Something weird is going on over at BioLogos. It’s becoming less and less scientific and more and more evangelical, to the point where its writers blatantly expound the most extreme and Jebus-loving form of babble. Here’s part of a post by Kenton Sparks, a professor of Biblical studies at Eastern University. Sparks tries to explain why the Bible, supposedly the word of God, has errors and contradictions. He starts by explaining another contradiction: why a God-created world has problems:
Let us begin with God’s creation. It is beautiful … in fact, unbelievable beautiful. Yet it also includes terrors and evils that are unspeakable … rapes, murders and wars … famine, disease and disaster … pain indescribable. Given that God has created everything that exists, how do Christians avoid the possible (some skeptics would say inevitable) implication that the blame for creation’s evils and horrors can be pinned on God? Following Paul’s lead in Rom 8:20-22, Christians dogmatically assert that the cosmos is broken because of human sin.22 So it is not God, but human beings, who are finally culpable for the messy side of creation. Creation is good and beautiful because it is God’s creation, but warped and broken because of human influence.
To make the point clearer, imagine with me a beautiful painting by Renoir or Monet. And then imagine that someone seizes the painting, rips it from its frame, crumples it up and stomps on it for about ten minutes. What does one end up with? One ends up with a beautiful painting that is everywhere warped and twisted. In some places the former beauty of the unmolested painting is more visible than in others, but there is no quarter of the painting that has escaped the damage. This, I would say, suitably describes God’s creation. It is beautiful but also broken, and in such a way that one cannot really separate what’s beautiful from what’s not. Because it is the good thing itself that is warped and damaged.
Is this “dogmatic assertion” supposed to comport with science? If so, then how exactly did human sin cause earthquakes, disease, tsunamis, and other acts of God that kill innocent people or make them suffer? And if those imperfections were caused by human sin, did they not then exist before humans? Did tectonic plates only start moving when our ape-ish ancestors somehow acquired a soul? And what about those diseases that were long present in animals but jumped to humans? Did the Irish potato blight, caused by a fungus, really result from human sin? Couldn’t God have stopped it before it killed so many children and families?
Sparks’s theodicy is of course complete nonsense, raising far more questions than it settles. More important, it’s disproven by science.
And here’s the president of BioLogos, Darrell Falk, trying to explain to his flock how hard it is to reconcile science with their faith. But first he lays out what that faith involves:
We at BioLogos believe that Jesus, fully God and fully man, walked on this earth 2,000 years ago in order to show humankind how to live life to the full. Jesus died in order that we, sinful humankind, might be clean. His shed blood has made us clean. We need not live under the power of sin any longer. We are called to an infinitely better life that is made possible because we have been forgiven through the event of Calvary, and because of the resurrection power that raised Jesus from death to life. That death to death at the tomb near Calvary was not metaphorical, and the new life we live in Christ is not metaphorical either. We are empowered to live fully gifted lives; we are empowered to live out our calling, enabled by the resurrection-power of God’s Spirit which dwells in us. The Church has existed through these past 2,000 years because the Power of God’s Spirit is alive in God’s Church. We believe the Bible, a living document through which the Holy Spirit continues to speak today, is the divinely inspired Word of God.
At least he declares unequivocally that the Resurrection was not metaphorical. But given that BioLogos thinks that Genesis and the idea of Adam and Eve as the parents of humanity are metaphorical, it would be nice if Falk could tell us how he manages to discriminate between those parts of scripture that are empirically true and those that are just instructive stories. And how can he be so sure that Jesus was the real prophet and not Mohamed? Is this discrimination based on evidence? Or is it just what Falk wants to be true?
Things don’t look good at BioLogos. The science, always in an uneasy equipoise with faith, is now being pushed aside by evangelism. I predict that Templeton will withdraw its support; at least that’s what they should do if they want to retain any credibility with scientists.