RE: [asa] EIC (Evolutionary Informed Christian)

From: Alexanian, Moorad <alexanian@uncw.edu>
Date: Sat Dec 13 2008 - 16:37:29 EST

Hello Gregory,

 

This is very much the same as a "scientist who is a Christian" and a "Christian Scientist."
 

Moorad

 

________________________________

From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu on behalf of Gregory Arago
Sent: Sat 12/13/2008 2:47 PM
To: George Murphy; d.nield@auckland.ac.nz
Cc: ASA list
Subject: Re: [asa] EIC (Evolutionary Informed Christian)

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, d.nield@auckland.ac.nz <d.nield@auckland.ac.nz> wrote:

        From: d.nield@auckland.ac.nz <d.nield@auckland.ac.nz>
        Subject: [asa] EIC (Evolutionary Informed Christian) ][ was Promise trumps biology (accepting biological evolution for Adam)
        To: "George Murphy" <GMURPHY10@neo.rr.com>
        Cc: "ASA list" <asa@calvin.edu>
        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
        "theistic
> evolutionist" a major issue. It certainly has its drawbacks. It
        implies
> that the person's major commitment is to "evolution" - i.e.,
        he/she is an
> "evolutionist" - & that that commitment is then qualified as
        "theistic."
> But if one's "theism" is an expression of fundamental
        religious
> conviction, "ultimate concern," then things should be the other
        way
> 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
        really
> 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
        rather
> 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)
        Don
        
        To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
        "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.

________________________________

Be smarter than spam. See how smart SpamGuard is at giving junk email the boot with the All-new Yahoo! Mail <http://ca.promos.yahoo.com/newmail/overview2/>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sat Dec 13 16:38:51 2008

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sat Dec 13 2008 - 16:38:51 EST