Biologos and their brand of theistic evolution

[RonO]

https://biologos.org/common-questions/how-is-biologos-different-from-evolutionism-intelligent-design-and-creationism

This is a brief article where BioLogos points out some differences
between what their supporters believe compared to other brands of
creationism.

The ID perps have put out the God Hypothesis, but Intelligent design
seems to be dead even on the ID perp's web site. There isn't much more
than denial up on their web site for quite some time. They have put up
their top six denial arguments again (Luskin's clueless reposting) when
there doesn't seem to be an IDiot in existence that wants to do anything
positive with the Top Six nor try to relate them to what they believe as
creationists. Dean recently admitted that when he put up 3 of the Top
Six and claimed that they were positive evidence for his intelligent
designer, but then claimed that he did not want to apply them to his
alternative, and he didn't want to understand how the Top Six related to
nature and his alternative. Denial of reality seems to be the only
thing that he wanted out of those god-of-the-gaps arguments, just like
the scientific creationists who used the same arguments over 30 years
ago. The scientific creationists were mostly YEC and never wanted to
understand what any designer might have done 13 billion years ago to
create the Big Bang and fine tune the universe, but the AIG still has
that god-of-the-gaps junk up in their creation museum.

This BioLogos article claims that ID perps claim intelligent design is a
testable scientific hypothesis. ID perps may claim that they can do the
science, but no science ever gets done, so more accurately they should
have said that they lie about intelligent design being a testable
scientific hypothesis. If they were not lying some science would have
been done by now, and some IDiotic hypotheses would have been tested.
IC was the only ID perp addition to the creationist Top Six
god-of-the-gaps denial (the scientific creationists did have the
flagellum as a design machine denial, but did not call it IC) and IC was
dropped out of the Top Six in more recent IDiotic renditions. IC has
never been tested. The hypothesis has existed for decades, but no
testing has ever been attempted even though the ID perps have claimed
that it is testable.

Luskin Top Six repeat:
As before Luskin does not claim that the IDiot Top Six as scientific
evidence for intelligent design. What kind of evidence is the Top Six?
Luskin is claimed to be Associate Director of the ID scam unit, so they
may be grooming him to take over from Meyer and West. Someone has to
keep the bait and switch scam running.

https://www.discovery.org/a/sixfold-evidence-for-intelligent-design/

Links to the original top six and how the ID perps have dealt with them
since first putting them up in 2017. IC, the Cambrian explosion, and
the Big Bang have been dropped out of the Top Six, and Luskin cluelessly
seems to be oblivious about the changes, or he just doesn't care.

https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/a2K79skPGXI/m/uDwx0i-_BAAJ

Ron Okimoto

[jillery]

On Sat, 31 Jul 2021 10:20:59 -0500, RonO <roki...@cox.net> wrote:

>https://biologos.org/common-questions/how-is-biologos-different-from-evolutionism-intelligent-design-and-creationism
>
>This is a brief article where BioLogos points out some differences
>between what their supporters believe compared to other brands of
>creationism.

******************************************
But while we accept the scientific evidence for evolution, BioLogos
emphatically rejects Evolutionism, the atheistic worldview that so
often accompanies the acceptance of biological evolution in public
discussion. Evolutionism is a kind of scientism, which holds that all
of reality can in principle be explained by science. In contrast,
BioLogos believes that science is limited to explaining the natural
world, and that supernatural events like miracles are part of reality
too.
****************************************

The above statement would have more credibility if the article made
some effort to identify how Biologos distinguishes between natural and
supernatural events.

--
You're entitled to your own opinions.
You're not entitled to your own facts.

[RonO]

On 7/31/2021 2:40 PM, jillery wrote:
> On Sat, 31 Jul 2021 10:20:59 -0500, RonO <roki...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>> https://biologos.org/common-questions/how-is-biologos-different-from-evolutionism-intelligent-design-and-creationism
>>
>> This is a brief article where BioLogos points out some differences
>> between what their supporters believe compared to other brands of
>> creationism.
>
>
> ******************************************
> But while we accept the scientific evidence for evolution, BioLogos
> emphatically rejects Evolutionism, the atheistic worldview that so
> often accompanies the acceptance of biological evolution in public
> discussion. Evolutionism is a kind of scientism, which holds that all
> of reality can in principle be explained by science. In contrast,
> BioLogos believes that science is limited to explaining the natural
> world, and that supernatural events like miracles are part of reality
> too.
> ****************************************
>
> The above statement would have more credibility if the article made
> some effort to identify how Biologos distinguishes between natural and
> supernatural events.

