Have you ever heard of an organization that is completely dedicated to proclaiming the evolutionary worldview within the Church? The BioLogos Foundation does just that. In fact, the homepage of their website says this:
“BioLogos invites the church and the world to see the harmony between science and biblical faith as we present an evolutionary understanding of God’s creation.”—BioLogos.org
My charge against BioLogos’ teachings, based on the biblical presupposition, is this: BioLogos is not teaching observational science in regards to the topic of origins. They are teaching a non-Christian religion: the religion of Humanism. Therefore, BioLogos tries to mix two religions: Christianity and Humanism.
While BioLogos is blinded by the veil of a false definition of “science,” my recent Facebook debate with them does a lot of “unmasking,” and demonstrates the validity of my charge. To date, I have primarily engaged humanists (e.g. atheists, agnostics, etc.) in my online debating. However, I find that it is also important to engage compromising Christians in debate for the purpose of refuting false teaching and upholding the authority of the Word of God. That is the purpose of both my debate with BioLogos and this specific blog series concerning that debate: to unmask their false teaching and uphold biblical authority. As a corollary to this purpose, I am not going to question whether or not their staff and supporters are legitimate followers of Christ.
To provide some context behind the beginning statements in this debate, BioLogos reposted a video on their Facebook page that tries to equate the authority of the “Book of Theology” with that of the “Book of Nature.” The original posting of the video can be found here: https://www.facebook.com/biologosfoundation/videos/10153119361952181/.
BioLogos reposted the video to their Facebook “Timeline” on September 7th, 2017. On September 9th I commented on the video, and that is how the debate began. I was originally expecting only BioLogos supporters to reply. To my pleasant surprise, BioLogos directly engaged in the discussion. Only one BioLogos supporter offered any comments. Below is Part 1 of 7 of the BioLogos debate.
Me:
“God’s book of nature contains substantial evidence that the universe is old, that life developed over billions of years, and that humans are related to other life on earth through a common ancestor” I have three questions for you, and I ask these with sincerity and respect, and not for the purpose of “trolling.” 1. Can you provide an example of observable evidence, absent from faulty, falsifiable assumptions, that proves that the universe is billions of years old? 2. Since molecules-to-man evolution requires growth in genetic information and complexity, can you provide an example of observable evidence of an organism gaining new genetic information/complexity? For instance, can you provide an observable example of an organism that had no eyes, but then evolved eyesight? 3. You equate “God’s book of nature” with God’s Word. How can we truly understand nature without first STARTING with special revelation (God’s Word)? In Genesis 3:6, Eve chose to understand the “book of nature” on her own, without first trusting God’s special revelation regarding His warning that the punishment for eating from the Tree of Knowledge was death. Instead, Eve decided to believe a lie that the tree was “good for food,” a “delight to the eyes,” and “desirable to make one wise.” By already choosing to believe in evolution/millions-of-years, aren’t you making a similar mistake by not starting with the natural reading of scripture?
BioLogos:
If you're actually looking for a conversation, it's not helpful to frame your comment with language that suggests that no matter what "evidence" we provide, you are prepared in advance to reject it as illegitimate.
Me:
Isn’t that exactly what you do with biblical creation (i.e. Young Earth Creation)? Aren’t you prepared in advance to reject it as illegitimate? This goes back to my third question above.
BioLogos:
Kevin Hadsall, A good conversation involves an effort on both sides to represent each other's arguments accurately and respectfully. Which makes it concerning that your original set of questions contains so many straw man arguments.
Me:
I agree that we need to be accurate and respectful in our conversations, especially because these are biblical concepts (i.e. Exodus 20:16 and 1 Peter 2:17), and not just Man’s ideas. I was hoping that we would have a respectful, back-and-forth discussion/debate, and I still desire that. However, you just made an unsubstantiated allegation against me, which does not seem to be “accurate and respectful.” Are you able to substantiate your allegation that my original questions are employing straw man arguments?
Later on in the debate, BioLogos apologized to me for falsely assuming that I was just trying to be "aggressive." They also provide responses to my original questions. Before BioLogos responded back, a BioLogos supporter jumped in the thread. I will begin sharing that portion of the debate in my next blog post.