I appreciate much of Wilson's content here, and am in the process of reading (and enjoying) his and others' books on classical education. That said, and with respect, I thoroughly reject his criticism of BioLogos (22:42-22:46) as a compromise with naturalism, aiming to "do science as though there is no God." Anyone who has truthfully and critically examined BioLogos and their beliefs would never say such a thing. Francis Collins, who founded BioLogos, became a Christian _because_ of what he continued to learn about God in his scientific work. He recounts his journey to faith in his book _The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief._ One of their contributors even says his faith was edified and made deeper by his study of evolution and biology ( biologos.org/personal-stories/how-i-found-a-deeper-faith-through-studying-evolution ). BioLogos vehemently affirms belief in God, belief in his intelligence, belief that that intelligent God created the universe and all life within it, and that he did so intelligently. (Note, also, that to affirm that natural processes guide certain things and events is not at all a claim of naturalism if the one making such a claim also affirms that those natural processes were themselves designed and created by that intelligent God.) BioLogos do, however, reject Intelligent Design (capital I, capital D), the movement established in 1991, because it does not meet the basic, requisite earmarks of a scientific theory (most believers who are scientists, and who make up a significant portion of the scientific community, uphold God's intelligent creation of the cosmos but reject ID). And what's more, ID's primary basis for legitimacy---"irreducible complexity"---has been thoroughly debunked, exposing it for what it really is: the "god of the gaps" hypothesis repackaged and with a fresh coat of paint. Anyone who is interested in understanding why and how BioLogos can uphold God's intelligent creation of the cosmos but reject Intelligent Design (capital I, capital D) should read chapter 9, "Option 3: Intelligent Design (When Science Needs Divine Help)," of Collins' _Language of God._ In the meantime, one can also check out the article "How is BioLogos different from Evolutionism, Intelligent Design, and Creationism?" ( biologos.org/common-questions/how-is-biologos-different-from-evolutionism-intelligent-design-and-creationism ), and this more exhaustive treatment, "Intelligent Design: History and Beliefs" in the _Science and the Bible_ series ( biologos.org/articles/series/science-and-the-bible/intelligent-design-history-and-beliefs ).
@HickoryDickory86. I’m not opposed to BioLogos, but neither am I particularly supportive. Few in this world have the combined scientific, philosophical, and theological chops to weigh in in this topic with any real expertise. My problem with BioLogos is that they are stuck in a bubble. As believers, they set themselves up against other believers in order to side significantly with unbelievers. What’s the point of calling yourself a “little-i” and “little-d” follower of Intelligent Design? There’s no such qualification within ID. You either believe God created the cosmos or you do not. You’re being antagonistic for no sensible reason (other than academic arrogance, perhaps). You're basically pointing a vindictive finger at your fellow believers and proclaiming: “You’re not scientific. WE’RE scientific! You bunch of losers.” Furthermore, I don’t think you’re aware of the theological ramifications of your stance. BioLogos says the following: “We believe that scientific explanations complement a robust theological understanding of God’s role as designer, creator, and sustainer of the universe.“ That’s simply bogus. BioLogos can only manage that by being inconsistent and incoherent on how these incompatible processes “complement” one another. You actually DON’T have a valid role for divine Providence. You just do it lip service. You hold onto both evolution and providence solely through strict compartmentalization. By the way, if you’re talking about high-school biology teachers, then, sure, there are quite a few Christians. But if you’re talking about elite scientists, then, no. The National Academy of Science has virtually NO theists as members. And most probably not a single Evangelical. Scientific institutions, by and large, are about as anti-religious as you’re going to find anywhere. And they act like it. Quit carrying water for them.
I appreciate much of Wilson's content here, and am in the process of reading (and enjoying) his and others' books on classical education. That said, and with respect, I thoroughly reject his criticism of BioLogos (22:42-22:46) as a compromise with naturalism, aiming to "do science as though there is no God."
Anyone who has truthfully and critically examined BioLogos and their beliefs would never say such a thing. Francis Collins, who founded BioLogos, became a Christian _because_ of what he continued to learn about God in his scientific work. He recounts his journey to faith in his book _The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief._ One of their contributors even says his faith was edified and made deeper by his study of evolution and biology ( biologos.org/personal-stories/how-i-found-a-deeper-faith-through-studying-evolution ).
BioLogos vehemently affirms belief in God, belief in his intelligence, belief that that intelligent God created the universe and all life within it, and that he did so intelligently. (Note, also, that to affirm that natural processes guide certain things and events is not at all a claim of naturalism if the one making such a claim also affirms that those natural processes were themselves designed and created by that intelligent God.) BioLogos do, however, reject Intelligent Design (capital I, capital D), the movement established in 1991, because it does not meet the basic, requisite earmarks of a scientific theory (most believers who are scientists, and who make up a significant portion of the scientific community, uphold God's intelligent creation of the cosmos but reject ID). And what's more, ID's primary basis for legitimacy---"irreducible complexity"---has been thoroughly debunked, exposing it for what it really is: the "god of the gaps" hypothesis repackaged and with a fresh coat of paint.
Anyone who is interested in understanding why and how BioLogos can uphold God's intelligent creation of the cosmos but reject Intelligent Design (capital I, capital D) should read chapter 9, "Option 3: Intelligent Design (When Science Needs Divine Help)," of Collins' _Language of God._ In the meantime, one can also check out the article "How is BioLogos different from Evolutionism, Intelligent Design, and Creationism?" ( biologos.org/common-questions/how-is-biologos-different-from-evolutionism-intelligent-design-and-creationism ), and this more exhaustive treatment, "Intelligent Design: History and Beliefs" in the _Science and the Bible_ series ( biologos.org/articles/series/science-and-the-bible/intelligent-design-history-and-beliefs ).
@HickoryDickory86.
I’m not opposed to BioLogos, but neither am I particularly supportive. Few in this world have the combined scientific, philosophical, and theological chops to weigh in in this topic with any real expertise. My problem with BioLogos is that they are stuck in a bubble. As believers, they set themselves up against other believers in order to side significantly with unbelievers. What’s the point of calling yourself a “little-i” and “little-d” follower of Intelligent Design? There’s no such qualification within ID. You either believe God created the cosmos or you do not. You’re being antagonistic for no sensible reason (other than academic arrogance, perhaps). You're basically pointing a vindictive finger at your fellow believers and proclaiming: “You’re not scientific. WE’RE scientific! You bunch of losers.”
Furthermore, I don’t think you’re aware of the theological ramifications of your stance. BioLogos says the following:
“We believe that scientific explanations complement a robust theological understanding of God’s role as designer, creator, and sustainer of the universe.“
That’s simply bogus. BioLogos can only manage that by being inconsistent and incoherent on how these incompatible processes “complement” one another. You actually DON’T have a valid role for divine Providence. You just do it lip service. You hold onto both evolution and providence solely through strict compartmentalization.
By the way, if you’re talking about high-school biology teachers, then, sure, there are quite a few Christians. But if you’re talking about elite scientists, then, no.
The National Academy of Science has virtually NO theists as members. And most probably not a single Evangelical. Scientific institutions, by and large, are about as anti-religious as you’re going to find anywhere. And they act like it. Quit carrying water for them.