I think you can probably easily imagine why it would be. The recipe is simple and it is not specific to evolution. That recipe involves any belief or system that relies on falsifiable claims about the real world. If those claims are then falsified, the belief or system is threatened, perhaps perilously. That system can either evolve, or go extinct, or convince its adherents to ignore reality, or lie to its adherents about reality. “Dangerous” is the right word for this. The person who started this thread is right to worry about teaching evolution to kids who have been previously indoctrinated with selective supernaturalism or with biblicism.
Your story actually argues against your conclusion. You ended up siding with nonsense “out of ignorance,” despite being in a high school science class in the 21st century. You see value in “multiple perspectives,” but I think you need to go further in asking about the value of teaching “all sides” of a “Controversy” when that controversy is made-up. You are absolutely correct in enthusing about a well-rounded perspective, but without calculating the relative merits of every side of a “controversy,” especially in a science class, you create a scenario in which nonsense and sometimes outright lies are given credibility by being considered alongside data and reality. Or, even more strikingly, nonsense and outright lies are asserted after the deliberate silencing of data and reality. That, my friend, is dangerous, and 2016 was the year to watch it all on horrifying display.
The only reason you’ve come to the conclusion that it is, in fact, nonsense, is because (I hope) you’ve thoroughly researched the claims of both sides and concluded that evolution is a better fit for the data than creationism, or relied upon the research of those who have done that. Evaluating positions does not give them “credibility,” any more than researching Islam or Mormonism in order to understand and appreciate their positions gives them credibility.
Indeed I have, over a career spanning 3 decades. But you missed my point. Your comments begin with the premise that there is a controversy involving two “sides” and that both “sides” deserve the kind of attention that “thoroughly researched the claims” implies. In fact, the vast majority of claims made by creationism are nonsensical on their face, unworthy of serious consideration out of the gate. The only reason you and I are having this conversation at all is that a particular religion evolved to (amazingly) take seriously the apparent claims of ancient writings that have next to no credibility on the topics at hand.
In other words, you are assuming that there is a controversy worthy of our attention. You are right, but for all the wrong reasons. It’s not because creationism ever made any claim worth any consideration at all. It’s because the existence of this “controversy” is indicative of deep and dangerous problems in civilization.
You pretty much state, for all to read, that most BioLogos supporters are on the verge of defaming our Lord!
Wouldn’t you say that’s pretty much the foundation of your response to BioLogos?
I would say to you, that this is not how we perceive ourselves… but rather, we believe it is wise to show to our brother Christians, who are on the verge of leaving their faith (because of YEC rhetoric!) - - because they accept the YEC position that you cannot be a good Christian if you think Evolution is true.
Thousands leave the church every year … because Evolution is obvious to them, and so they come to the conclusion that Christianity for them is no longer possible for them.
Thousands leave the church every year … because Evolution is obvious to them,
George, I think if you peel the onion, it is not because evolution is obvious to those that leave but rather that they come to the conclusion that what they were taught was false, and the church lost its credibility. The acceptance of evolution or old earth is incidental
One aspect that I don’t recall seeing addressed is the age appropriateness of teaching. Young children are very concrete thinkers, and literal stories with concrete ideas are good with younger kids, but I think kids should be exposed to abstractions at fairly young age to be aware that they exist, even if they do not fully grasp their meaning. It seems that by the time kids start reading fiction, they can grasp more and more abstract ideas should be presented.
I think we sometimes fail, and keep stories like Noah’s on a literal level, and never explore ideas of human kinds fallen nature, and God 's provision of salvation, foreshadowing Christ, when that should be the primary lesson.
“The only reason you and I are having this conversation at all is that a particular faction within a particular branch and a particular country within a particular religion evolved to (amazingly) take seriously the apparent claims of ancient writings that have next to no credibility on the topics at hand.”
There, fixed it for you.
Have a great day, Steve. I do enjoy these conversations, and I’ve learned a lot from your posts here.
True that they go hand in hand oftentimes, but I think there are those who do not care a whit about evolution, but who recognize valid arguments, and reject arguments that lack sound basis whether science or not.
If someone wants to leave the church and leave the faith because science classrooms are teaching that common decent evolution is fact, them we must remind them about who God is. He is a miracle worker and is transcendent and His ways will sometimes never be understood from a scientific vantagepoint. If the Bible seemed so understandable, then this would point more to Christianity being fake and God being made up.
We must be careful to make God fashionable for reaching the lost because insulting God this way will never produce good fruit. It might make chair warmers at church but no real fruit or change. This is a generalization that I gander from evidences in books I have read by seasoned pastors as well as from my own experience. I do not suggest this to say that any of you who feel saved from despair by orgs like biologos are frauds. I do suggest that there is danger in this approach.
I am standing alone in the environment of this chat but definitely not standing alone in the world. I gave a link for a quote by Ravi Zacharius a couple of days back. If a person is so distraught over a perceived lack of intellectual integrity of the faith, then steer these folks to apologists like Ravi instead of painting theological semantic brush strokes over the naturalism belief system that must incorporate evolution from common decent.
