To be honest, I’m surprised by this too. I did not expect that this would be such an anathema at BioLogos. I have no hard feelings towards them. I had originally imagined I’d be working with them too. It just seems we have very different values.
I encourage anyone who wants to still work with BioLogos. They certainly need the help. No one needs to choose between BioLogos and PS, but I know that (1) I’m not currently welcome there and (2) I’m not sure I want to go back any ways.
If BioLogos was true to its mission, I am sure we would not be in conflict. I really hope that someday they return to the best version of what they could be. Such an organization would be really positive contribution to the dialogue. I hope that comes about. So I do have good will towards BioLogos.
At the moment, I niether welcome there, nor am I aligned with their values. We are going different directions. Who knows, maybe they picked the right direction. It just isn’t for me.
Oh yes thats right. i should of remembered that from previous threads.
Biologos folks don’t see any Adam. Were they there? if god did create mankind he would leave a record. He did!
Its so unlikely Hebrew scholars long ago made up this great lineage, names and ages, from Adam to Christ.
Why such a conspiracy of deception of these old Hebrews?? In law one gets a fair trial before told one is a liar.
Biologos is a Templeton funded 501C corporation with a mission aligned to the Evangelical Christian right opposed to the perceived damage YEC is causing to young Christians who are leaving Christianity in the millions. You can’t have goodwill towards an institution or a 501C corporation. Perhaps you can have goodwill with specific people who work at Biologos but not with an organization itself.
That depends on what you mean by “BioLogos folks”. There are several, even in leadership roles that would support Adam and Eve as historical figures instead of complete myth. It might be a good idea to be careful with the stereotypes.
I did read the article shortly after I joined the forum. I was a bit confused then, and still am. It’s not a big deal, but as someone who has some pretty similar aims, but in a different context, it’s interesting to see how it gets worked out. You are honest about what you’re seeing in science, but you also talk a lot about theology. This makes things kinda murky. The problem is you may not be defined by you view on origins, but you certainly will be judged by them, for better or worse. Most people will see you as TE/EC and so I’m wondering if you can really make a distinction there. Historical Adam is not enough.
But it is the way it is. And this community is full of answers, or at least arguments (mostly in a positive sense) about those answers. It’s not like we ask questions and then say “and we don’t care what the truth is”, we are just more open to honest discussion, which can be very different than other online forums.
I don’t see so much different values as it taking a while to turn a large ship. I’ve followed Scot McKnight’s blog for about a decade now and I have a hard time believing that he would just discount Genealogical Adam. I think Genealogical Adam will catch on and be a common, if not most common, position of evolutionary creationists. It’s just takes a while since for a while the biologists within TE/EC have said the genetic bottlenecks would rule out a historical Adam.
Well, sociologists of religion could probably help with that. I just usually say we like to shoot ourselves in the foot whenever possible.
The longer answer is that this doesn’t have nearly as much to do with the science as it does with the way that people look at the Bible and how it relates to belief. If you look at the faith statements of many churches, they start with a statement on the Bible (inerrancy, verbal plenary inspiration, etc.) before talking about God, Jesus, etc. So if you start messing with that, it’s a big deal. Ask Christians if we believe in Jesus because of the Bible or if we believe in the Bible because of Jesus, that will get people fired up.
How about this. Under the right leadership, BioLogos could do a lot of good, and I hope that happens. In fact, it is even possible they could remove Peaceful Science’s reason for being. I would welcome that if it could ever happen, and nothing we are doing here at Peaceful Science is zero-sum with them. I hope they go real good in the world.
Maybe that is not good will in your books, but that I what I feel about them.
Good grief @Patrick, they applied and received a grant, just like AAAS and many other organizations did. You can talk about how much money influences leadership but blanket statements like that come off as ill-informed.
There is a large difference, and is particularily germane to the conversation here about RTB.
BioLogos committed to getting everyone to agree with them on evolution. They are an advocacy group. RTB is committed to getting everyone to agree with them on OEC. They also are an advocacy group. So what happens in dialogue between the two of them? We have two astrophysicists being very kind and polite to one another, but not making any progresses. Most people engaging with RTB from the TE/EC camp see it as their duty to convince RTB they are wrong.
At PS, we are under no such burden. We can (and will) help them make their model as strong as it possibly can, and even show them how to present it a way that isn’t anti-science. We can enter the conversation with the goal of helping them, rather than converting them.
Moreover, there are several scholars that cannot associate with BioLogos because they are explicitly TE/EC. Peaceful Science is not like this. We are not defined by an “answer” here, but to an honest community seeking understanding. Of course, I affirm evolutionary science, but this is by no means a requirement to be part of our community. This creates an opportunity for scholars to work with us from a broader range of institutions, and even atheists/agnostics to be welcomed as equal participants.
So this is a consequential difference.
Except that is exactly what happened. Mcknight did exactly that when I talked to him about it.
If it was just about the difficulty in moving a large organization, I’m sure I’d still be with them. Knowing they were wrong on this, I was working with them for 2 years. They asked me to leave because they did not want to include a Genealogical Adam. That was their decision.
That might be possible. It just is not what BioLogos wants right now.
you don’t even need the “merely” . Just Chrisitian should be good enough as there has been too much divisiveness between Shia and Sunni - oh sorry wrong religion how about between Protestant and Catholic.