Disagree with RTB and its approach, not dislike them.
4 Likes
Behe accepts quite a lot of evolution - he does not hold the claims advocated in that study guide. He argues that certain complex biomolecular systems require intelligent intervention to create them, but evolution can go from there. Ironically, the âcells were created and things evolved from thereâ idea can also be found in later editions of Darwinâs Origin of Species.
His arguments have not persuaded molecular biologists. In reality, there are ways that complex systems can build up gradually. But he is not endorsing a lot of the claims that the popular versions of ID include; he would be towards the scientifically competent end of the ID movement. As a Roman Catholic, he also definitely would not endorse the various cults that support ID - again, ID includes quite a range of views even within the ID movement, and the basic idea of intelligent design is a much wider concept still.
I would strongly suspect that a careful reading of Behe might be a problem for those endorsing him. The popular impression is that he provides scientific validation for any clam billed as ID, when in fact he accepts most evolution and an ancient earth.
4 Likes
I am jumping in a bit late. In the spirit of transparency, this post will end with a pitch for my own book, co-authored with OT/Hebrew scholar Kenneth Turner.
For many Christians, the weight of scientific evidence is irrelevant, for if it is considered to be inherently in conflict with scripture, it is not engaged. The best illustrations and explanations fall flat, as YEC advocates will just say âthere is a young earth answer for that.â
For these Christians, the bridge has to start with the Bible itself - independent of any science - with exposition aimed at demonstrating how Western theologians since the Enlightenment have unwittingly stripped the creation story of much of its beauty and message by forcing it into a 21st century Western literary framework. John Waltonâs books (starting with The Lost World of Genesis One) attempt to build such a bridge, though some react to his particular take on function vs material creation.
Kenneth Turner and I recently teamed up to produce a book aimed directly at recovering the depth and richness of the creation story that has gotten lost in the battles defending one narrow understanding or arguing supposed conflicts with science. The Manifold Beauty of Genesis One offers seven complementary layers to the message of creation (all affirming the inspiration and authority of Scripture). For the pastor mentioned in the prompt to this thread, we hope this book will serve to increase appreciation for Scripture AND open the mind to at least consider what evidence may be found in nature.
Official release date: Oct 28.
More info at http://greggdavidson.net/book/manifold-beauty-of-genesis-one/
3 Likes
Great to know! I find it interesting then, that my pastor had such a negative view on âevolutionâ whilst the department head of education at the same church deferred to Behe. I just donât think it makes sense to call âevolutionâ the atheists belief system when in reality itâs not black and white at all. I definitely fall somewhere in the middle of all this and I just hate to see people waver in their faith because of strict (possibly very incorrect) interpretation of scripture as relates to scientific implicationsâŚ
On an aside to demonstrate the extremes of the science/faith âconflictâ - my husband was raised 7th Day Adventist and was taught that to believe in the existence of dinosaurs was lack of faith. Itâs no surprise then, that when I met him he wanted nothing to do with âthe churchâ.
4 Likes
Thank you for your reply! That sounds like a great read - I am not willing to write Genesis off as a âliterary deviceâ devoid of accuracy. Is there a mailing list that can be joined regarding the release? Thanks!
Kenneth Miller has participated in âdebatesâ over evolution, creationism and intelligent design. I donât remember if Michael Behe was his opponent or not. If you read Finding Darwinâs God youâll read how Professor Millerâs opponent continued to make claims that âthere is no research that supports such and such,â even after Professor Miller told him about specific research that existed to support such and such. What sort of person persists in saying something that is not true?
Take a look at An Index to Creationist Claims and see how many creationist claims are refutable.
The âecho chambersâ I mentioned are very powerful camaraderie reinforcers. If you want continued fellowship with members of an echo chamber, you have to go along with the program. Dissent isnât appreciated.
It isnât just evolution thatâs been an issue. In 1976, an apartment mate of mine at Fuller Seminary told me how other students at Houghton College didnât like the Rubens print on his bedroom wall. They didnât like his smoking a pipe. They didnât like that he liked to have a little wine now and then. They were concerned about his spiritual state and those things reflected badly on him - or so they thought.
Shall we discuss how segregation was supported by fundamentalist echo chamber members that wholeheartedly argued for inerrancy?
Enthusiasm and certainty are narcotic.
2 Likes
You will be pleased to hear that nothing in the book âwrites off Genesisâ in the sense of being an accurate account. The question is what the story is intending to accurately communicate. âLiterary deviceâ is too often equated with ânot really true,â when in fact, literary devices are frequently used to emphasize or illustrate absolute truth. We maintain a high view of the truth and authority of the Bible throughout.
The book is actually available for pre-order already (all the usual online sellers), but you can also send a note to GreggDavidson63@gmail.com if you would like an update when the release date comes around.
