Young earth creationists and “the new atheists” (Dawkins, Hitchens, etc.) actually have more in common than one might think, for both groups have arrived at the conclusion that accepting an old earth and evolutionary theory inevitably rules out the existence of God. As a result, one group has essentially made a religion out of naturalism, while the other group has avoided serious consideration of scientific data.

dionysus wrote:I like this part:

Young earth creationists and “the new atheists” (Dawkins, Hitchens, etc.) actually have more in common than one might think, for both groups have arrived at the conclusion that accepting an old earth and evolutionary theory inevitably rules out the existence of God. As a result, one group has essentially made a religion out of naturalism, while the other group has avoided serious consideration of scientific data.

Right, we have sooooo much in common with creationists. That's why we disagree with them on just about everything from methodology to their propensity to lie and not use sources to them absolutely ignoring observed reality. Oh, and the god thing too. And it's funny that they say we've made a religion of naturalism and then go on to praise science which, last I heard, is founded on methodological naturalism.

hotshoe wrote:I'm happy for the BioLogos type of lukewarm christian, though, because at least they are not getting involved in the crazy "teach creationism in schools" which is prevalent among devout christians, muslims, etc.

debunk wrote:

hotshoe wrote:I'm happy for the BioLogos type of lukewarm christian, though, because at least they are not getting involved in the crazy "teach creationism in schools" which is prevalent among devout christians, muslims, etc.

I don't know, this sort of nonsense isn't exactly helping.

Rachel Held Evans is a self-described "writer, skeptic, and Christ-follower"

debunk wrote:

hotshoe wrote:I'm happy for the BioLogos type of lukewarm christian, though, because at least they are not getting involved in the crazy "teach creationism in schools" which is prevalent among devout christians, muslims, etc.

I don't know, this sort of nonsense isn't exactly helping.

chairman bill wrote:The man who sits quietly & unobtrusively in a shop doorway, muttering to himself about how the government is out to get him, is no less mad than the one who shouts at pigeons at the bus station

Shrunk wrote:

dionysus wrote:I like this part:

Young earth creationists and “the new atheists” (Dawkins, Hitchens, etc.) actually have more in common than one might think, for both groups have arrived at the conclusion that accepting an old earth and evolutionary theory inevitably rules out the existence of God. As a result, one group has essentially made a religion out of naturalism, while the other group has avoided serious consideration of scientific data.

Right, we have sooooo much in common with creationists. That's why we disagree with them on just about everything from methodology to their propensity to lie and not use sources to them absolutely ignoring observed reality. Oh, and the god thing too. And it's funny that they say we've made a religion of naturalism and then go on to praise science which, last I heard, is founded on methodological naturalism.

And of course she gets it wrong: Science doesn't "rule out" the existence of God. It just has no use for the concept. The evolutionary creationists have, to my knowledge, yet to explain exactly what science gains by having theology grafted onto it.

Rachel Held Evans is a self-described "writer, skeptic, and Christ-follower"

Shrunk wrote:...according to this, anyway (see point 9.)

Seems an apt change to me.

5. Science professors (particularly at Christian colleges) are desperate to find good ways to counsel students whose faith is challenged by the scientific data they encounter in the classroom. I was really moved by conversations I had with tenderhearted biology teachers struggling to double as theologians and counselors when their students realize there is conflict between what they were taught about creation/evolution growing up in the Church and what the evidence suggests.

Shrunk wrote:And of course she gets it wrong: Science doesn't "rule out" the existence of God. It just has no use for the concept. The evolutionary creationists have, to my knowledge, yet to explain exactly what science gains by having theology grafted onto it.

David M wrote: But she hasn't really got it wrong, her claim is that "Young earth creationists and “the new atheists” (Dawkins, Hitchens, etc.) actually have more in common than one might think, for both groups have arrived at the conclusion that accepting an old earth and evolutionary theory inevitably rules out the existence of God."

That claim is correct other than the word "inevitably" which I would say is too strong, YEC's and Atheists both take the position that accepting those things allows the the existence of God to be ruled out (but other things are needed as well for Atheists which is why I would argue against "inevitably"). But that is different from saying that science itself rules out the existence of God.

Science professors (particularly at Christian colleges) are desperate to find good ways to counsel students whose faith is challenged by the scientific data they encounter in the classroom.

Shrunk wrote:

David M wrote: But she hasn't really got it wrong, her claim is that "Young earth creationists and “the new atheists” (Dawkins, Hitchens, etc.) actually have more in common than one might think, for both groups have arrived at the conclusion that accepting an old earth and evolutionary theory inevitably rules out the existence of God."

That claim is correct other than the word "inevitably" which I would say is too strong, YEC's and Atheists both take the position that accepting those things allows the the existence of God to be ruled out (but other things are needed as well for Atheists which is why I would argue against "inevitably"). But that is different from saying that science itself rules out the existence of God.

OTOH, YEC's and "evolutionary creationists" share a belief in the inerrancy of the Bible. The latter just maintain that, if the Bible seems to be contradicted by science, it just means that the Bible doesn't really say what it seems to. I actually find the YEC position more logically consistent and intellectually honest.

David M wrote: I would disagree, the YEC position can only be maintained by denying reality and ascribing to literal inerrancy whereas the "evolutionary creationists" postion is based on an inerrancy when it comes to the message in the bible and allows for the knowledge of the authors and the difficulties in translating ancient languages while retaining original concepts.

I'd say that makes the YEC position less intellectually honest as literal innerancy does not stand up to any scrutiny due to the internal contradictions in the bible on matters that do not touch on science in any way whatsoever.

What follows is a re-post of that blog, originally written for folks who don’t know as much about BioLogos as the average reader here probably does.