Theistic Evolution, Evolutionary Creationism, and Fully-Gifted Creation

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

Hey.

I was thinking about the various names for our position.

I think I prefer fully-gifted creation the best, since it not only affirms that God has gifted creation with the ability to adapt, but that our position has considerly more breadth and depth than it would as a position on evolutionary biology alone.

What do you think? Does anyone know of any other terms?

 

[Deamiter]

Theistic, Evolutionary, Fully-Gifted Creationism perhaps?

Oh and to answer the OP, 'atheist' seems to be a pretty common one. You don't see it too often because the mods ban those trolls pretty fast, but while I was a mod, I got that label more than I was called TE!

Personally, I find any label -- even TE mildly offensive. The only purpose of such a label is to distinguish myself from 'one of those Christians.' Outside of CF, I can't really position myself as anti-creationist because so many of my peers are atheist and don't see a difference between creationism and Christianity. To invoke a somewhat controversial comparison, it's very similar to "pro-life" which to anybody in North America just means "anti-abortion" because that's how it's used by people both for and against abortion.

Just about the only label I'd really prefer is "a guy who follows the teaching of Christ" but people just feel a lot more comfortable if they can put you in one of their boxes -- that way they already know your position on everything and can tell which side you're on.

 

[gluadys]

Hey.

I was thinking about the various names for our position.

I think I prefer fully-gifted creation the best, since it not only affirms that God has gifted creation with the ability to adapt, but that our position has considerly more breadth and depth than it would as a position on evolutionary biology alone.

What do you think? Does anyone know of any other terms?

Like Deamiter, I would prefer to have no label other than Christian or follower of Christ. But since we can't seem to live without them, I do prefer "evolutionary creationist" to "theistic evolutionist" as it clearly indicates that as evolutionists we are not denying God as Creator, excluding God from creation or downplaying the role of God in creation. It puts the emphasis where it ought to be, on God the Creator, with "evolutionary" as a modifier. It does away with the impression that we "believe" in evolution. What we believe in is creation, and that evolution is God's chosen instrument for creating bio-diversity.

I like the concept of fully-gifted creation, but I would be leery of trying to work out a common position beyond the one held on evolutionary biology. I don't think it is necessary or even desirable that TEs hold a common theology across the board. Our very differences show that TE is not to be pinned into one corner such as Catholic or Liberal such that it could be rejected because only "those" people (whom I already disagree with) accept evolution as compatible with Christian faith and doctrine.

 

[Xaero]

What do you think? Does anyone know of any other terms?

At a speech before an atheist audience i would call myself a "Scientific Intelligent Design Evolutionary Creationist". Then watch the blood rushing into their face


I would sum our viewpoint in this way:

believing in a divine intelligent designer who created via evolution, which (the creation) is explorable with the "mind-tool" called science.

But we also think that science can't explain everything, some things can only be understood through faith. (Hebrews 11)

 

[shernren]

I think that while our label of "theistic evolutionists" is not ideal, it's hardly worth our time to try to change it. There are more pressing things to answer than what to call ourselves.

 

[Assyrian]

While it would be fun to come up with new titles, like True Creationists we just end up with a new acronym to add to the alphabet soup that already exists. If we did come up with a new title, and it was acceptable to the wide spectrum of TE, would we get it recognised beyond the confines of CF?

I think we need to recognise that TE is more a statement about the science, that God is behind it all, rather than telling us anything specific about God, other than how powerful and clever he is. But we don't actually know much beyond that. We don't know how God created everything or how he works in and through the universe he created.

 

[chaoschristian]

We're all Creationists. Some of us are neo-creationists.

 

[Assyrian]

Is that anything like a Neo-Con?

 

[chaoschristian]

I feel that the term 'Creationist' has been unfairly misappropriated by YEC.

Now that statement in and of itself is unfair because it could very well be the case that the term was thrust upon the YEC and that they, like we, simply want to be known as disciples of Christ.

However, I use the neo-creationist label to apply to those who specifically and explicitily state that Christian orthodox is defined in part by a YEC view of Creation and in the manner of the neo-cons redefining conservatism, seek to redefine Christianity to exclude all other view points.

Now from their perspective it's not so much a redefinition as it is a preservation (conservation if you will).

At the root of it though, we are Creationists (capital C).

At the root of it, I think, is a difference in scriptual paradigm (-100 pts for saying paradigm) and that's really what drives the vast majority of discussion and debate at CF.

It would be an interesting experiment to try and guide all conversation away from debates on material evidence and more towards discussions on our differing views of scripture and how it influences our world view. I think if we did that, we might see the divisions align slightly different than that of TE vs Creationism as it currently plays out.

I have no idea how to do that though.

 

[Dannager]

While "creationist" is an apt heading for anyone who believes in a deity, it does not distinguish us from any other religion, nor from any sect of Christianity. Every religion that I've heard of believes in a creation story, and there are no Christians who do not believe that the universe was created. Thus, the term "creationist" itself holds little to no meaning if we take it at face value. I agree that YECs have the term all to themselves in popular culture now, and I have no problem with this. I would not refer to myself as a creationist anymore than I would refer to myself as a believer-in-a-deity. It's a broader term than even "Christian". Theistic evolutionist is a fantastic label within the context of these discussions, though. It clearly states that we support acceptance of evolutionary theory, while at the same time retaining belief in a higher power. Furthermore, it's the term most accepted by the general public (my bio anthro professor used that label in her discussion of evolution vs. creationism).

I'm with shernren on this. It's really not worth our time to try and change it (if it ain't broke...).

 

[crawfish]

We'll need something catchier if we're gonna be acknowledged on secular TV.