Re: [asa] EIC (Evolutionary Informed Christian)

From: David Clounch <david.clounch@gmail.com>
Date: Sun Dec 14 2008 - 23:23:40 EST

George,

I thought Randy's answer was pretty good.
I was unaware of other threads where the subject was discussed.

-Dave C

On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 5:09 PM, George Murphy <GMURPHY10@neo.rr.com> wrote:

> 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 <david.clounch@gmail.com>
> *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 *<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 Sun Dec 14 23:24:18 2008

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun Dec 14 2008 - 23:24:18 EST