It appears that all of the objections boil down to the fact that those who object to evolution don’t understand science or epistemology.
Complaining that evolution doesn’t agree with the Bible doesn’t in the least absolve them from either demonstrating that the Bible can agree with reality, or, failing that, abandoning the Bible.
If the Bible disagrees with reality, it can hardly act as a guide to that reality.
Glen Davidson
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p

Now I am supposedly the bad guy here for saying that B-L guys are placing Darwin as the equal of Elijah . . .:
Daniel Mann
November 17, 2009 11:10 AM
I’m all for being humble about our interpretation of Scripture. I only wish that the evolutionist would remain equally humble regarding the much more difficult interpretations of the material world.
Regarding theistic evolutionists’ interpretation of the Bible: They seem to consistently deny the historicity of Adam and Eve (Pete Enns, whom you mention, wouldn’t answer me regarding the historicity of Adam and Eve!), while Jesus and Paul affirm their historicity. Meanwhile, Biologos has adopted the standard evolutionary line that humankind evolved from proto-humans (hominids), and therefore there is no clear distinction between man and proto-man, but instead, an unbroken line of descent. Hence, no TEs that I’m aware of affirm the historicity of Adam and Eve. They have no place in the evolutionary worldview. Likewise, there can be no Fall nor the introduction of “sin” as Genesis 3 portrays it.
Darwin trumps Jesus!
///
Here’s a bit of support for my view:
“The scientists likely all held the position that God has created life in a manner that is consistent with the findings of mainstream science. Many of the others in attendance were not sure what to think,”
- Darrell Falk
///
Now, Darwin was an anti-Christian. And died “un” saved.
And THIS blog, once again, goes to lengths to inject evolution as key to the scriptures. And the scriptures are key to salvation IN CHRIST.
Now, I know, I know, I am just a lowly lay person, just looking in unable to understand big things.
But it sure looks like Darwinism is “equally” as important to BioLogos to preaching to and reaching the lost. It appears, that they are so concerned that sooooooo many people are rejecting the Cross because they accept evolution. And, all we have to do is get things right.
Belief in evolution = belief in salavtion through Christ Jesus. The narrow road as it were.
I just don’t think that horse is dead. He sure kicks like he is alive and well.

MC,
I’ve got to ask why you accept the Bible as inerrant. Besides what the Bible says. I mean, why don’t you believe every book that purports 100% accuracy for itself? There are a number of books that can’t be proved wrong in any way (yet) – are claims that such books that you have personally found useful are inerrant, infallible, etc. likely to have as much weight for you? Ostensibly, you accept these claims about the Bible (which aren’t strictly speaking “Scriptural”, by the way) because the message of Christianity has been confirmed to you. Why should it stop with matters like this for which there are no empirical evidences? Why should that be considered more valid than a framework for viewing scientific data which has likewise proved extremely useful and actually does have empirical weight to boot? I’m not subjugating experiential evidence to empirical evidence, but only askng why scientists should be expected to reject their empirical, rational evidence in favor of your non-empirical evidence. BioLogos
seeks to allow what is relatively clear scientifically to help interpret what even Christians throughout history have found widely varying ways if handling (theology).

Now, Darwin was an anti-Christian

Nope, he was an agnostic. Since he counted Asa Gray as one of his friends, he most certainly was not an anti-theist.
And even if Darwin had worshiped a giant invisible pregnant gorilla it would not falsify evolutionary theory.

It seems to me what is missing in the debate about science and religion is the issue of authority. With science it is the scientific method to which many scientists look as the authority. The scientific method was devised by human beings. As such, it is often helpful but not quite always truthful..ie,..there will always be a certain amount of tentativeness to any truth claims made my human beings. For many religious people (in my argument I am referring to Christians) the Bible is the basis of authority. The Bible makes various statements that are said to come from God himself. Science cannot verify or deny these statements. They are simply to be believed and acted upon. If science ever says anything which appears to contradict the Bible it must be looked at very carefully. As far as the creation/evolution debate goes the Bible has very little to say concerning the method God used. In fact, I don’t believe it is God’s intention in the Bible to give us scientific information. The point is that as a Christian I believe God is the creator. Any scientific claims that challenge this basic belief I reject. They simply have no validity whatsoever. So far, science has not been able to deny what Christians believe concerning the fact that God created. Whether it be creation by evolution (as it is currently understood) or creation in a literal 6 days. I hold my beliefs in science with alot of tentativeness. Not so my belief that God is the creator.

