This is my exact reply to @Eddie. Thanks Jon.
@Eddie, you’re basically asking BioLogos to affirm a bad theology in order to appease Evangelicals with the same bad theology. We’re not going to do that.
Why not say, “When God needs rain to fall in a specific place, he subtly ‘steers’ the raindrops individually to his desired targets.” Should BioLogos say that?
or, “When God wants a specific sperm to reach the egg, he subtly ‘steers’ that sperm to the target.” Should BioLogos say that?
The point is not that God is uninvolved with rain or reproduction. It’s just that the anxiety around seemingly “random” processes on behalf of Christians is the result of a bad theology that envisions nature as machine and puts the burden of proof on Christians to demonstrate God’s involvement in nature, as if he is otherwise aloof and uninvolved.
BioLogos is in the business of breaking down false dichotomies. We enjoy being in that business. We’re fully aware that this is a tough sell for conservative Christians. But we’re pretty confident that our work will have important long-term results, if we keep re-casting the conversation.