BioLogos is, from its statements, committed to reconciling an Evangelical Christian position with mainstream biological science – hence “bio” and “logos.” In a whole series of posts commencing here I queried why it gives so much space to the far-from mainstream Open Theism. But other interesting streams are present there too.
Now Brian Godawa has just completed (I think) a five part series presenting the case for hyperpreterism, which is not only outside the main stream, but frankly heterodox, on the fairly foundational basis of denying articles of the Apostles’ Creed. There are, of course, more substantial criticisms than departure from tradition, even when that tradition is the foundation of the wordwide Church. I don’t intend to do a whole series on them, but a review article is here. I have to say that some parts of the Bible lend themselves to a (moderate) preterist view, but that is a different matter. The only thing going for hyperpreterism in the context of BioLogos is that it enables one to stick to a naturalist view of the world from big bang to heat death, which is convenient for evolution. But inconvenient for orthodoxy.
To be fair, BioLogos has also recently had some spiffing articles by Mark Noll (including references to BB Warfield) and a sound two-parter on inerrancy, but only after an interminable series by Peter Enns questioning it and disparaging the Evangelical formulations trying to codify it. The interest generated by the latter articles, as I have mentioned before, is strangely muted and, in some cases, fairly hostile. Mainstream Evangelicalism is a fringe view amongst active BL posters.
Presenting a range of viewpoints, I guess, can be said to encourage thinking. Iron sharpens iron, and all that. Yet when it comes to the “bio” part of the equation, BioLogos is as orthodox as one could wish. The modern synthesis, in the King James version, rules the day. Not only are creationism and intelligent design slated, but even the rebellious young bloods (and the not so young like Lynn Margulis or James Shapiro) within the biological community get barely a mention. It’s a mystery to me.
Can anybody suggest why the bio is so much more Catholick than the logos?