BioLogos and the ASA Workshop

And sadly, there are origins-ministry demagogues anxious to capitalize on anything emerging from such a conference which might inflame their donors and motivate their further loyalty to the ministry’s causes. I’ve seen them take one opinion expressed by one scholar and denounce it as the official stance of the ministry which happens to be associated with that scholar—even if he/she was speaking solely for themselves. (Of course, quote-mining and spin is often employed.)

I can understand Biologos’ caution. Nevertheless, I do hope that they will eventually work through their positions and arrive at a well-considered big tent approach.


I’m fairly certain that is not at play here. Their major donor would likely prefer them to work with me. It is possible that the theological scruples of some of their staff prevent their engagement. Perhaps they are not yet ready to distance themselves from Venema’s work, or to defend it. I’m not sure what is driving their decisions.

Please encourage them to do so.

I’d love to open up a direct dialogue with Deborah Haarsma, in private or public. They do not seem willing at this time. I wonder is this is why I was banned from their forum.

I imagine that gentle encouragement from their base (like @AllenWitmerMiller and @gbrooks9) and others might change their strategy. Who knows, right?

Not sure about that. Templeton carefully plants seeds around and wants to make sure that there is enough room between seedlings.

1 Like

Deb Haarsma is a nobody. Don’t wait your time or effort. Continue doing what you are doing. Make you own path. You don’t need anything from Biologos.

Which is why they would rationally prefer BioLogos would play nice with me :smile:.

Thanks, though I harbor no ill will to Haarsma or BioLogos.

me too. Haarsma and BioLogos do the job that they are paid to do. I have no ill will towards her or Biologos organization.

[@moderators edit. Too far @Patrick]

I wasn’t referring to Biologos when I wrote “origins-ministry demagogues”. I was thinking of people like Ken Ham and other AIG staff.

1 Like

agree LOL.

1 Like

Good. Then we are both certain that’s not at play :slight_smile:.

1 Like

What about Discovery Institute? They are playing you both as a friend and foe. They need the controversy.

1 Like

Yes, ENV, unfortunately, has a history of inflammatory quote-mining and (I’ll say it) not entirely accurate descriptions of others positions. However, I have Discovery Institute friends who are quick to state that not everybody at the DI should be judged for what appears on ENV. [For newcomers, “ENV” refers to the Evolution News & Views website.]

(I was replying to @Patrick with this post but perhaps I hit the wrong shortcut.)

In this case it was not manufactured and it was important to be put out there.

What I was speculating on was the possibility that participation by one of their people on that particular panel might somehow be overly susceptible to misrepresentation by critics. I try to put myself in Biologos’ position. If I were a decision-maker for such an organization, I might even like to see some topics worked out by other organizations first while I took the time to better develope a delayed response. (Speaking personally, I love to participate in that type of conference discussion panel but they do involve thinking on one’s feet in response to unexpected questions—and my responses are not always as clear and articulate as they would be in my written work.)

Meanwhile, I’m just happy to hear that Biologos will have representatives present, even if they aren’t on the panel.

1 Like

Except that doesn’t explain why they kicked me out first before it was worked out.

1 Like

True enough. But, as the old saying goes, that’s a whole 'nother topic!

(Yes, it’s a related topic—but I was avoiding it! If I were prone to using emojis, one would appear here.)

1 Like

Meanwhile, I’m really glad that Dr. Swamidass chose the title “Peaceful Science” for this forum and that that title will get publicity at the ASA Workshop and other future venues. I hope and pray that those who hear of “Peaceful Science” will pause to think about its meaning and why it is an important goal for dialogue. (Surely it will at least encourage curiosity.) We’ve seen far too much conflict among Christians on these issues ever since the development of origins-ministries in the 1960’s.

1 Like

in what way is Deb a nobody? You call someone a nobody and then say you have no ill feelings toward that person. I’ve seen you bash people repeatedly. So tell me, how are you a somebody? Youre just a jerk, bro.

1 Like

That is kinda his style :confused:. I do appreciate the sentiment, which was actually about me, not Deborah. Thanks. The negativity about her makes this more difficult to navigate.

I personally have no problem with Deborah and do not think she is “a nobody.” I hope that is clear to everyone.

On some reflection, I’m instituting a new rule. If you dislike it, now is the time to make your case.

Goin forward I do not want to see any negative statements about individuals on staff at BioLogos. We can discuss differences in values or points of view but no personal attacks. At all.

Violating that rule will get posts deleted. As much as we try to tolerate all views here, it creates too much additional complexity in relationship with them.

1 Like

Great rule. But it should extend to all organizations as well. DI, RTB, AIG. These are human beings.

1 Like