I haven’t been to the BioLogos site in a while, but I hied myself over there yesterday, and was appalled—but not surprised—to see that the site has become yet more evangelical while moving even farther away from scientific evolution. (Remember that the organization was founded by Francis Collins and Karl Giberson, both of whom have left it, to try to push evangelical Christians toward a scientific view of evolution.) Instead, the reverse movement has happened: Biologos has become less scientific and more evangelical. And the evolution they’re pushing is no longer scientific, but theistic. In fact, it comes pretty close to Intelligent Design.
First of all, though, BioLogos now has a “faith statement” that resembles those of religious schools like Wheaton College or Bob Jones University. Have a gander:
One wonders, given BioLogos‘s professed penchant for science, how they know the things above they profess to know. There are, for example, several empirical claims in “What we believe”, like the existence and resurrection of Jesus, the efficacy of prayer, the existence of miraclex, and the implied existence of an afterlife and heaven, all of which contradict claims of other faiths. How does BioLogos know that these claims are right and that contradictory claims, like those of Judaism or Islam, are wrong? Where’s the evidnce?
Further, the organization not only avows the existence of miracles, but also appears to be flirting not with intelligent design (the first sentence in bold below was bolded by me, while the bits in paragraph 2 were bolded by BioLogos):
But while we accept the scientific evidence for evolution, BioLogos emphatically rejects Evolutionism, the atheistic worldview that so often accompanies the acceptance of biological evolution in public discussion. Evolutionism is a kind of scientism, which holds that all of reality can in principle be explained by science. In contrast, BioLogos believes that science is limited to explaining the natural world, and that supernatural events like miracles are part of reality too.
In contrast to EC [Evolutionary Creationism] YEC [Young Earth Creationism], and OEC [Old Earth Creationism], Intelligent Design (ID) does not explicitly align itself with Christianity. It claims that the existence of an intelligent cause of the universe and of the development of life is a testable scientific hypothesis. ID arguments often point to parts of scientific theories where there is no consensus and claim that the best solution is to appeal to the direct action of an intelligent designer. At BioLogos, we believe that our intelligent God designed the universe, but we do not see scientific or biblical reasons to give up on pursuing natural explanations for how God governs natural phenomena. We believe that scientific explanations complement a robust theological understanding of God’s role as designer, creator, and sustainer of the universe.
By accepting supernatural events like miracles, they are joining science with theology in a way they say they don’t (see the video in which BioLogos President Deborah Haarsma claims that there’s no conflict betwen science and religion). If miracles are really “part of reality”, then they can be documented. So which “miracles” does BioLogos accept? By all means let us have a list. Of course one of these is the Resurrection, the linchpin of Christianity, and that itself is a form of Intelligent Design. Once you accept the Resurrection, it’s not much of a leap to believe that God could have created a flagellum—or the Cambrian Explosion.
The second paragraph, while rejecting most forms of creationism, doesn’t do so with Intelligent Design Creationism (ID). While they’re cagey about it, what BioLogos professes, as you’ll see in the video below, is a form of Intelligent Design, one in which God apparently engineered not only the Big Bang, but also the evolution of humans in a specific place: on Earth. That might have involved supernatural processes, and in that case it would be an instance of ID.
Below is a new video, “The Big Story,” that’s appeared on the BioLogos site. It’s narrated by Reverend Leonard J. Vander Zee, a former Minister of the Christian Reformed Church. Here’s he’s doing the classical accommodationist tap dance, arguing that evolution was simply God’s way of making humans. I urge you to listen to it, but defy you to do so without gritting your teeth. For this is Sophisticated Theology™ at its best. Seriously, take 12 minutes of your time to listen to what passes for sophisticated theological lucubration:
There are a number of problems with this story. Why, for instance, is (as Vander Zee argues) the Bible “the true story of the whole world”, but, as the Reverend also admits, gives only a knowledge of the ancient world that its inhabitants had? If the Bible is the “inspired and authoritative word of God”, why didn’t God tell the authors of Scripture to mention evolution?
And why did God use evolution instead of creationism to bring humans into being? It’s no good for theists to respond, “Because that’s the way God did it.” They have to give us a credible explanation. The usual one is that evolution is more “creative” that ex nihilo creation, but of course evolution involves immense amounts of suffering via natural selection, as well as the extinction, without descendants, of more than 99% of the species that ever lived. Why all that waste? If you say, “God’s nature and ways are inscrutable,” then you lay yourself open to the question, “Well, then how do you know that God is good, or all the other stuff you profess in your statement of belief?”
