Great Article on Biologos

Oh, what a shame that we Christians are not prepared to endure even the smallest ridicule for the cause of Christ! As Kruger points out, however, it’s too late. Attempts to align ourselves with the so-called “assured results of science” are foundations built on sand. Read Kruger’s article. It is outstanding. He says everything I would want to say, only he says it in a much better way.



  1. Frank Aderholdt said,

    May 24, 2012 at 5:26 pm

    Excellent in every way. That may be the finest short article I’ve seen on the subject. A model of good writing, too.

  2. Todd said,

    May 24, 2012 at 9:16 pm

    I’m wondering which side of the aisle the author finds the many old earth, historical Adam, anti-theistic evolutionists like myself.

  3. greenbaggins said,

    May 24, 2012 at 11:16 pm

    Todd, I would guess that might depend on your view of what science is able to say, and what it is not able to say. Do you believe, for instance, that science has proven an old age to the earth? If so, then what do you do with the young earth creationists like ICR? Do you call them unscientific? Or do you have a healthy respect for Thomas Kuhn (who is more important now than ever)? In my mind, at least, the issue comes down to one of authority: does our exegesis have to change in light of supposed “assured results of science,” or can we constantly hold the results of science with a loose hand, given that a new paradigm might be just around the corner?

  4. Todd said,

    May 24, 2012 at 11:39 pm


    While I would say the scientific evidence points more to an OE model than YE, I wouldn’t be dogmatic on that. While our exegesis on Genesis 1&2 should also take into account natural revelation, our final authority is what the Bible says of course.

  5. greenbaggins said,

    May 25, 2012 at 9:00 am

    Well, then, Todd, (not speaking for Kruger, of course), I would say that while I disagree with your stance on OE (I believe the evidence points to a YE), I would still consider your position within the bounds. For me, the authority of Scripture over science is key, as is the position of evolution.

  6. Steve Drake said,

    May 25, 2012 at 9:26 am

    @Todd #2,

    I’m wondering which side of the aisle the author finds the many old earth, historical Adam, anti-theistic evolutionists like myself.

    Hi Todd,
    Not speaking for Krueger, and echoing earlier comments that it was an excellent article, I would say that many have come to the conclusion that an OE, historical Adam, non-theistic evolutionary position is inconsistent. The Framework Hypothesis was developed and adopted by many from just such insights that a day-age view, where God steps in over millions of years to create the ex nihilo biodiversity of life, doesn’t hold up under scrutiny. I think Keller himself has said that he adopts this ‘progressive creation’ position, so then the question becomes how is he aligned with the theistic evolutionists of BioLogos? What is it in the nature of both positions that makes them allies?

  7. Stephen said,

    May 25, 2012 at 9:17 pm


    Some questions.

    (1) You mention Thomas Kuhn and opine that his work “is more important now than ever.” What do you mean by that? How do you understand his significance?

    I ask because, as you know, evangelicals frequently invoke Kuhn, especially in discussions of evolution, science more broadly, and even critical biblical scholarship. In my experience, however, few have read him or have an accurate understanding of his claims. Out of curiosity, have you read Kuhn’s Structure of Scientific Revolutions? I don’t bring this up to dismiss you if you haven’t; one can certainly acquire a kind of accurate understanding of someone else’s work without reading it.

    (2) You offer your understanding that “the evidence points to a YE.” What evidence do you have in mind?

  8. greenbaggins said,

    May 26, 2012 at 9:18 am

    Stephen, my understanding of Kuhn’s work (I’ve read some of it, though not all) is that a scientific paradigm comes along that seems to be able to account for all the evidence. This paradigm holds sway until another theory comes along that is better able to account for the anomalies that gradually poked holes in the former theory. My point with that is that there are more than a few anomalies in the evolutionary paradigm (which the Institute for Creation Research has been well able to point out). And yet, people hold on to it with dogmatic certainty, as if science arrives at truth, as if evolution had the same certainty that gravity has with it. Well, it simply does not. It is a theory about an unrepeatable, non-verifiable origin. As to the evidence for a YE, I would just point you to ICR’s work, as I am no expert in the field.

  9. Bill Carson said,

    May 27, 2012 at 7:21 pm

    All thoughtful Christians should agree that the theory of evolution by natural selection is a scientific fact. There is a theory which says evolution works by a given mechanism, e.g. Acquired Traits (Lysenkoism). This is disproved, so naturally the theory evolves to select another mechanism, such as punctuated equilibrium. This in turn is disproved, so naturally the theory evolves to select something else, such as population dynamics. Over and over again the theory naturally evolves as people select something, to fit their preconceived ideas. See, it’s a scientific fact! And Natural, too.

    And we are supposed to hitch our Christianity to this bus?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: