The natural instinct of the BioLogos crowd is to dispute this movie for the science it gets wrong. There is something far more interesting going on, that I hope is not missed.
This movie gets creationism wrong, and is getting some very thoughtful criticism from both Jeff Zeerwink at RTB and even @Paul_Nelson, one of the YEC experts they have in the movie. Both of their critiques are really good reads.
The film closed with Del Tackett (creator of The Truth Project) looking out on a spectacular mountain vista. He comments how God’s judgement in the flood (a worldwide cataclysm in the movie’s view) formed all this scenery. Something about this statement sounds off to me. It seems to me that if the Grand Canyon, Yellowstone, and Yosemite were a result of God’s judgement, my first response should be a recognition of my sin. But far more often I find myself in awe of God’s vast power, profound creativity, incredible beauty, and amazing concern for me. http://www.reasons.org/blogs/impact-events/thoughts-on-is-genesis-history
That a thoughtful and insightful comment. Also the tone at RTB, as always, is exemplary. It really is worthy of being emulated by all of us.
From @Paul_Nelson at ENV…
in every case, and in my public lectures, I have argued that multiple viewpoints exist within Christianity,
Today a broad spectrum of opinion about time scales and intelligent design exists. Scholars and scientists such as William Lane Craig, Alvin Plantinga, Michael Behe, Hugh Ross, John Bloom, Fuz Rana, Phillip Johnson, Jonathan Wells, Stephen Meyer, Guillermo Gonzalez, John Lennox, and many thousands of others see unmistakable evidence of design in biology and the universe – but also accept the standard 13.7 billion year time scale. These persons would vigorously deny that their positions are accurately represented by either the “conventional paradigm” or “historical Genesis paradigm” as defined by IGH.
This reading of the debate reflects what I had earlier published (in 1999 and 2002) about the question. Acceptance of methodological naturalism (MN) – namely, the philosophical rule that "the statements of science must invoke only natural things and processes"2 – separates, on the one hand, the intelligent design community, young-Earth and old-Earth creation, and those forms of theistic evolution where design is empirically detectable, from, on the other hand, textbook neo-Darwinism, all alternative theories of evolution, and theistic evolution where design cannot in principle be detected. (See Figure 1.) I struggled to make this distinction while being interviewed for IGH, but my answers didn’t survive editing. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2017/02/new_film_is_gen103510.html
With a couple minor quibbles (which I will point out in a moment), this is a remarkably irenic post that goes to great lengths to defend the legitimacy of those outside @Paul_Nelson’s personal viewpoint (YEC). I have great respect for this. In particular, @Paul_Nelson really does represent us fairly as theistic evolutionists. He even recognizes that some TE’s (or ECs) fall in his camp on the MN debate and some do not.
I only have two minor quibbles…
As a TE or EC, I think that design (by God) is detectable and there is tons of evidence for it, it is just that science (unaided) cannot detect divine design because of MN. I’m fine with that limitation of science, because I do not look to science to bring us to God. We have Jesus and the Resurrection for that.
The claim that ID rejects MN is somewhat revisionist. The whole point of ID vs creationism is to talk about evidence for design without violating MN. If this wasn’t the case, why not just talk about God from the get go? I think the real history is that ID initially accepted MN. If Phil Johnson is to be believed, this was even the reason for moving to the term “ID”. When that strategy didn’t work, and ID was equated with “God”, then effort was made to remove MN. With that history in view, it is really interesting that @Paul_Nelson’s new categorization does not even recognize the existence of forms of ID that do not violate MN (which is what Johnson thought he was doing).
Still, these are just minor critiques.
I commend both Zeerwink and @Paul_Nelson in their irenic tone and effort here. If you ever come across this post, please receive my whole hearted “Thank You.”
What is everyone else’s thoughts?
EDIT: March 6th, Todd Wood’s gives his response to this thread and it is worth reading! http://toddcwood.blogspot.com/2017/03/the-false-dichotomy.html