New book explaining why EC is wrong

[Relates (Roger A. Sawtelle)]

@Bill_II

“At BioLogos, we believe that our intelligent God designed the universe,”

This statement seems clear to me. I think we need to discuss this.

[gbrooks9 (George Brooks)]

@Bill_II

BioLogos is a big tent and there is a wide range of positions taken by the people who comment here. So it is incorrect to say that “BioLogos denies” anything that is not included on the “What We Believe” page. My biggest heartburn with the book is the focus on one particular set of beliefs which the authors then take as applicable to every TE. It’s almost like they construct a strawman which they then knock down.

@Bill_II

I want to understand your “heartburn” issue. Could you re-state it again? Tell me/us what position you think is getting the short end of the stick?

[Bill_II]

@gbrooks9

I want to understand your “heartburn” issue. Could you re-state it again?

First a few quotes from the Introduction

But this is a book about theists who contest the place of modern science in Christianity. The charge laid at the doorstep of theistic evolutionists is that the doorstep is exactly where they leave their religious commitments when they enter the house of science.

I commend this book as providing an unprecedented opportunity for educated nonscientists to revisit the spirit of the Reformation by judging for themselves what they make of the evidence that seems to have led theistic evolutionists to privilege contemporary scientific authority above their own avowed faith.

Theistic evolution should be understood as a deformation that results under these conditions. Its advice to the faithful is to keep calm, trust the scientific establishment, and adapt accordingly, even if it means ceding the Bible’s cognitive ground.

Some proponents of theistic evolution openly affirm that the evolutionary process is an unguided, undirected process.

In any case, where theistic evolution is understood to affirm the creative power of the neo-Darwinian and/or other evolutionary mechanisms and to deny actual, as opposed to apparent, design in living organisms—i.e., the third meaning of evolution discussed above—the concept becomes deeply problematic.

The basis of the book appears to be EC’s don’t allow God to be behind the process of evolution. I don’t know any EC that would affirm this.

[gbrooks9 (George Brooks)]

@Bill_II

The basis of the book appears to be EC’s don’t allow God to be behind the process of evolution. I don’t know any EC that would affirm this.

@Bill_II

I would agree with your observation as a general conclusion. But there does seem to be the occasional exception!

When i first arrived at the BioLogos forums, I did get some strange “vibes” … there seemed to be a few contributors who:

1. told me that God doesn’t touch genetic molecules;

2. challenged the very idea that God would use external energy (like gamma rays, or any form of photons) to alter a genetic molecul;

3. that God would rather “hide the future” than get involved in any specific manipulation of human evolution.

For a very short time, I thought this was going to become a prevailing issue … but it doesn’t appear to have been more than temporary “blip”.

[Jonathan_Burke (Jon)]

That introduction is tragic.

I commend this book as providing an unprecedented opportunity for educated nonscientists to revisit the spirit of the Reformation by judging for themselves what they make of the evidence that seems to have led theistic evolutionists to privilege contemporary scientific authority above their own avowed faith.

Theistic evolution should be understood as a deformation that results under these conditions. Its advice to the faithful is to keep calm, trust the scientific establishment, and adapt accordingly, even if it means ceding the Bible’s cognitive ground.

Seriously, they are still saying this? They have learned nothing from the last 1,000 years of interaction between Christianity and science. They are still making the same argument as that church we’re not allowed to identify, in its argument over a subject we’re not permitted to describe, with that man whose name we can’t mention.

[cwhenderson (Curtis Henderson)]

@Bill_II

First a few quotes from the Introduction

But this is a book about theists who contest the place of modern science in Christianity. The charge laid at the doorstep of theistic evolutionists is that the doorstep is exactly where they leave their religious commitments when they enter the house of science.

I commend this book as providing an unprecedented opportunity for educated nonscientists to revisit the spirit of the Reformation by judging for themselves what they make of the evidence that seems to have led theistic evolutionists to privilege contemporary scientific authority above their own avowed faith.

Theistic evolution should be understood as a deformation that results under these conditions. Its advice to the faithful is to keep calm, trust the scientific establishment, and adapt accordingly, even if it means ceding the Bible’s cognitive ground.

Some proponents of theistic evolution openly affirm that the evolutionary process is an unguided, undirected process.

In any case, where theistic evolution is understood to affirm the creative power of the neo-Darwinian and/or other evolutionary mechanisms and to deny actual, as opposed to apparent, design in living organisms—i.e., the third meaning of evolution discussed above—the concept becomes deeply problematic.