They don't distinguish between the two. Evolution obviously happened,
but they are like Behe in that they think that the Christian God had
something to do with it. The difference between Behe and the Biologos
guys is that the Biologos guys admit that they don't know how to
determine what their god may have done. As far as I can figure they
just assume that we don't know everything, so their belief is justified.
They don't need something like IC to tell them that their god did
something. They have the result and their religious belief, and they
don't need to know how it was done.

Ron Okimoto

[mohammad...@gmail.com]

Obviously biologos are total frauds, liars, and heretics.

As is shown by them distinguishing natural and supernatural, and supernatural as mircacles.

The fundamental distinction is between what is objective and what is subjective.

1. Creator / chooses / spiritual / subjective / opinion
2. Creation / chosen / material / objective / fact

Too much for them to acknowledge the mechanism of creation, which is choice.

And so you see, besides all the atheists who are frauds, then there is also lots of religious who are frauds.

Quasi religious types who insist that God is objective, like some brick is objective. Fact obsessed just like any atheist.

But you know the real religion eh Ron Okimoto?

The subjective and spiritual God, choosing which way the objective and material universe turns out.

And you are a liar if you say you know that choice, sophisticated choosing of intelligent design, was not the main way that organisms were formed.

ACTGACTGACTAA

Everyone who looks at the string immediately sees all other possible combinations of the 4 bases in the background of it, and the string as chosen from those possibilities.

No way can you say for sure, that this is not how it happened.


Op zaterdag 31 juli 2021 om 17:21:13 UTC+2 schreef Ron O:

[jillery]

The statement I quoted explicitly makes a distinction between natural
and supernatural, that science can explain the natural world but not
the supernatural world. I agree Biologos is like Behe, but both
distinguish between natural and supernatural.

Also, their statement associates evolution with atheism. Evolution is
no more atheistic than any other scientific discipline, or for that
matter, any explanation which doesn't explicitly invoke God. To say
evolution is atheism makes as much sense as to say auto repair is
atheism.

[Burkhard]

There may be a way to reconcile both your interpretations. In that
version they accept the division as an ontological issue, but reject it
as an epistemological issue. In that view some events are caused by
supernatural agents, or supernatural in nature, but as for us they look
identical, you only ever can have faith that a specific event was of the
supernatural nature (e.g. as a result of prayer) but no reason for it.

Not my favourite position, but I'd say internally consistent

>
> Also, their statement associates evolution with atheism. Evolution is
> no more atheistic than any other scientific discipline, or for that
> matter, any explanation which doesn't explicitly invoke God. To say
> evolution is atheism makes as much sense as to say auto repair is
> atheism.

They seem to be in violent agreement with you on this, the way I parse
the sentence. They accept the theory of evolution and say that properly
understood, it is neither in conflict with, nor supporting, any
particular metaphysical position, be it theism or atheism.

They then reject as "Evolutionism" attempts by some atheists to co-opt
the ToE for their preferred philosophical position, the very same thing
you also just rejected.

Technically speaking, this is achieved y adding the "all-closure" or
"totality operator" to the theory, a sentence of the form "and that is
all". Despite looking very simple, the logical form of that sentence is
extremely complicated, contested even between people who believe one
version is true, and in some versions at least arguably inconsistent. My
sometime collaborator Stephan Leuenberger wrote a lot on this, though it
gets very technical very quickly


https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/934AB649A89A7B2D56579E5FCBCF28DF/S1755020314000124a.pdf/total-logic.pdf


Are there such atheists? Sure, it would be surprising if not. There is a
lot of "Volksgläubigkeit", or vulgar religion out there that bears often
little resemblance to the official positions of any church, and it would
be surprising if the same mix of vague mirror images of more
thought-through positions plus a lot of ad-hoc and self made ideas where
not to be found among atheists, especially in countries where it is more
common and mainly transmitted sexually or socially (i.e. you belief what
your parents or peers do, just with religion)

There is I think a South Park episode on this, but in real life, my
neighbour where I grew up was rather like this, and his attempts for
proselyting uncannily similar to that of Jehovah Witnesses, including
badly self-printed pamphlets about the ToE and how it disproves religion.

[jillery]

On Sun, 1 Aug 2021 11:25:45 +0100, Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>
wrote:

The article from your link is paywalled to me, so I don't know how
well it addresses the points I raised.

I acknowledge I may be oversimplifying Biologos' expressed position,
but I remain unconvinced of that. That they refer to the supernatural
and miracles in the same paragraph as "evolutionism" suggests to me
they are saying the supernatural and miracles must be included in a
complete understanding of evolution, which is essentially the position
of Behe and other cdesign proponentsists, whose expressed position is
inconsistent special pleading.

