An organic 4-hour conversation with committed antievolutionists

The funniest thing happened tonight.

I met this Cru staff who introduced me to a highly committed YEC, who like me is an older Christian single

Then I went to Dallas Christian singles and mainly noted that it was almost all white, mostly female, and all lonely!

Through that organization I met two more intense conservatives who are both antievolutionists.

We ended up talking about four hours about singleness and national and church politics.

What does this have to do with BioLogos?

We can unite with antievolutionists if we all realize the science issue is a schooling in how tribes deal with each other politically.

We singles are going likely to do a survey and press pastors not to ignore us.

Along the way, we are going to talk about the church-university relationship and what singles can do to glorify God.

I am indebted to how Darwinism pushed me to study white evangelical church cultures.

Darwinism was a revolution in the Victorian age because it challenged established ideas of the Bible in the wedding of church and state in England.

Darwinism was identified with political radicalism according to the Desmond and Moore biography.

It is amazing how four hours talking over chicken curry can bring people who so radically differ in both science and national politics together because they are oppressed and forgotten singles.

A lesson from God I am struggling to articulate.

Thoughts?

3 Likes

This sounds like a great starting point to encourage the church for good.

We need to foster more dialogue like this…

Maybe your idea can spread.

Thanks!

Thanks for this, Josh Abraham, and glad you made a breakthrough over food and singles fellowship.

“We can unite with antievolutionists if we all realize the science issue is a schooling in how tribes deal with each other politically.”

The thing is, BioLogos rejects “evolutionism”. So, in my basic and simple vocabulary that makes BioLogos officially “anti-evolutionism”. Are we agreed on that, or is that in dispute?

The next step is from ideology to ideologist. If one defines “evolutionist” as “those who hold the ideology of evolutionism”, then, well, you get the picture. An “evolutionist” is an ideologist who holds the ideology of “evolutionism.” I’m just asking this at the basic semantic level. Isn’t that a coherent and clear way to understand “evolutionism” & “evolutionist”?

What I don’t understand, since nowhere has it been made clear in what I’ve read over the years at BioLogos, is why BioLogos doesn’t actually move ahead with “anti-evolutionism”, rather than just reserving a couple of lines for it here: https://biologos.org/common-questions/how-is-biologos-different-from-evolutionism-intelligent-design-and-creationism/

Otherwise, how is it possible to be a BioLogosian anti-evolutionist? Great resistance to this or silence about it seems to have been the trend so far.

Glad to hear. There is something comforting in breaking bread with others, and I like forward to being able to do that again without impediment.

1 Like

As long as they aknowledge evolution then yes. Their poorly"apologetics" have resutled in the bad reputation Christianity has amongst the science field. But i agree that we can find common ground .

“We can unite with antievolutionists if we all realize the science issue is a schooling in how tribes deal with each other politically.”

Yes, that’s the sociology involved, e.g. identifying & observing tribalism.

From my experience (as a sociologist of the “origins” conversation), most people (almost) hate sociologists making any observations in a (slur = “soft”) “scientific” way because they take is as being “about them”. They feel attacked by such observations, in a way totally unlike any person could get upset or feel personally assaulted about a biological theory. To question a person’s ideology is perceived as tantamount to being a “threat” by most people, certainly in both the USA and Canada nowadays.

There’s a reason the USSR banned sociology from universities for 70 years!! Not psychology, not political science, not anthropology, but sociology. Does anyone here know why that happened?

I ask because your observations in the post are indeed sociological. So, please, tread carefully! :sweat_smile:

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

“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6

This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.