The basis of the book appears to be EC’s don’t allow God to be behind the process of evolution. I don’t know any EC that would affirm this.

I wrote this a few days ago…

"Kremlinology"? Discovery Institute's Glass House

I completely agree with David on this point. There were a lot of “shenanigans” during that time period. From my relatively sparse interactions with ID proponents over the last few years, I do believe that they are headed in the right direction integrity-wise. However, the common sentiment seems to try ignore those incidents rather than confront and reject them.

Now I find myself questioning if I’ve let a few nice people fool me.

[Relates (Roger A. Sawtelle)]

@Bill_II[quote=“Bill_II, post:30, topic:37121”]
The basis of the book appears to be EC’s don’t allow God to be behind the process of evolution. I don’t know any EC that would affirm this.
[/quote]

Bill, I understand your frustration and I agree with you, even though your statement about BioLogos being a big tent organization seems to indicate there are some EC’s who might think this way.

I have said before that the evolution debate is not about science, but about something else. YEC are defending their view of the Bible. It seems that scientists in defending evolution as unguided are defending their rejection of Aristotelian philosophy which was accepted by the Church as authoritative.

Meyer (and Scientism) make the false dichotomy of natural processes or God directed design. I must admit that I do not really understand this argument, but it does seem to be real. What I do understand is that Western dualism is deeply flawed and needs to be replaced by a philosophical world view that better meets the needs of both science and theology.

Until we understand this and begin to address it, we will continue to be frustration by this lack of communication and understanding. This writing by Stephen Meyer is an opportunity to begin this process.

[Bill_II]

@Relates

This writing by Stephen Meyer is an opportunity to begin this process.

I wouldn’t hold your breath. The whole tone of the book (based on the part that I have seen) is We’re Right and You’re Wrong. And they don’t always say that in a nice way.

[Relates (Roger A. Sawtelle)]

@Bill_II

The whole tone of the book (based on the part that I have seen) is We’re Right and You’re Wrong. And they don’t always say that in a nice way.

I understand that speaking truth to those who do not want to hear it is not easy. It requires patience and wisdom, but it needs to be done.

[cwhenderson (Curtis Henderson)]

Due to some of the concerns raised about the book, I did a bit of reading over at Evolution News. There is one post (here) that explains in some further detail why EC is wrong. I found this particular paragraph quite interesting:

29. Theistic Evolution Is Incompatible with the Teachings of the New Testament
    Guy Prentiss Waters

This chapter claims that theistic evolution is incompatible with the teachings of the New Testament. It surveys the passages in the New Testament that address Adam and Eve (as reported in Genesis 1–3) and also passages that reflect on the period of history covered in Genesis 4–11. It shows that the New Testament writers regarded the entirety of Genesis 1–11 in fully historical terms. The chapter also gives closer attention to two of the most extended New Testament expositions of Adam: 1 Corinthians 15:20–22, 44–49; and Romans 5:12–21. Paul understands Adam to be as historical a figure as Jesus of Nazareth, and the biological parent of the entire human race. He also attributes the entrance of sin and death into the human race to the first sin of Adam, and shows that Adam’s one sin is imputed to his natural posterity. The chapter finally shows the ways in which leading proponents of theistic evolution depart from the New Testament writers’ testimony to Adam and Eve, thereby calling into question the historical underpinnings of the gospel.

These are the exact theological arguments that YECs use to explain why EC is wrong. This introduction to the chapter goes as far as saying that death did not occur until Adam’s sin. People can write all they want about the “big tent” nature of ID, but it is quite clear that the driving theological sentiment is indeed aligned with YEC. So despite all protests to the contrary, it is becoming increasingly clear (to me, anyway) the ID proponents are unified only in their common fight against evolution, in one form or another.

[Jonathan_Burke (Jon)]

@cwhenderson

These are the exact theological arguments that YECs use to explain why EC is wrong. This introduction to the chapter goes as far as saying that death did not occur until Adam’s sin. People can write all they want about the “big tent” nature of ID, but it is quite clear that the driving theological sentiment is indeed aligned with YEC. So despite all protests to the contrary, it is becoming increasingly clear (to me, anyway) the ID proponents are unified only in their common fight against evolution, in one form or another.

Yeah this book makes it really clear that ID is opposed to evolution, and is opposed on these two grounds.

1. Theology.
2. Culture conflict.

So the scientific arguments are just window dressing.