Lastly, I have heard everything from astroids planting bacteria on earth to aliens seeding the planet for the evolution we debate to have begun. By accommodating those poor souls concerned about disconnect between Bible and science, we are essentially placing God Creator in with the competition of these two and all of the others. This “seeker philosophy” method just does not work either and I believe it is ultimately responsible for the decline in numbers of folks who identify with Christ. If we would honor God’s word, then I believe that God and His spirit are pleased to empower renewal in hearts as He sees fit. He may even send revival! I do not believe that He will ever send a much needed revival to this land when we try to manipulate folks into the fold instead of praying for them to the God who adequately describes Himself in this Word as Creator of kinds, Adam and Eve.
I don’t have all of the answers and neither do any of us. I believe the historical narrative that tells us that Jesus was able to turn water into wine, give men blind from birth sight, and fed 5000 men plus the women and children with them from a couple of fishes and loaves. I was reading the account of Jesus healing the blind man from birth the other day in I think the book of John…so interesting how the Pharisees asked to see this guy’s parents to confirm that he was indeed blind from birth. i am convinced that this story is absolutely true.
Things that we think are so impossible in our minds which are based on an earth bound paradigm where time is ticking should never trump God. The older I get, the more I am coming to grips with the very possible reality that a God who can turn water into wine may be the very same God who can just as easily fashion a human body instantly. The God I read about daily in the Bible is that God and not the God who only performs the way we think He should. As soon as we start concocting who God is and how He does things in the way we think is rational, we are building an idol who is not the God of the Bible! Doesn’t that give any of you reserve about fashioning God to scientific naturalism?
I agree with the main sentiment in your statement and thank you for sharing. I do read this passage a little differently. I interpret this as our partial knowledge of Jesus Christ will disappear and will be replaced with full knowledge! “this is eternal life: that we know God” The passage says that what is part disappears to be replaced with full knowledge.
I do love this passage in general! We hear this at weddings yet the argument that Paul is making here is that love is supreme over faith because faith will be sight one day and is therefore no longer going to be needed, yet the love that God has for us today will be the same towards us for eternity! Love is supreme. That gives me the goosebumps!
I am using defamatory words about the “Entire church He loves” ?? And what is a church? When the NT was being written and had criticism of the how the church was not functioning according to the apostles teachings, was this defamatory?
All I know is that Paul was using defamatory words to describe self appointed apostles he called “super apostles” when they chose a route of appealing to the masses with cultural relevant apostate teachings which drew large crowds. And I bet that they had larger crowds gathered around them than Paul did. But these "super apostles were teaching apostate thing that did not subscribe themselves to the apostles teachings. There is no other way to describe what apostacy or heresy until you have a body of truth to bounce it off of. That body of truth I can find not other avenue to go towards than the Bible.
I realize that many subscribing to theistic evolution are well meaning folks who want to discover scientifically our beginnings. I also realize that the movement of theistic evolution may have started on the back of the seeker sensitive model that so many churches have subscribed to these days that is the thing that created those theistic evolutionists who may be well meaning and surely some that are not.
Paul said that he desired to reach the lost by fitting in with them so that would be more willing to listen to him tell them the good news.
It is a whole other thing to freely decide that early Genesis is poetry and not historical narrative. That is quite a bit more “super apostle” like and a lot less subscribing to the apostles teachings.
If you think that what I suggest here is to be considered defamatory language, then okay. I can still be friends with such person but there will remain a significant divide in our thinking in relation to Christian theology and our view about God.
I always wondered why he just limited his healing of blindness to just one man. Why not cure all blindness in a wide geographical area? Or perhaps all childhood blindness? Today if we heard that someone cures one person of blindness, we wouldn’t be really impressed. Today we certainly wouldn’t describe it as a miracle but just a new medical/surgical advancement. Everyday ophthalmologists around the world are doing surgeries that cure (and prevent) blindness to millions of people. So why is the claim of someone curing one man’s blindness 2000 years ago so special?
I think you are misunderstanding the problem. People who do find science more credible than the idea that God created the Earth in 6 days reach a point of being fed up with what YEC ministers and YEC church boards are forcing down their Christian throats.
So they leave the church.
And so your response is that we should send these struggling Christians to people that we don’t find credible either?
No, the far easier solution is to show Christians that the YEC position is not the only way to be good Christians.
P.S. In another thread, you wrote this:
I can assure you … that divide already exists. Accusing BioLogos supporters of being on the verge of defaming the Lord is not the road to re-union - -
Greg, I agree with what you say about miracles and God’s power. My point was not could but would God purposely create a universe that appeared ancient but was not? Do you find that inconsistent with God’s nature? Which is more likely, that man’s literal/historic/scientific interpretation of Genesis is wrong, or that God would create a universe that is a facade?