Why Aren’t Theistic Evolutionists Called Evolutionary Creationists?

_{Gil Dodgen

April 29, 2012

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

I’m just wondering. ID proponents have been called creationists in cheap tuxedos. Intelligent design theory has been called “intelligent design creationism.” It seems to me that to be consistent, theistic evolutionists such as Francis Collins should be called — with an obviously pejorative intent — evolutionary creationists, or perhaps creationists in expensive tuxedos.

Is there a double standard here, or am I missing something?

Comments

Who says the loop has to terminate? Cosmological arguments for God do - and they further argue that the only acceptable termination is God. Hence the tension between nontheistic I.D. and cosmological arguments.Metalogic42_{April 30, 2012
April
04
Apr
30
30
2012
11:09 AM
11
11
09
AM
PDT}

I don’t posit an infinite loop. What I argue is that the regress has to eventually terminate in either God, abstract objects, or a contingent supernatural being – and that the latter two clash with arguments for theism. Who says the loop has to terminate?nullasalus_{April 30, 2012
April
04
Apr
30
30
2012
11:02 AM
11
11
02
AM
PDT}

To more directly address what's said in the "weak arguments" section: This argument points out that, by inferring a designer from complexity in machines, the designer must also be complexity. In my argument, the regress of natural designers could very well be increasingly simple. It doesn't matter, all that matters is that there *were* designers. This of course then plunges into an infinite loop of who designed the designer. I don't posit an infinite loop. What I argue is that the regress has to eventually terminate in either God, abstract objects, or a contingent supernatural being - and that the latter two clash with arguments for theism. Intelligent design does not speak to the nature of designers anymore than Darwin’s theory speaks to the origin of matter. In my argument, all that's required of the designers is that they be intelligent. Yes, I'm *sort of* asking who designed the designer, but not really. The difference is in the answer. When that's asked of God, the answer can only be "no one, God exists necessarily". But we can't say the same for aliens, A.I., or contingent supernatural beings. Really I'm just applying I.D. methodology everywhere it's appropriate.Metalogic42_{April 30, 2012
April
04
Apr
30
30
2012
10:52 AM
10
10
52
AM
PDT}

Barry, No, it's not. In fact I agree that "who designed the designer" is a poor argument. I'm merely applying I.D. across the board, and then pointing to tension between nontheistic I.D. and cosmological arguments.Metalogic42_{April 30, 2012
April
04
Apr
30
30
2012
10:41 AM
10
10
41
AM
PDT}

metalogic, your post is a rehash of the old "who designed the designer" argument. It has been refuted many times. See the "frequently raised but weak arguments" section of this blog.Barry Arrington_{April 30, 2012
April
04
Apr
30
30
2012
10:32 AM
10
10
32
AM
PDT}

Jimpithecus, RE: "I have trouble with “evolutionism,” which removes God from the equation, but modern evolutionary biology is sound." Do you believe there is any conflict between "theistic evolution" and the "neo-Darwinian theory of evolution?"Alastair F. Paisley_{April 30, 2012
April
04
Apr
30
30
2012
10:17 AM
10
10
17
AM
PDT}

This seems to be at odds with the PR wing of the DI, which appears to contend none of these things. It seems to be at odds with the PR wing of ID critics, who repeatedly cast ID as a front for full-blown YEC or something close to it, and ID as being 'anti-evolution' full stop.nullasalus_{April 30, 2012
April
04
Apr
30
30
2012
10:03 AM
10
10
03
AM
PDT}

I've just posted an article on my blog somewhat related to this topic (I argue that I.D. must be inherently theistic). You can check it out here: http://dubitodeus.wordpress.com/2012/04/30/i-d-cosmological-arguments-and-epistemic-tension/ Comments and criticism are welcome.Metalogic42_{April 30, 2012
April
04
Apr
30
30
2012
09:58 AM
9
09
58
AM
PDT}

I once read a piece by Kenneth Miller where he reviews Michael Behe's "Darwin's Black Box" and writes: "Perhaps the single most stunning thing about Darwin's Black Box, Michael Behe's "Biochemical Challenge to Evolution," is the amount of territory that its author concedes to Darwinism. As tempted as they might be to pick up this book in their own defense, "scientific creationists" should think twice about enlisting an ally who has concluded that the Earth is several billion years old, that evolutionary biology has had "much success in accounting for the patterns of life we see around us 1," that evolution accounts for the appearance of new organisms including antibiotic-resistant bacteria, and who is convinced that all organisms share a "common ancestor." This seems to be at odds with the PR wing of the DI, which appears to contend none of these things.Jimpithecus_{April 30, 2012
April
04
Apr
30
30
2012
09:54 AM
9
09
54
AM
PDT}

