Perhaps. This gets to the larger questions about where we fit in the conversation.
It seems there is a real need for a new camp in the conversation. One that both affirms mainstream science, but also recognizes it is a limited view of the world, and fosters authentic engagement between theology and science. Of course, I’d love to be “acquired” by BioLogos or RTB, so some other group, but at the moment, BioLogos seems to want to have nothing to do with our effort here. We might just have to forge our own path.
If I were to map out the the dialectic on God’s action, it might be something like:
YEC creationism (by way of AIG and CRI): a literal and plain reading of Genesis teaches that Adam and Eve were de novo created recently, and we trust this over anything we find in science.
Atheistic evolution (by way of Dawkins): Evolution shows God is not necessary, natural process work just fine on their own. Adam and Eve, also, is just a myth which science shows must be false.
Intelligent Design: But natural processes alone are not enough, and we can scientifically demonstrate this. Until just this year, we’ll be motivated by theological concerns about Adam, and our faith in Jesus, but not mention them publicly lest people ignore our scientific argument.
BioLogos: That is a horrible argument for design, and God could have used entirely natural processes to create us, and it would still His good creation. The Church needs to move on from traditional theology, because Evolution teaches us that Adam was not de novo created.
So what is the next step? Perhaps something like this:
Peaceful Science: Science does not answer the questions we care most about; maybe God directly intervened, or not, but we cannot tell from evidence. Moreover, even in a literal reading, nothing in Scripture is in conflict with mainstream science; Adam could be ancestors of us all, and de novo created. Science is much more silent about the questions of theology than we ever imagined.
What do you think we should from here though?
Possible partners are available. Perhaps ASA might be a good home. Or maybe we need our own structure. Maybe, also, we should apply for a Templeton grant. If not, a non-profit could enable us to start taking donations. I’m not sure any of us can sustain this as a part time hobby.
Honestly, I still hope we will get “acquired” by someone soon.
What do you think?