hardly stop bellowing in laughter.
The basic definition of "evolution" is as follows:

A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form​

Of course I fully understand why evolutionists would alter the meaning of late - because it flies in the face of proven reality. In fact the talkorigins page rebutting this is bordering on hysteria. First notice how the talkorigins author assumes "other scientists" are confused and he alone is right - beyond question I must imagine:

Most non-scientists seem to be quite confused about precise definitions of biological evolution. Such confusion is due in large part to the inability of scientists to communicate effectively to the general public and also to confusion among scientists themselves about how to define such an important term.​

Here he offers an "acceptable" definition of evolution:

One of the most respected evolutionary biologists has defined biological evolution as follows:

"In the broadest sense, evolution is merely change, and so is all-pervasive; galaxies, languages, and political systems all evolve. Biological evolution ... is change in the properties of populations of organisms that transcend the lifetime of a single individual. The ontogeny of an individual is not considered evolution; individual organisms do not evolve. The changes in populations that are considered evolutionary are those that are inheritable via the genetic material from one generation to the next. Biological evolution may be slight or substantial; it embraces everything from slight changes in the proportion of different alleles within a population (such as those determining blood types) to the successive alterations that led from the earliest protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions."
- Douglas J. Futuyma in Evolutionary Biology, Sinauer Associates 1986​

He goes on to dismiss other "scientific" publications that disagree with his revised version:

Unfortunately the common definitions of evolution outside of the scientific community are different. For example, in the Oxford Concise Science Dictionary we find the following definition:

"evolution: The gradual process by which the present diversity of plant and animal life arose from the earliest and most primitive organisms, which is believed to have been continuing for the past 3000 million years."​

This is inexcusable for a dictionary of science.​

Which "scientific community" is he referring to above? Is it one and the same with this aforementioned group?

...confusion among scientists themselves about how to define such an important term.​

Am I the only one whose judgement remains unclouded enough to see the obvious double-mindedness here? First they attempt eliminate the linear nature of "evolution" in the above definition (it is "merely change") - presumably to avoid the delicate subject of which direction it is heading (from simple to complex or vice versa), then, ironically an outline of linear evolution is presented in conclusion - demonstrating that however much they wish to dismiss the concept, evolution teaches the nature of the process is from simple to complex over time. Or more precisely from imperfect to more perfect (new and improved version) over time. How that can be denied by an honest intellectual is simply beyond me.

Tell me. If evolution is not linear- if it does not require a measurable improvement from one species to the subsequent, then why do we have to assume that ape and man have a common ancestor? And why would that ancestor be presumed less refined? Why is there such a thing as a "phylogenetic tree"? How can a prediction be made of the progression of species if not linear and predictable? The truth is, the whole fairy tale of evolution is beyond rational to the open-minded and each time it is challenged with irrefutable FACT, it rushes to redefine itself without admitting fallacious reasoning to begin with. What a foundation for faith - sheesh! You can have it.

Talkorigins source

 

[California Tim]

By the way, has any evolutionist been brave enough to consider the common ancestor of animal and plant life? Before either plant or animal life existed, supposedly a single protozoa spawned all life on earth. Was that protozoa a plant or was it an animal?

 

[Vance]

Tim, you are mistaking a general trend toward greater complexity with "improvement" or things getting "better". There is no value issue in the theory of evolution, and the only people who have ever attempted to give it a value judgement are those who wished to use the theory of evolution to support their own philosophical agenda. Evolution IS merely change, and that change is strictly in the direction of more efficient adaptation and greater likelihood of reproductive capacity. If that means more complex (and it very often does), then so be it. But this does not, in any way, indicate some moral or ethical "improvement" or the overall improvement of anything, for that matter. What is good adaption today will likely NOT be good adaption tommorrow, and changes will be required if the species is to survive for a while longer. The only "better" involved is the immediate "better" of the given species change in order to "better" adapt.

And, no, complexity is not necessarily "better", it is just a method of development which has allowed some species to survive. Other species, some could argue the most successful ones, remain incredibly NON-complex. Think of bacteria, amoebae, virus, and the myriad other "simple" life forms. IIRC, these life forms make up the vast majority of living "mass" on this planet. So, complexity does not equal improvement as some sort of absolute value.

Evolution is not an approach to morality or ethics, or even a "world-view". It is just biology. It is the same as photosynthesis or meiosis. It is simply a description of a biological process.