[RonO]

This is just what I said. They understand that evolution is a fact of
nature, and they don't care that their supernatural beliefs are not
supported. They think that their designer is responsible for biological
evolution. Unlike the ID perps they don't claim that science can do
their beliefs any good.

>
> Also, their statement associates evolution with atheism. Evolution is
> no more atheistic than any other scientific discipline, or for that
> matter, any explanation which doesn't explicitly invoke God. To say
> evolution is atheism makes as much sense as to say auto repair is
> atheism.

Evolutionism is associated with atheism. They claim that evolutionism
is the belief that biological evolution is completely understood to be
due to all natural processes. They obviously do not believe this, and
claim that such a belief is unwarranted at this time. It may be all
that we can understand about evolution, but it isn't enough for them.

As I said they know that they have nothing going for their religious
belief in terms of the science, but that doesn't matter to their faith.

Ron Okimoto

[Burkhard]

Ah, darn, my browser now logs me in automatically, so I don't notice any
longer if it is paywalled or open, sorry. It's not really important
through, as I said a rather technical attempt to express precisely what
what the difference between science/scientism is, in formal terms

>
> I acknowledge I may be oversimplifying Biologos' expressed position,
> but I remain unconvinced of that. That they refer to the supernatural
> and miracles in the same paragraph as "evolutionism" suggests to me
> they are saying the supernatural and miracles must be included in a
> complete understanding of evolution, which is essentially the position
> of Behe and other cdesign proponentsists, whose expressed position is
> inconsistent special pleading.

I agree, it's a possible interpretation. But it can as well be read as a
"must not be excluded", in the sense of a negative proof (which is what
they'd accuse ..ism of) or possibly, must be included (in their view)
in a comprehensive account of "reality", but this would go well beyond
any specific scientific theory, or even all of science. So
non-overlapping magisteria, but with a reminder that the non-science
magisteria are still there.

[Martin Harran]

I think you are understating their position. Biologos clearly
unreservedly accept evolution as a fact and accept the scientific
explanations that go with it - let's not forget that it was
established by the scientist who discovered the genes associated with
a number of diseases, led the Human Genome Project and has been
director of the National Institutes of Health for the last 12 years, a
position confirmed by 3 successive Presidents of the USA.

Far from science being something they feel can just ignore, however,
their raison d'être is to find ways of reconciling their religious
beliefs with the things established by science; the important point is
that their starting point is a total acceptance of what science tells
us, unlike ID and Creationism who try to deny that science.

[…]

[Martin Harran]

On Sun, 01 Aug 2021 22:01:29 +0100, Martin Harran
<martin...@gmail.com> wrote:

[...]

> let's not forget that it [Biologos] was

>established by the scientist who discovered the genes associated with
>a number of diseases, led the Human Genome Project and has been
>director of the National Institutes of Health for the last 12 years, a
>position confirmed by 3 successive Presidents of the USA.
>

A side issue on this that puzzles me. The 3 successive Presidents
includes Trump so how did Collins evade Trump's detestation of
scientific experts?

[...]

[jillery]

On Sun, 01 Aug 2021 22:01:29 +0100, Martin Harran
<martin...@gmail.com> wrote:

I have much respect Francis Collins and his accomplishments. Nothing
posted to this topic says anything about him. I doubt he even saw the
text of the cited webpage. Your mindless prattle above is that of a
cowardly and dishonest sycophant.

[Öö Tiib]

I had impression that noticeable portion of what is discussed in this
thread is fruit of thought of Francis Collins. He founded "The BioLogos
Foundation", he served as president of it, even the term itself
"Biologos" comes from his book "The Language of God". It can
happen that he has not read some page of biologos.org website
but more likely he has participated in writing that.

[jillery]

On Mon, 2 Aug 2021 01:36:40 -0700 (PDT), Öö Tiib <oot...@hot.ee>
wrote:

You may have that impression about this thread, but not by anything
posted in it. The OP made no mention of Francis Collins, and no
reference to Collins was made before a coward and liar alluded to him.

Your mini-biography of Francis Collins is technically correct but not
relevant to the topic. Francis Collins also headed the Genome Project
but this topic isn't about that, either.

You say it's likely Collins participated in writing the cited webpage.
I acknowledge the possibility. Will you cite something attributed to
Collins which expresses what you think is a similar sentiment?

[RonO]

I couldn't figure out what he was going on about. Why did he post what
he did? Francis Collins has his job because he has demonstrated himself
to be good at it. Beats me what that has to do with Harran's
misinterpretation of what Biologos is doing.

Biologos obviously does not care that science can't be used to explain
their religious beliefs. In the second paragraph they are claiming that
science cannot explain their religious beliefs, but that doesn't mean
that their religious beliefs are not part of reality.

