As I understand it, the racism charge derived from the concern over whether or not the pre-Adamic evolved people are considered truly human nor not. If they are, then obviously the racism issue disappears. This is very likely why people who have previously suggested that Adam and Eve were created de novo, while other people evolved and are still considered human, have not been charged with racism.
Perhaps this is the reason why so many people are concerned with you defining exactly what you mean by “human”, and explaining who you consider to be human and non-human.
I don’t think that justifies the claim that every time people use the term “EC” they must necessarily be using it the way one American Christian organization uses it.
I don’t think this is likely to change, since the main aim of this forum is to fix a problem which is present in a narrow spectrum of North American Christianity. Around 60% of people in the US believe humans have evolved, whether entirely without God or with God’s involvement. However, in the US rejection of human evolution is highest among white evangelicals. In contrast, in Australia 80% of the population accepts evolution, whether with or without God. Peaceful Science is addressing a real problem, but it’s mainly a white American evangelical problem. Most Christian groups in the world have long since reconciled themselves with evolution, and there are so many different ways of doing it these days I think GAE is largely getting lost in the sheer range of options out there.
Additionally GAE typically only appeals to people who want to retain a specifically narrow historical interpretation of Genesis 1-3 (people like me, for example), whereas that just isn’t very important to a very large percentage of Christians. So I think these are the main reasons why GAE hasn’t been taken up by a lot of Christians; most of them just don’t have a need for it.
But it isn’t. Biologos is an organization which promotes one EC model, while (nominally), allowing that other EC models could also be legitimate. They are being explicitly non-prescriptive about the term EC, while you are being explicitly prescriptive. If there’s someone looking for a monopoly here, it certainly isn’t them. What you’re going to end up doing is arguing that anyone who identifies with EC necessarily identifies with a dishonest, pseudoscience approach to origins.
This issue is separate from EC, as I illustrated with my YEC example.