Re: [asa] EIC (Evolutionary Informed Christian)

From: George Murphy <>
Date: Sun Dec 14 2008 - 18:09:38 EST

David -

"Evolutionary creationist" is a term for which Denis Lamoureux has argued. In fact his recent book is titled Evolutionary Creationism: A Christian Approach to Evolution (Wipf & Stock, 2008). This terminology probably has earlier history but I don't know it offhand.

I see that Randy Isaac, who knows the subject better than I, has already responded to your question about information.

  ----- Original Message -----
  From: David Clounch
  Sent: Saturday, December 13, 2008 10:37 PM
  Subject: Re: [asa] EIC (Evolutionary Informed Christian)

  In general I liked and enjoyed your answer. It made me appreciate your position a bit more.

  But I'm writing here to remark, did you really say "Evolutionary creationist"?? Wow. Interesting term.

  I myself used to talk about "random creationism" meaning the belief that random events create information ex nihilo. The idea that new information, never seen before, is created where none was before.

  Right or wrong may I be, that, to me, is the very essence of the idea of what materialists conceive evolutionary theory to be.

  The idea of random creationism occurred to me while listening to a discussion between Del Ratsch, Chris Macosko, and Mark Borrego after Del gave a talk on Darwin. (I hope I spelled all their names correctly).

  For the record, I utterly disbelieve that randomness produces information. There is only one way I can conceive of it doing so: if information pops out of empty space much like a virtual particle.

  But materialists surely must believe that information comes from somewhere. I am confused about that source may be. If it isnt symmetry (where symmetry is pre-existing information, not new information) and isnt created randomly (ie, isnt randomness ) then what is it?

  Dave C (Asa member) PS, I hope I am not asking a really dumb question.


  On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 1:47 PM, Gregory Arago <> wrote:

          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.

    Be smarter than spam. See how smart SpamGuard is at giving junk email the boot with the All-new Yahoo! Mail

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sun Dec 14 18:10:45 2008

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun Dec 14 2008 - 18:10:45 EST