Skye, what you say really resonates with my own thinking/reading about these issues and experience as well. ("Nova" is one of my and my family's favorite TV shows, and I really enjoyed Francis Collin's book, "The Language of God"). Great post! Can't wait to read part 2.

From Biologos Belief statements:
"We believe that God created the universe, the earth, and all life over billions of years."

"We believe the Bible is the inspired and authoritative word of God."

It appears that the inspiration and authority of the Genesis record is rendered less inspirational and authoritative by this generations experts than what it simply says. Apparently saints generations ago who did not have the "benefit" of hearing todays experts must have understood the Genesis record all wrong. Only today's experts give us the true record of origins? How sad to think that their faith was misled by God's mere analogy or story telling (whatever Biologos says it actually is) for so many generations. It seems Jesus, the creator himself should have straightened out this great scientific misunderstanding when He was here ..."You have heard it said 6 days... but I say billions of years". Maybe they could fix this by finding some statements by the church fathers that says they believed in an evolutionary understanding of "morning and evening" statements in Genesis so we would know evolution has been orthodox all along.

"We believe that God created humans in biological continuity with all life on earth,"

Sounds to me like this would allow for humans, male and female, evolving from apes over millions of years. It's a good thing both male and female versions evolved at the same pace, but then Jesus was in charge of that looooong process, protecting it all the way.

It seems to me, trying to "inspire" and "authoritize" evolution and billions of years demands far more "faith" to deal with so many more process impossibilities, but maybe that's okay because we can just say Jesus just did it at that time period so it happened.

Evolutionary theory has morphed and evolved and changed and equivocated and back tracked and regurgitated, lied and fabricated itself, so many times since it first started I wonder what Biologic is actually holding on to today that is actually firm.

"We reject ideologies such as Deism..."
"We reject ideologies such as Darwinism and Evolutionism..."
"We reject ideologies such as Materialism and Scientism..."

I wonder why they did not list "we reject ideologies such as a young earth and six twenty four hour day creation..."

I reject the notion that unless you have a firm understanding of all the nuances of evolutionary science and seek out every new break through or hopeful break through, then you are anti-intellectual, anti-logic, and will never really know the marvelous wonder of God's creation.

I wonder if they view our coming immortal resurrected bodies as a future evolution that will also take billions of years to accomplish?

I am a skeptic of Biologic, but I'll read more of what they have to say. Maybe it is far more important to be considered "relevant" by modern the science community, then to have any of the above questions answered.

A lot of our medical advances comes from our understanding of evolutionary biology.

This is fact, not fiction, and not made up stuff to piss the Religious off.

Just facts.

Your doctor's knowledge about your body comes from evolutionary biology, and the diseases which plague us are being treated/cured is based on evolutionary biology.

The things you use in everyday life are also used in confirming evolutionary biological processes.

So, if you feel that evolutionary processes are of the devil, godless, witchcraft, whatever I strong suggest you never go to a doctor again because the diagnosis s/he delivers with the prescription offered is all based on evolutionary biology.

And now to Genesis.

Genesis was never written for us.
Genesis wasn't written to detail the mechanics of a made universe.
Genesis wasn't written for Christians, wasn't written for scientists, wasn't written for philosophers, mathematicians, phsycisists, doctors, lawyers, pastors, or rabbis.

Genesis was written for farmers, hunters, and gatherers. It was written to a people who wanted to know how their world function, and who made their world function the way it does.
The rains fall because G-d made the rains fall.
The plants grow in their seasons because G-d made the plants grow in their seasons.

You see, our modern desire to "define" the parameters of Genesis and what "It really, really says!" is forcing Genesis into a corner it was never intended occupy.

Tim, you're making the same mistake the scientists who claim that evolution proves there is no G-d are making: Making Genesis address something it doesn't address at all.

Scripture is true whether biologos wants it to be true or not. The entire story of Jesus rests on the truthfulness of the first three chapters in Genesis. If it is not true, then the gospel is not true. I know that sounds simplistic to some people, but with all due respect to God and all due respect to Sheerahkahn, I choose God.

sheerahkahn, you wrote: "Genesis was never written for us...Genesis wasn't written for Christians." I wonder how you reconile those claims with 2 Timothy 3:16-17--"All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work." Now, I do agree that Genesis was not meant to be a science textbook. I agree that too often we approach Genesis with modern questions it was never intended to answer. But to dismiss Genesis as only relevant to farmers, hunters, and gatherers in the Ancient Near East with nothing to say to us in 21st century North America is not biblical.

