It’s been discussed at the Hump of the Camel, and either dismissed or ignored when discussed at BioLogos!
2 Likes
To be fair, but controversial, they have been quite deliberately led by the instututions members of our generation set up to prioritze “relationships, social connectionsm, and personal satisfaction” in order to eradicate from their minds concepts of “universal and objective truth, logic, or critical dialog.”
Whether any culture can survive for long with radical autonomy as its basis is very doubtful.
3 Likes
Can you elaborate more on this idea of “autonomy of nature”? Or perhaps point me to some posts on your blog which discuss this?
Hi Daniel
Here’s a sardonic one with a couple of links. Otherwise, try search on “free process” which turns up a lot - the ones dating from earlier generally respond directly either to BioLogos or to TE academic literature.
1 Like
There is no reason to think they should renounce these things, as they were attempting to be a big tent.
The more perplexing problem is that they have self-defined as anti-traditional and cast people such as @jongarvey and myself out.
I need to clarify that I’ve never been cast out of BioLogos - but never really had my theology endorsed… which is odd, because I’m boringly mainstream Evangelical, whereas Open Theology, certainly at the extreme of Thomas Jay Oord, is not.
2 Likes
I think there’s a lot of stuff going on here:
- BioLogos had a pretty sizable and difficult task - show the broad Evangelical/conservative Mainline community, that has been traditionally so skeptical of a scientific account of origins, that New Atheism and anti-Christian rhetoric aren’t the norm in science and that one didn’t have to abandon core theological positions to affirm mainstream science.
- BioLogos seemed to stem from Evangelical scientists wanting to reach out to the Church, so the theology/philosophy often isn’t “well-baked” or is vague because their focus is simply to deal with the immediate hurdle of “but a Christian can’t accept evolution”. Initially I don’t think they were even thinking about Adam and Eve. I think most just assumed that Denis Lamoureux’s view was the only way to deal with it without “messing” with the science.
- Similarly, I think Tom Oord (who was basically fired, from a sister school to the one where I work, because of the Open Theology issue) brought an initial “oh, maybe that will work” when thinking about what “God-guided evolution” might mean. In other words, when you leave one position before you’ve fully formed a new position, there’s bound to be some searching around.
I think a big problem is that the topic of divine action has a lot of philosophy and theology to it and scientists generally aren’t that well-versed in those. Simply put, I’m not sure that they idea of God guiding the evolutionary process without being detectable by science ever occurred to most people. Many assume it’s either mostly all miraculous or it God just set it up and let it go. Most probably shrug their shoulder’s and say “I dunno” when asked how God created via evolutionary processes.
I’m hopeful that as more orthodox, big-tent, Evangelicals who are scientists, or at least don’t have a knee-jerk reaction to evolution, enter the public arena that some of this can get worked out.
4 Likes
The “realism” comes in when they look for testable predictions from the theories. String theory also spawned one of the best quotes in the history of physics:
“It’s not even wrong.”–Wolfgang Pauli
2 Likes
Jordan
Mebbe - but I came to BioLogos in 2010 as a bog-standard, scientifically trained clinical doctor, who’d been seeking integrate Evangelical faith with evolution since… maybe 1965.
Many of the resolutions were in place, and just needed teasing out (as I found once I engaged in the effort) in a context of faith that the remnaining problems could be solved without compromising sound doctrine.
That very modest program turned out to be that of a diminishinbg minority.
3 Likes
I find that hard to believe that literally no one thought of it. I think the issue might be a latent weak scientism or positivism among a lot of even Christian scientists, which is that if it is not detectable using the methods of science, then it might as well doesn’t exist.
3 Likes
@dga471, it was often raised by people, but actively supressed by people on all sides of the debate. This is one of the great ironies, tragedies, and possibilities of the conversation, and why PS has so much low hanging fruit to pick.
1 Like
At this point, I think I’ll just stop talking about BioLogos. There have been enough times that my perception of the organization, which I only have casual interactions with, is very much different than that of people who interacted much more.
What is more concerning to me is EC as a concept and as rallying point getting downplayed at PS. Right now, EC/TE is the only way to describe those Christians who affirm mainstream evolutionary science. I’m not particularly fond of tearing down one useful model before establishing its replacement. If you want to show a newer approach, great. I would hesitate though, in the grand scheme of the origins debate, to go after rather than trying to include the “camp” that has the broadest agreement. I still see YEC/OEC/ID being a long distance away from accepting mainstream evolutionary science.
