BioLogos as alternative to terms EC or TE

Over at BioLogos there has been discussion of use of the term BioLogos rather than Evolutionary Creation or Theistic Evolution. This comes out not in the post but in the comments.

http://biologos.org/blog/report-on-biologos-reasons-to-believe-dialogue/

I chimed in with my thoughts:

I prefer to use the term Evolutionary Creation rather than Theistic Evolution for at least two reasons:
1. EC makes it crystal clear that we stand in the same position as YEC and OEC in that we all believe “In the beginning God”
2. The noun is creation rather than evolution which indicates a better emphasis, ie we are creationists who also accept evolution not evolutionists who accept theism.
Yes I am probably tilting at windmills using a different definition, but this is one case where IMO it seems important but Biologos is fine by me if and when it gets accepted.

I certainly had not understood that this was their proposal but maybe I missed most of the early posts on the topic.

What do people think of the proposal?

Another very pleasant surprise is that Gregory Arago seems to be taking a much more reasonable position or maybe he is just expressing it in a better manner. He still objects to the use of evolution in contexts other than biology but then I object to the term TE although not in the fashion that he tends to.

2 comments to BioLogos as alternative to terms EC or TE

  • Steven Martin

    Hi Dave,
    I prefer the term EC over TE for many of the same reasons you’ve stated.    Creation is part of the good news we need to proclaim as Christians – let’s not avoid the term.   re: the term biologos, I guess I’m not sure yet.   I do like Falk’s point in the comments though that whatever term we use:
    This is about helping people understand that God created through a gradual process and that coming to know this can enhance one’s understanding of the nature and activity of God.

  • Bernie Dehler

    I think EC is better too, because of the parallels with YEC and OEC in naming.
     
    Also, it seems to me like EC is defined pretty well by Lamoureux in his books and online essay, but I haven’t seen the same level of definition for Biologos.  To me, Biologos seems like a big-tent incoherent mess like DI’s ID.  I think Biologos also lacks a champion for the cause (YEC has Ken Ham, OEC has Hugh Ross, EC has Denis Lamoureux, but Francis Collins (for Biologos?) isn’t in ministry.
      
    RE:

    “Another very pleasant surprise is that Gregory Arago seems to be taking a much more reasonable position or maybe he is just expressing it in a better manner. He still objects to the use of evolution in contexts other than biology but then I object to the term TE although not in the fashion that he tends to.”

    I never understood Arago’s position, as if the social sciences haven’t been invaded by evolution, as if it is the last bastion of science to be taken over by evolutionary thinking.  I’ve been reading a really good book lately about studying animals to see how morals evolved with humans, “Primates and Philosophers”

    http://www.amazon.com/Primates-Philosophers-Morality-Evolved-Princeton/dp/0691124477
     
    …Bernie
    (Friend of the ASA)

 

March 2010
M T W T F S S
« Feb   Apr »
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031  

Email Notifications for Posts