God wants ud to use our reason, and not simplistically answer these hard questions. I don’t think that we should look to the bible for answers, such as how, or when, did life emerge, or how old the earth is, or whether humans share a common ancestory, with other creatures. Why? Because the bible was never intented to answer these questions.

And, clearly, any rational person should try not to merely accept the word of authorities, exclusively. As Aquinas pointed out, in the thirteenth century, arguments, based wholly on authority, are the weakest of arguments.

And yet, we have little choice but to accept what the authorities say, since we cannot be experts, obviously, in everything. When the physicist tells me that stars have particular properties, and I ask her what this is based on, she can cite the sources, but it’s unlikely that I can go check it out, and, moreover, I don’t have the knowledge base, to properly evaluate it. So, I necessarily trust this expert.

So, when we state that, the evidence for evolution is based on our trusting of biologists, we do that with every field.

And when we say that the evidence, for evolution is not good, we ‘re usually trusting someone else, who made the evaluation, that the evidence is not good!

It is beyond me how either side can be so definitive.

About what, specifically?

And when I read them, I don’t get the sense that they really understand the issue either.

(1) Who are you referring to: someone blogging in their basement with the shades drawn, or actual scientists to speak and write for a general audience, like Francis Collins and Ken Miller?

(2) What issue don’t they appear to understand?

It is beyond me how either side can be so definitive.

However, I really do resonate with Joe’s statement here:

“Here’s the problem I have with this claim: I hear it repeated often but no one every shows the actual empirical evidence. Why do you think it exist? Because someone else told you. Why do they think it exist? Likely because someone else told them. I have never seen anyone who can actually point out this “rich, empirical evidence.” I’m not saying it doesn’t exist. I’m just saying I’ve never seen anyone who can point me to it. The most that happens is that they point to some non-controversial example of minor change and say that from this we can make large-scale extrapolations (of course, we can’t do that).”

I seek to understand this, not to defend one side or another. Our priority is to truth above all else. If evolution (of whatever variety) were true, my faith would be affected, but not too much. I could adjust. My dog in this hunt is really small (think Chihuahua).

However, I still have no reason other than the respect that I have for many smart people to accept evolution. And when I read them, I don’t get the sense that they really understand the issue either.

Again, though, I want to reiterate that my position is that most of this debate is a waste of time. We are too scientifically illiterate to really make dogmatic assertions about what theories have been proven.

You made the request for evidence in two earlier comments. I obliged in #88. Perhaps you overlooked it? Who you callin’ scientifically illiterate, Willis? (Or maybe I’m not in the extension ‘we’…could be.) Aren’t you claiming such expertise for yourself by pronouncing on who knows what they’re talking about and who doesn’t? It would be helpful to maintain the distinction between belief and knowledge. And all scientific theories, because they are supported by contingent facts, are never “proven” in an absolute, metaphysical sense.

For example, when science can’t adequately distinguish between common descent and common design…

See comment #88. I would very much be interested in hearing how the design model accounts for the same data. I know some IDers deny that the data supports the common descent hypothesis, but I’m not aware that they’ve offered testable predictions for their alternative common design hypothesis, whatever it is. Other IDers agree that the data support the common descent hypothesis.

When science can explain how information arises in biology and how the complexity of the cell arose, then I’ll be convinced that we have an adequate base of knowledge to make more complex assumptions about how life on earth developed.

So you won’t be convinced of the facts, mechanisms, and pathway established by current evolutionary theory until the abiogenesis question is answered? Why are you shifting the goal line from common ancestry to abiogenesis? Darwin’s basic thesis concerns the origin of the species (not the origin of life). At the conclusion of Origin, Darwin says: “There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.” Darwin’s theory takes those “few forms or…one” as an initial condition.

So I ask again what I asked in #88: is there any amount of evidence that would convince you that the common descent hypothesis is the best explanation for the data we have, or do you take the Kurt Wise / Todd Wood position that Genesis 1-2 excludes biological continuity between “kinds,” especially between primates and humans, and that no amount of evidence to the contrary will make any difference to your conviction?

There is no biblical or scientific reason why God’s processes could not be detected in nature….

What is a process of God? How would we distinguish it from a natural process (say, planetary motion)? Detect with what? I believe the character of God is manifest in His creation. But I “detect” that by faith, not by sight. I suspect you mean ‘detect’ using the organs of sense and reason, as Paley did with his watchmaker argument, but perhaps you could clarify.

