Here’s an equation: BioLogos + Templeton = Apologetics funded by a ton of money.
That’s precisely what’s happened with BioLogos’s “Evolution and Christian Faith” program. The Templeton Foundation has anted up nearly two million bucks for this, handing it to BioLogos in their futile attempt to bring evangelical Christians to an acceptance of evolution. The problem is that BioLogos is no longer devoted to that mission; they’ve devolved to sucking up to Christians and soft-pedaling the science. And they’ve gotten rid of people, like Karl Giberson and Pete Enns, who take a hard line on questions like the non-existence of Adam and Eve.
Here’s part of the the Templeton blurb for that program:
Many Christians believe evolution is inherently atheistic and therefore incompatible with their faith. This mistaken belief is frequently reinforced by militant atheists like Richard Dawkins and repeated by fundamentalist Christians like Ken Ham. In addition, the media repeatedly frame science/religion stories as though the two are at war. The BioLogos Foundation exists to turn the tide. In just two years BioLogos has made remarkable inroads into the evangelical community and broader culture by influencing key opinion leaders, scholars, pastors, and educators, and by reaching out to the general public.
Four misstatements, right off the bat: Richard Dawkins is not militant; he hasn’t said that evolution is inherently atheistic, but rather that it has led people like him to atheism because it displaces a creator God; there is indeed a war between science and all forms of faith that are theistic (if not, why are religious people constantly trying to sneak creationism into the public schools, and why do only 16% of Americans accept naturalistic evolution?); and BioLogos hasn’t turned any tide, nor made “remarkable inroads into the evangelical community”.
And if you want to see what Templeton is funding, have a look at how the money is being handed out by BioLogos. Here are excerpts from just a few project descriptions:
Original Sin Redux: A Study in Analytic Theology
Fuller Theological Seminary
Profesor Oliver CrispA major issue in contemporary Christian theology concerns the relationship between an evolutionary account of human origins and the doctrine of original sin. To what extent does a theological account ofthe origin of human sin depend upon the evolution of modern humans from one and only one ancestral pair – especially if that pair does not appear to correspond to what we would think of as modern human beings? How would that complicate our theological stories of human development in light of Scripture? A related issue turns on the extent to which we can we reconstruct a doctrine of original sin wherenature has always been “red in tooth and claw.”. . .
*****
Beyond Galileo – to Chalcedon: Re-imagining the Intersection of Evolution and the Fall
The Colossian Forum
Pastor Michael Gulker, Dr. James Smith, and Dr. William CavanaughThis project gathers a multidisciplinary team of leading scholars to pursue communal, research on evolution, the Fall, and original sin, asking a pressing question: If humanity emerged from non-human primates—as genetic, biological, and archaeological evidence seems to suggest—then what are the implications for Christian theology’s traditional account of origins, including both the origin of humanityand the origin of sin?The integrity of the church’s witness requires that we constructively address thisdifficult question. We believe that cultivating an orthodox theological imagination can enable us to engage these tensions without giving up on confessional orthodoxy.
Creatures of God: An Evangelical-Catholic Dialogue on Sin, Evolution and Human Nature
Concordia University
Dr. Paul Allen
This project has the objective of producing a scholarly monograph tentatively entitled Creaturehood Ascendant: Sin and Science in Theological Anthropology as well as several scholarly articles. This research will lay out a theological anthropology that builds on specific emphases of Catholic and evangelical theology in order to respond to the theory of evolution. heological and philosophical commitments that investigate and account for human personhood.
*****
My emphasis in this next one to show that such projects begin with a presupposition (God and Jesus) and then try to twist the science to fit it. In other words, apologetics:
Divine Hiddenness and Constraints on Creation: Should We Expect God to Create Gradually?
Bethany College
Dr. John MullenMany Christians attempt to deny evolutionary biology, thereby creating an intellectual obstacle for biologically-informed non-Christians who might otherwise consider Christianity favorably. Denials of evolution foster the perception that Christianity requires us to believe something that is demonstrably false, but most of us reasonably believe that God never requires that of anyone. Accordingly, the ultimate goal of this project is to remove the perception that evolution is a threat to Christianity, and to do so in such a way that non-specialists find it relatively easy to understand. This ultimate goal is broadly evangelistic, though it also eliminates a source of division among Christians. The proximate goal is to show that evolutionary biology lends very little evidential support to Philosophical Naturalism over Classical Theism. To do this, it must be shown that a gradual creation is an expected consequence of Theism. We may reasonably suppose that God, to accomplish His purposes as we can reasonably perceive them, must remain hidden to us to the point of leaving Naturalism as a “live-option” for us given our publically-accessible evidence. If so, God has good reasons to create gradually and can reasonably be expected to do so. This conflicts with a tendency most of us have to think that God would want to make His presence obvious to us. This project will be carried out through a series of academic papers, a popular-level book, and possible speaking engagements. The latter are intended to disseminate the philosophical ideas argued in the papers to a wider audience.
These projects, but especially the one above, are an insult to rationality. How can these scholars look in the mirror each day knowing that they’re taking money for such ludicrous projects? I can imagine Dr. Muller, while shaving, telling himself, “Okay, today I’m going to make up more reasons why God is hidden.”
The translation of the above is that God should create gradually (i.e., through evolution) so that we can still remain naturalists about most stuff while the shy deity remains hidden. But God could still have done that by creating everything instantly and then leaving it unchanged. After all, we don’t have to have evolution to remain naturalists. And if God works miracles with Jesus, virgin births, and so on, doesn’t that dispel naturalism, too?
It’s amazing to me that, rather than interpret the “hiddenness of God” as evidence against God, theologians twist their brains into knots trying to explain why God would actually want to remain hidden.
As Delos McKown said, “The invisible and the nonexistent look very much alike.” Much as projects like this anger me, they make me even sadder, for it shows an irremediable credulity of some humans, who waste their valuable time on this planet trying to explain why an interventionist deity can’t show Himself too obviously.
*****
One more for your delectation:
Building Bridges Between Scientists and Evangelicals: Let the Conversation Evolve
Vineyard Church of Ann Arbor
Pastor Ken Wilson, Pastor Emily Swan, and David PaladinoThe primary goal of our project is to assist a mission-driven, science-friendly change process within Vineyard churches and InterVarsity areas and chapters that are open to this shift; assist leaders in these organizations to accept theistic evolution as one of the legitimate approaches to integrating science and evangelical faith; and to help them become effective change agents within their organizations. Our secondary goal is to assist scientists and science educators to communicate with evangelicals more effectively regarding evolution.
Remember that the Vineyard Church is the one studied (and to some extent praised) by Tanya Luhrmann in her new book, When God Talks Back.
This project isn’t as invidious as the others, but note that what it aims to do is promote theistic evolution—that is, a form of teleological evolution resting on the discredited idea that evolution is driven by a form of vitalism. As I’ve said endlessly, those who accept theistic evolution, or promote it, are not our allies, nor should we court them in a misguided attempt to get friends for court battles against creationism. If evolution is to be promoted, let it be promoted on its own merits and evidence, not by saying that, after all, God is behind it or directs it. After all, we don’t have “theistic chemistry” (God moves the molecules) or “theistic physiology” (God regulates glucose metabolism).
Religious people who deny evolution are not, by and large, stupid. They know that telling them that religion and evolution are compatible isn’t going to settle the queasiness in their stomach when they realize that, in the end, evolution implies to many that humans are a contingent result of a purely materialistic process. It’s easier for them to simply reject evolution and accept the view that humans are the special product of God’s creation and morals were instilled into us by that god.
The battle to keep creationism out of schools is one battle in a war, but the war is not between evolution and creationism, but between superstition and rationality. By caving in to the theistic evolutionists, we may gain support for the battle, but only at the expense of losing the war.
I’m not sure why they would even want their god to be responsible for evolution. I can see some comfort for those egotistical enough to want us to be special and better than nature. But to imply there is some will and intelligence behind evolution makes god a most cruel scientist. All those extinctions and failed experiments, life feeding on other life to survive, why would something supposedly loving do that?
Ah, but who are we to judge what’s cruel? God is truly ineffable. ’cept when He’s telling us to burn the heretics, of course; then He’s crystal clear.
/@
I’m not sure that the evidence of evolution is disproof of theism, but I am as sure as I could be that Darwinism discredits belief in utopian first human moral conditions and the occurrence of some sort of Fall that ruined humanity (original Sin).
Moreover, I can quite personally attest to the fact that no conservative Protestant institution, such as Biologos has evidently become, has *any* interest in building theism on that admission. On the contrary, so far, they remove people like me from the conversation–literally. In my opinion, then, the sort of theistic evolution they promote (with pious and absurd bromides such as that the “hiddennes” of the theistic God is “expected” on evolutionary theism–“tooth and claw” and all–laugh or cry) fails at launch and is hardly worth discussing.
You can personally attest to the interest of *every* conservative Protestant institution? I don’t think that came out right.
Think about what that all that money could do for something like cancer research instead of chasing fairy tales.
