Forbes contributor John Farrell writes a lot of silly things about the evolution debate, and his most recent offering seems, at first glance, no exception. “It’s Time To Retire ‘Theistic Evolution,'” Farrell contends. He begins with a display of confusion:

When you read enough in the religion/science debates these days, especially when it comes to Christianity and evolution, you realize there are a whole pack of creationists who don’t like other Christians embracing evolution.

They have a name for them. ‘Theistic Evolutionists’. And it’s not meant as a compliment. It’s more like being told you’re the equivalent of Judas Iscariot.

Any religious person who accepts evolution, like physicist and author Karl Giberson, or like NIH Director Francis Collins, or for that matter the entire staff at BioLogos, must be labeled and considered no allies in creationists’ fight to get creationism in one kind or another taught in public school science classes. They look at people like this as aiding and abetting ‘the enemy’.

This is the usual hysterical nonsense. We’ve said things critical of the ideas and writings of those theistic evolutionary individuals and groups, so in Farrell’s book that must place us in the camp of the “creationists.” But we’re not, in fact, creationists, nor do we “fight to get creationism in one kind or another taught in public school science classes.” We oppose introducing “creationism” under any definition into public schools.

Farrell also seems to think that “theistic evolution” (TE) is itself a critical term used by foes to assail “any religious person who accepts evolution.” Hardly. In his book The Language of God, Dr. Collins embraces “theistic evolution” by that very name (see p. 199). And search for the phrase at the BioLogos website. You’ll see that many apply it to themselves quite happily — while others prefer “evolutionary creationist” because it puts evolution in the secondary role of modifier in relationship to the noun. (Though I wonder why they choose “creationist,” whose negative connotations Farrell tries to cash in on, instead of “evolutionary theist.” Oh well.)

That aside, Farrell goes on to say, there is no real difference, as to the science, between advocates of TE, such as Brown University biologist Kenneth Miller, and flat-out Darwinists. Therefore what justifies the term TE?

When I reached him by email, [Miller] said, “To me, and in the minds of most people who use the term, it implies that a god had to pre-ordain the outcome of the evolutionary process or at the very least guide it along to produce the world of today, including human beings his chosen creatures. I don’t believe that at all. Evolution is a fully-independent natural process driven by chance and necessity.”

This has irked some of his non-religious colleagues in the field, who continue to suspect that, one way or another, religious biologists like himself are trying to ‘add’ something supernatural to the mix. Miller flatly denies this.

“People like Jerry Coyne routinely accuse me of holding to the view that God intervened in the evolutionary process,” said Miller, “and it seems like no matter how many times I post on his blog that I believe exactly the opposite, he persists. That’s one reason why I reject the label of theistic evolutionist at every opportunity I get.”

That’s understandable. As we saw in the recent debate between Stephen Meyer, atheist Lawrence Krauss, and theistic evolutionist/evolutionary creationist Denis Lamoureux, there really was very little daylight between the TE and the atheist, except that the former kept insisting on his own religiosity. The “theistic” element seemed a superfluous add-on, like one of those team flags that football fans affix to their car on big game days.

On the other hand, there’s a lot to be said in favor of letting people describe and label their own beliefs as they see fit. It seems only fair. From Farrell’s own writing, you see what happens when terminology becomes a cudgel. Many commentators who don’t care for intelligent design uses the word “creationist,” or the phrase “intelligent design creationists,” to confuse readers. That is sloppy at best, dishonest at worst. They know, or ought to know, the gulf that separates ID, a scientific idea signifying openness to recognizing evidence of design in nature, from creationism.

A serious debate requires giving opponents the freedom to define themselves. Let our TE interlocutors call themselves theistic evolutionists, or evolutionary creationists, or neither of the two, as they please. An honest self-designation should be respected.

Image: Fight with Cudgels, by Francisco Goya via Wikicommons.