The BioLogos thread on the historicity of Adam turns out to be another important one, though the most interesting bit has got hived off to a sub-thread involving the Usual Suspects here, one Ex-Suspect and Christy (who so far is not suspected of anything, though she’d be most welcome on The Hump). I venture to suggest that amongst these there is broad agreement (though they may not fully realise it) that classical Christianity requires that Adam and Eve are not optional, and that attempts to make them so at least amount to new doctrine (so Eddie) and more strongly that such attempts amount to heterodoxy. That a significant strand in the BioLogos leadership don’t see it that way, or don’t think it matters in the light of scientific inevitability, is why I think the BioLogos programme is severely compromised as an attempt at a science-faith synthesis for Evangelicals. Continue reading
Search
-
Recent Posts
- Does matter matter? 06/05/2026
- We meet the Word in the word, not in the world 02/05/2026
- The triumph of the cross 29/04/2026
- What I think I know about life in the deep past 26/04/2026
- How Darwinian evolution became plausible (for a time) 24/04/2026
Recent Comments
- Jon Garvey on We meet the Word in the word, not in the world
- Jon Garvey on We meet the Word in the word, not in the world
- Jon Garvey on How Darwinian evolution became plausible (for a time)
- Robert Byers on How Darwinian evolution became plausible (for a time)
- Hanan on We meet the Word in the word, not in the world
Post Archive