Chipping away at the middle ground

[Roy (30-year veteran)]

@Jonathan_Burke

So if you want the Hebrews to cross over the deepest parts of the Red Sea, you’ll need to demonstrate that the route described in the Hebrew text describes them walking all the way out of Egypt down to what is now Sudan, …

It’s Sudan now. But what was it then?

[Jonathan_Burke]

@Roy

It’s Sudan now. But what was it then?

The Kingdom of Kush. The name comes from Egyptian, and means “wretched”, which tells you all about the Egyptian prejudice against the Kushites. The Egyptians despised the land of Kush and the Kushites, and warred with them constantly, though some trade connection were also made (which still didn’t stop Egyptian military incursions).

[gbrooks9 (GeorgeB)]

@pnelson

From many years of interactions with BioLogos leaders, I would say this “a priori” exclusion of a scientific case for guided evolution stems mainly from their embrace of methodological naturalism (MN)…

[2nd Paragraph]
To make a scientific case for guided evolution requires suspending MN. Doing so, for BioLogos leaders, moves one across the aisle into the ID camp.

@pnelson

Absolutely not. I embrace MN, and I am quite vocal about God-guided evolution. And you clearly accept God as the crucial actor in creation… and you can’t bring yourself to accept God guided Evolution as the answer to atheistic support for evolution!!

We can see your error in paragraph 2 (see what I quote above).

You talk about making a scientific case for God-guided Evolution.

This is a fundamental philosophical error. There can be ZERO scientific case for this. It is a THEOLOGICAL case. Period. Full stop!