Bill Craig heading toward progressive creation?

This was a bit surprising. First half was about what I expected explaining some of the genetic evidence. Second half kind of went off the rails to me. Could be some semantics but looking at the hominids in the last 6 myr what more could you want?

I’m a little confused about the title… Craig’s progressive creationist view is at least 6 years old. He said basically the same things in his Defenders class (series 2) back then.

1 Like

It seemed to me lately he has been heading toward a more evolutionary view. I guess I was wrong.

I think recently he has been more accommodating of EC views, which has certainly sparked alarm among his conservative supporters. But that’s not exactly the same as heading towards a more evolutionary view.

There is not much daylight between progressive creation and evolution. EC is probably just a subtype of progressive creation. I don’t think WLC will ever be EC, perhaps for similar reasons I am not EC.


Fair point. But is that reason because of the supposed huge lack of transitional fossils?

1 Like

Then what are you, and what are the main differences between EC and whatever it is you are?

1 Like

I am a Christian that Affirms the Science of Evolution (CASE).

1 Like

Thanks for the link but it’s not all that clear what you’re really saying.

You say

I certainly affirm that God created all things

But you also say

I affirm evolution because it looks like life evolved

and it seems to me there’s at least an implied contradiction between those two.

If you don’t think there’s any contradiction, that implies perhaps(could be taken to mean) that evolution is the means by which you think God creates new species? Yet you also say you’re not a theistic evolutionist, and you’re also not an evolutionary creationist.

Then just what is your position? What does it mean to say that you think God created all things, and that you affirm evolution, but you’re not a theistic evolutionist nor an evolutionary creationist?

You’ve stated two things you are, but which appear contradictory. And then you’ve stated a bunch of things you’re not.

It’s still not clear what you think God actually did besides the supposed creation of Adam and Eve(and, apparently everything else, but maybe not?). And when it comes to evolution, what role, if any, does God have in that?


Good questions @Rumraket.

I think God providentially governed evolution to create us all. I also do not think science has ruled out God’s intervention, nor could it possibly do so. Nor has ID demonstrated that He did intervene. How did God guide evolution? I don’t know, but I can see several possibilities, none of which are in conflict with science, and all of which affirm common descent.

You are right. I’m trying to create space for people to agree that life looks evolved, even if they personally don’t think that is actually the case. That would be a better position than saying there is no legitimacy to evolutionary science, and no evidence for common descent. Many people I’ve engaged find this to be a very helpful middle ground.

Of course, I think life actually did evolve, because (1) it looks like it did, (2) I can’t see any valid theological or Scriptural objection to common descent. and (3) common descent doesn’t mean God wasn’t providentially governing evolution somehow, even if I can’t tell you precisely how.

Other’s might disagree with me on #2 (and that is what the GAE is for) or #3 (and that just takes some education to get past), however agreeing on #1 is no small thing.

I suppose EC is particular type of TE, but it is too narrow to include my position. Perhaps I technically am a type of TE too, but that is so broad as to lack much salience.

So I grant I probably need to moderate what I said about TE right there. Perhaps I should write this:

I am not EC, and I am not well described as TE.

Would that make more sense?


A bit more yes, thanks.

1 Like

Can you say what about EC does not match with your belief? Or what about your belief does not match with EC?

1 Like

Well, as Deborah Haarsma puts it:

Evolutionary creationists cannot affirm the traditional de novo view of human origins

The GAE is about making space for precisely this view, so EC just isn’t a fit.

Dr. Haarsma, at the time, was quick to affirm that she agreed entirely with the science of the GAE. This, also, was over a year ago, and that is still their position. So it seems to be pretty antithetical to my goals here.

1 Like