(Of a series of seven)
The Washington Post’s Paula Kirby unintentionally forces the first question. Kirby sounds like an utterly conventional legacy media journalist, a woman who would never have an idea that wasn’t trendy. She read a book by Dawkins and then one by Jerry Coyne and, guess what, she knows evolution is true. Period. Responding to Rick Perry’s claimed position on evolution, she explains (“Evolution threatens Christianity,”Washington Post, August 24, 2011) why she stopped being a Christian because of evolution (= Darwinism):
But of course evolution poses a problem for Christianity. That’s not to say it poses a problem for all Christians, since many Christians happily accept evolution: they see Genesis 1 as merely a metaphor, and declare that if God chose to create us using evolution, that’s fine by them. I used to be this kind of Christian myself; but I must confess that my blitheness was only possible because I had only the vaguest possible idea of how evolution works and certainly didn’t know enough about it to realize that unguided-ness is central to it.
While I welcome anyone who recognizes that the evidence for evolution is such that it cannot sensibly be denied, to attempt to co-opt evolution as part of a divine plan simply does not work, and suggests a highly superficial understanding of the subject.
It’s all most instructive, because she cannot imagine an alternative .. That most evolution is not about Darwinism.
One assumes she stopped being a Christian, because she believes wholeheartedly in Dawkins’ version of evolution, and “It is irreconcilable with a god of love.” Yes, and that is its central attraction too.
Evolution poses a further threat to Christianity, though, a threat that goes to the very heart of Christian teaching. … Evolution could not have produced a single mother and father of all future humans, so there was no Adam and no Eve. No Adam and Eve: no fall. No fall: no need for redemption. No need for redemption: no need for a redeemer. No need for a redeemer: no need for the crucifixion or the resurrection, and no need to believe in that redeemer in order to gain eternal life. And not the slightest reason to believe in eternal life in the first place.
Christianity is like a big, chunky sweater. It may feel cozy, it may keep you warm, but just let one stitch be dropped and the whole thing unravels before your very eyes. Evolution is that stitch. Evolution destroys the loving creator on which the whole of Christianity depends.
Substitute “Darwinism” for “evolution” and she has it exactly right.
So where does that leave BioLogos?: Promoting the one form of evolution that reliably produces atheism. And it’s the one they’re interested in too.
If you want to hear about real evolution (convergence, co-evolution, epigenesis, symbiogenesis, along with stasis and extinction), you’re better off at Uncommon Descent than BioLogos. Here, once we shut up Darwin’s fervid devotees, we found lots to talk about re evolution … and atheism just did not make the cut. Problem solved.
Which leads back to the original question: Other than adapting Christians to atheism before rampant new atheists resort to thuggery, it’s hard to see the purpose of the BioLogos project. Fellow travellers? You decide.
Next question: What about Francis “those embryos are not part of God’s plan” Collins? He started BioLogos. Let’s talk about him as the “model Christian scientist” next.
Hat tip: Pos-Darwinista