JC says “After all, we don’t have “theistic chemistry” (God moves the molecules) or “theistic physiology” (God regulates glucose metabolism).” However, my perspective is that indeed the folks who espouse TE would also say that there is theistic chemistry, physiology, geology, etc. Initially the BioLogos “harmonizing” of science and faith was to say that the Christian God is in charge of everything in the natural world, and thus Christian dogma must consider the natural world. As you note, they seem to have abandoned that mission and the staff working toward that goal. It seems that rather than BL reshaping evangelic Christianity, it has been the other way around.
Certainly there’s the theistic reaction of H2O -> C2H6O plus various grape-related contaminants.
I’ll drink to that!!
This in turn pales in comparison to:
C2H6O + grape contaminants -> complex solution of albumin, globulins, fibrinogen, clotting factors, and other proteins with red and white cells and platelets suspended in it.
Even more remarkable considering that the red color due to phenolic compounds now becomes red due to hemoglobin.
“If humanity emerged from non-human primates—as genetic, biological, and archaeological evidence seems to suggest—then what are the implications for Christian theology’s traditional account of origins, including both the origin of humanity and the origin of sin?”
Umm, they would be the same implications for adjudicating the traditional apologue of Pangu.
the amazing arrogance and selfishness that the waste of this money represents. Millions given to people to examine their navels and give external validation to theists, rather than used to help people in this thing we call reality.
If the money kept them busy examining their navels rather than spreading their foolishness, it would be money well spent, but unfortunately it does not.
Imagine how useful that money would be to the very many hard pressed philosophy departments in universities …. oh, hang on. I see what you mean.
It strike me that Templeton/BioLogos aren’t so much in the business of making evolution and religion compatible as they are in the business of keeping seats in pews. They make no effort to show contributions to science. All their effort is on concealing the reasons thinking people might want to chuck their churches.
It seems that some of the people who received grants are also on the Board of Advisors (there were at least two cases, perhaps more). This strikes me as odd (conflict of interest?) but perhaps it is normal for the way some granting agencies work?
No legitimate organization would allow that kind of clear conflict of interest.
True indeed, but most of us are used to the rigors of applying for NIH or NSF funding. Being a private, Templeton can pretty much do what they please, which includes funding their pets.
“[T]he war is not between evolution and creationism, but between superstition and rationality.” Yep. This reminds me of Michael Shermer’s book, “Why People Believe Weird Things”.
“frequently reinforced by militant atheists like Richard Dawkins”
Enough with the Dawkins already! Tired cliche or compulsory mantra? Richard’s not the only one who’s calling you out on this. The label “militant atheist Richard Dawkins” seems to have taken on a life of its own, quite separate from the man himself.
Oh, compulsory mantra, surely! I think these people have configured their spell-checkers to “correct” “atheist” to “militant atheists”. And “militant atheists” to “militant atheists like Richard Dawkins”. And “Richard Dawkins” to “militant atheist Richard Dawkins”. &c.
And “secularists” to “aggressive secularists”. Oh, no, sorry. That’s the press office at 10 Downing Street.
/@
Once you realize that religion is a swindle, through and through, soup to nuts, and has been for millennia, all the money that Templeton and their ilk pours into it makes perfect sense.
As advertising campaigns go, this one is dirt cheap. Their other expenses are negligible, as well, which is why their profits are through the roof.
And, as long as that remains the case, they’re not going to give any slack on their neverending snow job.
Oh, sure. There’re those who’ve been “honestly” taken in by the scam, who “really” believe it, who will sincerely insist that there’s Ultimate Truth to be found in a fourth-rate faery tale about an enchanted garden with talking animals and an angry wizard. But that’s just garden-variety cognitive dissonance, a variation on the Stockholm Syndrome.
The way to lessen the pervasiveness of this variety of parasitism is to educate the general public on the one hand and subject the ridiculous propositions to proper ridicule on the other.
The day that a door-to-door Jesus salesman is nearly universally greeted with, “Aren’t you a bit old to still believe in that stuff?” is the day that Christianity can safely be pronounced dead.
Cheers,
b&
I live in an area where you literally cannot take any road to anywhere without hitting a church. A large percentage of these establishments have the “reader board” type of signs out front that can be changed by moving letters around. And many of those churches are fond of putting pithy little sayings on those boards.
And I think the same thing as you do, Ben, everytime I see one of these sayings.
“Aren’t you too old to believe in fairy stories?”
That and “that just doesn’t make any fucking sense at all.”
Can you move the letters around to spell out “Aren’t you too old to believe in fairy stories?”? 😮
/@
In my opinion people tend to be way too tolerant of the Jesus salesmen. When they invade my yard I let them have it with a verbal assault they won’t forget. They can avoid this by not invading my yard. I do the talking when they’re on my turf. I am very hostile, but I do not break the law.
