No you are completely wrong. This charge of ‘progressive creationism’ comes from the mouths of Biologos members (Ted Davis, Dennis Venema, Debs) who are not exactly known for their accuracy, competence or honesty.
I agree. WLC actually leans towards theistic evolution. I do not think de novo Adam is important to him. He does not, however, identify with BioLogos. Of note, he is much bigger than BioLogos.
Great to see you back @theman8469.
I got this feeling from watching his own lectures. Maybe you should’ve asked me why i thought that.
Also, I agree that de novo Adam isn’t important to him. He mentioned a proxy view as possible. Once again I got this from his own lectures and classes.
This one puzzles me. If there is
Universal Common Ancestry… why isnt the term Evolution or Evolutionism in the label?
Just depends upon what you want to emphasize. The novelty or the “static” process (sic).
They might be mistaken…
But they are not lying about WL Craig!
You call that post an answer? I call it a dodge. It makes no sense to put the term creationism next to Universal Common Descent. Its a plain distortion…
And @T.j_Runyon, i would expect that you would sense that.
Quote from WLC Defenders Class:
How might one integrate the scientific evidence that we’ve examined with the Genesis narrative? It seems to me that so-called progressive creationism would provide a nice model that would fit both the scientific evidence as well as the biblical data. Progressive creationism suggests that God intervenes periodically to bring about miraculously new forms of life and then allows evolutionary change to take place with respect to those life forms. As for grand evolutionary change, this would not take place by the mechanisms of genetic mutation and natural selection if undirected by God. Rather, we would need miraculous creationist acts of God to intervene in the process of biological evolution to bring about grand evolutionary change. So we would have a kind of progressive creationism whereby God creates biological complexity over time…So some sort of a progressive creationist view, I think, would explain the evidence quite well. It would allow you to affirm or deny if you wish the thesis of common ancestry and it would supplement the mechanisms of genetic mutation and natural selection with divine intervention. I find some sort of progressive creationism to be an attractive view.
I think this shows that WLC in 2013 was a progressive creationist. If you also read the transcript of the previous class, he discusses Behean objections to evolution somewhat approvingly. However, he does also say this:
Again, I want to reiterate that on these issues I am like many of you a scientific layperson. I am someone who has an interest in these subjects, I want to learn and to study them further, and explore them more deeply. So these opinions are held tentatively and lightly and are subject to revision.
If this model has God introducing mutations periodically (rather than making new special creations periodically) it makes little sense to call it Progressive Creationism.
It would be closer to Progressive Evolutionism… or…in fact… it is the same as my God-Guided-Evolution!
If the model is UNIVERSAL Common Descent… there is no Creationism in the model to be progressive with!
I think he’s shifted even since then, though would still land between PC and EC. At the ETS/EPS meeting a few years ago (where I incidentally met @rcohlers as we were plugging in our phones together in an outlet!) he pleaded with RTB and BioLogos to join forces together. It’s clear he’d rather see a unified front apologetically (though he doesn’t seem to have room for YEC). I suspect the new project on Adam and Eve will continue his acceptance of the scientific data on evolution. His acceptance of design is not necessarily as a scientific perspective but a philosophical one.
That is from the lecture i referred to when I said I think this is the view I think WLC favors
He called YEC an embarrassment on his podcast
Definitely still a progressive creationist. He confirmed this in his latest 2019 defenders class.
I really don’t feel like he’s giving these other mechanisms of evolution enough time. He simply read descriptions of epigenetics, NGE, evo devo, self-organization, and (I think) emergence, and then read Stephen Meyer’s critiques of them.
He then ended by saying he doesn’t think any of them or all of them combined are enough to account for all evolutionary change. Although I disagree with him on a host of doctrinal matters, on empirical matters, I usually agree with him. This is one area in which I think he’s short-sighted.