I post a lot on the BioLogos Foundation (or ask others to do so) because it’s an object lesson in the merits of accommodationism. The organization was founded to bring evangelical Christians around to a pro-evolution stand by showing them that Jesus comports with Darwin. But it hasn’t come close to that—in fact, I have yet to see a single convert. Over the years, BioLogos has gotten rid of its more pro-evolution, anti-literalist members (e.g., Karl Giberson and Pete Enns), has refused to take a stand on the palpable fiction of a historical Adam and Eve, and now seems far more concerned to not offend fundamentalists than to bring them around to science. The Darwinism, in other words, has been homeopathically diluted by faith until there’s not a molecule left.
Reader Sigmund has done yeoman work in following BioLogos, and his guest post below shows that the organization has just about given up trying to press real science on the evangelicals.
_____________
“All of us at BioLogos believe in intelligent design”
by Sigmund
BioLogos have added a new face to their roster of Christian apologists.
Ted Davis, described as “Senior Fellow for the History of Science for the BioLogos Foundation and Professor of the History of Science at Messiah College” begins a series on science and the bible with a post, Science and the Bible: Five Attitudes & Approaches, describing five ways that Christians approach the question of origins.
These are, Young Earth Creationism, Old Earth Creationism, the Framework view (which sees the Genesis story in a theological/figurative manner rather than as a historical record), Theistic Evolution/Evolutionary Creation, and, finally, Intelligent Design (ID).
Davis has written this installment as an introduction for an upcoming series on the topic, but it is striking that the overall tone is that of finding common ground between the various Christian viewpoints rather than showing one view is more correct than the other.
As Davis puts it:
“I am NOT trying to do any of the following things:
- To persuade anyone that any particular view of origins is the “correct” view
- To persuade anyone that any particular view is NOT the “correct” view
- To confuse anyone about any aspect of the origins debate (if and when this happens, please tell me what is confusing and I’ll try to be clearer)”
The conciliatory approach is clear as he warns commenters to refrain from insulting ID advocates by labeling them Idiots [even Denyse O’Leary and Casey Luskin?].
The real fun begins later on as Darrel Falk, the current president of BioLogos, turns up in the comments with an interesting answer to a commenter, YY, who had suggested that BioLogos should be more open minded towards ID. The reason offered by YY is that BioLogos accepts the concept of God intervening in the world through miracles. Could these miracles function to guide evolution through the introduction of specific engineering solutions?
Falk answer shows just how far BioLogos have come from their original mission.
“All of us at BioLogos believe in intelligent design. Our reasons for distancing ourselves from the Intelligent Design movement is that we think various books and articles written by the leaders of the Intelligent Design movement do not represent good quality science.”
Falk returns to the comment section a day later to retreat, somewhat, from this position:
“In saying that ‘we at BioLogos believe in intelligent design,’ we would be using the term ‘design’ in the Oxford English Dictionary sense of the term: ‘mental plan, purpose, end in view, adaptation of means to an end.’”
Anyone who pays attention to the evolution culture wars knows that theistic evolution is ID-lite, but theistic evolutionists are usually careful to distance themselves from the ID community and the idea of some sort of equivalency between the two positions.
Falk’s comments, and those of Davis (who later states “My own form of TE could be called id, not ID, but I leave it others to make their own determination of where I stand on this”) are symptomatic of the recent shift in BioLogos towards the conservative evangelical position. It is hard to imagine their current public statements on these issues will do anything other than strengthen the resolve of the evangelical community to resist the scientific consensus on evolution.
Perhaps the only surprise is that this is not the worst BioLogos post this week. That prize must go to Pastor Tim Keller for his jaw dropping addition to the Christian (Andersen) book of theologically sanctioned human history – this one (Creation, Evolution, and Christian Laypeople, Part 6) quite clearly fitting into the WTF section.
Keller, as he puts it, seeks “to do justice to authority of the Bible, which Jesus himself took with utmost seriousness.” If Jesus took Genesis seriously as history, then evangelicals, who view Jesus as God, are limited in the scope of their reinterpretation.
Keller, desperate to shoehorn a literal Adam and Eve into the historical record, suggests the model originally proposed by the theologian Derek Kidner, “that the being who became Adam under the hand of God first evolved but Eve did not. Then they were put into the Garden of Eden as representatives of the whole human race. Their creation in God’s image and their fall affected not only their offspring, but all other contemporaries.”
Adam evolved but Eve had to be created? They were put in the Garden of Eden, talking snake et. al, and their lack of resistance to fruity temptation subsequently affected not just their offspring but everyone else on Earth?
And this is supposed to be an improvement on the original story? As PZ might have put it, we’re halfway to crazy town – although in this case I think we passed the halfway point quite a while ago. We’re now barreling through the suburbs with the city center in sight.
_______
JAC: Let us be aware that there is a distinction but not a real difference between theistic evolution and intelligent design. Darwin’s real innovation, after all, was called “natural selection” for a reason!
Mathematician:
1+1+1=3
Creationist:
1+1+1=1!
Accommodationist:
1+1+1=3/(3+1)=?
Templeton recipient:
1+1+1=$$
+1
I still myself can’t get over the fact that all these IDiots are trying to divine the literal truth in a story about an enchanted garden with talking animals and an angry wizard.
Really, people. Grow up. You should have learned how to recognize this sort of make-believe for what is so unapologetically is by the time you were old enough you had to take off your shoes to count your age.
