BioLogos Debate: Scientific Consensus?
Updated: Jun 27
As discussed in my previous blog post, I engaged in a debate directly with the BioLogos Foundation Facebook page. My charge against the teachings of BioLogos is that they are not teaching observational science, but instead, they are trying to mix Christianity with the religion of Humanism. This lengthy debate with BioLogos, and one of their supporters, exposes their anti-biblical presuppositions. After an initial back-and-forth with BioLogos, one of their supporters jumped in with a comment. As always, I will abbreviate personal names for the purpose of privacy, so I will refer to him as “LA.” In Part 2 of 7 of the BioLogos debate below, I am only sharing the first half of my response back to LA, as to keep this post within the limits of reasonable reading length. I will share the remaining part of my response in my next blog post.
The scientific consensus based on observation, experimentation, and calculation is that the Universe is in the neighborhood of 13.9 billion years old and that life on earth began with simple one-cell organisms which increased in complexity over eons of time to include a wide variety of multi-celled organisms. A social media site is not really a good place to have a long serious discussion/debate about the conclusions of mainstream science. I suggest you read books on the subjects and perhaps consult with experts in these fields directly. God's Creation, the natural world, is here for us to study. God gave us our minds. He gave us the ability to reason and to learn how it all works. You make a really BIG assumption by taking the Creation Story as a literal, historical account of the Universe and human origins. I don't believe God inspired the Creation Story to teach ancient peoples the science behind His Creation. Instead, I believe His intent was simply to reveal Himself as the Creator of all things, that He created the universe in parts (or epochs), and that human beings at some point became estranged from Him. It is about our relationship to Him, The Story is certainly spiritually true. There were many Church Fathers including St. Augustine (5th cent.) who did not accept Genesis as as literal account, but as a metaphorical account of Creation. I find it astounding that in the 21st century there are those who insist that Genesis is a literal an historical account.
LA, thank you for the discussion, and please note that my reply is said with sincerity and respect. Sometimes it’s hard to convey that in writing, so I wanted to say that up front. I will respond to your comment in segments, because I'm getting an error message when I try to post my complete comment.
“The scientific consensus…”
This statement employs two logical fallacies: appeal to authority and appeal to majority. I can apply the same logic by appealing to equally educationally-qualified scientific authorities that believe in biblical creation. There are plenty of PhD creation scientists at Answers in Genesis, Institute for Creation Research (ICR), Biblical Science Institute, and at various universities and other ministries/organizations. Moreover, by applying the same logic, “the scientific consensus” also says that virgins don’t give birth, and therefore, Jesus could not be born of a virgin. The “scientific consensus” also says that people do not rise from the dead, but of course, God’s Word tells us that Jesus rose from the dead. Yet, I assume that you would disagree with the majority “scientific consensus” on those points.
“…based on observation, experimentation, and calculation is that the Universe is in the neighborhood of 13.9 billion years old…”
What observation and experimentation? Who existed for billions of years to test, verify, and witness events that supposedly happened billions of years ago? How is this based on observation and not faith? This goes back to Question #1 in my original comment. Only God existed in the beginning of time (Gen 1:1), so He is the most reliable witness. Understanding the difference between observational science and historical science is critically important. Here is a short video that briefly explains the difference: https://answersingenesis.org/media/video/science/nature-of-science/
As I mentioned in the introduction, I had much more to say to LA, but I will save the remaining part of my response for my next post.