Congratulations to the 37 winners of the Evolution & Christian Faith (ECF) grants competition! ECF is a new BioLogos program designed to support projects and network-building among scholars, church leaders, and parachurch organizations. Each project takes a different approach to address theological and philosophical questions commonly voiced by Christians about evolutionary creation.

....

Many of the scholarly projects tackle questions about Adam and Eve, the Fall, human identity, and Original Sin—some of the most critical interpretive issues for evangelical theology. Some examples:

Theologian Oliver Crisp of Fuller Seminary will take an analytic theology approach to ask to what extent a theological account of the origin of human sin depends upon the evolution of modern humans from one and only one ancestral pair—especially if that pair does not appear to correspond to what we would think of as modern human beings.

Pastor Michael Gulker and philosopher James Smith, leading a large team from The Colossian Forum, ask a related question: if humanity emerged from non-human primates—as genetic, biological, and archaeological evidence seems to suggest—then what are the implications for Christian theology’s traditional account of origins, including both the origin of humanity and the origin of sin?

Biologist Dennis Venema of Trinity Western University and New Testament scholar Scot McKnight of Northern Seminary will write a book on the evidence for evolution and population genetics, with informed theological reflection on how these issues interact with orthodox Christianity.

Biologist David Wilcox of Eastern University will develop an updated model of human identity which reflects the complex recent scientific advances in genetics and paleoanthropology and yet is sensitive to theological concerns.
These are just a few of the scholarly awards; check out the Grantees page for full descriptions of all Track 1 and Track 2 projects.

<article at link below>

http://biologos.org/blog/evolution-and- ... yndication

BioLogos: Who are these guys?

I suppose on the face of it, nonbelievers shouldn’t care if Christians want to embrace biological evolution. In fact, it sounds like a promising idea. However, if that embrace suffocates the scientific method, then we can hardly call it a victory. Indeed, if we look at the BioLogos charter do we find science and religion viewed as a partnership of equals? Hardly.

Under the heading “What We Believe,” they state:

7. We believe that the methods of science are an important and reliable means to investigate and describe the world God has made. In this, we stand with a long tradition of Christians for whom Christian faith and science are mutually hospitable. Therefore, we reject ideologies such as Materialism and Scientism that claim science is the sole source of knowledge and truth, that science has debunked God and religion, or that the physical world constitutes the whole of reality. (emphasis added)

<full post at link below>

http://vridar.wordpress.com/2013/02/15/ ... istianity/

if humanity emerged from non-human primates—as genetic, biological, and archaeological evidence seems to suggest—then what are the implications for Christian theology’s traditional account of origins, including both the origin of humanity and the origin of sin?

Bribase wrote:Tough one. I guess I admire the spirit but not the letter of what Biologos is trying to achieve. I might well be being pigheaded here but Biologos seems to be deeply incoherent in the message they are trying to communicate. At base they are posing the question of what the scientific understanding of the living world that human beings arrived at via the application of methodological naturalism can tell us about the Christian God's role in the universe.

I'm amenable to the idea that evolution and the belief in a personal God are possible. It's just it seems to me that in every case the acceptance of the scientific method is a move towards deism and away from theism. A god with less things to do and less room to do it in.

DarthHelmet86 wrote:Making money hand over foot keeping others and more than likely themselves in the fold. Keeping the awkward questions from leading to even more awkward answers.

Also this part has an easy answer,

if humanity emerged from non-human primates—as genetic, biological, and archaeological evidence seems to suggest—then what are the implications for Christian theology’s traditional account of origins, including both the origin of humanity and the origin of sin?

Humanity emerging from non-human primates...i.e still being primates...means that the Biblical account is, wait for it, wrong, incorrect, not factual, made up, lies. See easy answer, now pay me my money.

willhud9 wrote:

Bribase wrote:

Well correct, it is a class one God of Gaps argument. If Adam and Eve are just folktales where did the concept of humanity and souls begin? How about sin? Where does sin come into play? Or was the fall of man simply a lesson saying sin is disobedience from God? If it is simply a lesson than what is disobedience from God? The path goes forever onwards to more questions and no steady and consistent answers.

This is why I could be damned about my Old Testament studies, the New Testament is where it's at!

