I looked at another page of questions over at the BioLogos Foundation’s website and decided a few more needed to be addressed here.All questions come from the following link
I will try to quote their nutshell answer before addressing the question so you have both to compare.
#1. Are science and Christianity at war?
Some people see science and religion as enemies, at war for leadership in our modern culture. Others see science and religion as completely separate and unrelated facets of life. However, science is not the only source of facts, and religion reaches beyond the realm of values and morals. In fact, religion can have a positive impact on science, such as in the development of modern medical ethics. Many early scientific leaders were devout Christians, as are some scientific leaders today. Science can also enhance the spiritual life of believers. Christians rejoice in scientific discoveries that reveal the glory of God the creator
What is at war with Christianity is evil who uses both unbelievers and secular science to deceive, injure, or lie about God, the Bible and what God said he did. True science follows God’s way and shows that God spoke the truth in genesis and the rest of the Bible while secular science is not looking for the truth but alternatives to it. They will lie about the discoveries, history or life, what they find and so on whether that misrepresentation is purposeful or not. Evil lies, God does not.
God told us to use faith not experts to believe his words and it is faith that we use. Science and experts can be and are deceived thus we go with the one who gives us truth not explanations that avoid it.
#2. Can science and scripture be reconciled?
In Christian belief, God reveals himself in both the written book of the Bible and the created “book” of the natural world. Thus, the truths we find in scripture should not conflict with the truths we find in nature. Yet at times the two revelations seem to be saying contradictory things about how God made the world. Since God does not lie, the conflict must occur at the level of human interpretation: either a misunderstanding of what God is revealing in nature, or a misunderstanding of what God is revealing in scripture. Conflicts motivate us to reevaluate both interpretations. Christians may disagree on whether the scientific or the Biblical interpretation needs to change, but we can agree that God speaks to us in both revelations.
The only way science and scripture can be reconciled is for all scientists humble themselves and repent of their sins and pursuit of lies over God’s truth. Science is not God’s word and too many unbelievers run that field of research. These people hide the truth away from the people because they (scientists) do not want it for what ever reason they may have. God’s word is the only book of revelation that we have, nature is not it.
#3. How have Christians responded to Darwin’s “Origin of Species”?
Even before Darwin published The Origin of Species in 1859, many Christians had already accepted an old Earth. One of the first supporters of evolutionary science in America—Harvard biologist Asa Gray—was a devout Christian. Conservative theologian B. B. Warfield also accepted the science of evolution, and both he and Asa Gray rejected the idea that evolution leads to atheism. Even the authors of The Fundamentals, published between 1910 and 1915, accepted an old earth. It wasn’t until a century after Darwin that a large number of evangelicals and fundamentalists began to accept the combination of flood geology and 6-day creation promoted by Seventh-day Adventists.
Historical figures who have been deceived and led away from the truth should not influence our beliefs or reception of Darwin’s ideas. We learn from their mistakes not follow them.The last line is incorrect of course but that doesn’t stop those who go for alternatives. The truth of a 7 day creation has been known to man since the beginning of time and man has always had free choice to accept or reject that truth whenever they wanted.
#4. What is the genetic evidence for evolution?
Darwin developed his theory of evolution by looking at scientific evidence available in the mid-1800s. Since then, the whole field of genetics has developed, adding a powerful independent line of evidence in support of evolution. Genes show how the physical traits of living things are handed down and modified from one generation to the next. By comparing the DNA of many organisms, scientists can map the relationships between species. This map is in remarkable agreement with Darwin’s predictions. The structure of chromosomes and particular genetic sequences point to the conclusion not just of common design, but common descent as well.
There is no genetic evidence for evolution. Anything attributed to that theory is read into the evidence and information discovered by scientists. This is a classic case of bending the evidence and information to fit a theory instead of using it to define the truth. There is nothing in genetics that provides evidence for transition, common descent or anything else the evolutionist can conjure up. There is evidence for common design because the different life forms had to exist and have to exist in the same environment.