"In what way is modern evolutionary biology sound?" In ways that Michael Behe, Douglas Axe, Richard Sternberg, Scott Minnich, Paul Chien, Paul Nelson, Ann Gauger and other IDers (who are biologists) say it is. The main theme of this thread is TE and/vs. EC.Gregory_{April 30, 2012
April
04
Apr
30
30
2012
09:42 AM
9
09
42
AM
PDT}

Sorry for your loss, Jimpithecus. Good Practise at UD: Copy all text of your message before pressing 'Post Comment'. Then you can re-paste it if you forget Captcha. The same thing happened to me at BioLogos. Crappy system (aka 'Go Home Team!'). So I learned from the loss and the same thing didn't happen twice.Gregory_{April 30, 2012
April
04
Apr
30
30
2012
09:35 AM
9
09
35
AM
PDT}

In what way is modern evolutionary biology sound?Joe_{April 30, 2012
April
04
Apr
30
30
2012
09:21 AM
9
09
21
AM
PDT}

I have trouble with "evolutionism," which removes God from the equation, but modern evolutionary biology is sound.Jimpithecus_{April 30, 2012
April
04
Apr
30
30
2012
09:15 AM
9
09
15
AM
PDT}

I just spent a long time composing a reply only to have it completely wiped out by captcha AFTER i had logged in. Junk this crappy system.Jimpithecus_{April 30, 2012
April
04
Apr
30
30
2012
09:08 AM
9
09
08
AM
PDT}

Correction: apparently Falk was born in the USA; raised and educated in Canada (uncertain if he has Canadian citizenship or not). Currently he lives in California, teaching at a private evangelical Christian University. All others are Canadian; Giberson lives in Massachusetts, Lamoureaux in Alberta, Venama in British Columbia. All are North Americans. The contention that TE vs. EC is mainly a USAmerican vs. Canadian educational politics of religion issue remains the same.Gregory_{April 30, 2012
April
04
Apr
30
30
2012
06:39 AM
6
06
39
AM
PDT}

Jimpithecus, Do you believe there is any conflict between theistic evolution and the neo-Darwinian theory of evolution?Alastair F. Paisley_{April 30, 2012
April
04
Apr
30
30
2012
06:05 AM
6
06
05
AM
PDT}

How can we be friends with anyone who doesn't believe in a literal Charles Darwin???Jon Garvey_{April 30, 2012
April
04
Apr
30
30
2012
04:41 AM
4
04
41
AM
PDT}

Simple answer: because it is politically incorrect to be called a 'creationist' in the USA. You have local school board court cases and your educational system to thank for that. 'creationist' in USA doesn't mean Abrahamic view of G-d's creation; it means 'anti-science,' backwards-thinking, with flat earth connotations. In Canada, where EC was coined (apparently by Denis Lamoureaux), the situation is different wrt lack of school board court cases and less devolved educational system (compare municipality, province, county, state and federal levels). Lamoureaux, Falk, Giberson, Venema - these are the Canadians (at least, all were born in Canada) who are influencing the BioLogos agenda to become 'creationists' of the 'evolutionary' variety. Indeed, TE vs. EC is mainly a USAmerican vs. Canadian educational politics of religion issue. Yet, it sounds so 20th century (creation vs. evolution) to my post-modern (i.e. epoch, by birth) ears! Because BioLogos accepts (most if not all of) 'evolutionary biology,' even if it is not clear 'how Darwinistic' they are, the scientific community treats them with more respect than 'creationists'. "You support my consensus, I support you, by not slinging pejorative labels." Indeed, BioLogosians are not 'creationists,' not biblical literalists, not 'young earthers'. They are instead appeasers in 'science & faith' discourse, they are pacifists, even when evidences and approaches among scientists and theologians appear to be opposites or to conflict. This is one reason why they took any reference to 'Darwinism' off their website (since they initially just called 'Darwinism' = evolution by natural selection). They know they don't have a clear answer for people; same as with 'real, historical A&E.' But can't we all be friends anyway? ; )Gregory_{April 30, 2012
April
04
Apr
30
30
2012
01:27 AM
1
01
27
AM
PDT}

