An new article at creation.com linked to an interesting article at BioLogos by Darryl Falk, former president of BioLogos. Falk’s article was written in 2010 back when he was still president of BioLogos. In the article, he attempts to show how difficult it is to walk to middle ground between young earth creationism and atheistic evolution. His point, apparently, is that neither side understands them (at BioLogos) and both sides disagree with them. What’s fascinating is the extremely clear description of what BioLogos, as an organization, believes and and what BioLogos exists to do.
Falk is referencing an article by Daniel Harrell on the only options he sees for those who insist on an historical Adam and Eve:
Option #1 is that Adam and Eve were created with apparent age; Option #2 is (in Harrell’s words) “Adam and Eve exist as first among Homo sapiens, specially chosen by God as representatives for a relationship with him.”
Option #1 is the standard argument put forward by those who believe in a young earth created by God in six twenty-four hour days less than 10,000 years ago. BioLogos exists in no small part to marginalize this view from the Church.A fundamental part of our mission is to show that Option #1 is not tenable. Daniel Harrell knows this. All members of the BioLogos community know this. And the leaders of powerful young earth organizations like Answers in Genesis, Institute for Creation Research, and, Grace to You know that BioLogos exists to show that Option #1 is not tenable. Reasons to Believe (RTB) knows that we are diametrically opposed to Option #1, just as we are diametrically opposed to their untenable position that there has been no macroevolution. Finally, the folks over at the Discovery Institute know that we exist to remove “apparent age” from the lexicon of evangelical Christianity. Such a view makes a mockery of the entire scientific enterprise and its ability to reveal truths about nature. (emphasis added)
So my question is, given that BioLogos exists to teach Christians not believe in the special creation of Adam and Eve as Genesis 2 details, why exactly do Reformed pastors and believers support and promote BioLogos?
Many of these Reformed leaders assure us that they still believe in the special creation of Adam and Eve. But then why are they part of this organization devoted to undermining that doctrine? Two years ago at BioLogos’ third Theology of Celebration (hosted by Tim Keller in New York), Dr. Keller was quoted as saying:
To develop a Biologos narrative is ‘the job of pastors,’
Is it the “job of pastors” in the Reformed denominations to promote/defend/develop a “BioLogos” narrative that denies the special creation of Adam and Eve?
3 thoughts on “Why do Reformed Christians still support BioLogos?”
Keller: “It’s the job of pastors to develop a Biologos narrative”. That is the templeton foundation and templeton money speaking. You’ll find it at Calvin College, in the Banner (the CRC magazine) and in lots of other places. Put a sock in it, Mr. Keller. If you want to play at biologist, get out of the ministry.
Ms. Miller, thanks for you work here.
They say, “follow the money”. Go to the Templeton website and follow the money; see what kind of money they are putting about to support agencies and people who promote theistic evolution. “Science in Congregations” grants, just one example. A pastor in Calgary, Alberta who was part of a Pastoral Cohort attending a Regent (vancouver) college Pastoral Science retreat, was given thirty-thousand dollars to develop five or six sermons integrating science with “faith”.
I’m sure you could do a lot of really good work here, more than five sermons’ worth, for that kind of loot.
But clearly, you aren’t in it for the loot.
What Mr. Tysoe said; can’t improve on it.
Pastors are 1) afraid to look foolish in the eyes urban ‘intellectuals,’ and 2) for some reason many pastors, even many evangelicals, seem to believe that science is devoid of the effects of sin and depravity; scientists would never, nor could they ever use their craft to promote what they hope is true.