I haven’t been engaging Biologos lately, but this is surprising. One of the things in The Language of God which really shook my YEC outlook at the time was Collins quoting Augustine being favorable to interpreting Genesis “non-literally.”
1 Like
Collins is not BioLogos. BioLogos is not Collins. The two have been operating almost entirely independently since 2008, for about a decade.
1 Like
Maybe this is one facet of the problem - a superficial treatment of ancient and dense sources is made to appear that folks like Augustine supported evolution (which he didn’t - at best he could be heavily re-interpreted to endorse orthogenesis or frontloading).
On the other hand, more recent figures who did endorse evolution in its modern form get very little attention. My own impression is that that has to do with most of them criticising Darwin’s theology and philosophy where BioLogos tends to support it, and assuming design where the latter want to marginalise it.
Another factor occurs to me from your own statement about moving from YEC - that seems to be a norm over in the US, though it would be pretty unusual over here. At BioLogos, at least, that clear move seems to provoke a reactive kind of approach to the science-faith issue. Whereas the early TEs had never been “young earthers”, especially in the modern culture wars form. It’s a lot more tricky changing sides than simply developing views.
3 Likes
A broadly understood “Genealogical Adam” is the best way to stop the vicious cycle!
Or that was your whole point, yes? I havent read the entire thread yet!!!
1 Like
I don’t think that there is anything really that can stop it.
I know this might sound pessimistic (I think it’s realistic though) but most people in this whole thing are completely set in their ways.
4 Likes
As more Christians come to defend the reality of evolutionary science WHILE still accepting the miracle if resurrection, the problem will inevitably diminish.
4 Likes
Then can we see their peer reviewed papers, or at least a description of the scientific experiments they have done and the data they gathered?
In what way are you attacked?
2 Likes
Put me down for $20 on “religion will evolve”, rather than diminish.
There are a lot of people who clearly want this to continue (we been there are argued with them for years). I think we can work to steal their thunder by finding common ground with the more reasonable people.
Absolutely! How can discuss deep and personal questions with people when we can’t even share a joke?
@Robert_Byers There is often a profound misunderstanding between science advocates and those on the YEC/ID side. For instance, in Flood Geology there are examples of Creation science which clearly violate the laws of physics. If this is science, then it has a completely different meaning on the YEC/ID side than it does on the secular science side. This is not an accusation, but the facts of the matter.
The question then becomes, “if not secular science, then what are the YEC/ID people trying to say?” I suggest the answer is apologetics versus a misperceived attack.
To be fair, there are atheists making actual attacks too, because they mis-perceive what the people of faith are really trying to say. This is not only a problem for YEC/ID.
5 Likes
Why is this a problem as long as there is no violence involved…
Shouldnt dissent and arguments be welcome?
Strong disagreement/intense arguments is how ideas are assimilated by communities/culture.The more important the idea. The more the argument.
The other way is to impose ideas on people by punishing dissent through social boycott, disadvantages in their vocation. and finally violence or the threat of the same.
Why do you call this a vicious cycle?
Excellent point and I agree.
Your other questions, especially this one, caught me by surprise:
Why do you call this a vicious cycle ?
I thought this was obvious, but apparently not. On one side we have anti-theists claiming all religion is harmful, which is demonstrably not true. On the other side we have a politically active anti-science group which wants to educate children to their own standard of science.
That’s not a complete description of the situation, but without knowing your background it hard for me to bridge this gap in understanding. We can discuss it more if you like?
2 Likes
Let me ask again … what’s the problem with this?
It’s a good thing that people are expressing their freedom in both aspects.
Why categorize it as vicious?
As to a group being politically active… isn’t it their right?
Both groups are horribly misinformed and, in retiurn, they mislead other people.
It’s a lot more complicated than that but that should do it for now.
3 Likes
People are not children. They have a right and responsibility to process information and decide what to believe.
The presence of dissenting/contradicting voices in the public domain should be welcomed. This requires a maturity on the part of all concerned.
If this is missing, there will always be taboo issues which cause extreme animosity and anger in sections of population.
However that’s a different problem entirely and has nothing to do with the evolution debate specifically.
And the only solution is to doggedly protect and ensure the democratic rights of all concerned.
Yes the issue sounds complicated. However the problem might not be disagreements on evolution.
Evolution is far from the only problem here. Just yesterday I’ve watched a movie titled Kingdom of God staring Orlando Bloom. The movie is about the Third Crusade and the amount of things the movie has got wrong is horrendous. Of course, the problem isn’t the movie itself, it’s a movie, it’s made to entertain not to educate, the problem is that a lot of people think it’s more or less accurate.
3 Likes
Ashwin, a “vicious cycle” does not mean that the conversation is vicious, but rather that the one comment leads to a counter that is typically escalated slightly, which leads to another, and so on it progresses. These conversations tend to get “louder” and “louder” but are not terribly productive, because they are motivated by defensiveness, and fueled by emotion. So @Dan_Eastwood was not categorizing anything as “vicious” but rather using an expression to describe the outcome of a certain conversation.
You are correct, as usual, that everyone has the right to converse. I think that what Dan was getting at is that some conversations take an inordinate amount of time and energy because there is no good way to come to a conclusion. This can be frustrating for all participants. Hope that makes sense.
To your point, everyone has the right to participate or not. To read or not.
3 Likes
OK got it…
4 Likes
Oh, no. They are. 
Thanks for reinforcing this point, Ashwin. It is a good reminder.
3 Likes
Dissent is not a vicious cycle. Unhealthy abuse and dishonesty breeding more of the same is a vicious cycle. Are you seriously arguing this is a good thing?
1 Like
Of course dishonesty is a problem… however, it’s impossible to tell who is lying/wrong in many cases.Freedom to challenge positions become critical in such situation. Especially in cases where everyone involved sincerely think they are right.
The alternative is worse… policing people’s opinions and forcing conformance to the ideas of a chosen elite.
The current situation with all its negatives is actually good.
Often it easy to tell who is dishonest.
This a false dicotomy again. All you are saying is we shouldn’t break the cycle with elitist policing. Fine. Let’s find a better way, instead of throwing our hands and walking away. Seriously, show a basic level of imagination. This constant stream of false choices would comical if it wasn’t consequential.