@Jennifer_Heberling_K @dcscccc anyone is welcome to share their beliefs here, but I find it frustrating that one viewpoint is portrayed as the “creation view”. BioLogos is also a creationist organization, but we disagree with young-earth creationists about the science and the biblical interpretation. In some sense, that was actually the point of the article.
yep. i mean the classic creation view (yec). or even the id view.
Hi Brad,
Some days ago I wrote you, asking to “excommunicate” me from BioLogos. It was mostly because I get so very distracted by checking and reading your site. Thanks God the procedure is a bit tedious so here I am, distracting myself and distracting you.
I have a question regarding your so very interesting article.
If you at BioLogos would decide to launch a Museum, how would you do it? How different would it be than the Creation Museum in Kentuky? And how distinctive would it be from any Smithsonian Museum, taking in account that you would be exposing a creationist evolutionary point of view. What kind of evidence would you display in order to show to the public the hand of God as a Creator by the means of evolution?
Thanks for your kind answer (and for not “excommunicating” me… 
)
1 Like
@piopio thanks for the great question! I actually considered talking about this very question in the essay, but there wasn’t a good spot for it.
If I was in Washington, D.C., and someone asked me for directions to the nearest “creation museum”, I would give them directions to the Smithsonian. I fully understand that this will strike a lot of Christians as a ridiculous answer, since the Smithsonian probably never uses the word “Creation” (or even “God”) once, but it is a natural extension of what we believe at BioLogos. If all truth is God’s truth, and all scientists are studying God’s creation, than any good science about the origins of the natural world is “creation science”. That’s the message of BioLogos. Now, I understand that many museums have atheistic and unscientific statements in their displays, and that’s unfortunate, but the response is not to build our own museum. We’re much more interested in building strong churches and Christian educational institutions that can equip Christians to see nature through the lens of faith and proclaim what they see to others. We also want to empower Christian scientists to be vocal about how their scientific work enhances their faith, and receive support and encouragement from their faith communities.
One of the reasons the Creation Museum exists is because young-earth creationists think it’s impossible to understand what happened in the past without a Bible in one hand. We completely disagree. What happened in the past is more meaningful and coherent with a Bible in one hand, but some of the best science about our past is done (and has been done) by atheists and other non-Christians. That’s a “common grace” gift from God. We think that because God’s book of nature is open to all (since he created nature to be discoverable and gave us all the tools and desire to discover it), there’s no such thing as “Christian science”. There’s only good science and bad science, whether applied to the past or the present.
In other words, I can tell you with 100 percent certainty that we will never build a museum, nor do we have any desire to do so. However, we haven’t ruled out a theme park. I personally would like a roller coaster called the Double Helix. That would be epic… 
1 Like
While there are a few factual errors in your report (the first gift shop is at the end of the exhibits, not where you place it in your article, as it is in every museum I have visited, andd there is one on the main floor as you enter/exit the building), the most concerning is your characterization of the answers as one-liners.
What do you expect in a museum other than short answers? People aren’t going to stand and read a 2500 word explanation for each idea presented in the museum. This is true of the Smithsonian and the Field Museums as well. This criticism seems a bit disingenuous.
Either you are not aware of the articles on the AiG website or in the Answers Research Journal or in the books you saw in the bookstore that answer these questions in detail or you were just throwing red meat to your audience. These are peer-reviewed and most are available in layman form or technical form. I think you or any of your readers would find more than one-liners in these resources.
And I think you would admit that a secular natural history museum would dismiss out of hand any religious/superstitious explanations as their goal is to promote a worldview based on naturalism. The textbooks I used to teach from did the same.
I went from being trained in and teaching the evolutionary view to the YEC view, so I do truly understand both sides. It is not a battle over evidences as you state twice in your article, but about interpreting those evidences. I would suggest that presuppositions play a stronger role than you may accept, and I think that comes out clearly in your article.
2 Likes
Jennifer, If I may, BioLogos has a clear agenda to promote only evolutionary explanations for the existence of the universe and the life on our planet. That is very clear in their mission statement and Core Commitments.
“BioLogos invites the church and the world to see the harmony between science and biblical faith as we present an evolutionary understanding of God’s creation.”
Brad,
You do a good job, almost an investigative job, of trying to understand the mindset and worldview at AIG. Thanks for doing so and forming some conversational hooks for discussion. When there is a “closed system of thought” as there seems to be at AIG, the Creation Museum and often in short earth creationism, it is hard to find points of entry for conversation - but I sense that in the midst of your blog that you are seeking to find these points.