This from Beaglelady
November 17, 2009 1:05 PM
(From Mere_Christian: Now, Darwin was an anti-Christian)
“Nope, he was an agnostic.
Since he counted Asa Gray as one of his friends, he most certainly was not an anti-theist.
And even if Darwin had worshiped a giant invisible pregnant gorilla it would not falsify evolutionary theory.”
///
I should have written that Darwin is an anti-Christ.
“But you have an anointing from the Holy One, and all of you know the truth.
I do not write to you because you do not know the truth, but because you do know it and because no lie comes from the truth.
Who is the liar? It is the man who denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a man is the antichrist—he denies the Father and the Son.
No one who denies the Son has the Father; whoever acknowledges the Son has the Father also.
See that what you have heard from the beginning remains in you. If it does, you also will remain in the Son and in the Father. And this is what he promised us—even eternal life.
I am writing these things to you about those who are trying to lead you astray.”
Now Beaglelady, I don’t think I need to have a Doctorate to see that Darwin AS an “agnostic,” AND a man that rejected written Christian truth (Apostolic witness), IS an anti-Christian.
This is why I see the need to hail Darwin-ISM as being such a key to opening lines to those that reject Christ, as improper actions.
The B-L guys seem science-bent to put Darwin – as in Charles Darwin of evolutionary fame – as someone just as important as the Prophets of Israel and the Apostles of our Lord. That needs to be challenged.
Now AS a layperson, I listen and watch what the leadership does and judge it in light of scripture. And BioLogos IS saying they are leadership IN The Church. That’s clear from this blog.
“Evolution?” I have already agreed with BioLogitians that it is reasonable, BUT ONLY up TO Adam (Eve) and Seth.
That we were once a monkey or a gerbil or muddy smelly slime is OK with me. Seeing how animlaistic and slimy worldy people behave, evolution makes a decent aount of sense to me. It explains how pitiless anti-Christians and common securalists are and why they are the way they are. Other than that, evolution is meaningless to the eternity Jesus and the Prophets are declaring.
I will say that Darwin, as are all agnostics, IS an anti-Christ from now on.
And John addressed this to:
“Do not love the world or anything in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him.”
“For everything in the world—the cravings of sinful man, the lust of his eyes and the boasting of what he has and does—comes not from the Father but from the world.
The world and its desires pass away, but the man who does the will of God lives forever.”
And of course this from the loving John:
“This is the message we have heard from him and declare to you: God is light; in him there is no darkness at all.
If we claim to have fellowship with him yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not live by the truth. But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus, his Son, purifies us from all sin.
If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness. If we claim we have not sinned, we make him out to be a liar and his word has no place in our lives.”
///
Darwin’s family members claim that he died an agnostic and they responded to urban legends that Darwin converted before his death. That’s from them, not me.
Now I can see why the BioLogos guys see evolution as so important, they have a lot of money invested in their educations, but they do need to put Darwin in his proper place. Certainly we can nod to Darwin’s connection to evolutionists (and evolution) that have gone before him and have come after him. But we cannot hail him as important to the family of the Church. If that is sensible, then we should teach that Judas Iscariot was a role model for all of his outreach to the poor and needy. After all, Judas was in charge of how the money got spent and even went out preaching the Gospel.
In context Beaglelady.

Mere_Christian,
You said, “Now, Darwin was an anti-Christian.” so I explained that he was not anti-Christian.
I’m sure you consider Darwin and each one of us to be antiChrists. No surprise there.

“Any scientific claims that challenge this basic belief I reject. They simply have no validity whatsoever.”
Things would be so nice for scientists if they could take such a laid back approach to evidence. They could have saved so much money by not building the LHC and proclaiming that the Higgs boson does exist because it’s supposed to.
“That we were once a monkey or a gerbil or muddy smelly slime is OK with me.”
If you like but too bad that’s not at all what evolution says.