Answers In Genesis: Can An Evolutionist Be A Creationist?

Interesting comments, joshedlund!

What do you think of the article's call for the continued use of the term "theistic evolutionist?"

I’ve been intrigued by the term “evolutionary creationism” in recent years. I like it, but I’ve also always felt it was a bit cheeky, and I’m not surprised to see AIG push back on it.

All terms have weaknesses. I think the biggest problem with “theistic evolution” is that there’s nothing inherently Christian about it – it suggests merely a vague theism. In fact, this article essentially seems to assume that Christian evolutionists believe exactly what the term implies, and thus is criticizing their attempt to distance themselves from it. But what if they want to distance themselves for the very reason that the term does not reflect their beliefs?

There is much variety among Christian evolutionists (as there is among young-earth creationists). While many do seem to hold to little more than a naturalistic evolution with God kickstarting it all, as the article says, many – especially the BioLogos folks – seem to believe in a God who was and is much more active in creation, referring not just to Genesis 1 but also John 1 and Colossians 1 and the role of Jesus in creation. That is at least a little more “creationist” than your vague “theistic evolutionists.”

Some Christian evolutionists go even further. Michael Behe, the famous “intelligent design” guy, would under the old labels definitely be called a “theistic evolutionist,” believing in universal common ancestry. But his book The Edge of Evolution makes it clear that he believes “random mutations” have explicit limits and that much of evolutionary history had to involve mutations that were “non-random,” i.e. intelligently designed in some sense. Perry Marshall goes further still, asserting that “random mutations” only produce noise, but that cells were designed with advanced tools to intelligently rearrange their DNA in response to new challenges. Many of these folks have disagreements with each other about the specifics, but they are all a far cry from merely slapping God at the head of a long process of “random mutation and natural selection,” as the article says. Perhaps the author is simply not that familiar with what many Christian evolutionists actually believe?

I also was amused by the somewhat facetious question of whether or not Ken Ham should be considered an “evolutionary creationist” since he believes in limited diversification of species within “kinds.” I actually think this is a fantastic question, because the “baraminologists” at AIG and elsewhere allow for a lot more potential “evolution” within “kinds” than I think a lot of people realize. (Joel Duff at the Natural Historian blog has written many posts about what he calls this “hyperspeciation”.) Indeed, we all may be “evolutionary creationists” to some degree or another.

But that doesn’t make that term the right term, either. Maybe “Christian evolutionists” would be better, after all. Regardless, I emphatically disagree with the article’s assertion that such men and women are following syncretism. To me those claims make no more sense applied to Christian evolutionists than they would from a Christian geocentrist to the heliocentric folks at AIG. It is that sort of lack of charity that grieves me the most to still see coming from AIG, and that is why I much appreciate and prefer to read YEC folks like Jay Wile and Todd Wood.

Considering what you have said, Swamidass, what do you think of the latest discussion question about how can Christians present a unified witness, despite disagreements about origins:

https://www.ce-debate.org/forum/discussion-questions/can-christians-present-a-unified-message

As always, does it not come down to what we mean by these terms?

Certainly there are many Christians such as myself that affirm evolutionary science and the doctrine that God created us all. However, I am neither a creationist or an evolutionist. My view of the world is grounded in Jesus, not some detail of origins.

Thank you for commenting, cwh. Even if many of us here do not always agree with you, we greatly appreciate your polite and insightful contributions!

I'm clearly going to carry some bias into this discussion, so I think it it worth admitting that when most people hear "creationist", what comes to mind is specifically a young earth creationist. But must it and should it be this way? I contend that it is much more important to believe in the almighty Creator, than to believe in the specific details of His creative work.

Mr. Hodge believes that the person in his illustration that refers to himself as an "evolutionary creationist" is wrangling about words, but perhaps Mr. Hodge should extend the benefit of the doubt and consider why someone would want to identify as such. Mr. Hodge continues to criticize Dr. Francis Collins for identifying as an evolutionary creationist, and implies that it is a less than honest epithet. However, after reading Collins' The Language of God, and hearing him speak at a BioLogos convention this past Spring, I feel strongly that he uses the term for the same reason I do - he believes in God as the Creator and Sustainer of all things, but also believes that evolution is the tool that He used to bring about life as we see it now. Collins uses Creationist as a noun because that's what he feels is most important, not because he is trying to dupe anyone.

Hodge's treatment of Collins is blatantly unfair, but doesn't stop there. His skepticism of Collins' Christianity is evident throughout the article, but one section really stood out to me. He refers to Bill Nye as "an atheist who believes in molecules-to-man evolution" and Ken Ham as "a Bible-believing Christian", but has these words for Collins, "a well-known scientist who professes to be a Christian", as if his acceptance of evolution somehow places Collins' acceptance of the gift of Jesus Christ as somewhat dubious.

Additionally, I believe Hodges is flat-out wrong when trying to decide if Francis Collins is more like Bill Nye or Ken Ham. Francis Collins is a new creation, bought with the blood of Jesus Christ and a joint heir with Him, just like Ken Ham, and VERY much different from Bill Nye.

Hodges also wonders if, since Ken Ham does believe in some biological change over time, BioLogos would be content if Ken Ham also called himself an evolutionary creationist. I understand his point, but it is something of a ridiculous argument since Ham has zero desire to do so. Since Collins wants to be known as an evolutionary creationist, maybe it is worth considering why.

Before I get snarky toward Hodges, let me just say this -- the reason I participate in on-line discussions about science and Christian faith is because I have a dream of a day when young-earth creationists and evolutionary creationists accept one another. I hope to see the day when young-earth creationists will not view a belief in evolution and be suspicious of a true conversion experience, and evolutionary creationists will not view a belief in young-earth creation as intellectually bankrupt. This has not been my experience her at all, but believe me, I have considerable experience struggling against these trends at other sites.

God bless!