I, personally, am a Christian who affirms evolutionary science.
I am not a “theistic evolutionist.” As I understand it, “theistic evolution” was coined to counter “naturalistic evolution.” While a naturalist or a materialist, certainly is identifying essentially as an “evolutionist,” I do not base my worldview on evolution, so I am not an “evolutionist.” Though Christians are theists, take away Jesus, and I would be an atheist, so I am not well described as a “theist” either.
I am not an “evolutionary creationist” either. I certainly affirm that God created all things, but my worldview is not based on creation either. That is not my essential position either. I am not a “creationist.”
I am, however, a Christian, a person that follows Jesus, one who is unthreatened by evolution. I affirm evolution because it looks like life evolved, and there is no conflict between evolution and a faith grounded in Jesus.
That is my position. Theistic evolutionists and evolutionary creationists are welcome here with everyone else. This, however, is how I describe myself. Neither evolution nor creation is my identity.
I think this is really the most important point so far. Peaceful Science becomes a place for a wide variety of people to engage in meaningful dialog that helps them understand each other and themselves better. It certainly isn’t about promoting a particular view (even GAE, otherwise there would be little point in atheists hanging about), which does make it fairly unique compared to other organizations (BioLogos, DI, RTB, AIG, etc.) and forums. It does provide a great space for Christians who affirm the science of evolution (CASE) to speak to their secular colleagues as well as to the church about what they see and study. That’s a good thing for both science and Christianity, in my opinion. I think the idea of CASE being more encompassing than EC or OEC, or pretty much any of the traditional “origins” labels, can be very appealing to a broad spectrum of people, especially emerging adults.
I honestly am a bit confused by BioLogos at this point. Back in 2010 they posted two articles within 10 days of each other:
A “Historical” Adam? - Articles - BioLogos by Opderbeck brings up genetic vs genealogical progenitorship. This seems like an obvious point, at least in hindsight, to reassess the “genetics rules out a historical Adam & Eve” position.
If BioLogos has no problem with historical Adam & Eve, why the issue and delay? I would truly think they would jump all over GAE if their purpose was to help those wanting to be faithful to science and faithful to scripture to understand the full breadth of possibilities. Not being able to assess the science myself, I just assumed that a historical A&E were ruled out by genetics, but as soon as I heard @swamidass present GAE at the ASA workshop I immediately knew this was a game changer in the A&E conversation, regardless of if one personally affirms it.
Anyway, maybe CASE catches on, I think that would be cool, and then maybe we can focus on more interesting things than the YEC/OEC/EC/TE/ID labels. I do love a good label, but in this case they seemed to have done more harm than good. I think the types of conversations we (can) have at PS are way more interesting than what those labels will allow.