The big problem of theistic evolution is its clear odor of special pleading, and its failure to convincingly explain why God would go through a 14-billion-year rigamarole just to create a single species on a single planet to worship Him. It’s a lot of superfluous work, and the evolutionary explanation is just not convincing to those who aren’t already in the asylum. If only people like Vander Zee would use their considerable intellect for real work, rather than trying to reassure their fellow inmates that their delusions are real!
Note as well the teleology that pervades Vander Zee’s Big Story. God is constantly intervening to make evolution work the right way. E.g., “God caused matter to win out” (as opposed to the annihilation of matter by antimatter) after The Big Bang. And “God was delighted that it all went just according to plan.” Ah, a plan—it’s not naturalistic after all. And why would God be “delighted”? He’s omnipotent, for crying out loud—what he plans must occur.
And this: “The laughter of the Trinity rang through the cosmos. Everything was just right for the next step—life.” Clearly God’s running the whole show, step by planned step. (How can the Trinity laugh, by the way?)
As Vander Zee continued, he astonished me by claiming that God decided to put humans on Earth, focussing on the solar system and on the “one planet [that] orbited at right distance with light and heat optimal for life.” This, of course, means that the evolution of humans in God’s image was planned to happen on our planet, and therefore the evolution of humans was inevitable on Earth rather than elsewhere. As I show in Faith Versus Fact, such a statement is scientifically dubious based on what we know about evolution. Given billions of planets or gazillions of multiverses, you could make a case that intelligent life would evolve somewhere in the Universe, but not necessarily on Earth. Yet I’ve been criticized for arguing that Christians claim that human evolution was inevitable on this planet. Well, many of them do, and Vander Zee is one.
Other questions arise. Why did God make Earth so inhospitable for humans? Most of it is covered in water where we can’t live, and the planet is regularly roiled by earthquakes and other phenomena that kill us off. A lot of it is too cold and unproductive to support our species. Really, couldn’t have God done better than that?
It’s time to realize that theistic evolution, the teleological view of the process now touted by BioLogos, is both scientifically and theologically dubious. People like Vander Zee may be paid to transform scientific necessities into theological virtues, but we still have theological questions that they are obliged to answer.
I was recently accused of being so strident that I’d called religious people “morons.” I replied that I’d never done that, and challenged my interlocutor to give me a citation. He couldn’t. But when you listen to people like Vander Zee spout this kind of gibberish, it’s hard to refrain from at least calling their beliefs not only unsupported and incredibl, but also childish. The video above is simply twelve minutes of a laughable fairy tale, and shame on those who’ve convinced themselves it’s true.
I like the typo of “miraclex” for “miracle” (paragraph 3). Miraclex sounds like an over-the-counter medication for someone needing a miracle. Where can I buy some?!
A quick google search reveals the top result for miraclex is a male sexual enhancement pill. So miraclex does exist, but I would question whether or not it does what is claimed.
😉
[Since the later thread isn’t really suitable for the family site WEIT aims to be, I can as well trash joke too I guess:]
Oh, I don’t know. It sounds exactly like the sanctified little helpers of Big Dork.
I can’t type either. That should read “miracles” not “miracle”.
I have often wondered if there was a place to nurture those who simply cannot reconcile their rational nature with their Woo nature.
I note that the logical conclusion of #10 in the Faith Statement is that pets don’t get to heaven. That’s going to be Bad News rather than the touted Good News for a lot of people.
Stories should at least be internally logical and consistent, and the video doesn’t even manage that.
I imagine the trinity laughs like someone with multiple personalities laughs.
The multiple personalities thing got me thinking
The holy spirit – Sexual predator. May touch or enter you without permission
God – Abusive partner. “I know I threw an earthquake at you last week but it’s only because I love you so much”
Jesus – Sadomasochist. Practically volunteers to get crucified in a tiny loin cloth. And what else would turn the other cheek mean if it’s not about spanking?
“What We Believe” faith statement is not only a declaration of voluntarily sacrificing one’s critical thinking skills it also promotes living as a snowflake with the adamant request that there can be no self-criticism of said faith.
“What We Believe” is more like an acknowledgement and public endorsement of imprisonment by faith.
Spot on. Bravo.
