4 Strategies for Having Fruitful Conversations about Science and Origins

This is a companion discussion topic for the original entry at https://biologos.org/blogs/archive/4-strategies-for-having-fruitful-conversations-about-science-and-origins

As much as I agree with everything written in the article, the impasse usually comes down to this one particular thing.


Is Professor Zamzow avaiable to respond to my question below? … or at least through an intermediary?

My question is this:

I frequently think the most common barrier is the simple matter of priorities. BioLogos supporters think there is too much evidence for common descent and speciation for it to be ignored, while YECs often explicitly insist that there is too much Biblical investment in Adam & Eve as literal forebears of humanity.

What is the best way to build a bridge between the two value systems?

As a Unitarian Universalist, I am well aware of main stream Christians who think theological implications must be modified because material evidence cannot be modified.

And yet my “service” here on the BioLogos boards shows me that there are plenty of Christians who are willingly able to suspend their interest in material evidence in order to maintain their interpretation of the Biblical investment in Adam and Eve.

What to do?

1 Like

When we take the position of ‘I need to teach you’ we rarely choose to listen. If we think our views are the only ones correct, we will close our ears and minds and not truly seek to understand the other person with differing views. Even if we don’t agree with what others are saying, it’s not our job to ‘fix them’ but instead, to love and cherish them as individuals who are on this same life journey with us. Good communication is so much more than relaying info, it’s honoring people as human beings who are worthy to be heard. I love the points you make in how to have fruitful conversations.


Excellent points. Although my views really are correct, I just have to remind myself that not everyone has to accept them. (sarcastic font off)


Whether Dr. Zamzow responds is up to her discretion, but I do know that she is not trying to write about the topics of the origins debate, but simply how we talk about them. And on that point, I would say the best way to bridge the value systems is to follow the excellent advice she has put forward in this post.

1 Like

Thanks for the question, gbrooks9! I don’t think there is an easy answer, but here are a few thoughts. In general, we like to have our beliefs cohere with one another, but we treat our beliefs differently depending on how much we care about them and how certain we are about them. If a particular belief plays a central role in our worldview, it can be really hard to give it up. We fear that if we pull that one thread, the whole thing will come unraveled. Being willing to change our beliefs often (though not always) requires either seeing that we can change a particular belief without the whole thing coming unraveled or being okay with the whole thing coming unraveled. Depending on how enmeshed a particular belief is with our other beliefs, this can be hard! I don’t think there is one “right way” to do this. I think there are some common ways to approach the issue (including the strategies I discussed in the article), but I think there are a lot of things that will depend on the particular person, the particular beliefs, and how everything fits together for them.


I’m putting a link to this article in our FAQ forum guidelines. It’s the perfect description of what I wish the conversation here always looked like.

1 Like

This topic was automatically closed 6 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.