 

[L'Anatra]

By the way, has any evolutionist been brave enough to consider the common ancestor of animal and plant life? Before either plant or animal life existed, supposedly a single protozoa spawned all life on earth. Was that protozoa a plant or was it an animal?

You realize that there are other forms of multicellular life, do you not?

A fungus is neither a plant nor an animal. Whatever "protozoa" (although I think you really mean "single-celled organism") you are referring to was also neither a plant nor an animal. Furthermore, considering what exact organism was the common ancestor for plants and animals is in reality secondary. It's highly unlikely that we will ever know which specific species was that common ancestor, but the evidence is in more ways than one overwhelmingly in favor of common descent.

 

[gluadys]

Is this the "new" evolution argument? I can hardly stop bellowing in laughter.
The basic definition of "evolution" is as follows:

A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form​

No, that is the creationist mis-definition.

Of course I fully understand why evolutionists would alter the meaning of late - because it flies in the face of proven reality.

Yes, that is exactly why the definition has been purged of references to "improvement" and linear sequences. Proven reality shows that is not a good description of real evolution, much as human hubris might like it to be.

"Biological evolution may be slight or substantial; it embraces everything from slight changes in the proportion of different alleles within a population (such as those determining blood types) to the successive alterations that led from the earliest protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions."
- Douglas J. Futuyma in Evolutionary Biology, Sinauer Associates 1986​

Am I the only one whose judgement remains unclouded enough to see the obvious double-mindedness here? First they attempt eliminate the linear nature of "evolution" in the above definition (it is "merely change") - presumably to avoid the delicate subject of which direction it is heading (from simple to complex or vice versa), then, ironically an outline of linear evolution is presented in conclusion - demonstrating that however much they wish to dismiss the concept, evolution teaches the nature of the process is from simple to complex over time. Or more precisely from imperfect to more perfect (new and improved version) over time. How that can be denied by an honest intellectual is simply beyond me.​

A linear outline? Tell me, one which graph can you plot snails, bees, giraffes and dandelions in a linear sequence? Which of them is more complex than the others? Which of them more perfect?

Tell me. If evolution is not linear- if it does not require a measurable improvement from one species to the subsequent, then why do we have to assume that ape and man have a common ancestor? And why would that ancestor be presumed less refined?

The ancestor is not less refined. It has all the characteristics which are common to both humans and chimpanzees. It does not have some characteristics which are peculiar to humans, nor some that are peculiar to chimpanzees. Characteristics which are peculiar to a species are called "derived" characteristics. Those which are shared with the common ancestor and other species derived from the common ancestor are (unfortunately IMO) called "primitive". However, this simply means that the character existed in the group prior to the origin of derived characteristics particular to a descendant species. It does not mean it was less improved or less perfect.

Why is there such a thing as a "phylogenetic tree"? How can a prediction be made of the progression of species if not linear and predictable?

The phylogenetic tree is cladistic, not linear.

The truth is, the whole fairy tale of evolution is beyond rational to the open-minded and each time it is challenged with irrefutable FACT, it rushes to redefine itself without admitting fallacious reasoning to begin with.

Actually, redefinition is an admission that previous reasoning was fallacious.

What a foundation for faith - sheesh! You can have it.

Only a fool would make evolution (or any scientific theory) a foundation for faith. Evolution is not about faith. It is about scientific fact and theory. That is far removed from Christ who is the only foundation of Christian faith.​

 

[SBG]

Only a fool would make evolution (or any scientific theory) a foundation for faith. Evolution is not about faith. It is about scientific fact and theory. That is far removed from Christ who is the only foundation of Christian faith.

Let me ask you a few questions:

1. Were any scientists or human beings around during the creation of this world and the evolution of all living things?

2. If you answered no, then is abiogenesis and evolution scientists best guess at how things have happened and back this up with a system (radiometric dating & Pb/Pb isochron age) to say how long ago it was?

3. So if the system is proving by a method which scientists created, aren't you and everyone else who believes in evolution and abiogenesis trusting that these methods are correct and lending the correct solution, evolution/abiogenesis happened?

After all even talkorigins says these dating methods are not foolproof and have been wrong at times.

 

[Vance]

You have it backwards. They don't guess and then develop a dating system to back it up. They start with the evidence and the dating techniques and then see where that leads them. Darwin did not develop his idea of evolution and then go seek evidence for it. He observed the evidence and then drew conclusions from it.

And, no, just because a scientist is not there does not mean they are guessing. We have all the evidence FROM that time to observe and test and consider. Are you saying that we can not draw conclusions about an event unless we were there to see it?

