Commenter Michael Fugate brought this to my attention: the summary statement of BioLogo’s Theology of Celebration workshop. The workshop, held last November 9-11, featured all the BioLogos regulars, including Uncle Karl Giberson, BioLogos’s current president Darrel Falk, and the former president and current National Institutes of Health (NIH) director Francis Collins. By signing on to the statement, Collins—who was supposed to stop all this Jesus-testifying after assuming the reins of the NIH—has not only embarrassed himself and the NIH, but violated the terms of his “probation”. Imagine the most powerful scientist in our country signing on to such a statement!
The statement, resembling those that must be sworn to by faculty at bible schools, immediately surrenders any credibility that BioLogos has as a “scientific” organization:
We affirm historic Christianity as articulated in the classic ecumenical creeds. Beyond the original creation, God continues to act in the natural world by sustaining it and by providentially guiding it toward the goal of a restored and consummated creation. In contrast to Deism, Biologos affirms God’s direct involvement in human history, including singular acts such as the incarnation and resurrection of Christ, as well as ongoing acts such as answers to prayer and acts of salvation and personal transformation.
I can’t imagine scientists affirming, without reservation, that Jesus came back from the dead. (Nevertheless, the next sentence of the statement is, “We also affirm the value of science, which eloquently describes the glory of God’s creation. We stand with a long tradition of Christians for whom faith and science are mutually hospitable.”)
It’s interesting that BioLogos is so anti-deism, affirming that God answers prayers and regularly intercedes in the world.
The worst bit, though, is this:
In contrast to scientism, we deny that the material world constitutes the whole of reality and that science is our only path to truth. For all its fruitfulness, science is not an all-inclusive source of knowledge; scientism fails to recognize its limitations in fully understanding reality, including such matters as beauty, history, love, justice, friendship, and indeed science itself.
I’m not going to belabor the stupidity of that statement; we’ve talked about scientism many times before. I’m curious, though, why scientism can’t deal with history or with “science itself”. History is surely subject to empirical investigation (which gives no support for the resurrection of Jesus), and as for “science itself,” well, it was the byproduct of a materially evolved brain that wanted to understand the world.
As for the rest of the phenomena, “beauty” (an evolved neural response), “love” (probably a neural and chemical condition evolved to facilitate bonding), “friendship” (ditto), and “justice” (a byproduct of morality, which we’re working on, and social organization), the statement fails to show why religion provides a “source of knowledge”, especially because different religions have different—and mutually exclusive—solutions. All they can say is “God made them.”
Some day I would love to see a list of questions that science can’t answer but other methods of inquiry can—especially religion. So far, despite loud and frequent denunciations of “scientism,” I’ve never seen anything resembling that list.