That said, I think I’ve said my peace there as well. I hope PS can be friendly to EC (I think it mostly is, but I’m frankly confused at times with the occasional negativity I do see) as I think they are likely the camp most likely to be interested in GAE.
2 Likes
Why is this a concern exactly? I am not EC, though I do not have a problem with EC. I just object to being personally identified with EC. If you want to be EC, go ahead. I’m okay with that! We’ll still work with you 
.
I don’t agree with this.
I’m not tearing down EC. I’m just saying I am not EC. As far as an alternative, this is what I encourage: AAAS: Scientists in Civic Life: Facilitating Dialogue-Based Communication. The alternative is already there, and I didn’t make it.
I welcome EC here. They specifically exclude me. I hope that they would welcome me at some point in the future.
That is what I thought to, till I found out otherwise. That just isn’t reality. No worries though, they are still welcome here. They don’t have to like the GAE. I’m okay with that.
I should point out, also, that this quote was not about BioLogos specifically but about just about all sides of the debate. Yes, this includes some people (not everyone) at BioLogos, but also DI, YEC, and OEC.
Well, I’m not yet sure if I want to “declare” a camp or not at this point, especially as a non-biologist I don’t have the scientific knowledge to specifically judge the science. I think my concern mostly comes from being more focused on the typical Christian in the pews, or the staff member at a NGO, or even the business prof at a Christian university. I don’t exactly put a lot of stock (less than I should probably) in the “leadership” of the various camps/group. I care about the thousands of people who would call themselves Evolutionary Creationists more than Haarsma or Lamoureux or Venema or Stump. To me, they may be some of the tent poles, but they certainly aren’t the tent itself. In that sense, I see EC as GAEs greatest ally.
This is an (excellent as far as I can tell) approach to dialog, but it’s not a position in the sense we’re talking about. I think this is where I get confused. On one hand, your difference with BioLogos seems to be one of specific theology, but then when I say there’s not a lot of options to EC (a theological position) the alternative you point to is about approach or attitude.
So, do you have a specific theological problem with Evolutionary Creation, as you understand it, or with the way that certain people/groups go about talking about it or promoting it? The answer might help me get a better idea of how to answer the person who asks me “why does @swamidass not want to be called an EC?”. A near as I can tell right now, it’s “EC has baggage” as @dga471 said . To me that baggage comes from a small percentage of those would carry the EC label but maybe those few people carry too much weight with you to ignore. I’m fine with that, it just helps to know the context.
1 Like
I have a problem with their preferred theology, their science, and their use of scientific authority against their opponents. For this reason, I feel ethically bound to disassociate entirely from EC at this time. Associating with them would be dangerous for my scientific reputation and my credibility in the Church. I feel ethically burdened to prevent any misidentification of my work to their credit.
This is BioLogo’s mission statement:
BioLogos invites the church and the world to see the harmony between science and biblical faith as we present an evolutionary understanding of God’s creation.
BioLogos (and EC) has also (for 10 years) self-defined themselves as anti-traditional theology. Their evolutionary understanding of God’s creation is, self-defined, as anti-traditional. I do not affirm or agree with this mission. I understand why it is important to them, but I do not support it.
As a scientist, I do not believe it is my place to advocate for a parochial point of view. That is not what secular scientists are supposed to do. I am here to help others along with their beliefs, not promote my own.
As a Christian, I affirm infallibility and inerrancy, and hold high regard for traditional theology, and believe it is important to engage with the historical doctrine and conversation, which protects us from idiosyncratic errors. As a Christian, I also believe that Jesus is greater than an “evolutionary understanding of creation,” and focus on Him instead. Whether evolution is true or not, Jesus is greater.
As a scientist and a Christian, I’m concerned by their use of scientific authority against their theological opponents. This is not acceptable. I feel ethically bound to oppose this abuse of authority, as one of the few people able to resist it. This is not right, and it has become synonymous with EC to many people, including me. It was on full display in Venema/McKnight’s book, and BioLogos has yet to publish a single critique of that book on the website, and they widely promoted at as their preferred position.
From both a scientific and a Christian point of view, therefore, I am in great disagreement with BioLogos. They also agree that I am not taking a view consistent with EC, and this is why they asked me to leave. Both BioLogos and I agree that I am not EC.
2 Likes
Excellent, thanks!