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

By the way, has any evolutionist been brave enough to consider the common ancestor of animal and plant life? Before either plant or animal life existed, supposedly a single protozoa spawned all life on earth. Was that protozoa a plant or was it an animal?

It was neither. It had not yet evolved the defining characteristics of either group.

 

[gluadys]

Let me ask you a few questions:

1. Were any scientists or human beings around during the creation of this world and the evolution of all living things?

No.

2. If you answered no, then is abiogenesis and evolution scientists best guess at how things have happened and back this up with a system (radiometric dating & Pb/Pb isochron age) to say how long ago it was?

You are conflating several different issues here. First, evolution is observed in the present. We would need a reason to consider that it did not occur in the past as it is occurring in the present. Abiogenesis is not occurring in the present, but obviously it must have occurred at least once in the past. Here scientists look at how the earth would have had to be different in the past to permit abiogenesis. Then they set up experiments to see whether a different environment would be friendly to abiogenesis. They have achieved some interesting results, but no one has created life in a test tube yet. And even if they did, it would only show abiogenesis is possible. It wouldn’t show that the way scientists created life is the way life was created on earth.

Dating is a totally different story. The first thing scientists check out when a new dating possibility is proposed is whether or not it will be reliable. No point in using a dating method that is inaccurate more often than not. All dating methods currently in use have been checked against known dates to see how well they work. So dating is not a guess.

Abiogenesis, at this point, probably is. The evidence on evolution has taken it well out of the area of guesswork.

3. So if the system is proving by a method which scientists created, aren't you and everyone else who believes in evolution and abiogenesis trusting that these methods are correct and lending the correct solution, evolution/abiogenesis happened?

Scientists have no interest in using a method which gives unreliable results. If you cannot make a testable prediction and usually get it right, then that method of making a prediction will be dropped. So generally speaking, scientists have a level of confidence in their methods, because they have been tested. But they would also agree that every method has its limits. None are foolproof. They take those limits into account in their work. Most measurements in science, for example, will have error bars, indicating to what degree the measurement is uncertain.

After all even talkorigins says these dating methods are not foolproof and have been wrong at times.

But most of the mis-measures that feature in creationist literature are examples of user error, not of method error.

 

[gluadys]

By the way, has any evolutionist been brave enough to consider the common ancestor of animal and plant life? Before either plant or animal life existed, supposedly a single protozoa spawned all life on earth. Was that protozoa a plant or was it an animal?

Protozoa is an outdated term that has been replaced by protista. Protozoa implies that unicellular eukaryotes are animals. They are not. The common ancestor of plants and animals was a protist i.e. a eukaryote which was neither a plant nor an animal. It was likely unicellular and not photosynthetic.

Protista are a long way from the original life forms. The earliest fossil record of protista is ancient (1.5 billion years ago), but still 2 billion years more recent than the first fossil bacteria.

btw, Dawkin's book The Ancestor's Tale is a good source of this kind of information for a scientific lay person.

 

[SBG]

And, no, just because a scientist is not there does not mean they are guessing. We have all the evidence FROM that time to observe and test and consider. Are you saying that we can not draw conclusions about an event unless we were there to see it?

Ok, you say because they weren't there they aren't guessing at what happened? You try to back this up with saying we have evidence. It seems evolutionists, such as yourself, conviently leave out the interpretation part of the evidence. The evidence itself doesn't say anything. One must conduct a series of methods to interpret what they believe the evidence is saying.


And no Vance, I was not saying because one is not there one cannot draw conclusions on to what happened. This just leads to speculation and theories, not facts.

No.



You are conflating several different issues here. First, evolution is observed in the present. We would need a reason to consider that it did not occur in the past as it is occurring in the present. Abiogenesis is not occurring in the present, but obviously it must have occurred at least once in the past. Here scientists look at how the earth would have had to be different in the past to permit abiogenesis. Then they set up experiments to see whether a different environment would be friendly to abiogenesis. They have achieved some interesting results, but no one has created life in a test tube yet. And even if they did, it would only show abiogenesis is possible. It wouldn’t show that the way scientists created life is the way life was created on earth.

We observe macro-evolution currently happening now in the present? I would be very interest in seeing these articles.

So you believe abiogenesis happened then?

So scientists assume from the beginning that abiogenesis happened and comform their thinking and assumptions around that? That is what you are saying here:

"Here scientists look at how the earth would have had to be different in the past to permit abiogenesis. Then they set up experiments to see whether a different environment would be friendly to abiogenesis."

