<<I do have a challenge for those who think that TE (or EC--the preferred
term IMO) *necessarily* pollutes Christianity. No doubt we can think of a
zillion possible perversions of Christian orthodoxy that *may* flow out of
an evolutionary point of view. But it is my opinion, shared by such
stalwarts of orthodoxy as B.B. Warfield, that an evolutionary viewpoint
carefully qualified by a Biblical view of providence and an allowance for
the miraculous, can be considered within an orthodox Christian viewpoint
with very little difficulty.>>
Ben was a good guy, but he's dated. He wrote in a context of surrender to
Darwinism, which I believe was unneccesary. The whole enterprise of TE was
founded on a false sense of inevitability, trying to find a way to accomodate
the Bible to the march of "science." In my view, the use of the term
"evolution" gave up too much.
I agree the belief and the term itself do not "necessarily" pollute
Christianity, but that's only for us sophistacates who know more than the
anthrapoid rabble out there. [Insert humility check here]
But in the real world of the public square, the term still smacks of
surrender. It is, in my view, practically worthless as an apologetic position.
Evolution is such a resounding term, that it is quite easy for a person to
reject the "theistic" part and cling to the "evolution" part, and walk away
muttering smugly, "Yeah, those creationists know they're licked..."
Jim