QUOTE:

But while we accept the scientific evidence for evolution, BioLogos
emphatically rejects Evolutionism, the atheistic worldview that so often
accompanies the acceptance of biological evolution in public discussion.
Evolutionism is a kind of scientism, which holds that all of reality can
in principle be explained by science. In contrast, BioLogos believes
that science is limited to explaining the natural world, and that
supernatural events like miracles are part of reality too.

EMD QUOTE:

Ron Okimoto

[Martin Harran]

You and Jillery whining about me mentioning Collins in connection with
Biologos is the same as somebody whining about Darwin being mentioned
in connection with the Theory of Evolution.

>Beats me what that has to do with Harran's
>misinterpretation of what Biologos is doing.

What did I misinterpret?

>
>Biologos obviously does not care that science can't be used to explain
>their religious beliefs.

If they don't care, then why did they bother to set up Biologos and
put effort into keeping it going?

[Öö Tiib]

Topic indeed reads "Biologos and their brand of theistic evolution"
and Collins is the author of that concept.

> You say it's likely Collins participated in writing the cited webpage.
> I acknowledge the possibility. Will you cite something attributed to
> Collins which expresses what you think is a similar sentiment?

I said it can be likely so because his book I mentioned expresses
similar ideas: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Language_of_God>
It is considered remarkable book among Christians and Collins
is considered talented writer. Therefore it is likely that he had at
least peer-reviewed if not coauthored the pages on that web
site. God is author of natural laws and also cause behind miracles
by his book.

[jillery]

On Mon, 02 Aug 2021 14:00:59 +0100, Martin Harran

Since you mention it, it is a common Creationist tactic to conflate
the person Darwin and/or the fact of evolution with the Theory of
Evolution, and so the dialog becomes obfuscated with willfully stupid
spam about "darwinian gradualism", or worse with mindless noise about
Darwin's personal life.

So you whining above about my alleged whining notwithstanding, it is a
fact that Biologos as an institution and its philosophies are not the
same thing as Francis Collins. To use an analogy even you might
understand, the RCC and Pope Francis are also not the same subject and
can be discussed separately.

But let's stipulate for argument's sake that Francis Collins is
relevant to the OP. How does the OP or my comments reflect poorly on
Francis Collins? How do your comments about Francis Collins address
the philosophy stated on the cited Biologos website?

Of course, you won't answer these questions because you're a coward
sniping behind your killfile.

>>Beats me what that has to do with Harran's
>>misinterpretation of what Biologos is doing.
>
>What did I misinterpret?
>
>>
>>Biologos obviously does not care that science can't be used to explain
>>their religious beliefs.
>
>If they don't care, then why did they bother to set up Biologos and
>put effort into keeping it going?
>
>> In the second paragraph they are claiming that
>>science cannot explain their religious beliefs, but that doesn't mean
>>that their religious beliefs are not part of reality.
>>
>>QUOTE:
>>But while we accept the scientific evidence for evolution, BioLogos
>>emphatically rejects Evolutionism, the atheistic worldview that so often
>>accompanies the acceptance of biological evolution in public discussion.
>>Evolutionism is a kind of scientism, which holds that all of reality can
>>in principle be explained by science. In contrast, BioLogos believes
>>that science is limited to explaining the natural world, and that
>>supernatural events like miracles are part of reality too.
>>EMD QUOTE:
>>
>>Ron Okimoto

[jillery]

On Mon, 2 Aug 2021 06:32:33 -0700 (PDT), Öö Tiib <oot...@hot.ee>

Ok, stipulating for argument's sake that Francis Collins and Biologos
are the same subject, what is it about Francis Collins that you think
is relevant to the philosophy expressed on the cited Biologos website?

>> You say it's likely Collins participated in writing the cited webpage.
>> I acknowledge the possibility. Will you cite something attributed to
>> Collins which expresses what you think is a similar sentiment?
>
>I said it can be likely so because his book I mentioned expresses
>similar ideas: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Language_of_God>

That book is 300+ pages long. To paraphrase Sidney Harris, I think
you could be a little more specific.

>It is considered remarkable book among Christians and Collins
>is considered talented writer. Therefore it is likely that he had at
>least peer-reviewed if not coauthored the pages on that web
>site. God is author of natural laws and also cause behind miracles
>by his book.

This topic isn't about that book, either.

[Öö Tiib]

Only that he is the author of BioLogos. I was replying that your
doubt "I doubt he even saw the text of the cited webpage." has
no much ground.

