Perhaps not, but that’s closer to the intended meaning than your own interpretation.
Genes, being non-sentient, are neither ‘selfish’ nor ‘altruistic’. But the nature of reproductive strategies is such that the genes that perpetuate are those that most effectively cause themselves and their copies to be duplicated, regardless of how fit individuals are or how ‘successful’ their lives. Effective spreading can be achieved by causing altruism/co-operation (but only with organisms that share the same genes), but also via parasitism, piggybacking, or turning organisms into short-lived brainless spore-factories. The Coronavirus genes are currently demonstrating one strategy, but they’re hardly being altruistic or contributing to successful lives.
But if individuals aren’t ‘fit’ they are less likely to pass on their genes. The ‘fittest’ males have the most offspring so pass on more genes than the average male. (Think of Genghis Khan). And what about incels? Apparently due to modern female economic independence a growing number of young males are involuntarily celibate, so not passing on their genes. Also the behaviours generated by reciprocal altruism (those who help others are more likely to get help from others, which during evolutionary history increased our chances of survival) and kin selection (we are hardwired to love our families, esp kids to the extent of making great sacrifices for them). That’s because they share our genes, so their successful survival and reproduction means our genes are being passed on.
This is the sort of “history of ideas” connection between religion and modernity that I’ve been putting forward here for years now (albeit using examples different from your own), but such connections are aggressively disputed here by the atheist posters, who are convinced that the rise of modernity needed no help from no Biblical theists nohow. We will see how well your suggestion fares!
The term “evolutionary creationism” has come into vogue lately among certain Christians favorable to evolution. On their account, the older term, “theistic evolutionism,” put the emphasis on the wrong place: it suggested that the person believed in evolution (presumably on the strength of scientific evidence), but then tacked “theistic” on, almost as an afterthought, as if to say: “Yes, I accept evolution, but don’t worry, I’m also a Christian.” The new term puts the emphasis on creation rather than evolution, as if to say, “Yes, I’m a creationist, in the sense of believing that God created the world, but I believe that God’s mode of creation was an evolutionary process rather than a series of discrete miracles.”
It thus tries to eliminate the theme of “creation versus evolution” which tends to run through discussions of origins. So someone like Denis Lamoureux can say that he is “creationist,” not in the sense that Ken Ham is, but in the sense of someone who believes that God created the world. The idea of the Christian scientists who use the term is to show that they are not embarrassed to affirm God as Creator.
I have nothing against the new term in itself; the question is what are its contents. Is it any clearer what God does in “evolutionary creationism” than it was in “theistic evolutionism”? I’m not sure that it is. Indeed, the early theistic evolutionists, back in the period after Darwin, often seemed to imagine God as “guiding” the process of evolution toward his planned ends; modern “evolutionary creation” almost never asserts that kind of guidance. Ask ten evolutionary creationists today what God does in evolution, and you will get at least nine vague, non-committal answers.
I have no theological objection to the term itself. God is capable of creating things through natural processes, if he chooses. The question is whether or not those natural processes would need some sort of supplement, some sort of additional intelligent guidance. They might, or might not; but I am not convinced by any account I’ve seen here or elsewhere that evolution can do what it supposedly did without planning or guidance.
You’re no relation to the Old Testament scholar with your surname, are you?
The term “evolutionary creationism” has come into vogue lately among certain Christians favorable to evolution. On their account, the older term, “theistic evolutionism,” put the emphasis on the wrong place: it suggested that the person believed in evolution (presumably on the strength of scientific evidence), but then tacked “theistic” on, almost as an afterthought, as if to say: “Yes, I accept evolution, but don’t worry, I’m also a Christian.” The new term puts the emphasis on creation rather than evolution, as if to say, “Yes, I’m a creationist, in the sense of believing that God created the world, but I believe that God’s mode of creation was an evolutionary process rather than a series of discrete miracles.”
It thus tries to eliminate the theme of “creation versus evolution” which tends to run through discussions of origins. So someone like Denis Lamoureux can say that he is “creationist,” not in the sense that Ken Ham is, but in the sense of someone who believes that God created the world. The idea of the Christian scientists who use the term is to show that they are not embarrassed to affirm God as Creator.
I have nothing against the new term in itself; the question is what are its contents. Is it any clearer what God does in “evolutionary creationism” than it was in “theistic evolutionism”? I’m not sure that it is. Indeed, the early theistic evolutionists, back in the period after Darwin, often seemed to imagine God as “guiding” the process of evolution toward his planned ends; modern “evolutionary creation” almost never asserts that kind of guidance. Ask ten evolutionary creationists today what God does in evolution, and you will get at least nine vague, non-committal answers.
I have no theological objection to the term itself. God is capable of creating things through natural processes, if he chooses. The question is whether or not those natural processes would need some sort of supplement, some sort of additional intelligent guidance. They might, or might not; but I am not convinced by any account I’ve seen here or elsewhere that evolution can do what it supposedly did without planning or guidance.
You’re no relation to the Old Testament scholar with your surname, are you?
