<<Evolution, as a word, has never been an appropriate vehicle for
transporting the glory of God to the world. TE is an oxymoron.>>
and
<<We need to recognize E is atheism, renounce TE, continue doing authentic
science, or quit--that's up to you, and stop being responsible for
perpetuating the confusion caused TE is endorsed. ... Let's not help
naturalist's efforts to mix Christianity with Secular Religion>>
Very good points, Neal. You argue about the appropriateness of labels. This is
a crucial issue, as we all know from the public square (e.g., the squabble
over "anti-abortion" v. "pro-life.")
You are absolutely right that "evolution" is a loaded word. Loaded with
atheism, naturalism and a more than a pinch of intolerance. When "Theistic
Evolution" was coined, back in the late 1800's, it was an obvious concession
to the naturalists. "OK, I guess you guys are right about this. But we'll tack
on God so we can salvage the Faith."
OTOH, "creationist" is a loaded term. Witness the lengths opponents to people
like Phil Johnson and Mike Behe go to slap "creationist" on them. Get them
marginalized. Ignore their arguments.
So how do we choose a label?
Carefully. With as little baggage as possible. That's why I like Phil
Johnson's "Theistic Realism." It encompasses everything--science, metaphysics,
the whole boat. It's new, and hasn't been weighted down with false meanings.
I also like the looks I get. "So, Mr. Bell, are you a creationist or an
evolutionist?"
"I'm a realist."
"Excuse me?"
"A Theistic Realist."
"Well, just what does that mean?"
And then I get to define everything from the bottom up! Instead of having to
defend a lot of turf I'm not even standing on.
Anyway, you've thrown down a good challenge. "Evolution" should be dumped from
our side of the table.
Jim