Also, just because the theory of evolutionary biology has been useful to modern medicine does not necessarily make it TRUE. After all, Newtonian phsyics was quite useful for hundreds of years until Einstein discovered a better explanation for the phsycial world that basically threw Newton out the window. Who's to say the same won't happen someday to evolutionary biology?

You are gifted at extending our imaginations, Skye. And this possibility of a polymorphic universe does extend the imagination to grasp some of the hard-to-reconcile concepts that those of us who love both Scripture and science keep stumbling over.

This might very well be true. And it’s really fun to think about! It certainly is consistent with Scripture. It just removes “science” as a meaningful term from addressing pre-present-age or post-present-age questions.

If I’ve been reading my science writers accurately, some of them have an equivalent high-altitude speculation: not that the universe is polymorphic, but that the universe is actually a MULTIverse. That is, there are an infinite number of universes, and ours just happens to be the one that has evolved into the particular one we have here.

I’ve not yet heard a decent response to multiverse theory, but this polymorphic universe is just as reasonable a proposal as the multiverse — and a whole lot more consistent with Scripture. Thanks much, Skye, for feeding my vision and imagination. I need that.

Sheer
"Your doctor's knowledge about your body comes from evolutionary biology, and the diseases which plague us are being treated/cured is based on evolutionary biology."
Give an example of what you mean by "evolutionary biological process"

What I know as evolution is:
matter forming from nothing
life forming from chemicals
land creatures forming from sea creatures
plants forming from whatever
people forming from apes

My doctors have never seen this. Genetic or DNA splicing and dicing has not accomplish anything remotely like this. We are certainly learning new things about biology, and the universe, but those things have always been there. We know more things than we used to but we are still the same creatures we always have been from the beginning of recorded history, 10 toes and 10 fingers, etc.

Truly this area of science is a controversial American topic. Not really as much of an issue in the rest of the world. In the rest of the world evolution is either accepted as fact such as in England, or it is not really a consideration at all because people just want to eat… today. Perhaps because we have been engaging in what we perceive to be an intelligent discussion in defending our faith this has arisen as a subject worth so much attention. I know of mission agencies working in Asia and Africa who have been told they will not get support unless their missionaries are doing “creationism evangelism.” How out of touch with reality is that? Oh I have so many things to say…

Nevertheless, it was this subject that God used to capture my imagination and bring me to Himself. How could something form from nothing since basic high school freshmen biology tells us that this is impossible? This was my first problem with evolution as a young teenager, and God opened my eyes to the realities of evolution as a process not really being possible at the macro level. Oh, it is obvious we see evolution at the micro level with all of life adjusting and morphing to accommodate the climate and environment. But there is nothing in the sciences to suggest that this causes or caused the transition from primordial slime to human life. There is no scientific experiment capable of duplicating the cause of creation in a repeated fashion so as to label it scientifically proven. Unless of course, you want to see it there like Darwin. Dawkins is willing to accept the idea that some race of aliens came from another galaxy to seed the earth and begin the evolutionary process, but he refuses God.

I am long passed my early days of youthful ignorance at this stage of life. I no longer use the early arguments I did as a teenager. But, no matter what arguments may be brought up in this discussion, there is no one who was there in the beginning to determine how it all came together. There is also no way of knowing that original processes are similar to what we see today and there is no way everything just showed up somehow. The fossil record stands completely against the idea of the progression of the animal kingdom as well. Like you Skye, I do enjoy the sciences… but evolution as an explanation for how we all arrived here is a concept I cannot see real science supporting. I think we should “think”. Rational thinking and evidentially supported concepts are best. So while I enjoy listening to and reading Collins and others, I am not sure I buy their syncretism on this subject.

Newton out the window? That will be news to any mechanical engineering student. Newton underlies every mechanism you will use today, from your car to your coffee maker to the computer your read this on.

Unless, of course, you're traveling to another planet or doing something close to the speed of light.