Dating is a totally different story. The first thing scientists check out when a new dating possibility is proposed is whether or not it will be reliable. No point in using a dating method that is inaccurate more often than not. All dating methods currently in use have been checked against known dates to see how well they work. So dating is not a guess.

This sounds like circular reasoning to me.

All dating methods have to be checked against known dates. Known dates are obtained from dating methods.

So tell me how do we test to see if 3.8 billion years is correct for a specific rock? Do we have a known date that goes back that far that wasn't found by a dating method?

A Chemist has this to say about Radiometric dating:

" Each dating method is based on several assumptions - what species are naturally present in the rock at the time of its formation; what species have been fixed and what species might have been somewhat mobile during the history of the rock; and so on. For certain special rock samples these assumptions might not be secure."
From:
http://madsci.wustl.edu/posts/archives/dec96/851508824.Ch.r.html

I really like this quote as well: (from same site)

" With potassium/argon dating, the crucial decay has a half-life of 1.1*10^9 years (1.1 American billion). The method is really good for most rocks - age between 550 million years and 3.8 American billion years. For a modern rock from an eruption 200 years ago, the dating method will only tell you that the age is, say, between zero and 30 million years, which may not prove entirely satisfactory. It will not even tell you this, if it comes from a part of the eruption where the lava solidified before all of the argon already present in the liquid magma had an opportunity to outgas."

Abiogenesis, at this point, probably is. The evidence on evolution has taken it well out of the area of guesswork.

I disagree with the last sentence because it relies on dating methods of fossils and assumptions made by scientists.

Scientists have no interest in using a method which gives unreliable results. If you cannot make a testable prediction and usually get it right, then that method of making a prediction will be dropped. So generally speaking, scientists have a level of confidence in their methods, because they have been tested. But they would also agree that every method has its limits. None are foolproof. They take those limits into account in their work. Most measurements in science, for example, will have error bars, indicating to what degree the measurement is uncertain.

But most of the mis-measures that feature in creationist literature are examples of user error, not of method error.

And there lies the problem possibly. User Error, the user using the wrong dating method, made wrong assumptions, etc.

 

[Vance]

First, we do indeed have to interpret the evidence. But this is not done in a willy-nilly fashion, but must be done systematically, and the conclusions drawn must EXPLAIN the evidence in a way that is not falsifiable. The peer review process is in place to let others pick it apart and attempt to show that it can not work. Most of the time, the process does just that. Those that are left standing are tentatively held for further review and greater analysis of the evidence.

What we see is speciation, which used to be called macro-evolution until we began to see speciation, then Creationists said that macro-evolution means something else. We observe the processes in action currently on the micro level and even to the level of speciation. Then we look at the evidence of the past and see that we have the fact (and yes, this is considered a fact, not a theory) of development of the species over time. The mechanics we observe all the way up to the level of creating new species would seem to explain very well this development over time.

On the dating issue, I would recommend you to a Creationist who is strongly opposed to evolution and is actually a real scientist.

http://www.reasons.org/resources/fff/2001issue07/index.shtml#dynamics_of_dating

or, for a more detailed review, here:

http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/roger_wiens_radiometric_dating.shtml

 

[California Tim]

The peer review process is in place to let others pick it apart and attempt to show that it can not work. Most of the time, the process does just that. Those that are left standing are tentatively held for further review and greater analysis of the evidence.

The peer review process is a total and corrupted joke. It more closely resembles the confirmation process of a presidential judicial nominee than that of an objective review. Only those issues accepted by the "council" are actually reviewed. One has to ask how objective they can be when the following statement is prosyletized across the board in all nature sciences in just a few months. First the pitch:

Therefore Be Further It Resolved, that AAAS encourages its affiliated societies to endorse this resolution and to communicate their support to appropriate parties at the federal, state and local levels of the government. Source​

And now the result:

We endorse the spirit of a resolution on Intelligent Design set forth by the American Association for the Advancement of Science (www.aaas.org/news/releases/2002/1106id2.shtml), and that topic will not be addressed in future issues of the Proceedings. We are reviewing editorial policies to ensure that the goals of the Society, as reflected in its journal, are clearly understood by all. Through a web presence (www.biolsocwash.org) and contemplated improvements in the journal, the Society hopes not only to continue but to increase its service to the world community of taxonomic biologists.
Source​

Any more supporters of the fantasy of the "objective" nature of the scientific elite would do well to consider this - especially if they believe God in any way played a role in creation - YEC and TE alike. The data is potentially corrupted by inextricable bias.