Disputing charges of Concordism at BioLogos!


(George) #1

@swamidass !

I finally realized how OFF THE MARK criticisms of “Genealogical Adam” really are and have been at BioLogos.

I wrote a few postings, with one specifically comparing many of the most widely known Concordist Views with Joshua’s work. It was a lot of investigations aggregated and boiled down into a single assessment!

These posts attracted the responses of Ted Davis and some moderators.

The posting below is the core of my refutation!:


(S. Joshua Swamidass) #2

Ironically, my problem with @pevaquark and Chritie’s take on this is concordism. They are committed to a concordist interpretation, which reads modern scientific knowledge into Scripture where it cannot be found. I’ve studiously avoided this error. @pevaquark, why not take your questions here? I could answer them easily. As you know. BioLogos does not want me to post on their forum (still no clarity on why that is).


(S. Joshua Swamidass) #3

@gbrooks9, do you mind linking that thread to this one?

One thing I’d like to point out to Christy, she writes:

When you co-opt aspects of genealogical science to prop up literal interpretations of Scripture, some people are going to see that as the definition of concordism.

I would respond with:

When you co-opt aspects of genetic science to prop up mythological interpretations of Scripture (see Venema and McKnight), some people are going to see that as the definition of concordism. The reason why genealogical ancestry is different is because it matches our ordinary understanding of ancestry, and requires no scientific knowledge.


(George) #4

@pevaquark

You might mention to some of your fellow moderators at BioLogos that if BioLogos never allows Joshua to discuss his work at BioLogos, pro-Big-Tent philanthropy will continue to have no reason to split their support between Peaceful Science and Biologos…

the financial support will increasingly gravitate to where the Tent is the biggest! :smiley:


(George) #5

Happy to do so!


(Matthew Pevarnik) #6

What did I say about concordism now?

Are you sure?

[@moderators: golf clap meme removed; memes not allowed]

I didn’t really have any questions for you, but I was asking @gbrooks9 a question. I know that you easily handle my questions though.

Only too well. I like to ask easy questions though so don’t get too excited.

Okay let me get right on that. I think I’ll send HQ a letter in the mail.


(Dr. Patrick Trischitta) #7

Is there anyone at HQ to open the mail?


(George) #8

Ladies and Gentlemen, behold this exceptionally exemplary offering of the elegant use of the “Sarcasm Font”. It is rarely this fine in quality. As the stiletto invades the flesh, one doesn’t even notice because of the euphonious tones of the delivery employed.

I offer you your own slow clap, Peva! It is certainly deserved*

*I usually avoid the Golf Clap; it’s a little too rowdy for me and the children.


(S. Joshua Swamidass) #9

Yup, I am pretty sure.

Fair enough :smile:. I give you credit for actually being in dialogue with us. It isn’t really fair too group you in with those that are not. Sorry about that.


(S. Joshua Swamidass) #10

Fair enough. Sorry for grouping you in.

Let me be more precise. I see concordism in the BioLogos approach, which includes that of Venema, Lamarouix, McKnight, the Haarsmas, and the official BioLogos position. There is concordism on the meaning of “human” and concordism on the meaning of “ancestor.” This appears also to be Christie’s point of view. Here, by concordism, I mean eisegesis of scientific knowledge into Scripture, where it cannot properly be found.


(Dr. Patrick Trischitta) #11

Christie now the de facto Chief Theology Officer at Biologos. It does seems like she is running things now (and doing it quite well.) She should be given at least part of the money that they are paying Deb Haarsma for doing nothing. I enjoyed watching Christie demolish George on the Biologos Forum. I love this one from Christie:
He is writing a work of science fiction with biblical allusions.


(S. Joshua Swamidass) #12

Colorful but false. :smile:

Even if it was true, it would certainly make for some good reading. The curious lack of interest is telling.

Actually, @gbrooks9 seems to be holding his one quite well against their Chief Theology Officer :sunglasses:.


(Dr. Patrick Trischitta) #13

@gbrooks9 baffles me. Does he really think that Kent Kovind and Christie can help your cause?


(S. Joshua Swamidass) #14

I think he is baffled (along with many of us) at BioLogos’ response to all this. Many of us are just curious “why.”

Ken Hovind will not likely “help” us, but a dialogue with him would certainly attract a lot of attention our way. Moreover, to the extent he has legitimate questions, we can answer them. Even if he isn’t convinced, I can tell you from experience that many people in his base will be convinced. Remember, we are relatively unknown right now too, so exposure in a difficult to reach community is very helpful.


(Dr. Patrick Trischitta) #15

Biologos continues to haunt you, why?

As for Kent Kovind - watch out. This reminds me of MLK and Bull Connor.

https://kinginstitute.stanford.edu/encyclopedia/connor-theophilus-eugene-bull


(S. Joshua Swamidass) #16

Good point. Curiosity at this point.

Am I MLK or Bull Connor :smile:? Though, I’m always up for talking to people. The pattern with YECs, however, has been to keep their distance, but also refrain from attacking me. I am pretty sure this pattern will continue for the forseable future.