If theistic evolutionists are open to the idea that God’s agency is (potentially) detectable, then they should be more open to ID.

I’m not a theistic evolutionist (it’s a silly term, just as theistic chemist or theistic acoustics or theistic oceanography are nonsense terms). I believe all claims can be hauled before the tribunal of reason and examined by discursive reason to see what philosophical merit they have. I would be happy to examine the claim “God’s agency is detectable” with you. Details, please, and let us see what comes of it.

As I said in my original post on this topic, we need to get a handle on the vocations of science and religion. Alister McGrath and Francis Collins rightly promote what they call “partially overlapping magisteria” (POMA), “reflecting a realization that science and religion offer possibilities of cross-fertilization on account of the interpenetration of their subjects and methods” (qtd. from The Dawkins Delusion?). Where the biblical claim about the universe is primarily concerned with human redemption, the scientific claim is exclusively concerned about the processes of nature. This should be straightforward enough, but I am amazed at how often ultra-Darwinists overreach with metaphysical statements while biblical literalists wrench the Bible out of context, turning it into “primitive science.”

I haven’t got to Collins’ treatment of ID yet, so I’m unaware of his opinion about the movement. Based on other reading, it seems that the BioLogos crowd questions the science behind ID. Has ID merely revived natural theology and tried to package it as “science”? If so, it’s not very credible. Unlike you, I don’t think “most of this debate is a waste of time.” When I’m reading “The Language of God,” I’m filled with a sense of wonder and awe at our Creator-God. The science, however incomplete, only deepens and strengthens my belief in God.

Dale: As usual, I appreciate your remarks. Reformed folks like Joe and I should incline our ear toward Pentecostals like yourself who say the real question doesn’t concern whether God’s actions are detectable, but how to exercise “discernment of divine activity.”

Maybe this is a fundamental difference in worldview–as Jamie Smith has said, Pentecostals hold to the re-enchantment of the world. The spiritual world and the physical world intersect in all kinds of ways.

I do think that defining the relationship between transcendence and immanence is part of the challenge for theistic evolution. But this is no more than other aspects of Christianity like say, certain interpretations of Reformed Christianity that are cessationist and seem in practice more deistic if not in theology.

I realize I wasn’t as clear as I should have been. I’m certainly not saying that “God’s actions are always detectable.” But if a Christian takes the position that God’s actions in nature are never detectable (and can be treated as the process of an intelligent being) then they are being functionally atheistic.

There is no biblical or scientific reason why God’s processes could not be detected in nature and attributed to his intelligence agency. To rule it out before the theory can be tested is antithetical to real scientific inquiry.

If theistic evolutionists are open to the idea that God’s agency is (potentially) detectable, then they should be more open to ID. They may have strong agreements but they shouldn’t dismiss them out of hand.

Again, though, I want to reiterate that my position is that most of this debate is a waste of time. We are too scientifically illiterate to really make dogmatic assertions about what theories have been proven. For example, when science can’t adequately distinguish between common descent and common design, it is hard to take certain scientists seriously when they make claims that that to disagree is to be uneducated on the topic.

When science can explain how information arises in biology and how the complexity of the cell arose, then I’ll be convinced that we have an adequate base of knowledge to make more complex assumptions about how life on earth developed.

I emphatically called Frank’s charges groundless based on the literature that is posted on the BioLogos website. You said I should “go ahead and explain how he has erred.” Why repeat what can be found by visiting the BL website? Check it out for yourself. Do not take my word for it. But I am confident you will discover that BL is not a cult.

What I have expressed, so far, is a sympathy for BL because it seems to do the best job of showing how science and faith are in harmony. Naturalism obviously doesn’t satisfy me because science trumps faith. Creationism doesn’t satisfy me because faith trumps science. And Intelligent Design doesn’t satisfy me because science needs divine help. These are my opinions, and nothing more. I am sure adherents from the other viewpoints would disagree with these characterizations. So be it. I would likely disagree with their characterization of BL.

My sympathy for BL will likely turn into advocacy. You are right to point out “that disputes over origins have been going on for a very long time, and the final answer to the question just isn’t accessible to us in a form that can satisfy every Bible believer. We can all have our opinions and defend them as vigorously as we may, certainly, but we ought to do so charitably among fellow believers. There are so many good, godly, thoughtful people on various sides of the issue, it’s just impossible to go straight from ‘I think you’re wrong on this’ to ‘therefore you are not a good Christian.’”