Tim,
I'm going to take this point by point as it would be appropriate to address each point as it is...

"matter forming from nothing"

Not even Hawking would say such a thing, much less any professor of Physics, and it seems the only place I encounter this is from within the church which, as you can plainly see, is quite ridiculous. The beginning of the "Big Bang" starts with a pre-existant material, condensed into a solid, dense lump of matter which "detonated" and spread across "space." Note, the quotes on the Big Bang, Detonated, Space...those are loaded terms, and I don't have the area or space here to address those words.

"life forming from chemicals"

The term "life" is another loaded term, but I will address that laboratory experiments show a "mechanical" process (emphasis on mechanical) of assembling between chemicals which form "basic" amino acids, which are the building blocks for life. Again, note the quotes, because they are loaded terms.

"land creatures forming from sea creatures"

So far, indications from paleontology and paleobiology indicates the pattern of progression of life from a liquid environment to a land mass.

"plants forming from whatever"

Plants forming from whatever? Well, I never heard or read that before, but there are life forms which do photosynthesize that are motile; And the fossil record of primitive life forms indicate that this is where the plants and "animals" diverged...one life form used photosynthesis and base amino-acids for food source, the other use the photosynthesizing life form for food through engulfment. Something kind of like: One formed algae floats, the other fed on the algae floats.

"people forming from apes"

People forming from apes is like saying, "I built the Missouri Battleship from a log raft." It's rather misleading, and a mischaracterization of the evolutionary process.

"Time and environmental changes" force/encourage development/adaptability through "natural selection."
So, if you think about it, people forming from "apes" is really misleading as the separations occur continually through speciation. As it is, apes went down one path, the one from which we come from branched out millions of years previously.
You do know that genetically, 13-14 point mutations on our genome is all that separates us from chimps...it's that divergent branching out, that "selection" process where we separated from the other branches. Near identical genomes, but the end result is us, and the ape.
So, if you want it in terms of more "recent" developments think of the Neanderthals and humans...same branch, but eventually we diverged, we, the human branch, was more successful in adaptation than the neanderthals...look who "survived" to today.
________________________________________________________

So to recap, we can show how base chemicals can auto-assemble in an enclosed environment, but that is all they do, auto-assemble. They're not "alive."
And that evolution is a mechanical process much like the assemblages of the base amino acids.
Evolutionary processes do not disprove the bible, nor does it disprove G-d, and scientists who take that route are imposing a non-scientifically based opinion and serving it up with their biases.
Evolutionary processes only describe physically how all that we see, and eat, and admire got to where it is today.
Evolution does not address spirituality, does not explain G-d, does not explain the bible, just as the bible does not address evolution.

G-d made everything, and that is what the bible says. It doesn't say "how" or with what G-d made everything, just that he made it.

"My doctors have never seen this. Genetic or DNA splicing and dicing has not accomplish anything remotely like this."

I've worked 18 years in the biotech and Pharma industry...you have no idea how wrong you, and your "doctors" are.

May I humbly suggest you go to different doctors.

"But to dismiss Genesis as only relevant to farmers, hunters, and gatherers in the Ancient Near East with nothing to say to us in 21st century North America is not biblical."

But that's the whole point, and to take it quite literally, when Y'shua said, ,"all scripture is G-d breathed..." that is a rather "recent" development.
That continuity between Genesis and Revelations is maintained is not the focus of the discussion.
The issue is, contextually, who's culture was Genesis originally written for?

For example, Feynman's opus, "Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman!" which undoubtedly will be read five hundred years from now will not have been written for that culture who reads it. Nor, when it is read one thousand years from now will it have been written for that culture either.
Does that denude the basic truths that Feynman drops in the book? No it doesn't, but it wasn't written to those future cultures, it was written for us, today, here and now.
Same same with Genesis.

Btw, Newtonian physics was good enough to get us to the moon, not so good for explaining the rest of the universe, but it did get us to the moon.

Fish, in my defense, here is the headline for the London Times for November 7, 1919, after Eintein's predictions for general relativity during a solar eclipse earlier that year were confirmed:

"REVOLUTION IN SCIENCE--NEW THEORY OF THE UNIVERSE--NEWTONIAN IDEAS OVERTHROWN."