> >> You say it's likely Collins participated in writing the cited webpage.
> >> I acknowledge the possibility. Will you cite something attributed to
> >> Collins which expresses what you think is a similar sentiment?
> >
> >I said it can be likely so because his book I mentioned expresses
> >similar ideas: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Language_of_God>
> That book is 300+ pages long. To paraphrase Sidney Harris, I think
> you could be a little more specific.

I gave cite to Wikipedia article that is not 300 pages and describes
ground propositions of the book. Do you suspect that Wikipedia is
misrepresenting it?

> >It is considered remarkable book among Christians and Collins
> >is considered talented writer. Therefore it is likely that he had at
> >least peer-reviewed if not coauthored the pages on that web
> >site. God is author of natural laws and also cause behind miracles
> >by his book.
> This topic isn't about that book, either.

Be specific about what the topic is for you? For me the topic was
about BioLogos brand of theistic evolution. As Collins is the
founder and core philosopher of it and his book is about it ... it
is unsure why you claim that neither is topical.
.

[jillery]

On Mon, 2 Aug 2021 11:29:22 -0700 (PDT), Öö Tiib <oot...@hot.ee>

I said I acknowledged the possibility. Francis Collins is a very busy
fellow. I would be surprised if he was directly involved in its daily
operations, or in details like webpage texts.

>> >> You say it's likely Collins participated in writing the cited webpage.
>> >> I acknowledge the possibility. Will you cite something attributed to
>> >> Collins which expresses what you think is a similar sentiment?
>> >
>> >I said it can be likely so because his book I mentioned expresses
>> >similar ideas: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Language_of_God>
>> That book is 300+ pages long. To paraphrase Sidney Harris, I think
>> you could be a little more specific.
>
>I gave cite to Wikipedia article that is not 300 pages and describes
>ground propositions of the book. Do you suspect that Wikipedia is
>misrepresenting it?

Yours is a meaningless question. It's almost certain the person who
wrote the Wikipedia article was not Francis Collins. I would like you
to cite something that is actually claimed by him, not just refers to
him. And I would like you to cite what you, Öö Tiib, thinks is
comparable to the meaning of the cited website. Unlike some posters,
I know I can't read your mind.

>> >It is considered remarkable book among Christians and Collins
>> >is considered talented writer. Therefore it is likely that he had at
>> >least peer-reviewed if not coauthored the pages on that web
>> >site. God is author of natural laws and also cause behind miracles
>> >by his book.
>> This topic isn't about that book, either.
>
>Be specific about what the topic is for you? For me the topic was
>about BioLogos brand of theistic evolution.

So go with that. Up to now your comments said nothing about it.

>As Collins is the
>founder and core philosopher of it and his book is about it ... it
>is unsure why you claim that neither is topical.

To the best of my knowledge, he concepts described by the website was
not invented by Francis Collins. If you think there is something
unique to Francis Collins' brand of theistic evolution, then spit it
out, instead of posting about everything but.

[RonO]

You are the one whinning about it. You could just state what you were
trying to do.

>
>> Beats me what that has to do with Harran's
>> misinterpretation of what Biologos is doing.
>
> What did I misinterpret?

They are not using science to support their religious beliefs. They use
science to support science. They admit that they can't use science to
support their religious beliefs, and they claim that they do not have to.

>
>>
>> Biologos obviously does not care that science can't be used to explain
>> their religious beliefs.
>
> If they don't care, then why did they bother to set up Biologos and
> put effort into keeping it going?

Read what they write. They really do not care that science cannot
support their religious beliefs. In fact, they claim the guys involved
in "evolutionism" type thinking can't use science to counter their
religious beliefs. They understand that the argument works both ways,
and it is true science can't deal with determining whether their
religious beliefs are valid or not. The ID perps claim that their
religious beliefs can be tested scientifically, but the Biologos crowd
knows better.

Ron Okimoto

[Martin Harran]

I'm not whining. I summarised the ethos and origins (no pun intended)
of Biologos for the benefit of anyone who doesn't know much about
them. You and Jillery are the ones who are het up about that for some
reason.

>
>>
>>> Beats me what that has to do with Harran's
>>> misinterpretation of what Biologos is doing.
>>
>> What did I misinterpret?
>
>They are not using science to support their religious beliefs.

I didn't say they do. Do you not understand what the word "reconcile"
means?

>They use
>science to support science. They admit that they can't use science to
>support their religious beliefs, and they claim that they do not have to.
>
>>
>>>
>>> Biologos obviously does not care that science can't be used to explain
>>> their religious beliefs.
>>
>> If they don't care, then why did they bother to set up Biologos and
>> put effort into keeping it going?
>
>Read what they write.

I did. Their mission statement is:

"BioLogos explores God's Word and God's World to inspire authentic
faith for today.
Our vision is faith and science working hand in hand."