Unfortunately, I don’t get that opportunity very often. For years, maybe. Then last month when someone does call I’m in the middle of a phone call from my sister about the birth of her latest grandchild…
/@
I do that too but feel more win when I turn the episode into a joke and laugh them out of the yard.
There must be at least a handful of the faithful who would be near death with embarrassment UNLESS they wrapped their nonsense in something real, objective, whatever. Part of me feels sorry for them – they have some deep-seated needs to be met, and embracing these myths meet those needs.
“Much as projects like this anger me, they make me even sadder that humans are not only so deluded, but waste their valuable time on this planet trying to explain why an interventionist being can’t show Himself too obviously.”
More broadly, this really is one of the saddest things about organized religion, the huge amounts of valuable time so many people invest in worshiping, contemplating, and trying to engage with the supernatural. These are still the Dark Ages.
Or the vast amount of time and money “scientists” waste on evolutionary nonsense. Rational people know that the math doesn’t work, that the conditions on the early earth could not give rise to organic molecules, and that DNA could not evolve.
Science can get along perfectly well without evolution. Why do you cling to that fairy tale so fiercely? A 19th century theory based on 19th century science. Let it go.
You can tell those are important projects because they all have colons in their titles.
In that sense, literally high colonic.
It’s just one big salvage mission.
Now hold on. I can see some benefit here.
Evolution isn’t being rejected out of hand. Rather, these guys see they have to engage in examining it. Their initial approach, at least, is totally biased. But, as Shermer points out, so is ours.
The fact that they are investing money shows that they see they have a serious problem. Surely they will come up with more apologies for uniting science with their fantasies. But along the way they are having to engage with the facts. That can only tickle more doubts in some of these “researchers,” perhaps in only a few. That is a gain for everybody.
Let’s make sure they have lots of facts to consider. Some of their gaps are already full. Some are not. The latter remain our problem. Thanks for the reminder.
We will also see reconciling apologies emerge and evolve(!), some new, some old. We will attack with our own satisfying biases. This will keep the debate going. That’s more opportunities for us to present our refined case and keep it jolly alive. In this way their wasteful investment can have a positive outcome. Some bystanders will consider the arguments and see more convincing evidence. More tickle. Thinking may ensue.
No doubts for equally biased us: We will remain engaged.
What does this mean? “Their initial approach, at least, is totally biased. But, as Shermer points out, so is ours.”
Yeah, he stopped me at that.
“he hasn’t said that evolution is inherently atheistic”
I bet that he thinks that, though. Because it is.
No, it isn’t. Evolution has no need for the God hypothesis. It is the theistical crowd that rises up crying foul, who continually refuse to listen to the evidence etc, throwing up the same tired arguments, devoid of any evidence.
Whisky Tango Foxtrot galore.
I think John Mullen’s argument is a load of dingo’s kidneys:
http://idiom.ucsd.edu/~bakovic/camba_files/misc/ll/babelfish.html
So, God wishes to remain hidden… and sends his only begotten son down to Earth.
Ah, the iron-clad consistency of Sophisticated Theology™.
/@
I love the paradox of believing that God wouldn’t require us to believe something that’s demonstrably false.
“By caving in to the theistic evolutionists, we may gain support for the battle, but only at the expense of losing the war.”
If we lose this battle – if science class, which should be a haven of rationality, becomes a forum for superstition – it may take a long time to win the war.
We won’t lose the battle. We just don’t need to get theologians and accommodationists to testify in court to win.
Anyway, we’ve already won in America. All that remains is to put out the brushfires, like dover.
and BioLogos hasn’t turned any tide, nor made “remarkable inroads into the evangelical community”.I wouldn’t necessarily say that. At the conference I was at last week in Gaithersburg, MD there were about 200 ‘church’ people in attendance to hear BioLogos and Reasons to Believe present their old-earth origins models. The audience even got an undergraduate lecture on genetics 101 by Dr. Darrel Faulk to boot. One of the guests in the Q&A session summed it well by thanking the church and pastor who held the event for having this dialog because ‘you wouldn’t see an open discussion like this regarding evolution in very many evangelical churches.’ Which is true…so a long way to go (many trails blazed by RTB over the past few decades) but progress is being made. I also had a few minutes of nice conversation with Dr. John Collins who was in attendance.
Derek – I presume this was the Seneca Creek event, and would also presume that you meant Falk, not Faulk and perhaps Francis and not John? My take on JC’s comment is that BioLogos has moved toward Mohler et al more than vice versa.
Doug yes your correct. And yes it was Dr. Francis Collins of course.