So what I wrote about Newton being thrown out the window should not be news to anyone. It's been argued for close to a hundred years by now. I'm not saying that Newtonian physics is not useful for mechanical engineering. I'm saying that Newton's fundamental understanding of gravity has been proven wrong, while "the predictions of [Einstein's] general relativity have been uniformly confirmed" (Brian Greene, THE ELEGANT UNIVERSE, pg. 78).

sheerahkahn, you wrote: "The issue is, contextually, who's (sic) culture was Genesis originally for?" But that's the issue with EVERY book of the Bible, both OT and NT. Yet, that does not hinder any part of God's word from speaking TRUTH to those of who live in 21st century North America. And that TRUTH is what I'm talking about.

You see, the Bible, in Genesis and elsewhere, is quite clear that physical death is the result of sin, and sin is the result of mankind's disobedience to God. This is truth, and this truth is incompatible with evolutionary biology, which assumes billions of years of life and death before the appearance of mankind.

Now, you wrote that Newtonian physics was good enough to get us to the moon. I agree. Newtonian physics continues to be useful in mechanical engineering, just as evolutionary biology is useful in modern medicine, as you pointed out. But Newtonian physics works, not because it is TRUE, but rather because Newtonian physics is so similar to general relativity, and nothing on earth approaches the speeds or sizes necessary for the differences between the two to become apparent.

That is the argument I'm making concerning evolutionary biology. You wrote that a lot of our modern medical advance are based on evolutionary biology, and that that is a fact. Well, it may be a fact, but that fact does NOT make evolutionary biology true. Evolutionary biology may be the very best knowledge that we humans can come up with right now given our limited ability to observe the world around us. But it is incompatible with Truth as revealed by God in Scripture.

@sheer, since Jesus made several references to Genesis in His time, which was probably close to 1500 years after it was written, He considered it relevant in His time, and for us as well. Hebrews 13:8 says "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever."
Isaiah 40:8 "The grass withers, the flower fades, But the word of our God stands forever."

Sheer, next thing you'll be telling us is that the earth is round, when the Bible clearly states that it rests on pillar and is flat. (Psalm 104:5, Job 9:6, 1 Samuel 2:8). Anyone who tries to tell me that this is metaphor is a liberal, and is choosing this new science that Galileo is proposing over God's word. I choose God, you round earthers are being led astray.

Thank you, TRJ, Jesus Christ IS the same yesterday, today, and forever, and so clearly that means that I am right about the flat earth.

Bill Williams, I really like your logic, but I think you'll clearly see it means that you need to embrace the truth of the flat earth. Modern science is not compatible with the truth of God's word as God's word clearly says the world is flat.

Tim, you argue persuasively that no one has ever seen evolution happen. I'm not sure why that doesn't make you believe in a flat earth? Have you ever seen the earth and seen that it is round? Or do you believe all of the round earth propaganda?

I look forward to you all reading God's word anew and seeing that I am right. The truth is that all ancient peoples read these multiple texts and said to themselves: "This text says the earth is flat and rests on pillars". They don't need Galileoists to come along and tell them how to read scripture. I stand with the ancient Israelites (turns out the Christian tradition got this one wrong really early, only Tertullian of all the ancient church fathers got this one right). You all need to realize the truth, right now you are being led astray.

Okay, here's a fun website I found listing a bunch of verses that support a flat earth interpretation.

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=54310.0

It seems to me that there are more verses that suggest a flat earth than suggest a bunch of other doctrines that people tend to think way more important.

The Rapture (certainly less than 5 verses)
Predestination (just because you think its entailed, doesn't mean its actually IN a verse, so probably mentioned less than 5 times as well.)
The Virgin Birth (only in TWO of the four gospels, and only a few verses here and there, flat earth is all over the OT, in multiple books, and phrased in different unique ways)

I could go on, but the truth is, the flat earth is way more supported than some of these doctrines.

"He considered it relevant in His time, and for us as well. Hebrews 13:8 says "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever."

Ack, fair point...I was regarding the statement in terms of temporal timeline, but you're right in this regard.

"You see, the Bible, in Genesis and elsewhere, is quite clear that physical death is the result of sin,"

Sorry, Bill, you might want to reread that part again.
Physical death?
Wow, the bible I'm reading makes no mention of "physical death," rather only "death."

