I thought it might be a good time for me to try to better understand Biologos “beliefs”
i accept beliefs isn’t really the word you guys like to use…because your position is both one of faith on the one hand, and science on the other and that it seems that the position i hold does not appear to be aligned with the general scientific view.
Lets just agree to disagree there and focus mostly on me trying to learn more about what your world view.
One thing i have come to realise this morning in reading on the Biologos website is that Dr Collins has sort to redefine that age old stench of “Theistic Evolution”…hence the name Biologos. What is actually quite enlightening for me is that the goal was to insert the notion that Biologos are Creationists (i like this idea actually)
So…
Given that Adam (that would be me) is willing to entertain the idea that we are all Creationists here, it is in that spirit thatthis question seeks to study and discuss the Biologos world view and try to fit the pieces of the puzzle together.
For example, consider the following illustrations taken from the Biologos website:
In the above-referenced illustrations, Biologos appear to try to explain some of the areas of conflict between themselves and YEC, however, to be honest, i find that the articles illustrated do not actually answer the dilemmas adequately (if at all) and leave me with the original question largely unanswered or with more questions than what i had before reading them.
Can someone provide me a bullet point explanation of the fundamentals of creation itself as illustrated in the handful of Biologos articles I’ve referenced above?
What i am searching for is a more comprehensive explanation with extensive theological referencing that forms your world view (i mean this is a Christian world view, it needs strong biblical support for its doctrines). The doctrines should also harmonize across the Biologos world view…its not good enough to simply jump straight to the charter that Christ gave us (that this gospel be preached to all the world and then the end will come). Human nature is such that a defense of “gospel” needs to be included there…and supported.
Being an atheist, I certainly can’t speak for the Evolutionary Creationists here, nor for any Christians. However, I can speak to the concepts that helped me understand EC a bit better.
The one that really clicked for me is the simple prayer, “Thank you God for the food you have provided”. If you tracked the history of a loaf of bread sitting on your table you wouldn’t find anything supernatural. The wheat was grown from a seed, harvested by a farmer, milled, and then baked into bread. So why thank God for the food? It seems people believe God is still involved in the world even if we can only detect natural processes in an objective sense.
I also don’t think all Christians are theologians, nor do I think a devout Christian should be required to have a deep theological explanation and list of scriptures for their beliefs. This certainly wasn’t the case for early Christians. I also empathize with your position since you do want to see a good theological reason for changing your views. For these reasons, I really do applaud your approach in this thread and hope you find the answers you are looking for.
i think i agree with your basic premise there. However, if we are aligned, then it is that basic premise that causes me to reject Evolution as the Origins of Species and certainly the naturalistic claim that everything evolved from for example, a primordial soup of chemicals.
The premise i believe you are citing is derived from this statement in your post…
If you tracked the history of a loaf of bread sitting on your table you wouldn’t find anything supernatural. The wheat was grown from a seed, harvested by a farmer, milled, and then baked into bread. So why thank God for the food?
I am of the exact same opinion when, as a Christian, I’m supposed to accept the notion that just because the building blocks for everything around us uses those same elements, binding forces, and function such that we are here…if that is the case, then quite rightly as you say “i may as well not bother with God…why is he even needed?”
It seems to me that the general Evolutionary Creationist defense there is that the Bible provides spiritual guidance, to what surely someone like yourself would view is a religious magicians eutopia…that we are supposed to follow Gods word and become better or be saved (the definition of salvation seems to vary widely in the Biologos community)…I’m sure that both you and I, as well as almost everyone else here could quickly produced dozens of scientific evidences from journals and research papers that almost prove beyond any doubt that morality need not have anything to do with God. Morality is not a physical attribute…even though it often has physical consequences…and that is exactly my point that one cannot be Christian and separate the two stories there. The spiritual and the physical are both intimately and inseparably part of what “this” (the fact we are here) is!
I believe in God because everything is too well put together for one thing and secondly, because i like to do stuff…I’m intelligent enough to notice and to create. That causes me to reject the notion that after my “3 score and 10 years” its kaput! I look historically at the consistency of the biblical world view, its pretty obvious that the vast majority of it is accurate…so the God part is actually a far easier proposition to swallow than “kaput”!
No. I don’t belong to the organization or claim any particular label besides “Christian” but if pressed would say “of the Baptist variety” which often tells people something different from what I mean.
I can’t give that to you. Any attempt would just be a post hoc attempt to justify what already exists.
I was a Christian before I was a student of science, math, critical thinking, critical theory, theology,language, literature, music or much else. All of these things influence me, how I think and see the world. As do the times and places in which I spend my life. As do they everyone else who lives/lived, including other Christians. These things I see as true challenge or confront my faith rather than affirm it. I am resigned to live with the tension, rather than attempt to meet someone else’s demands – the pressure is great – that I provide an explanation of how they all go together.
Even the (variety of) things people think they mean when they say “biblical world view” is different among various groups of Christians who accuse others of not having one. I’m aiming rather for what I hope is a Christian world view, which needs to focus on Christ.
I empathize with you, Adam. I would love to have everything streamlined, consistent, logical. I see that as less possible all the time.
Because as Christians we don’t see God’s existence based on our need for him to exist but as foundational to what does exist and how it works. We see the Bible as containing revelation from God, that tells us important things about him and his working with people. We also see all through the Bible the challenge other people have had with faith, even in very different times and contexts. It’s never been all that easy.
I know my answer is not what you’re looking for, but it’s the one I can give you. I haven’t met anyone who is satisfied with it. But it’s the one I have.
Post Script
“Kaputt” means “broken.” I think it’s probably not what you have in mind. Maybe something more like “curtains”.
Some of the ambiguity is intentional. Unlike a denominational church, an organization like BioLogos has a “big tent” type structure, defined by how many it can include rather who to exclude. Thus, in the statement of belief, it is quite general by design. It does not lend itself well to rigid theologic constructs, as hopes to appeal to a wide audience of those in the sciences who struggle with issues related to faith, and walk with them along that path.
BioLogos is an organization made up of numerous people with a wide range of beliefs that accepts science and believes in god and Jesus. But there is not a specific stance.
Evolutionary creationism is a term that’s ambiguous. It’s termed to counter claims of creationism under young earth and old earth supernaturally created world. Again, it’a a term used by numerous Christians but tends to all mean they are Christians who accept ToE and God.
So some in here believe that the universe was finely turned and that God intervened somehow and guided evolution.
Some, like myself, don’t believe in intelligent design, or rather don’t see scientific evidence to believe in intelligent design. So when it comes to my stances on science, it’s often whatever the scientific consensus is. So far, even when I initially disagree, overtime it just seems a constant win with no losses. Sure sometimes something changes. A date is pushed by another fossil, or maybe a genome sequence separates a subspecies into a new species, like with purple pitcher plants and rose pitcher plants. But the overall arc is the same.
So since I take things like evolution to be true, that means when it comes to genesis I can’t read it literally. So that means I can do one of a few things. I can decide science is true and that the Bible is wrong and abandon it. I can decide that the science is true and so is the Bible. So if I take both true, that means it’s impossible for me to take Genesis literally.
Again, I can either say it’s wrong or I can find a different approach to interpret it. So then I step into biblical scholarship and they often don’t seem to take Genesis literally.
So it seems I take science for being true and I take the Bible to be true, but not literal.
If I had to choose between abandoning it would be religious beliefs since they don’t provide any meaningful evidence. Thankfully, all I have to do is cut YECist out of my life for the most part and it goes well enough.
This lads me to these thoughts about anti-evolutionism and theism.
As I understand monotheism in general, it involves belief in God in a special relationship with me and my fellow humans, creating, sustaining and redeeming.
In the 18th century many students of natural history came t believe in preformationism, rather than reproduction, of individuals. Such as that every living thing was created at the beginning, and existed in ones parents, and only appeared to be generated at conception. Now, if one believes that, than one can understand that the individual is the concern of God.
But no one accepts preformatiojism today. Everyone accepts that there are natural processes which natural science can study and explain leading to the origin of each of us.
Does anyone have any problems with that? I don’t think so.
But when t comes to the question of the origin, not of individuals, but of = well, species (or maybe “kinds”) - thhere is a lot of obecton. But my suggestion about monotheism has the concern with the individual special creation, sustenance, redemption, not about the whole of “human-kind”. That is sort of what is known as Universalism - not generally thought of as main-stream Christianity,
Why, then, is there a fuss about evolution? If one can accept reproduction being a subject of natural science, even though it concerns my individual origin, what possible objection could there be with the origins of species?
i would be interested in reading what others responses are to this. Personally, i find it explains a lot about the lack of theology and apologetics from individuals here.
For me, red flags are always raised when a person cannot defend their position from the very principles which they are supposed to be defending!
For example, we know an aircraft flies obviously, however, we can defend the principles of flight from our knowledge of aerodynamics…so the same textbook if you like, is used.
If we took your approach, then we have two textbooks where the foundational claims do not agree. That is a red flag for me in almost everything i do in life…if there is issues like that i challenge the individuals claim.
I suppose a good illustration of what i mean are conspiracy theorists and conspiracy theories. There are always inconsistencies and contrasts in their beliefs that simply do not add up (even within the structure of their own story).
I find that in the Bible, the development of basic fundamental histories/stories into major biblical doctrines are extremely consistent both historically and philosophically. Thats the reason why i disagree with your last sentence “that you would abandon religion before science”.
because Christianity only exists because of those who have written about it.
One either believes that they are in consistent harmony with each other, or that its a made up book of socratean stories.
If stories, then we do not need God for morality…evolution can do that without him. The spiritual gains are not only not true, they are ignorant and stupid from the point of view of science. We can obtain them all without Christian religion and God.
To put it another way, the notion of “religion” becomes - a secularist, who just so happens to also be quite legalistic and conservative observing an ever increasing social disorder, waving a carrot in front of “the horse” [people] in order to try to get us back on the evolutionary straight and narrow path that is morality! I think the bible presents a model very different from that and the history of the bible account also supports the idea its far more than that.
I didn’t say a thing about made up stories.
What is the difference between (1) accepting that natural science can study the processes of reproduction and (2)accepting that natural science can study the processes of the origins of populations, species, genera, …? If anything, I’d say that (1) has more involvement with morality.
(1) seems to be fraught with consequences about the special relationship, one-on-one, with God. If one can accept that, why not accept the easier (2)?
I think everyone in here has a decent grasp of theologically understanding books like Genesis and how that plays into science. It’s the young earthers who have little to no grasp on science and theology. For example, your confusion over what I’m saying somehow disagreeing with the laws of aerodynamics. It just makes no sense what you are saying.
And no we don’t need the Bible for good moral development. Tons of cultures developed them without the Bible and many with the Bible has developed a terrible sense of morality. You like to create these false claims without any support.
Not only can someone understand the Bible very well, develop a strong sense of morality and understand science with a non literalist approach to the Bible, they can do so indefinitely better than those who take it literally who ignored reality, science and the very bible they worship.
@adamjedgar, you have mentioned “morality” here a number of times, and also in other threads. Do you see Christianity primarily as a matter of morality and moral formation? I’m trying to get a better handle on what your view of Christianity is.
Thanks.
As somone who rejects ToE emphatically but accepts tht evouton ispartof the creative method of God, I guess i can thrwo m oar in.
I thin the only generl definition for Evoltionary Creationism is what I have just said. That God used evolution in His creative works. Anything further woud involve “seeing” God at work, which might be difficult in the amount of time suggested
The only difference between me and a YEC is that I do not think the time scqle is relevnt and that Genesis is not that sort of document.
The problem have with most Scientist who are claiming Evolution is that they do not see a problem in humanity being the result of a random deviation or flue so that the exact form, could be anything from a Crocodilt to an ant eater, as long as we have sentience.
Scripture seems to insist that God had some sort of structue (image) in mind, whetner tha is just a position, or function or a specific shape and form would seem to be the crux.
