What Denominations are Tolerant of Evolution yet Conservative?


(Jay Johnson) #91

No, Hugh Ross isn’t excluded, any more than you are. Whether people agree or disagree is their choice, not an act of inclusion or exclusion on the part of BioLogos.

You just seem bound and determined to question the character and beliefs of everyone associated with the organization, despite your occasional protest to the contrary. BioLogos affirms all the historic creeds of the Christian church. Is that not orthodox enough for you, or is there a further test that we must all pass to meet this inquisition?


#92

I’m very sorry if I’m coming off that way, it’s really not my intention. There are some things that BioLogos has done that I think are really good, and in some places they really have helped me. I’m sorry if Im sounding really negative. John Walton’s Old Testament work has been a real help for me. I really do apologize for coming off that way.

That said, I don’t think that I was factually wrong in what I said. There does seem to be a higher standard for scientific orthodoxy than historic Christian orthodoxy. That’s not something I necessarily have a problem with, but I think it’s true. I’m sorry to come off as hostile if I do.


(Mervin Bitikofer) #93

As you note in the same post, there are atheists (of various kinds from agnostic to more confident) who participate in good standing in this forum.

George.

agnosticism? --we’re pretty seeker friendly, and will strive to be a beacon on a hill.

atheism? – we’re pretty seeker friendly, and will strive to be a beacon on a hill.

militantly atheistic? --are usually welcomed for good arguments [and great science!] … ‘beacon bit’ still applies.

YEC? – welcome, kindred in Christ – we’ll gently (or not) try to set you straight.

Old Earth? – glad you saw the light there at least. have a seat in the shade over here.

Irreducible complexity? --GET BEHIND ME, SATAN!

Okay – that might have been [was] a bit tongue-in-cheek and even though it should go without saying, none of us (moderators or not) speak for Biologos. Seriously, people can always visit the “what we believe” pages if they really want the true flavor of “biologos orthodoxy”.
[with edits]


#94

Yeah, but I was talking about the people who become official parts of the staff and write articles (I.E. Could George or T_Aquaticus become president of Biologos if they wanted to?). I explicitly stated that it makes absolutely no sense to put restrictions on the forum. As far as I know, we don’t have any atheists among those. And just to be clear, I think that I myself would probably be too unorthodox for that.

I mean religiously unorthodox. The limits for scientifically “unorthodox” are very clear.


(Mervin Bitikofer) #95

Yeah – sorry. I was just having a bit of fun with how that plays out “forum-side”. Regarding who gets invited in to write articles and such … that’s probably going to be a smaller circle, obviously. I’ll leave any others to say more about that.


#96

No problem, I just wanted to make sure my message was clear. Also, I’m not stating that Biologos definetly should make these restrictions, the Faraday Institute for instance, has already invited many atheists to give talks and I really enjoy them. I’m just saying that it is a fair point to discuss.


(Randy) #97

@HmanTheChicken, you are doing well. However I agree with your earlier suggestion that reading more would help. Reading Enns’ Evolution of Adam really does help understand his extensive Ancient Near East knowledge better. It also explains his understanding of Paul’s take on the atonement…it was an “aha”
moment for me and really helped me comprehend the OT background in the Jewish Roman context better. Counterpoints is still in my opinion the most efficient way of learning both biblical and scientific contrasting opinions. Denis Lamoureux has an incredibly helpful free online course at Coursera. I was amazed at how much I learned once I was able to contrast viewpoints. I also look forward to the book between RTB and Biologos sometime soon. Thanks. For your genuine concern for salvation and the lost…restoring relationship with God.


(Darek Barefoot) #99

Acknowledging the evidence for evolution does not entail denying the virgin conception of Jesus or his resurrection. If the reasons for believing in those miracles had plausible, naturalistic explanations, then Christian belief would be in trouble. I don’t think they do.

However, I have to take issue with your statements about geocentrism. Do you mean to say that before humans orbited the earth, the clear statements of the Bible about the earth being immovable were to be trusted as inerrant? That it would have been admirable for believers to dismiss a wide range of empirical clues in favor of heliocentrism up until space travel and photographs from the moon?

And do those photographs and the experiences of astronauts constitute direct observation of heliocentrism? You might visit http://www.fixedearth.com/ and http://geocentricity.com/bibastron/index.html for a different perspective. Fundamentalists will be happy to tell you that neither man’s sinfully flawed reason nor his ability to interpret his experience are to be trusted outside of the simple statements of Scripture, taken plainly, the way a 12-year-old child would understand them.

As for observation of past events, I cannot observe Mt. Vesuvius erupting in AD 79. I can be relatively certain that it did because an abundance of evidence points in that direction. Just as with evolution.


(Chris Falter) #100

Enns disagrees with you quite firmly on this point. He had written a very good scholarly book called Inspiration and Incarnation that explains why. I don’t agree with Enns 100%, but his book makes many good points and is worth the read.


(Randy) #101

Yes. He has helped me a lot with understanding this, as well. In fact, the Gospel makes even more sense with this book (along with Evolution of Adam) to me.