In the Evangel debate, Frank Turk is the one who has gone straight from “I think you’re wrong on this” to “therefore you are not a good Christian.” He owes an apology to BL. Tim Keller, Francis Collins, Alister McGrath, Bruce Waltke, Kenneth Miller, and John Polkinghorne are not false teachers.

Should I be surprised you think my criticism was lopsided? I said so myself! And I explained the reasons for it. I acknowledge that he called BioLogos a cult, or at least associated it with cults. Immediately afterward he added, “This assertion requires more than just saying it is so. Look for my exposition of this in the near future.” It seems more appropriate to answer after he has explained himself.

I’m gratified to know that you can say emphatically that certain charges from Frank are groundless. That you “have been recently exploring BioLogos” ought to give you grounds to go ahead and explain how he has erred. Simply to say once again that he has erred does not help me understand the matter any more than I do now.

You ask, “What else drives these groundless charges other than fear?” I answer, there could be many, many things. Maybe he thinks the charges aren’t groundless. Maybe he has seen some real error at BioLogos, according to his convictions of biblical teaching. Maybe it is fear, but if it is, I have no basis (nor do you) to present that as the whole answer. You’re concerned about “groundless charges,” right? “What else … other than” is hardly good grounding.

I am not insisting anything here, neither for you nor for Frank. I’m describing what I see, and letting you decide how you will respond.

But since you asked, maybe it would help if I filled you in on what Frank, quite appropriately, left unsaid in his post at Pyromaniacs: that email he quoted from came from me. He did not quote all of it.

Here’s another factor that might be of interest. I have a deep, deep appreciation for Francis Collins, not only as a scientist, not only as a Christian, but also as the physician who treated my big sister for a rare genetic disease many years ago. I have no interest in judging BioLogos, or the Christianity of its principals. I disagree with them on many points, but as I have already said in comment #60 above,

I think it’s important for us all to bear in mind that disputes over origins have been going on for a very long time, and the final answer to the question just isn’t accessible to us in a form that can satisfy every Bible believer. We can all have our opinions and defend them as vigorously as we may, certainly, but we ought to do so charitably among fellow believers. There are so many good, godly, thoughtful people on various sides of the issue, it’s just impossible to go straight from “I think you’re wrong on this” to “therefore you are not a good Christian.”

Because I have been recently exploring BioLogos, I can say emphatically that the following charges from Frank are groundless:

•This is [BioLogos's] chief aim — as it is the aim of every cult, post-orthodoxy, which finds itself wanting to appease some other authority apart from or above Scripture.

• My opinion is that this is what Christopher Benson is participating in — he’s endorsing BioLogos as a “middle way” approach to mend fences with “science”, but he is in fact giving up what must be called the home field of orthodoxy to do so. In every way, he endorses the POMA approach to authority where “partially overlapping” turns out to be a cover for simply allowing Science to have the first and last word, and Scripture must have only a say which is consequential to the current findings and edict of science.

• So the problem is not the lack of full-throated endorsement of a 6-day creation. The problem is not even a failure to endorse a robust doctrine of scriptural inerrancy. The problem is that there are members of the Evangel masthead who are, frankly, engaged in damaging the faith of others by defending rank apostates — and not merely defending them, but endorsing them as faithful members of the larger church.

What else drives these groundless charges other than fear? If you were setting “a better example,” you would insist that Frank stops his assault on Christians who identify with BioLogos.

In both Paul’s and John’s epistles we have warnings against false teaching, which must be identified and named what it is. So that’s not necessarily wrong to do, though without doubt it can be done wrongly.

The Matthew 7:1-5 passage does seem to warn against pronouncing personal condemnation, for when we do that we open ourselves up to the same.

Paul’s instruction in 1 Corinthians 4:1-5 reminds us that only God knows the hidden things of the heart, from which I take it that judging others’ motives, when they are not clearly and unequivocally displayed, is a violation of the Scriptures.

So what do I see going on here? I plead intentional ignorance with respect to BioLogos’s position on inerrancy. I haven’t found it necessary to go search it out. Maybe I should have done so, and maybe I’m guilty of some carelessness there. At any rate the result is that I don’t know whether Frank’s pronouncement is on the mark or not. He has promised further explication in the near future at Pyromaniacs.