Straddling both camps (and more) I see how unhelpful most of the labels are, though I guess, like denominational names and temptations to sin, they're bound to happen. If one looks at the nuances of people's positions carefully, there are TEs, OECs and YECs in ID, and IDs, OECS and YECs in TE. And Deists in both, sad to say. BioLogos, I believe, coined the term "Evolutionary Creationism", yet Jimpethecus, following an article he wrote, got some stick from a poster there recently for a comment that sounded "too creationist". I wish the term "evolutionary creationism" was promoted more, because it would tend to rehabilitate the word "creation" from its modern, politically restricted useage and recover its broad Biblical meaning. That might even do the unthinkable and get Christians to admit that they all believe in creation ... and then argue more productively about defining it.Jon Garvey_{April 30, 2012
April
04
Apr
30
30
2012
12:28 AM
12
12
28
AM
PDT}

Gage, what you describe is deism. ECs believe in Divine intervention in the form of the Holy Spirit and in the providence of God, as well as the saving power of Christ. We just think that the earth is very old and has been rolling along through God-ordained principles (and with His guidance) for 4.5 billion years.Jimpithecus_{April 29, 2012
April
04
Apr
29
29
2012
11:11 PM
11
11
11
PM
PDT}

johnnyb: excellent points and well put too.Gage_{April 29, 2012
April
04
Apr
29
29
2012
09:31 PM
9
09
31
PM
PDT}

As I understand the difference, TE or EC says that God set up the universe to evolve life without His intervention. Matter either does or does not have the properties to form life, and progress to complex life, spontaneously. To choose either one is, IMO, a position of faith. But chemistry strongly suggests that life is extremely unlikely to form spontaneously, and I'm not convinced that simple life can evolve into complex life without guidance. At best, the evidence is that it happened, not how it happened.Gage_{April 29, 2012
April
04
Apr
29
29
2012
09:22 PM
9
09
22
PM
PDT}

johnnyb, Do you believe the neo-Darwinian theory of evolution is inherently atheistic?Alastair F. Paisley_{April 29, 2012
April
04
Apr
29
29
2012
09:14 PM
9
09
14
PM
PDT}

Alastair - This is somewhat true. However, in popular parlance, theistic evolution has come to mean "theistic darwinism". As an example, Michael Behe is technically a theistic evolutionist, but he normally does not get the label because his view of evolution is non-Darwinian. Those in the biologos camp, however, tend to be actual Darwinists, and as such are generally called theistic evolutionists. I think evolutionary creationism is a terrible word, unless there is some new meaning (which, from what I've read, there isn't). People know what theistic evolution is, and what it means. So the only reason to change the name is to try to hoodwink people. As an example, Pandas and People changed the name from "Creationism" to "Intelligent Design" precisely because popular parlance had a definition of creationism which was not equivalent with what the book was about, and therefore a different term was needed. As far as I'm aware, the content of theistic evolution has not changed. They say it changed to emphasize their belief in creation, and evolution as a process used for creation. I would love to believe that, but they have tried at every turn to remove any chance of such an understanding.johnnyb_{April 29, 2012
April
04
Apr
29
29
2012
08:52 PM
8
08
52
PM
PDT}

I do not believe that "intelligent design theory" necessarily rules out theistic evolution or evolutionary creation.Alastair F. Paisley_{April 29, 2012
April
04
Apr
29
29
2012
08:34 PM
8
08
34
PM
PDT}

"Theistic evolution" and "evolutionary creation" are interchangeable terms.Alastair F. Paisley_{April 29, 2012
April
04
Apr
29
29
2012
08:23 PM
8
08
23
PM
PDT}

Or I did, anyway. I dropped the TE term a bit back and forgot I had done so.Jimpithecus_{April 29, 2012
April
04
Apr
29
29
2012
05:43 PM
5
05
43
PM
PDT}

They are. Theistic Evolutionists is a term that is not as descriptive as Evolutionary Creationists. The reason is that we are "creationists" in the sense that we believe in God and are committed Christians. We just aren't "progressive creationists" or "young earth creationists." We are "evolutionary creationists." The only reason I use both terms on my blog is that many people are familiar with both.Jimpithecus_{April 29, 2012
April
04
Apr
29
29
2012
05:42 PM
5
05
42
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply