Re: [asa] EIC (Evolutionary Informed Christian)

From: Gregory Arago <>
Date: Sat Dec 13 2008 - 14:47:21 EST

Hi Don,
EIC - It seems I missed this earlier. Sounds interesting! Would it be Evolutionary Informed Christians or Evolutionarily Informed Christians? Or even Christians Informed about Evolution (CIE)? Or perhaps Christians who Accept (or Acknowledge) Evolution (CAE)?
As you can see, I'm behind getting rid of TE; something like "Christians who accept biological evolution" seems to be much more responsible to community and much less intertwined with ideology.
Cheers, Gregory

p.s. curious why are you not also joining in at CiS list, from down there in Queen's land?

--- On Sat, 12/13/08, <> wrote:

From: <>
Subject: [asa] EIC (Evolutionary Informed Christian) ][ was Promise trumps biology (accepting biological evolution for Adam)
To: "George Murphy" <>
Cc: "ASA list" <>
Received: Saturday, December 13, 2008, 10:29 PM

Goerge Murphy wrote:
> 1) As I've tried to explain before, I don't consider the term
> evolutionist" a major issue. It certainly has its drawbacks. It
> that the person's major commitment is to "evolution" - i.e.,
he/she is an
> "evolutionist" - & that that commitment is then qualified as
> But if one's "theism" is an expression of fundamental
> conviction, "ultimate concern," then things should be the other
> around. In addition, then the label "theistic" is very general
so the
> term TE conflates a huge number of very diverse positions, so that a
> Jewish process theologian & B.B. Warfield could be lumped together.
> (Actually the 2d problem is a consequence of the 1st. It doesn't
> matter what kind of theist you are as long as you're an evolutionist.)
> But I'm not going to spend a lot of time & energy fighting that
> terminology. There are more important issues. I'll make the point
that I
> did above & as long as the terminology doesn't distort
conversations I'm
> involved in I'll leave it at that. "Evolutionary
creationist" is in some
> ways better but still not ideal. "Christian who accepts biological
> evolution" as a description of my position is clumsy but about as
good as

> 5) Yes, the reason for skepticism about origin from a single couple comes
> from science. But it's not a matter of me speaking as a scientist
> than as a theologian. This is, after all, not my area of scientific
> expertise. It is rather me as a theologian willing to be informed by
> science. But note, "be informed by" doesn't mean "be
dictated to by."
> Shalom
> George

I suggest that the two points made by George are covered by my proposal
that we talk about EICs (Evolutionary Informed Christians)

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sat Dec 13 14:47:51 2008

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sat Dec 13 2008 - 14:47:51 EST