But I do not have a problem with the core values and ideals of Christianity. I truly do believe that if everyone followed the values of the New Testament the world would indeed be a better place. Which is why I have no problem with Christians trying to assimilate science into their worldview.

Too me its a kind of honesty. Kent Hovind said that if it came down between reality and doctrine, he'd choose doctrine. These Christians are saying that they accept reality and are willing to question established doctrine. That's a step forward and can only go forward.

proudfootz wrote:Looks like there's always going to be money to be made as a pet 'scholar' helping the religious feel comfortable...

quas wrote:I think they call it "theistic evolution" which probably means that evolution is somehow guided by God such that humans are around today.

Calilasseia wrote:Oh this is Francis Collins' pet project, his desperate attempt to try and show that science props up conservative Christian ideology. Good luck with that.

Calilasseia wrote:Which means that when Collins leaves political office, and is able to rejoin, he might find himself "expelled" as a heretic ...

Animavore wrote:Evolution debunks Christianity. There was no Adam and Eve. No 'original sin'. Jesus died for a myth. Thinking you can reconcile faith with reality is a sad and wasteful pipe-dream propped by the desperate.

Shrunk wrote:[...]

Animavore wrote:Evolution debunks Christianity. There was no Adam and Eve. No 'original sin'. Jesus died for a myth. Thinking you can reconcile faith with reality is a sad and wasteful pipe-dream propped by the desperate.

Exactly. It seems to me the theological problems this form of accomodation raises are intractable. How can it be that the actual death and actual resurrection of an actual person be required to atone for a metaphorical or mythological sin committed by metaphorical or mythological people?

Shrunk wrote:

Calilasseia wrote:Which means that when Collins leaves political office, and is able to rejoin, he might find himself "expelled" as a heretic ...

I think his position on stem cell research might already have accomplished that for a large contingent of Christians (the ones who hadn't already dumped him for his acceptance of evolution).

That said, I agree with those who can't get too worked up over people like Collins who try to accomodate their religious dogma to scientific reality. As has been said, it's a start. But I also think it can only go so far before one has to choose which side of the fence to land on. As was said:

Animavore wrote:Evolution debunks Christianity. There was no Adam and Eve. No 'original sin'. Jesus died for a myth. Thinking you can reconcile faith with reality is a sad and wasteful pipe-dream propped by the desperate.

Exactly. It seems to me the theological problems this form of accommodation raises are intractable. How can it be that the actual death and actual resurrection of an actual person be required to atone for a metaphorical or mythological sin committed by metaphorical or mythological people?

Byron wrote:That assumes you want to maintain a sacrificial model of the atonement (or indeed, any model of the atonement). You could equally say, in best modernist fashion, that all the "Christ as second Adam" stuff was 1st century folks viewing Jesus' death through a mythological prism. We can now junk that gloss and reinterpret it.

As good evangelicals, the Biologos band would be aghast at this heresy. (Just as other evangelicals would be aghast at their evolutionary heresy: and so it goes.) So we're confronted with a pragmatic choice: is it better for evangelicals to reconcile themselves with evolutionary biology and practice their chosen theology; or to use it as a banner to rally their fellow believers against a sizable chunk of the scientific academy?

I go with option one. Fair play to those who want to go with the third option of persuading them to no longer be evangelicals. Something easier said than done, I fear.

Shrunk wrote:All true, but then I fail to see the point of BioLogos' argument. Their goal, as I understand it, is to demonstrate that modern scientific knowledge can be reconciled w/ evangelical Christianity.

Shrunk wrote:They view themselves as exemplars of a rational middle course between the dogmatism of creationism on one side, and of "militant atheism" on the other.

Shrunk wrote:The problem is, as you demonstrate, they have no basis for this argument.

Shrunk wrote: In an argument between them and the creationists over whether evolutionary theory is compatible with the evangelical view of Christianity, I'd have to side with the creationists. Rather than showing how the two can be reconciled, the BioLogos folk confirm that the two ideas can be only be held by ignoring their incompatibility.

Shrunk wrote:In so doing, they actually cede the intellectual high ground to the creationists, who at least have the integrity to ensure that their views are not internally contradictory.