>They really do not care that science cannot
>support their religious beliefs.

Bit weird for someone to strive to work hand in hand with something
they don't care about.

[RonO]

I didn't mention Him. He has been discussed at other times, but I have
never put him up as a negative example of creationists.

>
>>
>>>
>>>> Beats me what that has to do with Harran's
>>>> misinterpretation of what Biologos is doing.
>>>
>>> What did I misinterpret?
>>
>> They are not using science to support their religious beliefs.
>
> I didn't say they do. Do you not understand what the word "reconcile"
> means?

Yes you did. For some reason you are denying that.

QUOTE:

Far from science being something they feel can just ignore, however,
their raison d'être is to find ways of reconciling their religious
beliefs with the things established by science; the important point is
that their starting point is a total acceptance of what science tells
us, unlike ID and Creationism who try to deny that science.

END QUOTE:

Someone posting under your name wrote that.

>
>> They use
>> science to support science. They admit that they can't use science to
>> support their religious beliefs, and they claim that they do not have to.
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Biologos obviously does not care that science can't be used to explain
>>>> their religious beliefs.
>>>
>>> If they don't care, then why did they bother to set up Biologos and
>>> put effort into keeping it going?
>>
>> Read what they write.
>
> I did. Their mission statement is:
>
> "BioLogos explores God's Word and God's World to inspire authentic
> faith for today.
> Our vision is faith and science working hand in hand."

And how do they work that? They take the science as science and use it
to understand nature, and they leave their religious beliefs out of it.

>
>> They really do not care that science cannot
>> support their religious beliefs.
>
> Bit weird for someone to strive to work hand in hand with something
> they don't care about.

They don't. What do you not get. They understand that science can't
support their religious beliefs so they separate the two. Look at their
evolution example. They understand that science tells them that
biological evolution is a fact of nature, but they claim that their god
had something to do with it. They do not claim that science can support
that religious belief, in fact, they claim that science cannot claim one
way or the other.

Ron Okimoto

[Martin Harran]

So why did you get so het up about me mentioning him as background
information on Biologos?

>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Beats me what that has to do with Harran's
>>>>> misinterpretation of what Biologos is doing.
>>>>
>>>> What did I misinterpret?
>>>
>>> They are not using science to support their religious beliefs.
>>
>> I didn't say they do. Do you not understand what the word "reconcile"
>> means?
>
>Yes you did. For some reason you are denying that.
>
>QUOTE:
>Far from science being something they feel can just ignore, however,
>their raison d'être is to find ways of reconciling their religious
>beliefs with the things established by science; the important point is
>that their starting point is a total acceptance of what science tells
>us, unlike ID and Creationism who try to deny that science.
>END QUOTE:

So you don't understand the word "reconcile".

>
>Someone posting under your name wrote that.
>
>>
>>> They use
>>> science to support science. They admit that they can't use science to
>>> support their religious beliefs, and they claim that they do not have to.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Biologos obviously does not care that science can't be used to explain
>>>>> their religious beliefs.
>>>>
>>>> If they don't care, then why did they bother to set up Biologos and
>>>> put effort into keeping it going?
>>>
>>> Read what they write.
>>
>> I did. Their mission statement is:
>>
>> "BioLogos explores God's Word and God's World to inspire authentic
>> faith for today.
>> Our vision is faith and science working hand in hand."
>
>And how do they work that?

If you genuinely want to know that then you should spend some time
perusing the various areas of the site rather than make an overall
judgement on one post.

>They take the science as science and use it
>to understand nature, and they leave their religious beliefs out of it.
>
>>
>>> They really do not care that science cannot
>>> support their religious beliefs.
>>
>> Bit weird for someone to strive to work hand in hand with something
>> they don't care about.
>
>They don't.

Are you accusing them of telling lies in their Mission Statement?

[jillery]

On Tue, 03 Aug 2021 08:50:50 +0100, Martin Harran

So when you do what you accuse others of doing, it's not whining. Can
you say "special pleading".

And once again, you are hijacking the topic. The OP topic is
Biologos' expressed doctrine. Your first post added a mini-biopic of
Francis Collins, which has nothing at all to do with that expressed
doctrine. And now you post your usual ad hominem attacks, the ones
you pretend are beneath you.

Why not admit you have no real interest in discussing Biologos'
expressed doctrine?

[Öö Tiib]

I do not know what I can add as Wikipedia says what I understand
that BioLogos to be.

They reject Creationism and Intelligent Design. They reject Deism.
They reject Materialism. They think that God made natural laws
but also does miracles so if there are no evidence what method
God used for something then it is wrong to argue either way but
if there is (even weak) evidence then it is wrong to deny it. The
correct way is to research and to study. But they don't think that
science is the sole source of knowledge there can be as humans
are partially supernatural (have spirits) for them. God can directly
communicate with each human through redemption, transformation
and answers to prayer.

