Tim Keller is not an Evolutionary Creationist

[Jonathan_Burke]

@swamidass

Where did Behe say he is EC? As I understand it, he rejected the term for himself. He said it is inherently opposed to detecting God’s action. I imagine he does not apply the term to himself.

Thanks, I saw him cited as an evolutionary creationist by William Lane Craig, so I thought that was how Behe self-identifies. However, I’ve just read an article by Behe in which he presents his own definition of EC, a definition with which Biologos disagrees.

This is what Biologos says about EC.

1. EC requires common ancestry.
   As I’ve described EC, it requires the acceptance of common ancestry. If you don’t affirm common ancestry, then you can’t be an EC.

2. EC is incompatible with a young earth (~10,000 years).
   The science of evolutionary theory is incompatible with that timescale, and since ECs accept that science, we could not logically accept a young earth.

3. EC allows for (but does not require) a historical Adam and Eve.
   There are some ECs who believe that Adam and Eve were real people who served as representatives for all of humanity, and other ECs who believe that Adam and Eve are literary characters (like the Prodigal Son) and do not name any actual individuals in human history. BioLogos neither requires nor rejects a historical Adam and Eve, and aims instead to foster constructive dialogue.

Your position fits well inside their definition of EC.