Is Evolution a Sub-Category of Progressive Creation?

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

@jongarvey

As for the “evolution” word, I wonder whether it would be acceptable to anyone - least of all the scientific community - to define ones evolution as descent with some particular frequency of startlingly new results above and beyond happenstance… though see my recent post on the nature of happenstance.

The best way to navigate the diverging values is to say that “evolutionary science is not the whole story, even if it is largely correct.”

That is an eminently defensible position, that creates space for a large range of views, as long as we refrain from dumb arguments in defense of this obviously true position. Then Progressive Creation (version 1, 2 or whatever) becomes just one way that (outside of science) some Christians complete the story. Scientific arguments also can be offered for or against different Progressive Creation models. That is all legitimate, and would be received well.

Part of the resistance to this, however, is not merely anti-evolutionism. It is also a general lack of engagement between OECs in testing different versions of progressive creation. TI’ve covered this before:

@swamidass

This is the surprising part to me though. It often seems that the Ross-Rana model is the only accepted position at RTB. That, however, is not precisely the case.

Hugh Ross’s personal position, because of his deserved stature, eclipses the variation in their camp. Without this variation on the surface, there is just no context in which they are testing the plausibility of different models. This sort of activity should really be happening at RTB, but it is not. That is one place where Peaceful Science can help them.