You see the thing is @Christy, @jstump, that EC is inextricably correlated with a more than minimally interventionist God, for which there is no rationally, intellectually honest, faithful warrant whatsoever. I’m not aware of any post-Darwinian Christian (apart from the successors and predecessors of the Danish father of existentialism who cannot be named here, like Tillich, (Bultmann, Kant, Fichte, Hegel, Bonhoeffer, Barth, Ricœur, Dostoyevsky Tolstoy, Berdyaev…)) who isn’t a theist beyond the rationally faithful minimum. Theism that requires God to intervene in times of trouble and leave no statistically detectable trace whatsoever is an imparsimonious - unnecessary - complexity that undermines faith. Even the blessed St. Clive is complicit, implicit in superstition. Primo Levi isn’t. But of course, he wasn’t Christian. But he certainly lived through a time of trouble. Of obscene suffering which ridicules divine intervention. But not God on the gibbet.
The problem with EC is that it implies, or lets readers infer, that God ‘the Designer’ (BioLogos’ term), uses evolution. Deduction. The idea comes first. He uses creation, the grounding, instantiating of being by the prevenient laws of physics, from which abiogenesis and evolution autonomously emerge. Induction. Observation comes first. And meaningless suffering is utterly perichoretic in creation for all concerned.