Be Thou My Vision
Jan10

BioLogos: Disingenuous Objectivity

Posted on January 10, 2011 at 12:30pm
Evolution vs. Creation

irReligion.org (artist unknown)

Dr. Albert Mohler, president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, recently posted a rebuttal of sorts ("No Buzzing Little Fly") to the BioLogos Foundation's year-end summary ("The Dawning of a New Day", written by its current president Darrel Falk). This article specifically singled out Mohler for attempting to "squish" BioLogos like "a buzzing little fly."

For those not familiar with The BioLogos Foundation, they are a group of Christian scientists, scholars, philosophers, theologians, pastors, educators, and others "who are concerned about the long history of disharmony between the findings of science and large sectors of the Christian faith" and "believe that evolution, properly understood, best describes God’s work of creation."

While claiming to be objective themselves, and simultaneously chastising many evangelical Christians for their "blind" commitment to supernatural presuppositions, Falk makes it clear that his beliefs require a devotion to science that is nothing short of worship: as Dr. Mohler adeptly points out, science—in Falk's eyes—must be held as infallible. This seems quite hypocritical for a group that seeks to undermine evangelical thought by attacking the acceptance of its common tenets.

It's nothing short of ironic that one of the greatest arguments against Intelligent Design and Creationist thought is the alleged requirement of "blind faith" on the part of its proponents. If we are to have an honest debate about the issue, we must honestly admit that we all bring presuppositions and biases to the table. The "dirty little secret" of Evolution is that most of the evidence that ostensibly proves the theory is based on the presupposition that Evolution is the mechanism by which life on earth has reached the point we're at today, not simply a theory. That's not necessarily a bad thing: science often relies on hypotheses and building on previous empirical findings. We run into a problem, though, when we accept those hypotheses without actually proving them, and then blindly accept them as fact while ignoring all evidence to the contrary. In other words, findings and theories based on a flawed precedent are houses built on sand.

There are plenty of scientists on the opposite side of the debate (among them, some of the most interesting evidence, theories and arguments come from The Institute for Creation Research, Reasons to Believe and Answers in Genesis), yet rather than confront the findings of these scientists—who are discovering many flaws in neo-Darwinist and Evolutionist theory—head-on in an open and honest debate, Dr. Falk and many others simply dismiss them out of hand as people who are leading us "down a dead end road." Far from being in danger of being "squished" as a "little fly," Evolutionists have monopolized the debate and very successfully crushed much of the intellectual competition. Evolution is not a foregone conclusion, and it's time that we stopped treating it that way and let the evidence speak for itself.

For any who are interested and local, my church (Trinity Lutheran in Joppa, MD) will be hosting a Bible study tomorrow, Tuesday, January 11, on the subject "Evolution and Creationism," which should prove to be very informative and worth your time. The study will be led by our senior pastor, Pr. Paul Austin.

Comments (0) Trackbacks (0)

No comments yet.


Leave a comment

No trackbacks yet.