The BioLogos Forum. It has a very cool name, and I can just see its shiny Starfleet-style insignia on a letterhead or uniform. Its mission: to “promote and celebrate the integration of science and Christian faith.” But according to Phil Johnson yesterday, so far it’s pretty lame.
[A]bout two weeks ago, Darrel Falk (president of The BioLogos Foundation) Fedexed me a copy of a letter he wrote to John MacArthur. It seems the staff at BioLogos had been reading a series of posts about Genesis and the biblical account of creation on the Grace to You blog and they were convinced MacArthur’s critique of uniformitarianism missed the mark.
Mr. Falk’s letter to John MacArthur informed him that BioLogos was about to do a three-part response on the subject, defending uniformitarianism. So I figured I would wait and read what they have to say.
In the first article, Stephen O. Moshier essentially argues that uniformitarianism itself has never really been uniform. He says the term “as it is used by geologists today [is different from] the 19th century definition.” Supposedly, Dr. MacArthur did his readers a disservice by not chronicling the evolution of uniformitarian definitions.
That’s fine, but utterly beside the point. Don’t the curse and the flood still refute the uniformitarian presupposition? Biblical arguments are missing from Moshier’s article (oddly titled “The Biblical Premise of Uniformitarianism”).
Well, OK, biblical references are not entirely missing. I should mention Moshier’s one lame appeal to the words of the sage in Ecclesiastes 1:9: “That which has been is that which will be, and that which has been done is that which will be done. So there is nothing new under the sun.”
As if that disproved the Genesis account and settled the dispute on the side of the skeptics in 2 Peter 3:4.
I’m still wondering: why are some Christians so determined to let evolutionary ideas, based upon only allowing non-God assumptions about history, dictate how we understand the Bible?
This isn’t the same as disagreements over end-times beliefs or baptism. Proponents of those views can find Biblical support for their side, and that is the basis of whatever arguments they use. But in this case, it’s Christians (some of whom just don’t know) accepting inherently anti-God biases and then trying to interpret them as if they were made by objective observers.
And by the way, few people claim a Christian who believes evolution is a heretic. But if you follow the logical conclusions of believing Genesis is only metaphor, you run into so many core-doctrine problems: death before sin, God saying disease was “good,” the flood account being twisted into a “local” flood instead of the clearly described global cataclysm that it was — and ultimately the very reason why Jesus needs to redeem this world.
As I recently wrote to a family member:
Why accept the secular scientists’ “rules of the game” anyway? They’ve already presupposed that God has little or nothing to do with origins worldviews and interpret evidence accordingly. Moreover, origins worldviews have nothing to do with finding or presenting different sets of evidence that speak one way or the other. For unobservable events in the past, such as creation or evolution, all we have are present-day evidence in the present. Which presuppositions best explain it? Let’s admit we have them. More here.
[In the God-used-evolution notions,] creatures on Earth would be living, dying, killing each other, getting bone disease and cancer (as fossils show). Was this before God created the first humans? If so, how could He pronounce this world “very good”? Yes, one can be saved without believing in a literal Genesis, but despite that disbelief, not because of it. We reading Scripture naturally everywhere else; why avoid that in Genesis? The creation account is irrevocably intertwined with all other Scriptural truths: Who owns us, His goodness, what caused sin, why we need to be saved, why marriage is what it is, why public nakedness isn’t cool, and many more.
BioLogos is apparently sticking true to the idea of uniformitarianism. Maybe after millions of years of changes, they will be using the actual Bible to defend evolution-based beliefs.
So far all they have is a nice series of hypotheses about how God somehow used evolution and worked His way up to the first humans. It’s a fun story, with intelligently designed ideas about another world, but it isn’t about the world God actually gave us, the world He created — after which He was kind enough to share with us in Genesis about the process He used.
Also I do wish Tim Keller, even if he isn’t sure how to understand or explain anti-God assumptions about man’s origins compared with the Bible, would get out of this shindig.