The Evolution of Doubt - BioLogos and the Denial of Inerrancy

I paid a visit to the BioLogos Foundation's website and read through some articles. BioLogos is a group committed to the preaching of evolution as compatible with Christian Scripture and orthodoxy.

In the following comments, I detected the "scared cat" phenomenon which we examined in a recent post. The words are from Darrel Falk, President of BioLogos.

The BioLogos Foundation exists in order that the Church, especially the Evangelical Church, can come to peace with the scientific data which shows unequivocally that the universe is very old and that all of life, including humankind, has been created through a gradual process that has been taking place over the past few billion years. BioLogos exists to show that this fact (and it is a fact), need not, indeed must not, affect our relationship with God, which comes about through Jesus Christ, and is experienced by the power of the Holy Spirit’s indwelling presence. (Emphasis added)

Source

These are what we might describe as "errant presuppositions."

First, "scientific data" is just that: data. To be classified as scientific, a piece of datum has to be observable, repeatable and objective in nature. Evolutionary theory can't be proven, repeated or observed, but is constructed from an interpretation of the available data. The real "fact" is, all of the scientific data lends itself better to a Biblically consistent creation model than to an evolutionary view. Evangelicals can be perfectly at peace with this data, because it beautifully reflects the Truth and fact claims of the Bible. There is no conflict between science and the Bible until one erroneously accepts evolutionary theory as fact. At that point, one is more or less forced to ditch inerrancy.

Why go down the evolution road in the first place? It is unprovable as science, unbiblical as theology, and lacks any viability as a model of origins. Far from scientifically provable or even defensible, evolutionism amounts to little more than a bad guess at history, and one so unnatural as to require supernatural intervention to render it even remotely plausible. Like creation, theistic evolution is a supernatural theory. But unlike creation, it asks us to believe in the wrong miracle. It's approximately equivalent to arguing that Jesus didn't actually die and resurrect, but instead exercised His divine power to make His followers think He did. That would indeed be a miracle, but like theistic evolution it would be the wrong miracle because it is not the Biblical one. Like theistic evolution, it would violently wrench the clear meaning of the text and require a denial of inerrancy. How is it that people who claim to believe in things as intellectually difficult as the virgin birth and the bodily resurrection of Christ seem to lack the guts to stand up to evolutionary pseudo-science?

Second, the sheer arrogance and folly of any claim to know factually and unquestioningly, apart from divine revelation (or in this case contrary to divine revelation), events that took place in the distant prehistoric past, should be evident to all thinking persons. A callous denigration of Biblical authority is so clearly manifested in the official statements of BioLogos that all Bible believers should unanimously arise to vote down the perpetrators by calling their unbelief exactly what it is: an unorthodox denial of essential Biblical doctrine. Instead, BioLogos has become a haven for scholars like Tremper Longman III and Peter Enns - men who claim to be conservative but hold that the Bible leads us astray in some of its statements. Many who call themselves Evangelical flock there to "discuss" their denial of the Truth.

Here is a curios irony. Scholars who reject inerrancy tell us the Biblical writers absorbed false assumptions from their culture and allowed them to get into the text of Scripture (clearly denying he Holy Spirit's role as the inspiring purifier of their words). Yet these scholars themselves have absorbed evolutionary assumptions from their own culture and allowed those assumptions to distort their views of Scripture (thus elevating their own thinking as superior to the Word). So they are doing the very thing they accuse the Biblical writers of, and they are raising their own reasoning above the clear teaching of God-breathed revelation.

Since God emphatically affirms the inspiration of the Bible, and He makes no such guarantee regarding the works of contemporary Evangelical authors (but actually predicts a great deception with woolly wolves), we have good reason to set our full confidence on the facts as presented in a totally truthful Bible. Rather than rejecting inerrancy, let us summarily reject the fallacies of BioLogos and its scholars.

The Historicity of Adam: Genesis DEconstructed and REconstructed

Perhaps you've caught the recent buzz about Tremper Longman III's remarks casting doubt on the UNDENIABLE BIBLICAL FACT that there was a real person named "Adam" who was the first man created by God, in His Own image, not from evolution but by God's own special act, formed from the dust of the ground on the 6th day. Longman is a super-scholar with a long list of credentials and books to his credit, but then again, so is Bart Ehrman. Ehrman's modus operandi is to heap as much doubt as possible on the Word of God, from the perspective of a former Evangelical. Unfortunately, Longman's remarks offer a subtle but equally potent attack on the inerrancy of Scripture - and this from a supposedly conservative Evangelical perspective. Perhaps he's just "reconstructing" the doctrine of inspiration?

One’s views about the historicity of early Genesis are a reflection of one’s view of Scripture. If one primarily views Scripture as similar to other ancient writings of the time period (Babylonian mythology, etc.), one will tend to view the Biblical writings through that lens and come up with ideas that seem sensible but actually disintegrate the unity of the Bible (and ultimately present the idea that it means something other than what it says). If one primarily views the Bible as God’s Eternal Word of Truth, as inerrant as God Himself is (though arriving by His Providence through the minds and experiences of imperfect and errant people), guarded by the Holy Spirit from any contamination or mistake, entirely pure and wholly true, one will tend to say that Scripture means exactly what it says – and that God was careful and exacting in His revelation.