TomF.
I read your posts, realized I'm still half asleep, reread again, and I'm going to have to say that after the third read I finally got it.
Thank you for the fun read...though I have to say I never expected that here.

Sheer: It IS quite clear in genesis that physical death is the result of sin. You need to read it again. When A&E ate of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good & evil, the tree of life was taken from them so that they might not live forever. I.e., Death.

Sheer, sorry if it was too subtle for you while you are half-asleep. ;)

Glad you enjoyed it.

sheerahkahn, you wrote:

"Sorry, Bill, you might want to reread that part again.
Physical death?
Wow, the bible I'm reading makes no mention of 'physical death,' rather only 'death.'"

You are free to disagree with my interpretation, of course, but this isn't something I'm making up as I go along. I've put in quite a bit of thought into this issue.

The issue of whether the result of sin was physical death or spiritual death was discussed in the comment section of a video Url posted earlier this year of N. T. Wright discussing the "literalness" of Genesis 1. Karen (whom I greatly respect) posted a link to an article arguing for spiritual death, and not physical death, as the result of sin.

Here is the link she posted:

http://www.proof-of-evolution.com/faq-death-before-adam.html

And here is my response to that article:

Karen,

I read that link that you posted, and it certainly was food for thought. I've been mulling it over for a couple of days, and I do acknowledge that the Bible does refer to "death" in two ways: physical death that all of us experience, and spiritual death that is a separation from God. But the article seems to be arguing that the two are COMPLETELY different and have nothing to do with each other. That is how physical death could exist through the evolutionary process for millions of years before the appearance of "Adam", or "mankind".

The thing is, I don't see anything in Scripture that would specifically argue for that conclusion. You simply have to assume that conclusion in order to harmonize with scientific knowledge, which is based on fallible human observation. That's not to say scientific knowledge is not reliable. But it is also not infallible.

On the contrary, Scripture seems to correlate the two deaths much more closely than the author of the article would allow. Yes, the "death" that Adam brought into the world according to Romans 5:12 is spiritual death, symbolized by Adam's expulsion from the Garden of Eden which contained the Tree of Life. I will agree with the article on that point. BUT...turn to the next chapter and what do you see? The physical death of Abel at the hands of his brother Cain. Turn one more chapter and what do you see? Generations coming and going, each one punctuated by the same refrain: "And he died...And he died...And he died..." Each of these referring to physical death.

I could go on, but my point is that Genesis 1-11 seems to be making a strong correlation between spiritual death and physical death. Physical death is a RESULT of spiritual death. Think of a leaf plucked from a tree. You could say that at that moment, the leaf is spiritually dead according to Paul, because it is disconnected from the source of its life. And BECAUSE of that, eventually, it will wither and dry out and physically die.

So, if in fact physical death is the result of spiritual death, then we're right back at our original question, since it turns out that the article never answered the question at all! On the contrary, it raised more questions. If the article is true, then does that mean that physical death is simply a part of God's plan? Does that mean there will be physical death in the New Heavens and New Earth described in Revelation 21-22? And what would be the point of the Resurrection of the dead (the hope of the entire New Testament), if people are simply going to die physically again! And if they're not going to die physically again, why not? What's changed? Why would God allow physical death to exist for millions of years, independent (according to the article) of sin, and then at some point just arbitrarily stop it?

Like I said earlier, current scientific knowledge claims that life originated on this planet through the process of evolution. And that's fine. I won't argue that that is what science teaches, although it is well to note that there is a significant number of scientists who point out some pretty glaring gaps in evolutionary theory. Regardless, the claims of evolutionary theory seem to me to be so inconsistent with Scripture, that though I can accept it as "knowledge", I cannot accept it as "Truth".

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That was what I wrote in February of this year. It is the reason why I believe that the Bible teaches that physical death is a result of mankind's sin. Now, I recognize that I'm not infallible, and that I may very well be wrong. If anyone would like to point out where I am wrong, using more substantive arguments than simply "Read it again" or "The word 'physical' is not used", I'm certainly open to learning.

"Sheer: It IS quite clear in genesis that physical death is the result of sin. You need to read it again. When A&E ate of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good & evil, the tree of life was taken from them so that they might not live forever. I.e., Death"

What did I just read?
Hang on, I need to read what you wrote again.