Cheers,
b&
I’d like to believe you, but I haven’t read any after the fact 2nd or 3d hand claims by eye witness who have personally fondled your intestines…so I still have my doubts…
Ask Ben’s proctologist’s cousin’s hairdresser to send you an anonymous TXT.
Clearly the historical record is that man is a myth maker. The only thing that distinguishes our contemporary theologies from ancient mythologies is that that former is still regarded as factual truth> When theology is given up as fiction then it is reclassified as the myth it always was.
I believe the theological objective is to keep Adam and Eve becoming on par with Narcissus and Echo, however the can be done.
Once again Sigmund battles the Biologos dragon! Talking of Jesus taking the bible seriously, perhaps he should have tried to put down his own thoughts succinctly so there would have been no disagreement of what he meant.
Dominic,
Your post reminded me that I have a “perhaps he should have” for Superman at the end of Superman (1978).
So, at least some of Biologos’ essayists won’t take as stand on the correctness or incorrectness of YECism. And this is supposed to help evangelists accept modern science…how?
If you want evangelists to accept modern scientific conclusions, you have to, y’know, defend those conclusions as the best supported by science.
I don’t have a problem with Falk’s comments – at least he is honest enough to realize and say that theistic evolution IS essentially intelligent design. His hedging about the capitalization of those words is unsubtle comedy though.
The fact that he has a disclaimer at the beginning to say that he isn’t trying to say that any origins theory is right or wrong and that people can keep on believing what they believe in kind of shows just how useless BioLogos has become in trying to educate.
Instead it has retreated into a fantasy world where the discussions they have are roughly of the same academic merit as those on what blood-type Darth Vader has and what really happened to the Dwemer.
at least he is honest enough to realize and say that theistic evolution IS essentially intelligent design.
The problem is, ID has both a theological and a political meaning. Yep, ID and theistic evolution can be theologically the same (or close enough). Nope, they’re not politically the same.
Its sort of like the difference between a person who calls themself a revolutionary because they want to change the constitution by legal means, vs. a person who calls themself a revolutionary because they want to change the constitution by throwing bombs. Their philosophical position may be exactly the same, but the difference in how they act is very, very important. So important that if we brush it aside and pretend it doesn’t matter, we are being idiots ourselves.
I disagree.
In his own words:
To persuade anyone that any particular view of origins is the “correct” view
To persuade anyone that any particular view is NOT the “correct” view
Not only is that a position that nullifies itself, it also is one that has rendered itself impotent against the current slew of pro-ID legislation of the “let students and teacher critique the theories” variety.
He personally may not disagree with evolution, but his stance is so weak-kneed that it essentially grants full licence to any ID-er to loudly proclaim that their position is at very least equally valid.
His id beliefs have made him an ID enabler.
Why not read future columns for yourself, Grania, and see what I’m actually trying to accomplish. You like to jump to conclusions, so you must have pretty good knees. Do you happen to know where I can get mind replaced?
er–mine. Never mind. Never mine.
I think I saw a Dwemer, once. It would explain why I didn’t get my dragon soul, ’cause that sawed-off runt stole it! He was hidin’ behind the draugr, and run away afore I could shout him down, dangit!
“Our reasons for distancing ourselves from the Intelligent Design movement is that we think various books and articles written by the leaders of the Intelligent Design movement do not represent good quality science.”
Good quality science? They do not represent science period. Books and articles are all well and good, but that’s ALL they have. Where’s the research?
Grania, I am with you up to a point.
My point of disagreement is this. I think discussion of the physiology of science fiction characters such as Darth Vader, if he may be considered a science fiction character at all, for he was a doer of startling deeds, and some believed him to be The Vader, would be of vastly more academic merit than anything going on at biologos.
At least he has the courage of his convictions.
lolz. Can we just start making fun of ppl already and forget all this nicey nicey stuff about only ridiculing their ideas but not the person espousing those loony ideas?
I don’t know what to say. These are grown men who are not under close supervision of a medically qualified person? How can you ever expect to talk sense to anyone who can put their hand on their heart and say they sincerely believe this stuff?
Not taking a stand, even against YEC? They might as well drop the ‘science’ part of any of their mission statement, and just admit they want all the nutty religious folks to get along.
Interesting, considering that BioLogos was founded by Francis Collins; from the his book, “The Language of God”:
(All of Chapter 9 focuses on addressing ID.)
It seems his organization is drifting farther and farther from his original vision.
It is difficult to believe that the passage you’ve quoted came from the same brain that produced the statement, “I’m also a believer in a personal God. I find the scientific worldview and the spiritual worldview to be entirely complementary.”
The god that doesn’t even insert himself into gaps is “personal”? He must be incredibly apathetic.
So why did Collins insert a religious organization in the gap between completely ridiculous and discrediting faith? The drift of Biologos from the latter to the former was a given; there is no rest place “halfway to crazy town”.
The man is as baffling as his faith. OTOH he was the guy who lost out to Venter in how to parse the genome, despite having the resources of the worlds governments behind him. So maybe he can’t find the hole in his minority pocket belief.
I’m flattered by the attention here, Sigmund. Downright blushing.
I’m also peaved–how can you deny me the honor of the worst post of the week on BioLogos? I’ll just have to try harder the next time. If you want to see if I get that prize, keep watching. Your vote counts. (And, since Jerry is from Chicago, his vote counts twice.)
By the way, you mis-stated one of my points. This one: “The conciliatory approach is clear as he warns commenters to refrain from insulting ID advocates by labeling them Idiots.” The term that gets you tossed, Sigmund, is “IDiots.” Spelling counts.