Now on the other hand, Christopher’s calmly confident assessment that there is a “psychology of fear” behind Frank’s work is easier to see for what it is. First, it is a rank putdown. Second, it is judging invisible matters that only God has access to (and perhaps Frank himself). Christopher, my brother, you don’t have any idea what emotions are motivating Frank, other than what he has expressed.

Besides being a biblically prohibited form of judging (if I read the relevant passages correctly), what you have done in your most recent post has also been profoundly unhelpful. It takes the discussion off the issues and focuses it on the persons and their supposed emotions. What good do you expect that to accomplish?

I realize Frank has made some very strong statements against both BioLogos and Christopher. Maybe that’s open to criticism, too. I’m not trying to be unbalanced in singling out Christopher here. I’m trying to avoid speaking of that of which I do not have sufficient knowledge. That’s a good policy, by the way, which I recommend to everyone here.

We need more knowledge, more faith, and fewer unfounded, unsupportable, and unscriptural accusations of fear. Christopher, if you really want to answer Frank’s “smear campaign” (a single blog post counts as a campaign?), the appropriate thing, rather than smearing him back with a psychologized putdown, might be to show how BioLogos represents a high standard of scriptural authority.

Kyle, thank you for setting a better example.

There are some things I disagree with in the post:

1. He refers to Biologos as “denying critical parts of Scripture,” (which they do not do), merely because he comes to a different interpretation. From their position, they would argue passionately that they are not denying any part of Scripture, much less the critical parts. Turk goes on to call their denying Scripture “an irrefutable fact.”

Biologos would be hard to pigeon hold since they offer such a wide spectrum of contributors from Waltke and Keller who are both strong inerrantists to guys like Enns and Sparks who are not so decidedly inerrantists at all anymore. They also offer a wide variety from their scientific contributors from conservative Christians like Ard Louis to men like Francisco Ayala who seems to only nominally remain Christian. I think this makes it difficult to aim any general criticism about their denying Scripture, because the contributors do not always represent the views of the forum as a whole or according to its stated positions.

2. Whereas I agree with his main (sixth) point, I am not sure that in the discussion thus far, he has not engaged in this very thing. Instead of discussing the text, he has frequently presented his interpretation of the text as though this were the authority (and thus “apart from or above Scripture” as he said). To discuss genre almost requires such a move since Genesis 1 does not come with an introduction from Moses about how we should read the text (poetry, hymn, myth of function, etc.).

3. These are not the major issues though, because he goes on to say that Chris and Biologos are “engaged in damaging the faith of others by defending rank apostates.”

The problem is that others, even some in his own camp, do this as well. The ID movement constantly talks up their “rising number of atheists and agnostics,” and even AiG, whom John Macarthur (someone TeamPyro obviously supports) has written for and supported, will gladly endorse Moonies like Jonathan Wells as long as he will use his two Ph.D.’s to argue toward their perspective of Creation.

Whether it’s Biologos using Howard VanTill, ID trumpeting Brad Monton and Dave Berlinski or AiG using the academic credentials of Jonathan Wells…all are shameful for evangelical Christians. TE, OEC and YEC are none without example or excuse in this regard. That’s why I brought up VanTill in the other thread, because I don’t find it useful for him to be on that list under Biologos since he is an apostate.

4. Frank also says (which you quoted), “[W]hen someone is willing to take up for those engaged in activities in that sixth point, and call those activities orthodox and faithful, and to do so in a flippant way without personally engaging clear objections based on documented facts and rudimentary critical thinking, that person is himself working to damage the faith of others.”

I don’t disagree with his point, but I could give you the names of literally hundreds of people I have encountered over the years through apologetics encounters who either became liberals or lost their faith altogether whenever they found that the research and apologetics from certain YEC and even OEC organizations was not intellectually honest and didn’t fully deal with the facts. They saw this as hypocrisy and many left the faith altogether over it assuming that all of our “defenses” were a sham. Is AiG “working to damage the faith of others” by supporting books by Moonies like Wells or the heterodox like Michael Denton? Is the Discovery Institute “working to damage the faith of others” by promoting books by atheists like Brad Monton?

We all like sheep have gone astray, and all need to bring our total understandings of Scripture, science, theology, etc. under the Lordship of Christ. We should be humble in our interpretations, and confident in the teachings of orthodoxy. Does ones views on the genre of Genesis 1 or the material origins of the cosmos divide between orthodox/heterodox? I think not, and neither does Frank as he makes clear in the first few points of his post.