I have written Homo Lapsus for all who are interested in the controversies between religion and science, especially in relation to human origins. The passage of time has led to the development of a perspective on human nature in Darwinism that is almost identical to that of Christianity. As a result, leading evolutionary biologists such as E.O. Wilson are now claiming that the Genesis explanation for moral evil as being due to an “original sin” is redundant, since evolutionary science can explain the inevitable evolution of traits such as greed, aggression and the lust for power. What if however it wasn’t inevitable? In my book I argue, based on the evidence from evolutionary biology, primatology and paleoanthropology that it wasn’t, and suggest that rather than offering an alternative explanation for evil, evolutionary science could be providing empirical evidence for a doctrine of revelation. Evolutionary biology, primatology and paleoanthropology can certainly shed great light on how our deleterious traits evolved and by implication how they can be overcome with the help of supernatural grace. Another issue addressed in the book is the now very open theological question “Who were Adam and Eve” which is the main focus of Joshua’s book, and for which he provides a hypothesis that is open to various theological adaptations and could be a game changer in the theology of our origins.
I have likened my re-birth and subsequent connection to the Holy Spirit to tapping into an almost primal animal instinct, similar to what I would consider as a dog panicking before an earthquake or a Salmon knowing which stream to swim up…Though when I say it, the response is something like (“sound of crickets”)…
I keep seeing a similar thread of thought in your writing. I would suppose that a crocodile would not consider eating a small child as evil, but as instinct, and therefore good. Do you see a connection between the characteristics of animal instinct and spiritual revelation?
Personally, evolutionary creation doesn’t describe me. I’m a Christian that affirms evolutionary science (CAES), but I’m not an evolutionary creationist.
Actually, you have merely avoided having that discussion many times. The answer to my question may be “no”, and that may be why you avoid answering, but that’s all speculation since you refuse to say.
Well I think some of our instincts are the cause of our greatest behaviour, like sacrificial and heroic behaviour for those we love, but others cause the worst, like for example mob instincts. I think our spiritual longings and spurs come from our souls, and that our souls facilitate moral discernment, helping us to distinguish between good and evil
For me evolutionary creationism should be a broad, flexible term because it relates to the open question “Who were Adam and Eve?”. There are several theological hypotheses that attempt to synthesise the Christian and scientific accounts of human origins. The most important thing is that each links human origins to the Incarnation and salvation. Any theologian who accepts evolution as God’s instrument in bringing about the emergence of life on earth is an evolutionary creationist IMO.I wouldn’t include Intelligent Design as it blurs the boundary lines between religion and science, and asserts that divine agency is intrinsic to biology. I do believe that God guides and sustains the process, and that evolutionary creationism doesn’t rule out direct divine intervention. However such intervention must relate to the supernatural, as natural selection is a process that achieves the natural. As I said earlier like Darwin’s co-discoverer Wallace I believe there was divine intervention in relation to the infusion of our spiritual souls. That’s my opinion, grounded in evidence, but I don’t rule out the view that our spiritual/ cognitional abilities evolved. That’s a theological school of thought that is also classified as evolutionary creationism. For me Joshua’s Adam and Eve hypothesis does count as an evolutionary creationist one because it holds to our evolution as a species with an act of supernatural divine intervention that relates to our morality and salvation.
Could do sometime in the future. We’re still nowhere near a formal change of doctrine on human origins in Christianity. Not even in RC, which accepts evolution and allows for a mythological dimension to Genesis. Way to go! And in the meantime ‘evolutionary creationism’ is such a useful umbrella phrase in theological discussions of the various hypotheses for synthesising the scientific and Christian accounts of human origins
I’ve been wondering about this one. At a superficial glance it appears to me the term “theistic evolution” has been sufficiently polluted, at least in conservative Christian circles, to mean someone who accepts evolution with some nebulous role for God, but doesn’t drone on and on about how much they love Jesus too.
2 Likes
swamidass
(S. Joshua Swamidass)
Split this topic
31
EC implies a particular theological approach that is more distinctly Christian than TE, which makes it more orthodox than TE. At BL, for example, they really do affirm the physical resurrection of Jesus, a view that not all TE will affirm.
But at the same time EC is also meant more narrowly non/anti-conservative than TE might allow, with EC pushing what many evangelicals have stated they see to be radical revisions of historical theology. That conjunction is sometimes called “neo-orthodox,” because of its reductive emphasis on historical creeds alongside critiques of “traditional” theology. It is also sometimes called “post-evangelical” too, for several reasons, in part because it is really on the borderlands of evangelicalism.
He was searching for a term, and settled on that. I told him at the time why I didn’t like MTE, and so did WLC, and he privately agreed that CASE might be a good alternative.
What has stifled this conversation, though, is that it was unclear where BL was headed at the time. In the end, BL wanted to own the whole space, without actual making space for views they disagreed with (e.g. de novo creation, traditional readings of genesis, etc), but we didn’t know that that the time.
They have been pretty opposed to conversation about this, because it is a critique of their approach. They could have responded by adjusting and opening up their community, but instead, they worked hard to be sure that the conversation would not proceed. I’ve been told in very clear terms by them not to talk about it.
But now, it’s been a few years. We now know the path BL is taking, so that changes things. Sometime soon, this conversation needs to be opened up again. This time we have a lot of clarity about where BL stands in this, and that might help the rest of move forward, with or without them.
