Interesting. This is what she writes.
This is a much needed dialogue restarting. First, I wrote a short essay titled, “Theistic Evolution is Redundant.” John Farrell, a science contributor at Forbes , wrote a piece, “It’s Time To Retire ‘Theistic Evolution,’” citing me and Kenneth Miller, the biologist who drove this discussion over a decade ago when public schools tried to mandate teaching intelligent design. William Lane Craig responded to Farrell’s article in a recent podcast, “Is It Time to Retire Theistic Evolution?” Craig says the phrase, and all such like it, are useful. They should not be the end of discussions, but the starting point for them.
My reason for declaring “theistic evolution” superfluous precedes any discussion of chemical mechanism. This is not so much about the scientific arguments as it is about this fundamental claim: if you pray the Creed and believe God created everything, then you never, ever need to put God-adjectives in front of science terms. It is misleading. Science is the study of the material realm of creation. Some might say it good to stress that you believe God guided evolution, but I say no, it is actually detrimental. Using the term “theistic” in front of any term gives the impression that believers may declare some things in creation as created and some things as not, which smacks of irrationality and heresy.
Imagine eating dinner that way. The husband says, “Honey, pass me the theistic potatoes.”
His wife says, “Okay, would you like some butter in them? It’s natural, you know. My, these God-made Porterhouse cuts that you grilled are awesome. I think I’ll have a sip of Divine Cabernet, the handiwork of men but a gift from God nonetheless.”
“Oh dear, you are so right. I will not have that evil atheistic natural butter. Would my heaven-sent Honey like some holy theistic potatoes too, also given straight to us by God?”
Would not it be far less absurd, and consistent with a sane, confident, and pervasive faith to say a blessing of thanks to God for all of the food before you eat?
People use the term “theistic” in front of “evolution” to differentiate it from “naturalism,” but I do not understand why anyone—especially a Christian—fears natural explanations. Nature is creation. God created nature, and there is nothing in conflict with our faith to say that organisms have evolved naturally. Nor does anyone need to call miracles to the rescue to explain how the ~1.3 million species defined today (not even close to all of them) were created by God.
Craig gets it. He says, “I think she makes a good point. She is saying, You believe in a certain evolutionary account of biological complexity, and it doesn’t add anything to that to say that you are also a theist .” (I would not say “believe in” though.)
Can you put us in contact? You’ve read her book. So it makes sense for you to reach out to her.