My doctorate is in medicine. I am an orthopedic surgeon specializing in sports medicine Stanford AB, UCSF MD, past adjunct clinical professor of orthopedic surgery at Stanford.
You might not like those stereotypes, but by entitling your article as you did, you communicate a bias that big city (read: enlightened, cosmopolitan) “science” has something to teach small town (read: backward, uninformed) faith communities. I live in a big city, know true science from false, and know the true gospel—“the power of God for the salvation of all who believe” (Rom. 1:16), which is the only true faith regardless of where one lives–big city or small town. Don’t underestimate the possibility that your big city “science” is rejected by those with “small town faith” because they both know their Bible and they know naturalistic assumptions about that which is unprovable are exactly that—unproven and unprovable.
I have yet to read an article in Biologos where the Bible is held up as true in its plain rendering when that plain rendering contradicts what is thought to be understood about the natural world. Rather, it seems like one article after another on why the Bible is actually saying the opposite of what one thinks upon first reading. The Bible in its straightforward rendering never contradicts true science, nor does anything it states in terms of generalities in its plain language ever contradict what can actually known in particulars about this world. If it appears to, it is our understanding of the particulars of this world which must be reimagined, and not the straightforward understanding of Scripture. You have erred in leaving this understanding, and now you seem determined to double down on your error. That is very sad to me.
When you were a young earth creationist, you were reading the Bible plainly in its literal/grammatical/historical context. You did so because you knew that from Genesis 1:28-30 and 2:17, God has been communicating His message to humans via propositional truths that are interpreted cognitively, with minds that have always functioned as His (cf. 1 Cor. 2:16), if finitely. How He communicated to Adam and Eve is how He communicates to us today. Nothing has changed, no matter how many books John Walton writes about the Lost World of Such and Such, and no matter how much the secular ANE experts insists we must keep them in mind as we interpret the Bible. That is why the message of God’s Word endures forever and is forever valid. And you are wrong that some “young earth paradigm” forces this misinterpretation. I do not read the Bible as I do because I have a “young earth paradigm.” I have a YEP because I read the Bible as I do–as though God clearly wrote in such a manner that His truths might be plainly known, and not in a manner where what He meant to say is the opposite of what He appears to say.
I am spending time after midnight writing to you because I am grieved for the wayward direction of your theology even more than because I am insulted by the sanctimonious and snarky tone of Biologos in general. Last year I published a book entitled “God’s Glorious Story” (GBF Press, 2017) which tells the story of the Bible from beginning to end (with a Foreword written by Dr. John MacArthur). Ch. 4 (“Creation: Fact and Fiction”) lays out plainly why evolution is impossible from a biblical framework, and why the earth could look so old and yet be so young. If it would interest you, i would be pleased to send you a copy, so that you could at least know why some of us who both love the Word of God and love science don’t all line up behind the meretricous dogma of Biologos.