Yeah, there are a lot of problems with that story, more than enough to go around for everyone. I’ll mention a couple that came to me.
1. God doesn’t actually appear to do much, or at least it isn’t stated unambiguously. Usually what happens is said to result from forces engineered into the universe at the beginning (e.g. gravity causing star formation), or things just arise through no stated agency (such as, apparently, life). He acts clearly only three times that I can find: the creation of the initial singularity, choosing Earth for life and causing (apparently) comets to rain down good molecules, and breathing his spirit into humans (whatever that means).
2. Though everything happens exactly according to plan, humans ruin it all by getting uppity. This, for some reason, is claimed not to be the plan, and needs more intervention to repair.
Is this sophisticated theology? It seems exceedingly confused, even self-contradictory. Or perhaps that’s just a gauge of how sophisticated it is.
‘”God was delighted that it all went just according to plan.”‘
Hmmmm. . . How could ‘God,’ an omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent being, be ‘delighted’ with the outcome of his/her/its plan? For of course it HAD to come out the way it came out, while ‘delight’ would be appropriate only for merely probable outcomes.
Surely God must have died of boredom by now?
After all, he’s had 13.82 billion years (plus the eternity before he created the Universe) where everything goes exactly as he wishes (since he’s omnipotent) and nothing is ever a surprise (since he’s omniscient).
Perhaps that’s why he turned himself into Jesus for 33 years: he was on Sabbatical!
😀
sub
JAC asks: “Why did God make Earth so inhospitable for humans? Most of it is covered in water where we can’t live, and the planet is regularly roiled by earthquakes and other phenomena that kill us off. A lot of it is too cold and unproductive to support our species. Really, couldn’t have God done better than that?”
I think the answer is buried in #3. It’s what we get for all that sinnin’ 🙂
I didn’t understand ONE goddamned thing he said. ‘Course, that’s because I actually tried to understand one goddamned thing he said.
And I was raised a bible-believing christian. That damned book always baffled me. And how you pretend for one goddamn second that somehow it has the “one truth” that “makes it all make sense” baffles me even more.
Goddamn (can I say that?)
A long time ago in a space-time far far away…
A bubble of inflationary dark energy was released into the void. It expanded for time uncounted, until…
There came to pass a quantum fluctuation whereby a small region of the dark energy slowed its expansion, and lo, the dark energy was converted into matter and forces and heat…
And there was light. But the light had nowhere to go for it was trapped in very dense plasma of hot, expanding matter.
After an age of but a few picoseconds, the expanding matter cooled whereupon it formed the first protons and neutrons.
And it came to pass after 100 seconds that the first nuclei did form, and those were but nuclei of hydrogen and helium.
After an age of 380,000 years, there came a time when the first true atoms could appear, and these were formed from the first nuclei. And upon this time the first light was now unleashed to travel, carrying the holy image of our universe outward.
Amen
Dark Energy: I am your father.
3 K lukewarm universe: No. No! That’s not true! That’s impossible!
Dark Energy: Search your observations; you know it to be true!
3 K lukewarm universe: NOOOOOOO! NOOOOOOOO!!!
🙂
That reads like theology in the cheap tuxedo suit of philosophy.
We can do that too:
Philosophism is a kind of theologism, which holds that all of reality can be explained by magic. Magic made the universe, or it made the physical laws that reality works with except when it doesn’t and magical ‘supernatural events’ does it instead.
TL;DR: Theologism is 100 % magic, 100 % buffoonery, and 100 % lunacy.
In any case, where is The Evidence™?
Instead we have The Evidence™ that philosophism/theologism doesn’t work. If nature isn’t 100 % nature and science isn’t 100 % science, how come thermodynamics (or quantum field theory, cosmology, geology, evolution, et cetera) exist?
Oops. “Tuxedo suit” seems to be a [swedish] mongrel.
” Theologism is 100 % magic, 100 % buffoonery, and 100 % lunacy.”
The Trinity!
Number 3 in the list asserts that all people, which has to include babies, have sinned against God. That idea is just stupid. In fact, the whole notion of original sin is what led me to atheism. Once I rejected that idea, the rest was easy.
Besides, what is the moral fiber in a religion where their magic Oompa Loompas can’t in principle forgive any and all missteps?
And if Jesus was necessary to “save” us from original sin, why did God wait X (however many the YECs/OECs think there were) thousand years between Adam & Eve sinning and sending Jesus.
