“Faith and science both lead us to truth about God and creation.”
It looks as though Francis Collins has a new initiative underway — the BioLogos Foundation. From the site’s about page:
Dr. Francis Collins established The BioLogos Foundation to engage America’s escalating culture war between science and faith. On one side of the conversation, the “new atheists” argue that science removes the need for God. On the other side, religious fundamentalists argue that the Bible requires us to reject much of modern science. Many scientists, believers, and members of the general public do not find these options attractive.
There is therefore a great need to contribute to the public voice that represents the harmony of science and faith. BioLogos addresses the core themes of science and Religion, and emphasizes the compatibility of Christian faith with what science has discovered about the origins of the universe and life.
Now that’s the sort of initiative I can support. Collins isn’t quite in the camp of evolutionary creationism, I don’t think, but he’s pretty solid all the same on both the general validity of the theory of evolution, as well as in regard to Christianity and the validity and inspired nature of the Bible.
And it’s especially nice to see that quite a lot of thought has been put into their Questions section; I’ll have to go through it more thoroughly, but I like what I’ve been seeing thus far in my cursory forays into it.
And also: They’re hawking Denis O. Lamoureux’s new book on the front page, so you know they’re legit!
(hat tip)
Powered by ScribeFire.
I’d say the BioLogos Foundation is pretty lightweight intellectually speaking. Question 1 ought to have been “What is the evidence for a God”. Without that evidence, everything else the Foundation proffers falls away into pointless waffling.
What constitutes “evidence,” though?
May I put forth a guess that you’re one of those “only empirical facts” militant atheists (I apply the term “militant” based on your use of the phrase “overly religious world” in your blog’s header — what would constitute a “sufficiently religious world,” then?) whose standards of evidence basically reduce to a form of convoluted positivism, and so are self-defeating?
Exit question: for an atheist, you seem inordinately pre-occupied with religion in the content of your blog posts. If this whole “God” supposition is just one big load of bollocks, why bother wasting electrons discussing it? And please spare me the excuse that you comment on it because it’s a relevant issue and a growing concern in society, or some such. Christianity may still be common, but it is no longer so prominently thrust into the public sphere, and has not been for some time now.