> >> >It is considered remarkable book among Christians and Collins
> >> >is considered talented writer. Therefore it is likely that he had at
> >> >least peer-reviewed if not coauthored the pages on that web
> >> >site. God is author of natural laws and also cause behind miracles
> >> >by his book.
> >> This topic isn't about that book, either.
> >
> >Be specific about what the topic is for you? For me the topic was
> >about BioLogos brand of theistic evolution.
>
> So go with that. Up to now your comments said nothing about it.

I am not good scholar of various philosophies so what I did ... I
pointed to roots of it. They say there are miracles and active God.
They doubt in their ability to identify where God’s regular
law-like activity ends and where God’s not-so-law-like activity
begins. To pursue that they research more.

> >As Collins is the
> >founder and core philosopher of it and his book is about it ... it
> >is unsure why you claim that neither is topical.
> To the best of my knowledge, he concepts described by the website was
> not invented by Francis Collins. If you think there is something
> unique to Francis Collins' brand of theistic evolution, then spit it
> out, instead of posting about everything but.

My impression is that it is Francis Collins' brand of theistic evolution on
that website (among lot of other things they discuss). They have other
biologists like Dennis Venema and Kathryn Applegate but I don't think
there is much disagreement. Something unique? They do not see any
controversy or contradictions between their theology and main stream
science. Even RNA world is plausible scenario worth studying for them.

[jillery]

On Tue, 3 Aug 2021 08:38:33 -0700 (PDT), Öö Tiib <oot...@hot.ee>
wrote:

>> To the best of my knowledge, the concepts described by the website were

>> not invented by Francis Collins. If you think there is something
>> unique to Francis Collins' brand of theistic evolution, then spit it
>> out, instead of posting about everything but.
>
>My impression is that it is Francis Collins' brand of theistic evolution on
>that website (among lot of other things they discuss). They have other
>biologists like Dennis Venema and Kathryn Applegate but I don't think
>there is much disagreement. Something unique? They do not see any
>controversy or contradictions between their theology and main stream
>science. Even RNA world is plausible scenario worth studying for them.

According to this:
<http://theclergyletterproject.org/>
as of 7/30/21, over 17,000 Christian clergy have signed NCSE's Clergy
Letter Project, and over 800 rabbis have signed an equivalent Jewish
version, affirming "they do not see any controversy or contradictions
between their theology" and evolution.

Given that evolution is part of main stream science, it is reasonable
to presume the above affirmations also cover "main stream science". If
that presumption is correct, it means that what you think is unique
about Francis Collins' brand of theistic evolution is anything but
unique.

[Öö Tiib]

Yes nothing unique. Christianity is anyway about honoring conservative
values. No denial, no conspiracy theories, no arguments from ignorance,
no wild fantasies, no distrust of experts and institutions. Nothing
innovative in it but anyway refreshing to see in modern crazy and
paranoid world.

[RonO]

You have me mixed up with someone else. I have never written anything
negative about Francis Collins.

>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Beats me what that has to do with Harran's
>>>>>> misinterpretation of what Biologos is doing.
>>>>>
>>>>> What did I misinterpret?
>>>>
>>>> They are not using science to support their religious beliefs.
>>>
>>> I didn't say they do. Do you not understand what the word "reconcile"
>>> means?
>>
>> Yes you did. For some reason you are denying that.
>>
>> QUOTE:
>> Far from science being something they feel can just ignore, however,
>> their raison d'être is to find ways of reconciling their religious
>> beliefs with the things established by science; the important point is
>> that their starting point is a total acceptance of what science tells
>> us, unlike ID and Creationism who try to deny that science.
>> END QUOTE:
>
> So you don't understand the word "reconcile".

You don't. They are claiming that their religious beliefs can be
included in what we understand about nature due to the scientific
endeavor. Science can bring understanding of nature, and they just
claim that their religious beliefs can accomodate that. If you read
what else they write they understand that science cannot support their
religious beliefs. They understand that they can't use science or if
they could the Atheists evolutionism could use science against them.
They claim that science can't be used to understand their religious
beliefsin the same way that science can understand nature. Really, they
say that science can't say one way or the other about their religious
beliefs. They may believe that their god is responsible for biological
evolution, but they know that they can never demonstrate that
scientifically.

