# Tim Keller is not an Evolutionary Creationist

**URL:** <https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/tim-keller-is-not-an-evolutionary-creationist/5890>\
**Category:** Side Conversation\
**Tags:** Society\
**Created:** [April 23, 2019, 5:02am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/tim-keller-is-not-an-evolutionary-creationist/5890 "2019-04-23T05:02:40Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 97

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Jonathan\_Burke](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/jonathan_burke/32/21_2.png) [@Jonathan\_Burke](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Jonathan_Burke)\
**Post date:** [April 24, 2019, 4:27pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/tim-keller-is-not-an-evolutionary-creationist/5890/97 "2019-04-24T16:27:25Z")

</div>

> [@swamidass](#):
>
> The claim is that the a de novo Adam and Eve have no parents, so therefore they do not share common ancestry. So therefore, by definition, it is excluded from EC.

But that’s not how it reads. Their point 3 explicitly allows for a de novo Adam and Eve. They don’t say that accepting common descent necessitates rejecting de novo Adam and Eve.

> [@Jordan](#):
>
> Even within the US, most evangelicals I encounter have never heard of BioLogos or only associate it with Francis Collins if they have. Only those who are interested in origins discussions know much of anything about it really.

Right.

> [@Jordan](#):
>
> On the other hand, and this is some of my concern with BioLogos == EC, if I say “Evolutionary Creationism” they pretty much immediately understand what I’m talking about. I haven’t decided yet whether losing the clarity to the larger audience is worth the specificity to those who are “in the know”.

Yes. I started using EC years ago because “theistic evolution” didn’t make any more sense to me than “theistic meteorology”. What I believe is a kind of creationism, not a kind of evolution.

> [@davecarlson](#):
>
> I think it’s fair to say that hardly anyone inside the US knows about Biologos either.

Probably true.

> [@dga471](#):
>
> Your picture is incomplete: [Level of support for evolution - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support_for_evolution). The English-speaking world is certainly not all Christians!

I very deliberately did not say _Christians_. I said _Christian groups_. There are large Christian groups like the Catholics, for example, which contain many people who still reject evolution even though their group officially accepts it.

> [@dga471](#):
>
> which is comparable to the US.

Out of all those countries only one of them is close to the US; the Dominican Republic, at 56%. All the others are at less than 50%, most of them below 40%.

> [@dga471](#):
>
> A considerable creationist movement exists in [South Korea](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism_by_country#South_Korea).

Considerable? Oh yes, their YEC organization has all of 1,000 members. Goodness! How considerable! There are nine million people in Seoul alone. The link you provided indicate that only 36% of Koreans reject evolution.

> [@dga471](#):
>
> Some Christian leaders in the Philippines have given [strong statements](https://filipinofreethinkers.org/2012/04/30/evolution-is-not-a-religious-issue/) against evolution

Some.

> [@dga471](#):
>
> Josh has already brought up the topic of YEC, which exists not just among white evangelicals but many Asian churches as well.

But it’s not the position of most Christian groups around the world. It’s a fringe view in Christianity, and it needs to die. Fortunately it will die over time, but it will not die too soon.

---

_[View the full topic](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/tim-keller-is-not-an-evolutionary-creationist/5890)._