To be clear @jordan, they decided to publicly confront Keller about de novo creation. They did not back down even after they knew they were wrong. They have not issued an apology.
Applegate does not agree with him. Occasionally people say they agree with him, but they haven’t listened to him. Even now they couldn’t tell you why he affirms de novo creation. They are out of touch.
Keller separated from BioLogos a long time ago. He has been homeless, even publicly musing if ID is a better fit. Now we know why. Biologos drew lines to exclude him.
Very unnecessary. Keller most definitely is not EC.
He actually does not reject evolution. He rejects EC, because he affirms the de novo creation of Adam and Eve, and EC tells him that is in conflict with the evidence. But it is not.
Ok well I think that’s a very odd position to hold. I affirm the de novo creation of Adam, and I’m EC. I read an article of his yesterday, and he certainly doesn’t seem to affirm evolution.
I’m tired of this. If you are a Christian and you accept the findings of modern evolutionary theory, you are an evolutionary creationist. You just might not agree with a certain organization about their version of EC.
I define EC as the position that God created through evolutionary processes in a way that is consistent with the known laws of nature. No instances of special providence are needed. Also notice it’s silent on how god acts through the process and on things like Adam and Eve. My EC isn’t going to be like everyone else’s
Simple. Because I don’t conflate EC with Biologos. Remember there’s a whole huge planet outside the USA, and Christianity doesn’t consist merely of North American evangelicals. People have been referring to theistic evolution since the nineteenth century, and using the term “evolutionary creationism” since at least the 1970s, and there have always been different models of TE/CE.
So when you say “EC specifically denied your position for a decade”, that’s really weird to me. It’s like you think there’s only one version of EC, and the term and concept was invented by Biologos about ten years ago. I know that in the US some people differentiate between TE and CE in some fashion, but outside the US I’ve always seen them used synonymously to refer to any model in which God uses evolution to create life, without excluding the possibility that Adam and Eve were created de novo.
Just to clarify, is your view that some special creation (Adam & Eve for instance) is possible, but unnecessary to understand origins or that there could not have been special creation events?
Acting as though there is some official position somewhere parallels Eddie’s incoherent rants about ID, in which positions say things instead of people.
My view is a de novo creation of Adam and Eve is completely possible on EC. I’m actually agnostic on A&E though I leaned towards a proxy view. I think if an act of special creation was needed to get over a hump that nature couldn’t get over then I would call that intelligent evolutionary design. It would no longer be what I consider EC. On EC nature is adequate to account for all the biology we see. But we are talking humans and we aren’t just biological.
@T.j_Runyon. I am not EC. BioLogos agrees I am not EC. They believe they own EC, and in fact they do. It is just one brand of TE, a brand that I personally reject, though they are a faithful heterodox. Please respect my right to self-define myself.
Well who else uses the term except people that agree with BioLogos? No one. I am not EC. They also agree I am not EC.
EC is a recent term, introduced by Denis Lamareaux, and then adopted by BioLogos during Darrell Falk’s tenure. If not for BioLogos no one would be using the term EC, and they have been intent on tightly defining it along their theological priorities.
BioLogos really does own EC, in the same way that the Discovery Institute owns ID.
BioLogos do make the rules for EC. In fact, this is why they kicked me out because I made space for the de novo creation of Adam and Eve.
Can’t possibly disagree with you any stronger than I do right now. Evolutionary creation is a good term. Good Job by the Biologos folks for coining it. But bad job by the Biologos folks for making it too restrictive. They are right on some things wrong on others.
Reject the label or reject their ability to define it. I have the distinct experience of being excommunicated from EC, so would appreciate that my decision to reject the label be respected.
Yeah, it’s so “recent” we can find it all the way back in the 1970s. Forty years ago. Here are a couple of examples.
Wayne Jackson and Bert Thompson, Evolutionary Creationism: A Review of the Teaching of John Clayton (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press, 1979).
" As a professed theist Freire probably accepts some form of evolutionarycreationism but never mentions it as a relevant philosophical question or problem.", Denis E Collins, “Conscientization and Social-Self-Realization: Paulo Freire and Theodore Brameld” 7 (1979): 78.
You mean “introduced to some people and popularized by Denis Lamareaux”.
Nope. It predates them by decades.
They didn’t, and people have been classified as “evolutionary creationists” long before Biologos appeared.
"Table 2 provides a summary of teachers’ responses to the questions related to their personal beliefs. A cross-tabulation analysis was done and three distinct
groups appear:
the creationists,
evolutionary creationists, and
the evolutionists"
Thomas E. Van Koevering and Richard B. Stiehl, “Evolution, Creation & Wisconsin Biology Teachers,” The American Biology Teacher 51.4 (1989): 202.