>
>>
>> Someone posting under your name wrote that.
>>
>>>
>>>> They use
>>>> science to support science. They admit that they can't use science to
>>>> support their religious beliefs, and they claim that they do not have to.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Biologos obviously does not care that science can't be used to explain
>>>>>> their religious beliefs.
>>>>>
>>>>> If they don't care, then why did they bother to set up Biologos and
>>>>> put effort into keeping it going?
>>>>
>>>> Read what they write.
>>>
>>> I did. Their mission statement is:
>>>
>>> "BioLogos explores God's Word and God's World to inspire authentic
>>> faith for today.
>>> Our vision is faith and science working hand in hand."
>>
>> And how do they work that?
>
> If you genuinely want to know that then you should spend some time
> perusing the various areas of the site rather than make an overall
> judgement on one post.

I have, and you obviously have not.

>
>
>> They take the science as science and use it
>> to understand nature, and they leave their religious beliefs out of it.

Just the facts that you can't deal with.

>>
>>>
>>>> They really do not care that science cannot
>>>> support their religious beliefs.
>>>
>>> Bit weird for someone to strive to work hand in hand with something
>>> they don't care about.
>>
>> They don't.
>
> Are you accusing them of telling lies in their Mission Statement?

They do not claim that science can be used to support their religious
beliefs. That is one of their main claims against IDiocy. They claim
that the IDiots are wrong in their attempts to use science to support
creationism. They do not believe that science can support their
religious beliefs. They claim IDiots are wrong in their efforts, and
have obviouisly failed at the attempt. They claim that their religious
beliefs can include what we understand about nature due to science.
Science can tell us what is, and their beliefs fill in the rest. Their
point about the limits of science is that it cannot support nor exclude
their creator, so they are justified in putting the creator anywhere
they think that he can go.

Ron Okimoto

[Martin Harran]

I didn't say you did so, your comprehension skills seem a bit limited.

You posted about Biologos and I responded saying that you were
understating their position and went on to explain why I thought that.
As part of my explanation, for the benefit of those who might not know
much about Biologos, I summarised their origin including the role of
Francis Collins and his background. Jillery, as is her wont,
manufactured a false argument to try to denigrate me. In your reply to
her, you effectively endorsed that attack. That is what I was
referring to.

All of the above is correct but, as I said previously, it
*understates* their position which goes much further than what you
have said (see below).

Correct but far from "not caring" they care very deeply about the
compatibility between science and religion. First of all, they regard
science and religion as complementary to each other. For example, they
have a series of short videos on their website summarising their
beliefs; in the one titled 'What's the Point?', they say:

<quote>
At Biologos, we see the results of science not as a threat to our
faith, but as revealing more about God's created order; we encourage
further exploration of the natural world, knowing that whatever
results we find, all truth is God's truth. And we can use those
results for the glory of God and the advancement of his kingdom,
whether that is developing cures for disease, caring for creation, or
simply praising God for the wonders of his good world.
<quote>
https://biologos.org/resources/whats-the-point

In their 10 item list of 'What we believe' the importance of science
to religious belief religion is emphasised in multiple places e.g
"Properly interpreted, Scripture and nature are complementary and
faithful witnesses to their common Author" [2], "We believe that the
methods of science are an important and reliable means to investigate
and describe the world God has made."[7] and "Thus, evolution is not
in opposition to God, but a means by which God providentially achieves
his purposes." [9].
https://biologos.org/about-us/what-we-believe/

All of that contradicts your original claim which I said was an
understatement, viz "they know that they have nothing going for their
religious belief in terms of the science , but that doesn't matter to
their faith."

They clearly do believe that science is important as a way to enhance
their religious belief and that accommodating science into their
beliefs can strengthensthose beliefs.

[jillery]

On Fri, 06 Aug 2021 15:47:52 +0100, Martin Harran

And Ron O didn't say you said... There must be something in the air
that forces trolls to post willfully stupid arguments like the above.

>so, your comprehension skills seem a bit limited.
>
>You posted about Biologos and I responded saying that you were
>understating their position and went on to explain why I thought that.
>As part of my explanation, for the benefit of those who might not know
>much about Biologos, I summarised their origin including the role of
>Francis Collins and his background.

Biologos' origin and Francis Collins' accomplishments have utterly
nothing whatever to do with Biologos cited position, and you made no
effort to show how you think it does. Not sure how even you *still*
don't understand this.

>Jillery, as is her wont,

And here is where Martin Harran posts yet another baseless lie against
jillery, as is his wont, despite his spam that he's above doing such
things.

>manufactured a false argument to try to denigrate me.

Not a false argument. Your comments above are mindless prattle, that

of a cowardly and dishonest sycophant.

You can spam your opinion as often as you want, but that doesn't make
it correct.

All that you post below should have been in your first reply to this
topic, instead of the mindless noise you did post.