#5. What evidence do we have for evolution besides fossils and genes
Scientists have found multiple lines of evidence for evolution, not just one or two. These types of evidence are independent of each other, coming from sources as different as ancient fossils and modern genetics labs. Evidence also comes from comparing the anatomy of creatures living today. All creatures with four limbs (whether mammals, birds, or reptiles) have the same bone structure in each limb, pointing to their descent from a common ancestor. More evidence comes from biogeography. Isolated islands are missing common species found on the mainland, but are filled with many unique species that can be related by a common ancestor. Finally, evidence comes from embryonic development. As an embryo of a mammal grows, its heart develops through stages similar to fish, amphibians, and reptiles. God’s creation declares the history of life in many different ways. All these ways are pointing to a consistent picture of God creating through evolution.
Again, everything they claim is read into the specimens examined. Not one specimen indicates or demonstrates any transition, development or re-development of limbs, or other parts of the anatomy. The evolutionist just needs a different explanation that God spoke and it was. The latter reminds evolutionists that they are not the supreme being and need to humble themselves to the Supreme Being and that bothers them. As for isolated islands missing common species, they are merely assuming and creating an argument from silence. An argument from silence doesn’t work in archaeology and it does not work here either.
There are too many valid reasons why these islands lack certain representatives of different species but the evolutionist would rather discount those and go with their own theory instead even though their own ideas are wrong. God declares the history of life via one way only-the Bible. Similar development of the heart doesn’t show descent, it just demonstrates that God chose a similar way to have the heart grow to fit the body it serves. The last line is a classic example of reading into evidence what is not there instead of a genuine search for truth.
#6. Did God create everything recently but make it appear old?
One way to resolve the apparent conflict between the Bible and science is to say that the world merely looks old. Perhaps God created it 6,000 years ago, but made it look millions and billions of years old. While God certainly has it in his power to do this, this view raises a theological challenge for the Christian: it makes God out to be a deceiver. It would have God revealing things in the universe that are contrary to what he reveals in the Bible. The lie would be not just in a few places, but embedded in galaxies, in stars, in rocks and fossils, and in our very DNA. If we trust that “The heavens declare the glory of God”, we have to trust that they truthfully declare the history by which God made them.
No God did not create everything to look old. That idea is read into what we see in life and not what is actually there. This idea is supported by the faulty secular dating systems which are calibrated to produce a pre-conceived and desired result that favors the unbeliever not the Bible. The dating systems are so flawed that it is amazing that the secular scientist would even consider using them but they support the unbelief by and the alternatives desired of the evolutionist so they are advertised as accurate and reliable.
The problem with the secular dating systems is that they are primed to support an origin that did not take place . They are not calibrated to find the truth or support the origin that did take place. The appearance of age is assumed by the evolutionist and then falsely accuse God for something he did not do. They say something is old because their alternative theory demands age. The truth does not.
#7. How should we interpret the Genesis flood account?
Genesis 6-9 tells the fascinating story of Noah, the Ark, and the Flood. Some Christians interpret the text to mean that the biblical flood must have covered the entire globe. They also work to explain the evidence in rocks and fossils in terms of this world-wide flood. Other Christians do not feel the text requires that the flood be global, but could have covered the small region of earth known to Noah. The scientific and historical evidence does not support a global flood, but is consistent with a catastrophic regional flood. Beyond its place in history, the Genesis flood teaches us about human depravity, faith, obedience, divine judgment, grace and mercy.
We do not interpret it but take is as fact and true then learn the lessons God wants us to learn from it. If the flood was local how would every ancient society have a flood myth in their records? A local flood does not explain this phenomenon nor would it explain how all these different people could have heard or even would want to copy the Babylonian account or the Atrahasis epic? This evidence is explained only by the biblical flood and Babel accounts being true. The scientific and historical evidence doesn’t have to support the flood but BioLogos is lying to people as we have scientific and historical evidence supporting the biblical account.
We find evidence for it all the time, both historical and scientific. The problem is verification. we could come across the ark itself and there will still be people who would dismiss it as Noah’s because we could not verify that it was actually his. Given the fact that people in the modern age are and have built replicas of the ark, we have no way of knowing if the same feat was not done at some point in history by some ancient person trying to convert his fellow countrymen. If someone had scrawled, ‘Noah was here’, somewhere on or in the ark is not evidence because we have no way of knowing if that wasn’t added later by some devout believer or sinister deceiver.
