BioLogos: What Is BioLogos?

It is probably an issue for a different thread, but I would like to discuss the interpretation of evidence that you believe supports a young earth, but is discredited by scientists.

Technically, that is the sort of topic we are supposed to be discussing...In fact, I apparently said that we were on a "series" on whether or not YEC claims stand up to scrutiny. However, the last discussion on that started getting rather heated (not to mention long) so I created this discussion as a form of intermission...I will be making a new discussion about that in a few days, though.

P.S: Bermuda does sound like a good place to be right about now...;)

Agreed, the most-widely accepted view was a literalistic interpretation of the Genesis account. I can see how this would be problematic when talking about “historical” when the views differ from what has been historically believed.

It is probably an issue for a different thread, but I would like to discuss the interpretation of evidence that you believe supports a young earth, but is discredited by scientists.

P. S. I would sure love to be in Bermuda, but alas, I’m just mired in a busy semester :-P

It's great to see CWH back. I thought he had moved to Bermuda or something.

Three quick points. 1) I didn't mean to suggest by my comments that there was TOTAL agreement among the early church faithers concerning the age of the earth and the interpretation of Genesis, but there is quite an impressive list of early church authors who did hold to a young earth. 2) While there is evidence presented to support the hypothesis of evolutionary creation (as BioLogos calls it), there is also compelling evidence in the world of science that supports what God says in His Word. I always go back to the exegesis of Genesis 1. If you asked a person to read Genesis 1 who had never heard of the theory of evolution (and let the text simply speak for itself), the reader would not come away with a theology of evolution from Genesis 1. It just isn't there. In fact, you cannot get a theology of evolution from the Scriptures. You get a theology of creation. 3) Evolutionary theorists are quick to claim something as "fact" when the evidence is inconclusive. Merely calling something a fact, doesn't make it a fact. Young earth creationists often draw different conclusions about the evidence that are just as compelling, but they and their conclusions are summarily ignored and often scorned. This is just not right.

Hello All,

I've spent a considerable amount of time on the BioLogos forum, although my activity has a flagged a bit lately. The time I've spent there has allowed me to get a feel for the forum-goers, but there isn't a great deal of involvement with the BioLogos leadership there. My point being that I think SMS has a good point with his post and I really don't have a good explanation for the curious language. It seems they are making a point to emphasize the belief in Biblical inspiration and authority, but calling their beliefs (or our beliefs, I should confess) historical may be stretching it a bit. It is true that widespread belief in an old earth is relatively new, but why would Augustine write "The literal meaning of Genesis" if it was unanimously accepted that a literalistic interpretation was the only possible interpretation? I'd like to also point out that at one point in history, it was believed that the earth was the center of the solar system (and the universe) and that all else moved around it, and the earth was flat and the sky was supported by pillars. Scientific discoveries have forced changes in how certain Biblical passages are interpreted before.

I suspect Jacob is reading much more into the sentence than what is intended. If anyone happened to follow the link at the bottom of the page to "About Us", you probably noticed that this tops the list of "What We Believe":

"We believe the Bible is the inspired and authoritative word of God. By the Holy Spirit it is the “living and active” means through which God speaks to the church today, bearing witness to God’s Son, Jesus, as the divine Logos, or Word of God."

Again, this is at the top of the list. If the order of mention is actually critical, then it should also be meaningful that this tops their list.

Regarding evolution, there are questions that remain to be answered, and the challenges trying to unravel what may have happened far in the past are considerable. However, that does not mean that the entire theory of evolution is inconclusive. It is far from that. There are lines of evidence in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, genetics, and ecology that all support the theory. One passage of Augustine's "The literal meaning of Genesis" has been translated like this;

" Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he hold to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion. [1 Timothy 1.7] "

I find it interesting that the article says:

"We seek truth, ever learning as we study the natural world and the Bible"

The Bible is mentioned second, as if it is of secondary importance in the quest for truth. However, the Bible is the ultimate source of truth. The order in which this sentence places these two authorities seems to reflect what I consider to be the root of BioLogos. The organization chooses to accept the inconclusive evidence for evolution, and then seeks to make that belief fit into the Biblical creation account. In this way, they place "science" or rather and unproven hypothesis above the Bible. Evolution simply does not fit into the Biblical creation account, but when evolutionary "science" is accepted as infallibly true, it's adherents have no choice but to squeeze it into the Bible, resulting in an in my opinion ridiculous "interpretation" of scripture. It seems much more theologically (and scientifically) sound to accept the Biblical account as the literal and truly infallible word of God.

The first statement asserts that Biologos embraces the "historical Christian faith" but their second statement suggests that the earth is billions of years old. This is something that the historical Christian faith has never taught or believed. Thus, we have an obvious contradiction here. It is important to note that the vast majority of early church theologians taught a literal six-day creation, and even those who took a more allegorical approach to Scripture and the "days" of creation (the Alexandrian School) affirmed the fact that the earth is relativeily young. Augustine writes: "Reckoning by the sacred writings, we find that not 6,000 years have past" (City of God, 12:10). If Biologos seeks truth, they may want to begin with Jesus who IS the Truth (John 14:6) and what He says, "Thy Word is Truth (John 17:17). And may I humbly and respectfully suggest that before they attempt to speak for historic Christianity, Biologos may want to explore more fully what historic Christianity actually teaches and confesses. Historic Christianity has ALWAYS taught that God created in six twenty-four hour days and in the relatively recent past. Therfore, evolutionary creation has no basis in Holy Scripture or in the history of the Christian Church.