3 Likes
Go to any church and each church will have different views on different topics. Disagreement is not a reason to swap churches. If it were so you would have crowds of people leaving and coming. Some theologians and pastors find some of BioLogos bible re-interpretations on core issues difficult to swallow, let along evolution.
You can hold hands in fellowship on the central issues of faith of Christ, salvation and most major issues. Hardly anybody totally agrees with end times positions yet stay in fellowship.
There will be a variety of views on Evolution, Interpreting genesis, exodus and even Biologos.
3 Likes
I attended an Intelligent Design debate at the American Museum of Natural History where Ken Miller and Robert Pennock were debating Michael Behe and Bill Dembski. Moderated by Eugenie Scott. What a great evening that was! Even though I sat in somebodyâs gum.
3 Likes
Find a copy of Finding Darwinâs God. Read it.
Find An Index to Creationist Claims on the internet and look at some of the topics.
Tell me - suppose a scientist were to say something about Jesus that was obviously heretical, that He was only a very special man, for example, and this scientist used verses from the Bible to âproveâ it. The appropriate person to respond to this idea is someone that is a Christian that is well grounded in what the Church has taught from the beginning, and not another unbelieving scientist,right? You wouldnât ask someone who didnât know much about the subject.
Well, what do we do about a scientific explanation that goes against certain interpretations of Scripture? Do we just talk about this with some of our buddies that have only heard creationist/intelligent design/whatever the latest is stuff or do we see how scientists have explained it? Scientists donât always agree with each other but thatâs part of the process.
For example, a geologist proposed a theory about how the Channeled Scablands came into existence. Other geologists were pretty brutal in their reactions. It took decades before geologists came to see that he was correct.
1 Like
In essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty, in all things charity.
3 Likes
âThe enemy of my enemy is my friendâ may also be a principle in play when YECs quote sources such as Behe. His acceptance of common ancestry, if they even know about it at all, may just be something they are willing to overlook if all theyâre after at the moment is material that is supposed to be a problem for evolution.
3 Likes
Given the track record of spectacularly misrepresenting sources, I wouldnât count on that being the logic involved.
Indeed. To the extent that it is done knowingly, it is a step above shunning âtaintedâ sources entirely. I.e. it is probably a good thing they are reading Behe at all rather than hunkering in their own silo. But ⌠it could just be a âquote mineâ exposure too rather than actually reading his book or being familiar with his views.
1 Like
@jpm thanks for your gracious word.
@Christy an important clarification and clearly the position of the organization and its leadership. FWIW I know some Biologos aficionados who really do dislike RTB.
@Chris_Falter good to see you again, and thanks for the comments. FWIW Rana became open to theism as a result of studying biology.
@ciaociara as others have mentioned, this is not a tier one issue, though unfortunately some make it one. From the Pastorâs perspective, whenever he takes a stand on an issue, heâs going to hear from dissenters. Hopefully you have good relationships there and it does not become a stumbling block to your involvement.
It may help to be ready with a simple opener like, âWell, there are three different approaches to science and the Bible held among the people of God. Fortunately He loves all of us in spite of, not because of!â I have defended my Biologos siblings in Christ when they were criticized in the RTB forums. They are devout and serious about their faith, and Iâm friends with several. Itâs obvious to me that being right about this is not high on Godâs priority list (cuz theyâre so obviously wrong!!! 
).
Dr Ross has pointed out that controversy in the Church allows us to show the world that we can hold conversations across deep divides - it is more important how we discuss than what we believe. You have done well to seek advice and take steps gently.
1 Like
The theory of evolution is just a theory and cannot be proven so your pastor may be right. Listen to what he has to say. If you could create the earth and everything in it in just a few days then why would you take billions of years to do it?
Welcome, Paul. Of course, that leads to the question of if God could create everything with a word, why did he take 7 days?
2 Likes
Some assume that instant creation demonstrates the power of God more decisively than creation over a period of time. It doesnât. The element of time is irrelevant to God. He is outside of time. He created time along with the universe (1Cor.2:7, 2Tim.1:9, Titus1:2). God didnât need 6 days to create the universe any more than he needed billions of years. Why 6 days? In both Exodus chapters 20 and 31, we find God giving the reason for the 7 day week pattern (Exodus 20:11 and Exodus 31:17). He took seven days in creation specifically to set a precedent for man, who is the pinnacle of His creation and indeed the very reason for the whole creation. God rested on the 7th day to establish this pattern of work and rest and to set an example for man to work 6 days and then take one day, the Sabbath, to worship him. God gave man His Sabbath to keep mankind in the right knowledge and proper worship of the true God. Also, having created man, itâs quite likely that God knows what work cycle is best for him. Other cycles have been tried but failed to work. In France 1793 three 10 day âweeksâ were tried but didnât work. Napoleon abolished it in 1806. The Soviets tried a 5 day âweekâ in 1929-30 and then switched it to 6 days in 1931. They werenât able to make either work and returned to the 7 day week in 1940.
God is eternal. What would be the hurry?