Bob
1 Like
Hello @Roger_Patterson! Welcome to the Forum. I appreciate you taking the time to read the article and leaving some thoughts. I took the liberty of googling your name, and I’m going to guess that you are the author of “Evolution Exposed”, as well as some other Answers in Genesis materials (I will write accordingly, I apologize if I am mistaken in this guess). I am happy to hear that those involved with AiG have read the article and wish to engage me about my perspectives about the Creation Museum.
I take factual errors seriously in my pieces, so I want to defend myself here. When Jim and I went through the Museum, there was a mini-gift shop in the mid-point of our journey through the main exhibits. If I mis-characterized the location of the shop in the Museum, mea culpa. My point in mentioning the gift was to underline my point about AiG’s broad focus beyond Genesis, as well as the voluminous content they produce and sell.
I think you are misunderstanding what I meant by one-liners. I’m not denying that longer articles do exist at AiG (and yes, I’ve read many of them) that explain AiG’s beliefs in more detail. Neither am I suggesting that the Creation Museum (or any other museum) should post technical essays all over the exhibits. What I was pointing out in my essay is that the worldview undergirding the Creation Museum (and AiG as an organization) puts a heavy emphasis on explaining everything by means of several short phrases, such as “man’s word vs. God’s word”, “historical vs. observational science”, etc. etc. Now, I understand that all movements do this to some extent (as I admitted in the essay), but my charge is that AiG uses these phrases in ways that inappropriately flatten complex topics and questions and draw black-and-white lines between its perspectives and all others (even among Christians). In fact, you yourself (or someone else with your name) said it quite well here:
We need to teach a fair representation of the unbiblical views so that there is a clear understanding and ability to communicate and challenge false ideas. If we teach a false view of evolution that mocks and dismisses evolutionists, how will a child or young adult respond when they hear an evangelist for evolutionary views present a case that seems orderly and logical?
I think the Creation Museum represents a very unfair presentation of other views, both theological and scientific, and one that mocks and dismisses those who disagree with them. And as I said in the essay, it’s a presentation that ill-prepares students to thrive in environments outside the boundaries of the movement.
This sentence is a pretty good example of the “over-generalization” mindset that I think is unhelpful. You are personifying a natural history museum as a militant atheist. On what basis are you assuming that all non-Creation Museum natural history museums shape their presentations around a desire to promote naturalism at the expense of religious faith? Certainly, there are militant atheists involved in museum displays who insert their worldview in un-scientific ways. But we should judge a museum on how well they present the scientific evidence. If a museum presents good science about the history of the universe, than Christians should applaud it as a good “Creation Museum”, as I expressed in my previous response to @piopio. I suspect our divide is partially based on whether evolutionary science and an atheistic, naturalistic worldview can be separated, or whether they are intrinsically connected. BioLogos says that evolutionary science is not inherently atheistic, and your comment indicates the opposite. If evolutionary science = naturalistic atheism, then yes, I understand how you would see natural history museums in that light.
I agree that pre-suppositions are hugely important. But incessantly bringing up pre-suppositions (as the Creation Museum does) can inappropriately and uncharitably dismiss the hard work done by scientists across the globe as mere extensions of their worldview (“they just believe that because they reject the Bible”), instead of actually engaging it. Presentations like the ones at the Creation Museum strongly imply that evolutionary science (as well as any science dealing with past events) is a string of guesses held together by atheism and circular thinking. This is incredibly reductionistic and unfair, not to mention misleading and untrue (the linked article by young-earth creationist Todd Wood says basically the same thing).
Again, thanks for the reply. I’m willing to continue the conversation if you wish.
Thanks for the offer, but I will just step aside as it seems there are too many issues to approach in such a simplistic format. (For the record, the thoughts I expressed above were my own and not an AiG response.)
1 Like
I was thinking about the suggestion you would make to your friend if he asks about a Creation Museum in the city. What I would do is to take him to both Museums, if both were available. He would then be able to reach to his own conclusions. Don’t you think that would be better -no necessary to dismiss any given perspective as bad science because that’s not ours, isn’t it?
This whole thing takes me to reflect in BioLogos as a ministry. You guys look like much more interested in convert yecs to evolution than in convert atheists to God. Haven’t seen so far any testimony of an atheist converted to God thanks to your ministry and if there’s some, the proportion is huge in favor to converted yecs to evolution. I wonder how do you typically preach the gospel to atheists, if you do that on a regular consistent basis at all. Also I wonder if it is necesary to “convert” yecs to evolution. They are already Christians and believers in Christ. I am sure that the AiG Museum has as a final purpose to preach the gospel, while I find that in contrast BioLogos find pleasure and joy in seeing yecs doubt of the really most fundamental reports/truths exposed in the Bible and in seeing them convinced of an almost atheistic evolutionary view of origins (you have really a hard time when you try to differentiate yourselves from the atheist’s evolution, cause it’s the same).
