We know that as human beings we usually start from our own paradigms to interpret the world around us. We are motivated by our presumptions, and our presumptions cause us to make assumptions in even our scientific theories. If God is revealed to us in both scripture and also in nature, provided we have the eyes to see it, then we believe there will be a consistency and correlation between the two. This is one part of the paradigm for almost all Christians, regardless of what they think about how certain passages in scripture ought to be interpreted.
However, I have found that often people will prematurely arrive at re-interpretation of scripture before natural history has been adequately understood or proven. So is it best to concentrate on re-interpreting scripture, or is it better to concentrate on the natural history to determine the causes, results, process, and the validity of extrapolation? In the old testament, we read that God said he will no longer have to tell people the law, nor to have one person teach another, but that he will write the law of God on their hearts. This is a prophecy with perhaps a slightly different application, but is it not similar for us? Do we really need to explain how the Bible applies to us, if we understand how nature works and has worked in the past?
The term biologos refers primarily to nature, to biology, to the knowledge we see in nature/biology. Yet so much time is spent on issues that relate to faith, without much time being spent on the actual science which is motivated by different faith paradigms. For example we have questions like “why should christianity be truth?”, or " the image of God as trinity", or “can science and faith co-exist”. While it may be interesting for some, these topics do not actually seem to add any real knowledge… I mean, science and faith do co-exist, and have co-existed since the beginning of time. It seems a misbegotten question - forgive me for being blunt.
Biologos as a christian biology forum would seem to be a good place to honestly and openly evaluate scientific evidence about biology, and evaluate in a scientific manner the validity of various assumptions and conclusions which are applied to and derived from the actual data and from the evidence. Just as we know that Jesus is either the son of God who died for us, or he is a fraud (he cannot merely be a good teacher), so also we know that nature in the end is the story of one version of truth, not of two contradictory stories. The problem is we do not yet fully know that story, or at least we are limited in verifying our version of the story. Coming to grips with that story is where the challenge lies.
Are creationary evolutionists, or evolutionary creationists at all open to coming to grips with natural evidence that may contradict their conclusions? Are young earth creationists open to understanding contradictory evidence? Is it a waster of time, or is it useful, especially scientifically useful, to discussing and coming to grips with the contradictory evidence, as well as alternative explanations? Does this help us to generally understand the scientific principles better?
I say it does. The discussion can be and is a learning experience, where scientists on all sides are forced to examine their a-priori assumptions, as well as the scientific principles they are using to interpolate and interpret what they see in the world around them. If this is part of God’s natural revelation to us, then this is very very valuable in understanding who God is, and how he relates to us. Prematurely drawing conclusions shuts down this very valuable discovery process and limits our communication (listening).