"It IS quite clear in genesis that physical death is the result of sin."

Okay, my definition of physical death is biological death, as in when the heart stops beating, all neuro pathways phase out, and cellular decomposition begins...which, seems to be the understood definition of "physical death."

"When A&E ate of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good & evil, the tree of life was taken from them so that they might not live forever. I.e., Death"

I don't even know how to respond to this...it makes no sense whatsoever in context with the previous sentence.

Would you like to explain this?

"Now, I recognize that I'm not infallible, and that I may very well be wrong."

Mr. Williams,
for clarity, I'm rereading your post again, however, I am marking this spot as the highlighter for the nascent thought I have...so...hold on...

"Genesis 1-11 seems to be making a strong correlation between spiritual death and physical death."

Another marker for another thought I am having...still re-reading...

I'm not sure you're wrong per se, not right, but I think you have undersold yourself a bit.
What I read is not the statement of a defender of a citadel, but rather the measured statement of a hiker using a citadel as a reference point....which, when navigating scripture is a pretty smart idea until you can set your bearings better.

Ever stare at the surface of a pond in a hard wind?

Perhaps, there are things going on the surface that look like ripples of reflective and indecipherable light, but really are just blurred by a disturbed pond that is to agitated to clearly show the image.

Science and history can be like that disturbed pond surface.

And so too, our reading of the bible.

Perhaps, literalness isn't something we should be hanging on to so tightly...but rather, allowing the author of Genesis to explain himself in the context of his viewpoint.

Science always trumps religion. Always. To take what an uneducated human wrote 2000 or 3000 years ago, a man no better or more holy than you or I, a man who didn't even know about the concept of "science," and place those writings above the continual searching of modern science is the ultimate in self-centered arrogance.

Why not decamp to France and get your word from a cave painting?

To pretend that the Bible is the same as God, that what is written in the Bible by a man is actually and literally God speaking, is in all intents and purposes worshiping a book.

I might as well go out to the pasture and worship a bull. Or write my own book and say God inspired me to relate His word to you.

I suggest you worship God, not use Him as a trump card in the game that you are playing.

Christianity was a Roman Invention: http://xdisciple.blogspot.ca/2012/04/christianity-was-roman-invention.html
Tom Landry played the role of Pope John Paul II: http://xdisciple.blogspot.ca/2012/06/football-as-religion-tom-landry-was.html

I don't think there is any scientific evidence that indicates a change in the natural laws within the span of the space-time universe. (In common terms, from "the beginning" to "the end.") What we call natural laws are wisely imbedded in the universe in an elegant way that points to the ineffable wisdom of God. It would be more accurate to say that natural law describes the universe, rather than that it rules the universe.

God rules the universe, according to higher and deeper wisdom or laws. Only a tiny portion of his wisdom is revealed to us--and only a tiny portion of his Reality. I think it is entirely reasonable to assume that God's reality has laws that supercede the laws of our universe, without "breaking them." In fact, we must assume that if God can act within our universe without breaking his own laws.

When Jesus rose from the dead, he was not bound by the laws of this universe. By definition then, since natural laws are imbedded in our universe, his resurrection body was "higher" or "beyond" the bounds of our space-time bound universe. His body was not less than 3-dimensional, nor was his time less than 1 dimensional; indeed, it was more (whatever that means)!

Our future is neither in this cosmos! The multi-faceted, even contradictory descriptions of our future in Revelation point to an existence beyond what we experience or imagine in a 3-dimensional space, 1-dimensional time cosmos. (For example, in Revelation 21:16, the square actually has 3 dimensions.) The Bible clearly says that the "elements" (stoichea: either elemental substances or heavenly bodies) will be destroyed (2 Peter 3:10.

I understand the desire to say that there is a continuity between our lives here and now and our lives there and then. The answer to that is that we are already living on this earth within God's Reality. Paul says (1 Cor. 15:that our lives here are like a seed--and he clearly indicates that our future is "more" and different, as different as a plant from a seed (1 Cor.15:37-38) Of course then the seed is important--if the seed is our bodies, and perhaps even if our universe is a seed--but it is not the body!