Brad, you may remember Colin Patterson, the senior paleontologist working at the British Museum who at some point disbelieved in evolution. Sincerely, I don’t believe the things C. Patterson said are too outdated now. But what has yes evolved is the radicalism of those who defend evolution. Those who risk a critic from inside are accused, neutralized and the result is, I believe, a manipulated presentation of the facts.
I would still like to see when will you begin to systematically convert atheists to God through an evolutionary preaching of the Bible. But you won’t do that, will you? On the other side, and this is more important, I deeply suspect that the ones that are steadily converted to something else are you, at BioLogos.
I hope Brad that I am keeping the dialog gracious…
I think you are ignoring or underestimating the deconversion rates of young people raised YEC once they are exposed to secular science in college. BioLogos may not be ministering directly to as many atheists as you would like to see, but a percentage of YEC young adults (and some older ones too) are pre-atheists and will continue down that path if not given another option that results in less cognitive dissonance.
It seems to me that for many of the BioLogos writers (many of whom work closely with Christian college students and twenty-somethings), keeping young people from leaving the faith is perhaps more of a priority or seen as a more realistic goal than converting atheists to the faith. It is an apologetics ministry to Evangelicals. Just something to consider.
1 Like
You hit the nail on the head there, Brad.
Good point Christy. Thanks for letting me know.
@piopio I agree with what @Christy said to you (in her usually wise way). We get letters from people (usually kids) on a weekly basis who had their faith saved by the ministry of BioLogos. Many of their stories have been published on this blog. @Christy is right that our mission is primarily geared towards edifying the Church, but we are also evangelistic. To understand what I mean by that, first read these great words by St. Augustine:
Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the
other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size
and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of
the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and
this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a
disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the
meaning of Holy Scripture, talking non-sense on these topics; and we should take all
means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance
in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual
is derided, but that people outside the household of the faith think our sacred writers held
such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of
our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian
mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his
foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters
concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of
heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves
have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent
expounders of holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren
when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by
those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books.
This is the sense in which BioLogos is an evangelistic ministry. When Christians use bad science and bad scriptural interpretation in service of the Gospel, it unnecessarily tarnishes the image of the Faith, and requires a gracious response from Christians to correct the errors. Many atheists report surprise at finding BioLogos, a Christian ministry that takes rigorous science seriously (no matter the faith of who does the science) and doesn’t see conflict between science and Scripture. There have been people who have come to faith partially through the ministry of BioLogos. Here’s an example: http://biologos.org/about/stories/natasha-strande (and we get private letters from many others that are unpublished). We also defend the faith against atheist attacks in many ways, and a simple search at BioLogos can offer many examples (for instance, BioLogos Senior Scholar Jeff Schloss was recently published in the Washington Post critiquing atheist Jerry Coyne).
One more point: We aren’t trying to convert anyone to evolution. Phrasing it that way assumes that evolution is a belief system and not a scientific theory. We are just presenting the evidence and suggesting new ways of seeing science and Scripture in dialogue with each other. Young-earth creationists are our brothers and sisters in Christ; we’ve never doubted their faith. And no, we do not find “pleasure and joy in seeing yecs doubt…the most fundamental reports/truths exposed in the Bible”. For someone who wants to dialogue graciously, that’s quite a harsh charge…
I have never been to the AIG museum, although I had hoped to go there in September, but our plans changed. So I can’t comment directly on impressions from that place. But the question about what kind of a museum biologos might conceivably set up was a good question, and the answer was enlightening. It should have been enlightening also to Brad, even while he was giving the answer.
When we look at creation with our subjective eyes, we are inclined to acknowledge the beauty, majesty and wonderment of it. We see the order, the vast size, and the incredible tiny things as a manifestation of God’s magnificence. We see this regardless of our perception of the natural laws, and regardless of our position on evolution. Yet, evolution itself, as naturalistic materialism, denies the role of God or the place of God.
So if biologos can whole-heartedly accept this naturalistic materialistic perspective as the defining characteristic of the development and creation of the world, then I’m not sure how they really have acknowledged God as the creator of the universe.
In the Old Testament, we have some very valuable stories of how people of Israel tried to serve two masters. They often worshipped God as well as foreign gods. They tried to keep the Hebrew rituals while at the same time practicing idol worship, or disobedient pragmatism (such as King Solomon marrying many foreign wives and building high places for their gods).
Of course, Christians and christian writers and scripture itself will be derided in the future as it often has in the past, not because of inaccuracies, but because of the unwillingness of people to submit to God. Inaccuracies become an excuse, but are not the cause. And if one excuse doesn’t work, then another excuse will be found.
Evolution itself, as a unified theory, minimizes God’s role, and provides an excuse for postulating God’s irrelevance. So that is just as much an excuse for ignoring God as some supposed inaccuracies in christian writing.
Yes it is true that if Christians use bad science and bad scriptural interpretation, then it tarnishes the image of our faith. However, part of the contention is that evolution is bad science, and that allegorizing all of Genesis 1-8 is bad scriptural interpretation. So these generalizations of Augustine do not really help in this instance, even while they might be generally true.
It has always been my understanding that God is Lord of every single part of our lives, and of the universe. Every time we compartamentalize or compromise God’s lordship, we are in effect reducing or minimizing God. When we say that the tryrell museum can be a creation museum, even while it denies God’s place or role or power or capacity, then we have compartamentalized and segregated faith from life. This is the old dualistic approach to material vs spiritual, and “never the twain shall meet”.
This is the dualistic approach to which we are inclined as human beings, and of which I am not guiltless, but which our allegiance to Christ demands we change.
1 Like
With the rapid progress of scientific research, a museum in just about any scientific area is quickly outdated before it can even be built. Take a Museum of Genetics, say we wanted to open one in 2017, everything we put into it today would be a good “History of Genetics” lesson. The cutting edge of research will be far beyond our present understandings today.
Brad, I accept your complaint. There’s too much ‘chili’ in those words.
Let me please leave here this exchange. @johnZ expressed better than I could, a necessary reflexion on your thoughts.
1 Like
yep. i mean something like t-rex:)
nope, no t-rexs at the same time as people. A large asteroid hitting the Yucatan peninsula caused a mass extinction some 65 million years ago. Large land animals including t-rex’s as well as many plants and marine life went extinct. What survived filled in the ecological gaps and eventually descendant through random mutation with natural selection (evolved) into the diversity of life that is on the planet now including birds, placental mammals, and people.
@johnz Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I think we are getting close to the core of the issue here, which is exciting. You are correct that this conversation has been enlightening. It has helped me clarify the key areas in which BioLogos and young-earth creationists actually disagree—as well as the presuppositions and consequences of their beliefs.
I came across this great quote yesterday in The Reason for God by Pastor Tim Keller (quote is by OT scholar David Atkinson):
If “evolution” is . . . elevated to the status of a worldview of the way things are, then there is direct conflict with biblical faith. But if “evolution” remains at the level of scientific biological hypothesis, it would seem that there is little reason for conflict between the implications of Christian belief in the Creator and the scientific explorations of the way which—at the level of biology—God has gone about his creating processes.
It’s interesting to note that the correlation between evolution and materialistic naturalism is shared by every single origins perspective (including militant atheism)—that is, except for BioLogos and evolutionary creationists. We are the only ones who challenge this basic premise. And we do so on two grounds:
-
The Bible does not draw the sharp line between natural processes and supernatural interventions that modern origins perspectives often assume. We often use the example of fetal development. Is it a random natural process, or a divine miracle? Who gets the credit? God or Nature? The Bible says both—yet nobody is arguing that God supernaturally intervenes in a certain point in the process. So God’s involvement and direction are not at odds with natural processes. That division is an invention of those for whom the biblical God is a problem (and unwittingly accepted by many sincere Christians). Interestingly, not once does Genesis 1 describe God snapping his fingers and things appearing. Instead, creation responds to his command in orderly ways. I don’t want to argue that the writer of Genesis knew about modern science (I don’t think he did), but it shows that they didn’t dichotomize natural and supernatural in the way we do.
-
God has designed the universe to be discoverable (by means of fixed and measurable natural processes) and designed all humans (regardless of their religious belief) to be curious and to have the capacities to discover—it is a common grace, as acknowledged by many historic theologians including Luther and Calvin. He has given all people eyes, and designed the world to be seen (to put it crudely). But in the process of doing so, God has decided to make it possible to scientifically describe the history of the world without a necessary reference to Him. If God wanted to be found scientifically, he could easily have designed the world in that way, but he chose not to. This is very consistent with the God of the Bible, who wants to be both obvious and hidden at the same time. More on this (very interesting) theological topic: Divine Ingenuity and Divine Hiddenness - BioLogos. For young-earth creationists, it is unimaginable (and, to them, unbiblical) that God would have created the universe in such a way. I suppose my response is that God is entitled to surprise us, and he has a track record of doing so.
Thus: When scientists find “natural explanations” for something, it should not be cause for concern among Christians. It should be cause for celebration and worship. Your whole argument depends on supergluing evolution and naturalism together, which BioLogos rejects. We see ourselves as healing dualism and compartmentalization rather than reinforcing it.