Toilet paper rolling is a pretty fundamental Gospel issue.
I just posted a thread on sort of a similar tangent, but it might be worthwhile to explain my position at this point:
I was raised in an atheist family and so naturally I basically always believed in evolution, and when I became a Christian I didn’t really think about it. It wasn’t until this year when I started reading BioLogos where evolution seemed to be a real problem (this is not a criticism of the whole site, Dr. Walton does really good stuff, as do some others).
Inerrancy has become a pretty important theological point for me, and as a Catholic, a historical Adam and Eve is pretty fundamental. Originally I thought that one could believe in evolution and hold to a historical Adam and Eve, and people like William Lane Craig and the scientist who writes for Peaceful Science were really helpful with that. Then I saw Dennis Venama and Peter Enns’ articles, and there it seems like BioLogos is not committed to a historical Adam and Eve or inerrancy. That on its own is not too problematic to me, but it seems like BioLogos has been doing more to get Christians to believe in evolution regardless of what they need to give up of their faith instead of bringing the Gospel to atheists. I hope that’s not an unfair criticism. Again, there are some really good things that BioLogos has published, especially by John Walton, but ironically the stuff that Dr. Enns and Dr. Venama published has got me interested in Reasons to Believe and I even started looking at Tod C. Wood’s work.
You are correct that Biologos doesn’t commit there (and nor does it commit against it, though certainly some individual contributors do.)
I’ve also followed and read all of those folks you mention, though in my case my coming from a Christian home. So all of us bringing our existing treasures and baggage to bear get different things out of some of this. I suspect it doesn’t occur to most of us here to think of an atheist (or recent convert) coming along, reading some of the frequent authors around here, and then becoming more attached to the conflict thesis rather than less. So it is valuable to get your perspective on why this happens. I think it also safe to say that much of the culture that initially inspired(s) this site is that its intended audience is primarily (I think) anti-evolution creationists who already are committed to faith. But all of us being the messy creatures that we are, we don’t all fit neat categories. So there is that.
I do imagine that BioLogos does help many people with their faith, and that’s a very good thing. As I have said, John Walton’s articles are really excellent. I must admit though, that Dennis Venama’s articles really did take me aback. It’s hard to stress that enough, it put me through huge doubt, the model proposed at Peaceful Science was really helpful with that. It seems to me, and I hope this isn’t rude, but showing to non-Christians and otherwise doubting people that they can be Christian and accept evolution would be the most valuable goal, while getting people to reject Adam and Eve seems to be a much less desirable thing from a Christian standpoint.
Do you think that there is a pressure on scientists working in secular institutions to accept evolution regardless of their opinions on it? The hostile reactions from people like Jerry Coyne and Dawkins to even Kenneth Miller and Francis Collins’ views (who are by no means supporters of Intelligent Design or OEC/YEC) would indicate that.
I think Mervin has answered well, but would like to put a few words in. It was an emotional moment at the last Biologos conference in Houston when one of the panel members related how she felt isolated at work, being a Christian, and then isolated and alone at church, being a scientist with an evolutionary view, seeing the same attitudes in both venues from different directions. The reaction from the audience confirmed that this is a common situation. Relating to your question, I don’t think there is pressure at work, as most Christians in science accept evolution on its merits, not as a result of peer pressure, but there is considerable pressure in many churches to encourage denial of that position.
Regarding Biologos, I think it has many facets of purpose, but one of the most important is to provide support and community for those rejected by the church or who are on the edge of rejecting the church due to the false dichotomies in their teaching.
That’s a loaded question to which entire columns have been devoted. The short answer I think accurate is … “yes, of course – but only in the same way that they feel pressure to not reject heleocentrism or germ theory.” They would say the pressure felt is the pressure of evidence, not the pressure of dogma (though to be fair, it quickly becomes dogma in how it effectively interacts with people whose daily work builds on such things.) Is the carpenter overly dogmatic that you use this kind of wood and not that for some given job? Maybe so, but her dogma is presumably born of experience.
I’m glad you have been able to appreciate at least some authors here. Even as “narrowly focused” as some outsiders may think a site like Biologos may be, it is still important to remember that a great variety of people interact here – even among those in official or invited capacity. I’m certain that Dennis would never intend for his convictions regarding the historicity of Adam and Eve to be a stumbling block to come between somebody and Christ. In fact I think all Christians on this site would probably agree that we are here to remove unnecessary stumbling blocks, not make them.
[…and this answer wasn’t meant to ignore Phil’s good answer above which I hadn’t seen till after I pushed the enter button on this one. Life often intrudes between the beginning of a post, and getting around to finally finishing and posting it.]
I am sure there are many, but my personal experience started with the realization that the earth was ancient, just based on observation of the world around me and beneath me combined with general science classes. I think that Collin’s Language of God helped with integrating evolution with Christian faith later on, though was not a huge step by itself in understanding evolution. College courses are far behind me at age 64, but as I recall, I was somewhat on the fence at age 19 regarding evolution, having had no real formal studies in it, but classes in comparative anatomy, genetics, and embryology were instrumental in solidifying my ideas. So, I think it wasthe breadth of study that was important, not one particular book.