Christian that Affirms the Science of Evolution (CASE)

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

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.

[Jordan (Jordan Mantha)]

@swamidass

One point of clarification, I think that EC is one example of CASE, so it isn’t EC vs. CASE. Rather, my point is that we need more ways of engaging with evolutionary science than merely the BioLogos way. They have had there go at it, and done some good. Not everyone can engage with science the way they do. I certainly cannot. The good news is they are not the gatekeepers. CASE is much bigger than EC. So let EC be its thing, but let’s encourage new types of CASE.

What is so bad about that?

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.

@Jonathan_Burke

The claim is that the a de novo Adam and Eve have no parents, so therefore they do not share common ancestry. So therefore, by definition, it is excluded from EC.

But that’s not how it reads. Their point 3 explicitly allows for a de novo Adam and Eve. They don’t say that accepting common descent necessitates rejecting de novo Adam and Eve.

I honestly am a bit confused by BioLogos at this point. Back in 2010 they posted two articles within 10 days of each other:

• Adam, Eve, and Human Population Genetics: Responses to Popular Arguments - BioLogos by Venema and Falk says that the size and timing of the smallest bottleneck in human population rules out a recent sole progenitor.
• A “Historical” Adam? - 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.

But then, a whole seven years later we get the whole dust-up about Keller (see Essentials of Creation: A Response to The Gospel Coalition - BioLogos, BioLogos Edits Their Response to Keller and Josh’s defense ) and it took BioLogos a year and a half later to respond!

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.

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

Just to clarify…

@Jordan

Their point 3 explicitly allows for a de novo Adam and Eve.

That is not true. It does not allow for a de novo Adam and Eve. That was left out, as you can see for yourself.

@Jonathan_Burke

3. EC allows for (but does not require) a historical Adam and Eve.
   There are some ECs who believe that Adam and Eve were real people who served as representatives for all of humanity, and other ECs who believe that Adam and Eve are literary characters (like the Prodigal Son) and do not name any actual individuals in human history. BioLogos neither requires nor rejects a historical Adam and Eve, and aims instead to foster constructive dialogue.

[T_aquaticus]

@swamidass

I, personally, am a Christian who affirms evolutionary science.

I like it. CASE cuts through all of the noise and gets to the point.

[Guy_Coe]

Wait; does that make you one of the world’s most specialized “CASE managers?” :o)
Just so you know, I think you’ve made your case for CASE with care, aplomb, sensitivity, and ethical clarity.