[jpm (Phil McCurdy)]

@cwhenderson

the driving theological sentiment is indeed aligned with YEC

Perhaps so. I am sure not all ID folks have that mindset, but it seems the loudest voices do.

[cwhenderson (Curtis Henderson)]

@jpm

Perhaps so. I am sure not all ID folks have that mindset, but it seems the loudest voices do.

I’m certain not all ID proponents share the exact same theology. It just seems that deviation from the party line is tolerated as long as you oppose evolution in some fashion.

[Bill_II]

@cwhenderson

It just seems that deviation from the party line is tolerated as long as you oppose evolution in some fashion.

The old enemy of my enemy is my friend kind of thinking.

[r_speir]

Post deleted

[jpm (Phil McCurdy)]

@r_speir

If you were gathered with Peter, James, and John and recounted your evolutionistic beliefs, would they allow you entrance into the New Testament church?

Take out evolitionistic and put in how you do the Lord’s supper, or baptism, or perhaps even the idea of the Trinity, as that was not verbalized for another 300 years. Or perhaps put in heliocentrism or germ theory (tiny invisible beings cause disease?- What a ridiculous idea! Everyone knows it is the judgement of God, or maybe to glorify him when healed, for the enlightened.) Or maybe weather predictions.
In other words, I suspect you would be shuffled on down the road with any of those ideas.

[cwhenderson (Curtis Henderson)]

@r_speir

Is there one among you who will venture an honest answer to my questions?

I’m not sure if anyone should bother, since you already have the first three questions and responses mapped out.

@r_speir

Or, better yet, let’s say you stand before Peter the apostle, recently filled with the power of the Holy Spirit, given the keys to the kingdom of God such that whatever judgment he makes regarding any issue facing the Church, the Holy Spirit, at once, immediately, passes sentence. Are you willing to take your chances before the chief apostle of the Church?

I don’t know for certain what Peter or Paul might say about it, but I am completely comfortable standing before my Lord with what I believe, which I argue would be much more pertinent.

[r_speir]

Post deleted

[Bill_II]

@r_speir

If you were gathered with Peter, James, and John and recounted your evolutionistic beliefs, would they allow you entrance into the New Testament church?

Sure. As the sign over the church door said, “Sinners enter here. All saints please report directly to heaven.”

@r_speir

So I will ask a third time. If the Holy Spirit marched in lock-step with Paul’s and the Corinthian congregation’s decision (yes, even if their knowledge of theology and science was incomplete or stunted) to jettison an erring member of the church, do you expect they would look favorably on your evolutionary dogma and not cast you out?

So believing in evolution is the same as willful sexual sin? Who would have thunk it. I think you have a plank in your eye that you need to attend to.

[AMWolfe (Andrew M. Wolfe)]

@r_speir

So I will ask a second time. If you were gathered with Peter, James, and John and recounted your evolutionistic beliefs, would they allow you entrance into the New Testament church?

Peter famously did not want to allow Gentiles entrance into the New Testament church. God had a little difference of opinion with him, if I recall correctly.

James famously judged between Paul and the Judaizers — folks who wanted to add new church-entrance requirements on top of belief in the Lord Jesus, the grace of God, and the fellowship of His Holy Spirit. James gave a couple of comments in response…

Acts 15:19 "Therefore it is my judgment that we do not trouble those who are turning to God from among the Gentiles, 20 but that we write to them that they abstain from things contaminated by idols and from fornication and from what is strangled and from blood. 21 For Moses from ancient generations has in every city those who preach him, since he is read in the synagogues every Sabbath.”

Interesting that I don’t see “belief in young-earth creationism” in there…

Beloved disciple John, meanwhile, gave love as his defining criterion:

“1 John 4:7 Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God; and everyone who loves is born of God and knows God.”

@r_speir

Or, better yet, let’s say you stand before Peter the apostle, recently filled with the power of the Holy Spirit, given the keys to the kingdom of God such that whatever judgment he makes regarding any issue facing the Church, the Holy Spirit, at once, immediately, passes sentence. Are you willing to take your chances before the chief apostle of the Church?

Yes, sir! Peter’s sermons in Acts are pretty clear: Jesus is Lord! Repent and be baptized! Sounds like the gospel I’ve given my life to believe and follow. I don’t remember him saying anything about Adam, much less humans riding on dino-back.

So perhaps, dear brother, before cutting off a large portion of the Church of your Lord and presuming that you know how the “foundation of the apostles and prophets” might rule in your favor, you might take a few moments to read the Scriptures again. You might be surprised what you find.