Re: [asa] EIC (Evolutionary Informed Christian)

From: John Walley <john_walley@yahoo.com>
Date: Sun Dec 14 2008 - 20:00:30 EST

I agree with George's earlier comments that TE has the emphasis the wrong way around but even still I think I like that better than EC. The reason why is that the term "creationist" is tainted now beyond redemption in my opinion and it just carries too much baggage that we don't need to be haunted with anymore.

I can envision a skeptic assuming that a "creationist" who qualifies his position as "evolutionary" simply means that God poofed each species into being by manipulating the gene expressions or some other similar type miraculous interaction. And we would have to explain each time exactly what we mean by "evolutionary" and how much of it was accept or don't. In fact even on this list we have people who think that TE evolution should differ from Darwinan E. so I think most skeptics would suspect that of EC's as well.

In contrast, TE at least pretty much suggests that we are accepting evolution as-is with the only qualification being that God was the ultimate causation even if cloaked in randomness and mystery. And in that light I don't the emphasis on evolution is undue.

Thanks

John

--- On Sun, 12/14/08, George Murphy <GMURPHY10@neo.rr.com> wrote:

> From: George Murphy <GMURPHY10@neo.rr.com>
> Subject: Re: [asa] EIC (Evolutionary Informed Christian)
> To: "David Clounch" <david.clounch@gmail.com>, asa@calvin.edu
> Date: Sunday, December 14, 2008, 6:09 PM
> 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.
>
> Shalom
> George
> http://home.neo.rr.com/scitheologyglm
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: David Clounch
> To: asa@calvin.edu
> Sent: Saturday, December 13, 2008 10:37 PM
> Subject: Re: [asa] EIC (Evolutionary Informed Christian)
>
>
> George,
> 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
> <gregoryarago@yahoo.ca> 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, 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

      

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sun Dec 14 20:00:46 2008

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun Dec 14 2008 - 20:00:46 EST