Then it doesn’t matter how much evidence we produce, there will always be those skeptics who will refuse to believe anything in favor of the biblical account. I have seen it done over and over.
#8. What do Biblical scholars today say about Genesis 1-2?
In recent decades, evangelical Biblical scholars have reconsidered non-literal interpretations of Genesis. The Accommodation view of St. Augustine and John Calvin is supported by recent discoveries about ancient cultures. Literature from these cultures shows interesting parallels and differences with Genesis accounts. The differences are striking, such as stories where creation is a battle among many gods rather than the acts of one sovereign Creator. The similarities, however, show how God accommodated his message so that the Israelites could understand it. For example, the Egyptians and Babylonians thought the sky was a solid dome. This solid dome appears in Genesis 1 as the firmament created on day 2. God did not try to correct the “science” of the Israelites by explaining that the sky was a gaseous atmosphere. Instead, God accommodated his message to their cultural context. Many evangelical Biblical scholars have concluded that Genesis is not meant to teach scientific information.
What biblical scholars have to say, really does not matter. What matters is if the individual person makes the choice to accept it as true or not. With biblical scholars we need to consider the source, if they are unbelievers or alternative believers then what they say can be dismissed and ignored without fear. If they are believing scholars then their words need to match up with God’s or we suspect their faith or stand on the issue. What is missing from this quoted information is the truth. The truth about the Egyptians and Babylonians is that the writings we have still extant today may only come from those who were deceived and did not write the truth.
We do not know what 100% of the Egyptians and Babylonians actually believed. Solitary ancient documents do not provide a generalized view of all the people. God did not correct the Israelite ‘science’ because the modern scientist does not understand what God actually did at creation and misidentified what he spoke about. The problem with the people at BioLogos and other unbelievers is that they are looking for scientific descriptions of a supernatural act and there are none. Of course, Genesis is not teaching scientific information because God did not create the scientific way. He was demonstrating his power so we could see who he was and that we could have confidence in him whatever our need.
Unbelievers, like the people at BioLogos, are robbing us of this lesson and robbing God of his due credit and glory. But this is the way it is with those who want scientific or other alternatives. They do not want God for who he actually is and has done; they want a god made after their own image and where they can be supreme over him. God was not accommodating a ‘cultural context’ he was telling the truth of what really took place. he simply left certain details out because he was/is not going to spoon feed us all the answers. How we use the answers from our searches will influence our faith. The people at BioLogos have allowed that detailed information to lead them away from the truth.
#9. Are gaps in scientific knowledge evidence for God?
Every field of science has unanswered questions and gaps in our understanding. Scientists typically view these as open research questions. Others sometimes argue that if science can’t explain how something happened, then God must be the explanation. Such arguments are called “god-of-the-gaps” arguments. The risk in these arguments is that science is always developing. If gaps in scientific knowledge are the basis for belief in God, then as scientists fill in the gaps, the evidence for God disappears. The God of the Bible, however, is much more than a god of the gaps. Christians believe that God is always at work in the natural world, in the gaps as well as in the areas that science can explain.
The simple and short answer is ‘NO’. This question assumes that science is an actual authority and legitimate participant in the area of origins, when it is not. The gaps in scientific knowledge only underscores the illegitimacy of science in discussing origins.The supporters of science assume that they have it right when in reality they have produced the wrong answers, by searching the wrong places found along the wrong paths they have taken. God has already told us how origins took place thus anything science can conjure up is false teaching and not the truth.
There is no such thing as ‘God of the Gaps’ because we are not to use science to figure out our origins, we are simply to believe what God wrote in the Bible. The explanation our origin is complete and as found in the Bible. There has been no command of God or Jesus to use science to find an alternative to what the Bible has recorded. That mandate comes from evil alone.
The believer needs to realize that we go to the Bible first, use faith and believe God. Then they need to learn the difference between true and false teaching and go with the former. The people at BioLogos produce false teaching as they go to secular science over God andbelieve what that field tells them and disbelieve God.