What I have learned here is that Tremper Longman III, although he is 100 times more scholarly and studied than I am, is not a reliable witness about the unity and integration of Scripture. Let God be true, and EVERY MAN a liar. That includes me and you and Tremper. But this is exactly the point – Scripture calls us to trust it more than we trust our own thoughts.

Perhaps scholars like Longman end up spending so much time looking at the ancient cultures, archeological data, and other human/earthly factors related to Scripture that they lose perspective on the heavenly/inspired character of the Word.

My 5-year-old apparently has more faith in God’s Word than most super-scholars, and I take this as a warning against the subtle unbelief that sometimes accompanies “learning.” Ever learning, but never able to come to a knowledge of the Truth – this is the danger for all of us knowledge-hungry seekers of insight from the Bible. May God help us to believe Him.

Here's the video where Longman expresses his doubts . . .

Editor's Note: Although I'm no fan of yellow shirts, I'm glad the colors in this video fit the color scheme of THEOparadox. That is the ONLY point of agreement I am able to identify between myself and this video.

If "Adam" in Genesis 1-3 is not a specific individual, but "mankind" in general, I suppose we have to rewrite Genesis 2:8-25 . . .

⁸The LORD God planted a garden toward the east, in Eden; and there He placed the [committee of men] whom He had [caused to evolve].

⁹Out of the ground the LORD God caused to [evolve] every tree that is pleasing to the sight and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

(I'm skipping verses 10-14 because they're not related to the discussion)

¹⁵Then the LORD God took the [committee of men] and put [them] into the garden of Eden to cultivate it and keep it.

¹⁶The LORD God commanded the [committee of men], saying, "From any tree of the garden you [guys] may eat freely;

¹⁷but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you [guys] shall not eat, for in the day that you [guys] eat from it you [guys] will surely die."

¹⁸Then the LORD God said, "It is not good for the [committee of men] to be alone; I will [cause to evolve for them] a [bunch of women] suitable for [them]."

(I'm not sure how evolution works when you only have males, but I'll leave that as a question for Longman to answer)

¹⁹Out of the ground the LORD God [caused to evolve] every beast of the field and every bird of the sky, and brought them to the [committee of men] to see what [they] would call them (I guess they voted); and whatever the [committee of men] called a living creature, that was its name.

²⁰The [committee of men] gave names to all the cattle, and to the birds of the sky, and to every beast of the field, but for [the committee of men] there was not found a [bunch of helpers] suitable for [them].

²¹So the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the [committee of men], and [they] slept; then He took one [or some] of [their?] ribs and closed up the flesh at that place (via some evolutionary process, no doubt).

(After all, evolution is the one thing a Bible scholar dare not cast doubt upon)

²²The LORD God [caused to evolve] into a [bunch of women] the rib [or ribs] which He had taken from the [committee of men], and brought [them] to the [committee of men].

²³The [committee of men] said, (Perhaps they had appointed a spokesman?)
"This is now bone of [our] bones,
And flesh of [our] flesh;

[they] shall be called [women],

Because [they were] taken out of [the committee of men]."

(at this point the logic is really breaking down!)

²⁴For this reason (what reason? Tremper has taken all "reason" out of this passage) a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh.

²⁵And the [committee of men] and [their wives] were [all]naked and were not ashamed.

Um . . . yeah. No further comment needed.

[WARNING: The next paragraph is entirely tongue-in-cheek]

Perhaps other individuals in Scripture were actually committees, too. Abraham might have been a group of people who "had lots of kids," and Joshua may have been an army that was "saved by YHWH," and Moses could have been 100 people who were "drawn out" by God. This would help us understand how a lowly sheep herder convinced the mighty Pharaoh to let the people go. Perhaps they all rushed at him with their staffs swinging. Ridiculous, you say? If we don't trust Scripture, how can anyone disqualify these theories? Next week I'll present an engraving by ancient Midianites that shows 100 shepherds attacking somebody. You can't argue with rocks, right?

Here's a scholarly (and, unlike the video you just watched, Biblically faithful) post from James Anderson in response . . .

http://proginosko.wordpress.com/2009/09/21/was-adam-a-real-historical-individual/

Here's a provocative post from Dan Phillips at Team Pyro . . .

http://teampyro.blogspot.com/2009/09/few-pithy-thoughts-on-doubt.html

And here's Jeff at ScriptureZealot.com . . .

http://www.scripturezealot.com/2009/09/22/adam-man-or-people/#comments

Finally, I'd like to challenge those who support Longman's view to re-write Genesis 2 in a way that actually makes sense. Alternatively, I'd like to suggest you simply take it exactly the way it is revealed by an omniscient God.