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.
2 Likes
This is just my own personal view, but again, find myself agreeing with @Patrick (and C.S. Lewis) and usually say I am “merely Christian.”
1 Like
They are 100% funded by Templeton. All the salaries of everybody is paid for by Templeton. Read their Form 990.
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.
2 Likes
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.
1 Like
It means EVERYTHING on the science/secular university side of things. Reputation, Credibility, you name it, it effects it.
1 Like
Very true. This is actually not a small issue if you are in a secular environment.
1 Like
What I mean is, in a public/secular university you can just say you’re a Christian and that’s going to mostly be fine/sufficient. At a Christian university you often need to be (varyingly) more specific.
At a secular university you don’t even need to say you’re a Christian, or Jewish or Muslim or an atheist. Religious beliefs are suppose to be private to the individual. In secular private industry, the only way I knew if a staff member was Jewish was they wouldn’t be in today.
That is where the divisiveness of Christianity shines through. It is not good enough to be a Christian, you have to be a special kind of Christian. And within that special kind of Christian, you have to be in this branch or another branch of that special kind. And if you are not, you are just a CINO (christian in name only, and not a REAL Christian, or a fake Christian or worse a non-practice Catholic type of Christian.
I am watching this play out at mainstream Protestant Denominations like the Reformed Church of America. It has lost 60% of its members since 2000. And now they are spliting in two over SSM. All they are doing is making the decline to irrelevance faster.
I just meant, when I was at public universities you could just say “I’m a Christian” and people wouldn’t ask you “what type, and do you affirm inerrancy and historical Adam and the fall?” That’s a (little) bit different at a Christian university.
Yes and no. For instance, in my department (sciences) we have lots of Christian traditions represented (Baptist, Lutheran, Methodist, Catholic, etc.) but it’s only when we want to work specifically in this area of origins or “science and faith integration” that it gets a lot more tricky and people start asking those “what kind?” questions.
1 Like
At a public university, you saying that you are a Christian would be noted as bfd. However, at a Christian university, you have to be a certain kind of Christian as there are no generic Christian Universities. And I don’t count the Jesuit Universities like Georgetown and Villonova as Christian institutions, They are as secular as secular universities go.
Notice there is no such divisiveness on the science side?
1 Like
I have read RTB Fazele Rana’s stuff. i get their publications and once helped in my church with a RTB public meeting. I support any opposition to a Godless universe.
Indeed most YEC would trip over the difference between a evolutionist Christian and the hosts position.
I think it means there are biblical boundaries to what evolutionism can demand.
The bible does matter about conclusions.
This thread shows the distinction between the literal meaning of labels and its symbolic connotations. Often people tend to focus on one of these to the exclusion of the other. (“I wasn’t trying to be offensive - it’s literally true!”)
I can see how the TE/EC label means more than just an intellectual stance on science or theology, but a whole “camp” or community of people, which has been lately defined by organizations like Biologos. Saying that someone is TE/EC is not only an intellectual statement - it is also a rhetorical one. I can see how Josh might want to distance himself from that.
3 Likes
I was just trying to point that if, for example, I wanted to invite @swamidass to my university (which I do), people might ask, in some form or another, “which camp is he in?”
- If I reply, “he’s a confessing scientist”, they will just look at me weird.
- If I reply, “he’s a Christian and a scientist”, they will say, “yes but that doesn’t tell me much of anything.”
- If I were to describe the stuff he says on Peaceful Science, they will say, “oh, so a theistic evolutionist then?”
I know people may want to distance themselves from certain labels, but I think Peaceful Science vs BioLogos just looks like a bit of minor “infighting” to a lot of people. They have a hard time seeing the distinction, especially since many Evolutionary Creationists would have no problem with a Genealogical Adam. So that’s why I’m pushing back a little. How is it different to the average pastor or college student (the kind of people I work with)?
2 Likes
That is not how I put it. I would say:
Dr. Swamidass is a scientist and a Christian that affirms evolutionary science, but he does not fit into the standard origins camps like TE/EC, YEC, OEC or ID.
So that is not complex, right?
It is different because BioLogos = TE/EC right now, and BioLogos’ official position does not currently allow for a Genealogical Adam. A common way it is understood is that I am allowing for special creation and they are not. Another distinction is that BioLogos has a fairly narrow range of theological and hermeneutical roles they are willing to consider. They are currently, for better or worse, are not willing to make space for people outside that range.
BioLogos is, somewhat against their wishes, strugglingly to rework their position to be consistent with the science right now. So it is possible they will allow for a Genealogical Adam in the future. I’ve been told, however, that they will remain opposed to it for theological and hermeneutical reasons. Though she misunderstands what we are doing, Christy (a BioLogos Moderator) really clearly explains the BioLogos position:
I understand YECs have no interest in my position because of their hermeneutics. That’s why I would prefer to talk about why their hermeneutics are misguided, not try to begin with convincing them evolution is a fact. If they concede evolution is a fact, but don’t change their hermeneutics, I don’t consider that a success at all. Being comfortable with evolution is a side effect of changing one’s approach to Scripture, it’s not the goal. The goal is understanding what the Bible means.
The Big Tent ... and Genealogical Adam! - #52 by Christy - Faith & Science Conversation - The BioLogos Forum
So, at the core of it for BioLogos, it seems, is a theological and hermeneutical agenda that has little to do with science. That, it has been explained to me, is why they do not like the Genealogical Adam. It makes space for people who think differently about the Bible than them, so they don’t want it to be known about. It does not serve their theological agenda.
In my view, that is not a trustworthy approach to science. I’d rather be honest with people about what we are seeing, and help them come to terms with it in the context of their own beliefs. This tolerance of other views is a major distinction right now between BioLogos and myself. They have a preferred theology and hermeneutics. I just want to be honest about the science is telling us. These two values are in direct conflict.
Most people see all of this just fine, and will say things like: “well if TE/EC/BioLogos was like you, I’d have no problem with it.” For now, however BioLogos owns TE/EC, and I do not have common purpose with it.
Well, I don’t want to push too much, it’s not really a point of contention. Few people I interact with have even heard of BioLogos, but they “know” that a theistic evolutionist is is a Christian who “believes” in evolution. I will just try to stick with:
1 Like
I would say that they see a theistic evolutionist as a Christian who accepts evolution and has made some accommodation so as to fit evolution into his Christian beliefs. So when a Christian says he is an evolutionist but denies that he is a TE, I normally take that to imply that he is denying that he made any accommodation.
1 Like
I suppose I do deny that accommodation is being made by me. I see no need for accommodation because the two fit together just fine.
I’m affirming evolutionary science, without modifying it, though I am insisting that it (obviously) isn’t the whole story. I am a Christian, and do not see an accommodation there either. I do see the two in a productive dialogue, but I’m just putting forward solid evolutionary science and careful theology.
I can affirm atmospheric science without talking about theistic rain. I can affirm physics without talking about theistic gravity. Evolution is no different for me.
1 Like