We need more evidence - - more convincingly organized!


(George Brooks) #1

As your normal, average BioLogos supporter, I decided to visit this page of the BioLogos materials:

http://biologos.org/common-questions/scientific-evidence/

And much to my surprise - - I was Surprised !!! I was surprised by how little meat there was on the gorgeous bones of our work ! See the page below:

Now don’t get upset with me… I know there are a million things being juggled… but I think there are things we’ve already written and presented in Other pages that could easily be brought over to this page dedicated to Scientific Evidence, don’t you?

The first link is dedicated to the question of “What is evolution?”. Okay… that’s a good foundation. But this isn’t quite “evidence”, right?

The next one is “What is the Evidence for Evolution?” Okay !!! This takes us to a link with 2 bullet items:

  • Forms and Structures Point to Common Ancestors
  • The Fossil Record Reveals Intermediate Species (featured illustration - Whale Evolution!).
  • Biogeography Predicted by Evolution
  • Genetics Removes all Reasonable Doubt
    (featured illustration - Mammals, in particular Primates, who can’t produce Vitamin C)
  • Conclusion

Well, that’s a pretty good introduction. There are only TWO illustrations, but they are GOOD ones!

The next one: "Is Evolution a “theory in crisis”?

  • Survey data on American beliefs about God and Evolution
  • Neo-Darwinism (more on History of Neo-Darwinism)
  • Extended Evolutionary Synthesis vs. Modern Synthesis
  • Conclusion

What just happened to me? I went to a page dedicated to Scientific Evidence, and I’m mired in a discussion
about what Evangelicals think. This is good material. But … it’s not Evidence.

The next one: “How are the Ages of the Earth and Universe Calculated?”

  • Age of the Earth from Seasonal Rings and Layers
    (Tree Rings, Glacier Layers)
  • Age of the Earth and Solar System from Radiometric Dating

[Amusingly, the link that says “Read more on Radiometric Dating” brings the reader right back to the very same page!]

a) Aging by Potassium-40/Argon-40.
b) Greenland Rock Formations
c) Zircon Grains
d) Meteorites

[Even MORE amusing is the 2nd link “Read more on scientific methods for determining the age of the Earth” Also
takes the reader right back to the same page… they Really like this page!]

  • Age of Galaxies from the Travel time of Light
  • Age of the universe from Expansion
  • Conclusion

Frankly, I think this is the best page so far!!! The very first scientists to suggest that the Earth was a lot older than 5,000 years old were not Biologists … .they were Geologists! Nothing complicated involving Natural Selection, or RNA and DNA strands or … how could life come from dead matter. No metaphysical riddles. Nope. Just rocks and chemicals… .and physics. It’s Great Stuff. One of the founding members of BioLogos, Dr. Karl Giberson, attributes his epiphany that YEC was wrong to simply becoming a Physics professor. How could the Earth be less than 6000 years old … if we have rocks we know are millions of years old! Indeed!!!

Physics and Geology… these are the heart of the BioLogos case … but it tends to be obscured by exciting arguments about how many animals could really fit on an ark!

I’m tired right now… I’ll add another post later on… this page on Scientific Evidence has some Great Moments!

But I would say that there’s generally not enough compelling illustrations … that could easily accompany each key item of evidence!


#2

I hope the staff finds these observations helpful. With a small staff it’s really hard to have all the gaps filled and it’s especially difficult to see the site from the viewpoint of people who don’t work on it. I am hopeful things will become more fleshed out and better organized, but for now I am grateful for what is there and especially grateful for the discussions on the forum.


#3

Simple enough to link with the Talk.Origins FAQ and Wiki. Why reinvent the wheel?


(Brad Kramer) #4

@gbrooks9 thanks for the feedback. We always appreciate seeing things from readers’ perspectives. We are actively working on a number of new Common Question pages, as well as polishing the existing ones. @wittyforumname is right: we have a small staff trying to manage a lot of projects at once. But we’re getting there! We agree that these pages are important, and should be comprehensive in the topics they cover.

@Argon: I think it’s important that BioLogos presents the TalkOrigins stuff from the perspective of Christian faith, because for many people, trust is more important than data.


#5

Ok. I’m sure the TalkOrigins site would be more than happy for other groups to crib the notes from the various FAQs and restate them from a perspective of Christian faith. A fair number of the FAQs were authored by Christians. I’d expect the details will look very much the same in the end.

And seriously, don’t waste too much effort reinventing the wheel. There is precious little that is novel in the Creation/Evolution religious discussion.


(system) #6

This topic was automatically closed 6 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.