I do not think tht God looks like humans excet when he is being one (AA Jesus) because in His realm shape and form are meaningless, so the only concluson wpuld be that he wanted the form He got. Us If so then random becones a big problem.
Therefore the beleif would be that God domehow guided the creation (Evolution if you like). THat is therefroe Evolutionary Creationism without needing to specify how. All I specify is that it was not random. (Assuming random is uncontrlled)
But individually, we are the product of random mixing of the genes from our parents.
To accept the natural sciences of reproduction, including genetics.
I’d find it easier to accept what happens to the group, than what happens to the individual. The individual is in the special relationship,
I agree that the origin of the individual is not the same as the origin of a population (species or, other taxon - nor even an ecosystem). But “random becomes a big problem”? Is it a problem when it happens in the origin of the individual? Does that interfere with the individual’s special relationship with one’s creator, sustainer and redeemer? If one can handle that, what is the big deal when it concerns a group?
That is here and now, it has nothing to do with ToE>
You have not grasped the crit of ToE/ The basic crit is that is it claims our shape is random, just a sequence of deviations, so we could have ended up a Snake or a Lion, or even a pteradactyle, as long as we had (have) the cognisance to have a relationship. That contradicts what Scripture says about our creation by God. Plain and simle. God had more than a brain in mind, He made us what we are. We are neither a cosmic fluke, nor the accidental proginy of chimps.
This is not the official Biologos explanation, but I think one way you could define evolutionary creationism is that God creates through natural processes, using nature as a sort of technology, and does not need to resort to supernatural interruptions of the natural process in order to create. I also wouldn’t say that evolutionary creationism is specifically Christian. You could also have expressions of evolutionary creationism that are Jewish, Islamic, Hindu, etc. Also, the evolutionary part is not required since evolution through natural selection is only one theory for explaining the variety of life that we see and could be supplanted at some point by another theory with better evidence, though I don’t see this happening any time soon. The more important point is that God uses or partners with creation itself in order to continue his creative activity without necessarily violating the laws he has already set up for creation to follow. It could just as easily be called gravitational creationism or chemical creationism as both would get at the same general idea. The fact that the adjective “evolutionary” is used probably has more to do with the historical significance of the creation-evolution controversy. Also, chemical creationism just sounds less epic (no offense to chemists).
Great question, @adamjedgar . I think @DOL Dr Lamoureux can comment, too. I’ve really appreciated his writings (though I have read others of his books and taken his free on line course, I have not read the book below yet).
read my post again…you have not read it properly and are not getting the point…
(1) seems to be fraught with consequences about the special relationship, one-on-one, with God. If one can accept that, why not accept the easier (2)?
Because the very philosophical writings that give us Christianity specifically tell us that men are corruptable and all nature has been correupted. You want to use those corruptible and corrupted things to justify beliefs that do not align with very specific biblical statements about creation and the flood.
Bart Erhman lost his faith exactly because of the twisting of scripture in order to rationalise errors he seemingly found within its pages. These errors are largely not real biblical errors, they are a complete misunderstand of the meaning of the text…errors that the text explains internally.
For Bart it got so bad that he began to see the bible as a book of Chinese Whispers…that none of it related to God is real. Sure many of the people existed but everything else is fairytales. this is what happens when one starts to mistrust bible statements of fact (such as Genesis 1-11). Twisting and explaining that away destroys the very foundation upon which the rest of the Bible sits. When i read comments from individuals here, i am convinced many of them are on such shakey ground that they are torn between God and atheism…on the verge of giving up. So how do they get around that problem? They pretend it isn’t a salvation issue…they pretend! Since when is pretending a great way to move forward in life?
In finance terms, pretenders usually go broke and or rip people off.There are a lot of similarities between pretending and fairytales!
The truth is, we do not need to have the bible explained to us from outside its pages in order to develop our beliefs (where we came from and what happens next etc)…everything is contained within its pages…including the interpretations and its internal consistency and how well that aligns with known history. If we know that these parts align, why should the rest of it be explained away? What if the naturalistic interpretation of science is actually at fault? And we have strong evidences that there are serious errors in issues in the naturalistic world view.