It doesn’t seem very fair on all those who lived & died in that interval – can God really tell an arrival at the Pearly Gates “Well, if you had hung on to life for another 10 minutes, you could have spent eternity in Heaven – bus since you died just before the Resurrection it’s off to Hell with you” ?
Okay… if you accept the premise that their god uses evolution as a “means by which God providentially achieves his purposes” what’s to say that god’s purpose hasn’t been achieved already in dinosaurs or some future cybernetic universal brain? Or even that god’s purposes was the creation of species, most of which are now extinct.
How do they ‘know’ these things?
Yes, and once you accept that god acts through natural processes, wouldn’t removing god have no effect on the result? “I had no need of that hypothesis.”
Genesis 1 is “poetic and imaginative”? Has this guy actually read that execrable work of fiction?
I love his story…it seems to be an explanation of the standard model of cosmology peppered with “God did it” where it is entirely unneccesary. For example “by the force of gravity, God built within it …”, nope, the force of gravity just did what gravity does, no need for a further cause here.
Regarding the charge posed against you in the final paragraph of this article — that you allegedly called religious people “morons”, it’s not exactly true, but I think I know where your accuser might have thought he/she heard that.
It’s fresh in my mind because I just recently watched your Darwin Day Lecture that was posted not long ago and something similar happened. I showed it to a religious friend who immediately took offense during the part of the video where the word was used…. and I just double checked. It’s at about 16:08 in the video that the word “moron” was used. But it’s not exactly geared toward religious people (though, I can see why they might interpret it that way haha)
What you actually said was “…there is enough support for evolution that we can say that it’s true. True in the scientific sense that you would have to be a moron….in order to not accept evolution, because the evidence is so strong and comes from so many independent fields of science”.
You also apologized about using a politically incorrect word and rephrased with “blinkered/obtuse”.
Most religionist’s including the friend I showed the video to, was probably not offended by the “politically incorrect” use of the word, in fact in the case of my friend, I know he wasn’t offended that the word was used, he was offended because he happens to deny evolution and so he felt personally insulted as if you directly called him a “moron”. I’m sure most of them feel the same.
But I just want to say that I agree with you. Something must be going on if they deny a theory as strongly supported by science as evolution. Either they are morons who simply can’t understand it because of some sort of intellectual deficit, or they are so wrapped up within their religion that they do in fact understand it, but they don’t WANT to, because of a cognitive dissonance. I don’t fault you one bit for saying that, and I agree with you.
As Richard Dawkins once said to paraphrase, “…if necessary, religion must be ridiculed with contempt”.
I should stress once again however, that you did not call religious people morons (though you could). And as you’re fully aware, many religionists accept evolution. You were criticizing the reluctance to accept a fact that has been proven with multifarious evidence.
My guess is the person heard something they didn’t like that sent sour feelings in their mind, and in a haste of frustration, they mixed up what you really said or had a distorted memory of it when they made the accusation. Or they might truly feel that criticizing a willing ignorance to evolution is synonymous with criticizing they and their religion, as for many it’s such a strong overlapping delusion.
Fundamentalists envying science, film at 11:00.
Fine. Set back understanding of cause and effect 800 years. What will happen? Like it did before, the scientific process will simply regenerate toward its current naturalistic position by the evolutionary process of preserving the verified and discarding the disproven or unnecessary. Only it will happen in a lot less time this time.
The warning word for all the children to remember and look out for is BIG. When the word big precedes story or question you know to look out below and strap on those high boots because it will soon be deep in here. The odor is only in your imagination and soon the only question will be – are you kidding me?
Giberson’s departure I knew about, but when did Collins leave?
According to Dr. Collins, he founded BioLogos but later left to be the director of the NIH. I can see how his continued association with BioLogos would at the very least raise eyebrows with people at NIH.
Since god and chance are inseparable, belief is a gamble. Science is Mr Collins’ personal attempt to shorten the odds.
“Properly interpreted, Scripture and nature are complementary and faithful witnesses to their common Author.”
And of course, they are *properly* interpreting it. But, last week I heard Ken Ham say he is *properly* interpreting it. The week before that I heard Ben Carson was *properly* interpreting and following God’s call for him to be the next president.
Don’t believe them? Well, you aren’t properly interpreting like the are!
This is funny.
That video was embarrassingly bad.
“egg of the universe”?
Biological continuity and *also* as spiritual beings? How does that work?