My preferred name for Evolutionary Creation is God-Guided Evolution; however, either term is acceptable to me. They both ring out the greatness of the God in our Bibles, and I would use either one. I am going to read an article by Dr. Joshua. I believe he has other ideas. I will not reveal them. He will do that probably one day if he has not already. I must affirm that I like the title that Dr. Joshua gave to this blog.
I think @gbrooks9 is on board with this. For me, not so much.
George and I agree on something. That is good. Either name is fine with me.
Niether really works for me .
Would you be more interested in Theistic Evolution, or do you have some else in mind if you would like to reveal it. Perhaps you would rather not reveal that, and I can respect that.
Call me a confessing scientist , a scientist in the Church and a Christian in science, serving the common good with a truthful account of what I have seen.
I still affirm evolutionary science, but I no longer am a theistic evolutionist . Since I first became public in my work, I have never been intent on evangelizing evolution. For this reason, I am not well defined as an “ evolutionist .” My worldview does not rest on evolution; it rests on Jesus, the one who rose from the dead. I am not well defined as a “ theist ” either, because I see great evil in this world justified by generic (and specific) theism; and I follow Jesus, who is much greater than theism.
I’m not an evolutionary creationist either, as this term is most clearly identified with the advocacy of BioLogos, an approach from which I dissent.
So I prefer to use the term “evolutionary science”, and highlight there are a range of ways by which to make sense of it from within Christian theology.
I have made a copy of your article to read. I believe you have a good idea. May Adonay Jesus bless you. Have you ever been to the Garden Tomb? I personally believe it is the correct tomb of our Lord Jesus. I agree that I am also not so much in favor with Biologos. Were you originally from Palestine? I want to go there one day if the Second Advent does not take place during our earthly lives. It may be my spirit that goes to heaven first. God bless brother in Jesus.
I was born to a family of Indian immigrants.
My Doctor comes from India and I buy her Indian Tea every Christmas. May God bless her. We talk about various things including languages, science, history, and philosophy as well as theology. She has helped me in many ways. I pray to Jesus for her everyday. I also told her about my father’s family history, which she finds interesting. You are a good Christian man. Don’t forget that.
Why are you selecting a 160 year old well researched scientific field called evolution and trying to renaming it? Will you be renaming Gravity as well? How about Chemistry, Physics, Cosmoslogy, Geology, Astronomy, String Theory, Quantum Mechanics?
What kind of doctor sells tea?
Is the field evolutionary science or evolutionary biology? Does the theory of evolution extend outside of biology? into Chemistry and Physics? Perhaps it does. Is astrobiology part of evolutionary science? Most interested in what the present names are not the historical path.
I’m fine with both evolutionary biology and evolutionary science. Is there a difference to you? Look closely to what I wrote @Patrick, I’m resisting renaming it.
Doesn’t make a difference to me. I just wanted to know what the scientists at the cutting edge are calling it now.
In the field we just call it evolution. However, I’ve learned that outside the sciences that term has accrued additional non-scientist meanings. Also it is common to charge that “evolution is not real science.” Perhaps even some are opposing the non-scientist baggage of the term “evolution.”
For that reason when engaging the public I’ve found increased clarity in affirming “evolutionary science.” It asserts that there is a scientific side to evolution, and gives me a way to distinguish it from some of the non-scientific baggage. It is common to be counters, “but evolution is not science.” I respond, “Thats also what I thought till I learned about; do you want to learn about it?”
It is an effective and honest Socratic.
Me too. It’s the shortest, simplest, clearest.
Wow… I didn’t realize the phrase gave you pause! I’ll read the rest of the thread and see if I can tune in on your reservations!
You understand that this phrase you like is not a label for a position… it’s a label for a discipline.
But maybe you intentionally want to avoid a position?
As I read the next few postings in the thread, I will consider a label that embraces BOTH ends of the spectrum!
Ahhh… the push back on coining a name for a “discipline” …
When @Charles_Miller and I were coining an “-IST” POSITION…regardless of the name.
I will be using this label more frequently I think.