Many Christians (and non-Christians alike) are familiar with the organization, BioLogos. For those who are not, allow me to identify them and their mission (agenda?). BioLogos is an organization that seeks to unify Christian belief with accepted, consensus mainstream science. In essence, they want to fully integrate evolutionary thinking (accepted, consensus mainstream science) with orthodox Christian doctrine.
Why do they want to do this? Because, in their minds, Christian scholars look flat-out stupid because we accept the Genesis creation account as literal history. They think that Christians will be more accepted into the mainstream science if we accept the evolutionary timescales. By seeking this, BioLogos treads on dangerous grounds. They seek to change the literal straightforward interpretation of God's Word to accommodate to fallible, human reasoning. That's something that I won't even pretend to comprehend. But, let's look at their reasoning. Will accepting evolution really make Christianity more palatable to the secular crowd?
As a prime example, I will use Richard Dawkins. Dawkins really doesn't need an introduction. He is (without question) the most outspoken and popular New Atheist alive today. And, he's not ashamed of what he believes. Contrast his unashamed beliefs with those of two men he debated: Francis Collins and John Lennox. Now, Collins and Lennox are both extremely intelligent men. Collins led the Human Genome Project, and Lennox is a professor of mathematics at Oxford University. But, both men made a mistake when debating Dawkins. They both confessed to belief in evolution. And Dawkins was quick to take them up on their concessions. It was sad to read Dawkins' response to Collins' confession. He questioned Collins on what kind of God would use such a brutal and merciless process as evolution. Collins really had no substantial answer. When Lennox debated Dawkins and confessed, the look of smugness and victory that crossed Dawkins' face as he briefly hammered Lennox about it was heart-breaking. In both cases, I found myself agreeing with Dawkins.
Don't take what I said as my confession to atheism. By no means: in fact, quite the opposite. I agreed with Dawkins, because he was right. And it bolstered my faith. Dawkins was completely unimpressed with two Christian scholars who accepted evolution. And I agreed with him. There is no excuse for a Christian to accept evolutionary theory when it contradicts the plainly written Word of God and even God's Nature. How could a loving God reconcile Himself with the brutalities of evolution? [I may address this in a later blog.] Dawkins' responses clearly showed his contempt for compromising religion with an obviously atheistic worldview. Dawkins has been known for saying that evolution makes it possible to be "an intellectually fulfilled atheist." Dawkins is out to destroy creation science and religion in general. He has no use for cowardly Christians who can't stand up for Biblical beliefs. Compromising with evolution surely didn't get his support.
There is another issue (and I will just briefly touch on this). They want to be accepted. Why? Paul advocates in Romans 12:2 a different philosophy: And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God. We are not to be part of the world. Notice, also, that Paul said to renew our minds. So, we should not be in line with the world's thinking either. Evolution is part of the world's thinking. We must be separate. Which is more important: God's approval or man's? The choice is yours.
No comments:
Post a Comment