If an evolutionary creationist claims that science and faith are incompatible, I would invite them to read chapters 40-41 of the Book of Job. Tell me, where can we find Behemoth and Leviathan? You might say they are hippos or crocodiles. Oh, your hippo is wagging its tail the size of a cedar tree, and your crocodile’s eyes are glowing, its nose is smoking, and it’s trying to spit out flames. Not only that, not only that, you’ll also find they resemble snakes in the water?
Welcome to Peaceful Science, @no.reason.
I have not known any evolutionary creationists who claim that science and faith are incompatible. Did you have a particular writer or organization in mind?
I’m not clear on how Job 40-41 would be a challenge for an evolutionary creationist. What did you have in mind? Is there something in the text there that contradicts evolutionary biology and/or creation?
I like to start with a Hebrew lexicon—but that’s just me. 
Some say that. I favor regarding the BEHEMOTH [Sorry, I tend to capitalize Hebrew words out of habit] as an elephant. It fits everything in the text. As I read the Hebrew text, I see a verb that means not just “moves” but also “bends” and “curves.” The tail of the BEHEMOTH is flexible, like a cedar tree branch, which can even be wrapped tightly around something. So I believe this is describing an elephant’s trunk. (Yes, one way to describe an elephant is that it has a “tail” at both ends, a big one and a smaller one. These are exactly the ways languages adapt to apply familiar words to less-familiar situations when describing them.)
As to the Leviathan, it has a long history in Semitic culture as–most likely–-a mythical beast. (Like we might speak of flying dragons.) So I don’t read LEVIATHON as a literal animal in nature, like the BEHEMOTH/elephant.
In any case, I always get a smile when Ken Ham claims that Job 40 is “obviously” describing a dinosaur.
Fun topic, @no.reason .
6 Likes
OK, stop right there. No evolutionary creationist would claim such a thing; otherwise they wouldn’t be an evolutionary creationist.
2 Likes
Separate domains, perhaps, but hardly incompatible.
What exactly is/was the purpose of changing the label “theistic evolutionist” to “evolutionary creationist?” Why not simply call yourself a Christian that accepts the science of evolution if, for some reason, your religious beliefs are even germane to the underlying conversation? (I am assuming, perhaps incorrectly, that the vast majority of evolutionary creationists are in fact Christians.) The term “creationist” is so fraught with baggage, using the term seems unnecessarily provocative…..
6 Likes
If I recall, those who use the second label mean something different by the first, though I don’t immediately recall the difference.