Both are wrong. YEC isn’t Christianity and mainstream science isn’t atheism.
1 Like
Could not agree more. Now we just have to convince everyone else that the obvious is true.
This makes some sense from what I’ve seen in the past, especially from Lamoureux and Giberson, less so from Falk. I honestly don’t know anything about Venema or Stump.
I do think you’re going to have a similar reaction from a lot of people though, not just BioLogos. GA is a bit tricky to figure out, especially since you’re fairly “neutral” on a lot of things 
. People often want to know what the agenda is before assessing the merits of the argument, it’s a lazy but often efficient way to make judgements fast.
Not to bring up yet another thing, but I’ve been wondering if people are going to assume the next step for Peaceful Science is something similar to GA with Noah and a global flood. They will want you to “save” that one too. 
It is also profoundly anti-intellectual.
My agenda is to seek common ground with rigor and truthfulness. I want to see a real dialogue between science and theology, that values the grand questions over advocacy of small answers. I want to find a way to a common society that does not depend on agreement.
We’ve already been working on the Noah question.
The TMR10A data is very helpful on this. No recent bottleneck possible, and there are less loopholes available for the flood than for Adam and Eve. This is going to be where the AIG story really comes apart on genetics.
As for the right interpretation of Genesis, I don’t think that one can plausibly believe Genesis teaches a global flood, because they did not have a concept of a globe. At best, it was a regional flood.
I’ve been corresponding at length with geologist Ken Wolgemuth (friend of @Joel_Duff) about this. He tells me a there is good reason to believe a regional flood in the Middle East in the right time frame, and perhaps find significance also in the Persian Gulf oasis. This probably merits its own thread sometime soon. The science here is pretty amazing, and also overlooked.
So I am sure we will get to this eventually. Some of it will be hinted at in the Adam and Eve book. However, one thing at a time. Going after the global flood will bring us into direct sights of AIG, and it will require engagement from geologists too. I am not a geologist, remember. However, I think there is a strong case to make that is rhetorically equivalent in strength to the Genealogical Adam. That will take a couple years to develop. And I am not wanting to do anything that hits the YEC sacred cow that directly till we are much more established, and I (frankly) have help.
One thing on this that struck me hard was the realisation that the very concept of “the world” as a total thing, as opposed to the component layers of earth, sea, sky etc, post-dates the Genesis account, coming from the Greek concept of cosmos.
One can confirm that by seeing how the “Babylonian world map”, although created at a time of Mesopotamian expansionism and extensive trade, limits itself to part of Mesopotamia, as here. That has be significant to a flood narrative that has its origins in the very same region.
2 Likes
As someone who frequents Biologos, I am glad that Peaceful Science and The Hump are places for discussion and thought, and most of all, to learn about God. God bless, Brothers.
3 Likes
That’s a really interesting post Jon, and very much in line with my own thoughts on the raqia. I’ve never found the claim that people in the Ancient Near East actually believed in a physical solid dome to be the slightest bit convincing. They would just have to have climbed a mountain or two to see that there’s no solid dome, and of course mountains are two a penny in Israel and Lebanon. This being the case, I simply can’t see the raqia as having been anything other than figurative, just in the same way as Isaiah 55:12 talking about the trees of the field clapping their hands has to be figurative. Yet the idea that the ancient Israelites believed in a literal solid dome seems to be almost a dogma in some BioLogos circles …
3 Likes
Thanks James.
Without getting into the subject here, I did quite a number of posts on “biblical cosmology” on the Hump. Not categorized, I’m afraid, but searching on “raqia,” “firmament,” “cosmology” and so on should turn up a few goodies.
3 Likes
There is a verse in the bible. Do not be deceived;what a man sows that he will reap. Biologos sows discredit on people by banning them. Then they reap discredit. They should repent. They should have a higher standard of truth discovery then non evangelicals.,
1 Like
Careful there buddy, lot of non-Evangelicals around.
3 Likes
A lot of people deserve to be banned. I’m all for identifying and pointing out problems. The mere fact that they banned people is not reason for them to repent of anything.
2 Likes
They should repent of banning people for conclusions they don’t like. only malice should bring banning.
They have a stupid history of thought/speech control by the witnesses of many.
Very sly … but most people would reject your assessment if you insist on including Central America with North America.
Sure, geographically, Central America is not its own continent. But there are only a few places on Earth where the population is mostly NOT-CATHOLIC and NOT ISLAMIC and NOT HINDU … and the USA and Canada are two of them.
There are all sorts of interesting conculsions that can be derived from this fact. Throwing Catholic Mexico into the mix just veils certain truths you don’t want to miss…