I appreciate Jim Stump’s reply affirming*** that both theistic evolutionists at BioLogos (BTEs) and Christians who are pro-ID (CIDs) believe Christ supernaturally resurrected. My article never questions this, and happily calls BTEs fellow Christians. When I observed BTEs believe “God must always use natural causes,” the context was cosmological and biological origins, not the resurrection or other miraculous human events.
Stump’s clarification highlights important differences between BTEs and CIDs: If BTEs reject natural causes for Christ’s resurrection, why insist upon strictly material explanations for origins?
Stump says it’s because our faith’s “foundation” is Christ and his resurrection, not science. But CIDs would say the same, never claiming science can take someone completely to faith. In Signature in the Cell, Stephen Meyer affirms his Christianity, but also writes, “Though the designing agent responsible for life may well have been an omnipotent deity, the theory of intelligent design does not claim to be able to determine that.” (p. 428)
God supernaturally and miraculously resurrected Christ to demonstrate his love and power (Romans 5:8; Ephesians 1:19-20), to show Christ is God and savior (John 2:18-22; Acts 2:24-36, 13:30-39), and to urge repentance. As Paul writes, “He has given proof of this to everyone by raising him from the dead.” (Romans 1:31)
The theological principle—that God supernaturally intervenes to reveal important truths—applies not just to the resurrection, but also to nature. Paul explains that God’s existence and power are “clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.” (Romans 1:20)
By insisting upon strictly material explanations for origins, BioLogos struggles to affirm these truths: Francis Collins writes that life’s origins “appear a random and undirected process” and one BioLogos article admits, “Evolutionary creation does not necessarily add apologetic value.”
Though not a proof of the supernatural, ID empirically demonstrates that nature reveals more than material causes, establishing intelligent agency in natural history. The CID notion that nature shows evidence of design historically traces not to the “enlightenment,” as Stump asserts, but rather to pre-enlightenment scholars like Plato, Paul, Newton, Boyle, and others.
Stump misstates my explanation for why many BTEs accept evolution, claiming I say it “must be social acceptance.” Rather, my article says it “in part, is cultural pressure.” People facing these pressures deserve compassion, but there’s a reason why BTE literature acclaims “the consensus.”
Analyzing BTE viewpoints sometimes feels like finding a moving target—but if Stump’s reply is accurate, I welcome that movement. He claims BioLogos challenges the consensus. Great—then do it. He disavows that “God must always use natural causes.” Great—defend an evidence-based case for intelligent design.
He says BTEs “follow the evidence,” but adds, “the burden of proof lies with the dissenters.” That represents not unbridled truth-seeking, but a philosophy that avoids challenging the consensus.
My article proposes a better approach: “follow the evidence wherever it leads, unhindered by presuppositions”—and cites peer-reviewed data dissenting from the consensus. If that evidence offers “apologetic value,” why can’t we follow it?
***Please see below for J. B. Stump’s original reply and our editors note as printed in CHRISTIAN RESEARCH JOURNAL, volume 37, number 04 (2014). Both are in reference to Casey Luskin’s article, The New Theistic Evolutionists: BioLogos and the Rush to Embrace the “Consensus” that originally appeared in volume 37, number 03 (2014).***
I was surprised to see Casey Luskin’s article about BioLogos (vol. 37, no. 3). I do some work for BioLogos and have a different view than what was portrayed in the article. As Luskin noted, there are significant commonalities between Christians in the Intelligent Design movement and BioLogos, including acceptance of the authority of Scripture, the compatibility of science and religion, and fine-tuning evidence for God’s creative design. It was also legitimate for Luskin to raise concerns about the evolutionary development of morality and the historicity of Adam and Eve. But we wish he would have noted that we addressed both issues on our blog this year. More concerning, though, were the mischaracterizations of the BioLogos perspective. We only have space here to mention a couple of them.
Luskin asserts that proponents of the BioLogos perspective say that “God must always use natural causes.” Undoubtedly he could find a Christian who believes in evolution and says this, but it is certainly not the position of BioLogos. From our statement of beliefs: “We believe that God typically sustains the world using faithful, consistent processes that humans describe as ‘natural laws.’ Yet we also affirm that God works outside of natural law in supernatural events, including the miracles described in Scripture.”
Luskin also claims that the motivation for accepting evolution must be “social acceptance, cultural popularity, or scientific advancement.” Where did he get this idea? Many people in our camp teach at Christian colleges where acceptance of evolution produces the exact opposite result. Others teach at secular universities where their alignment with BioLogos constitutes a bold witness for Christ among their peers yet casts their scientific credentials in a suspicious light. I have yet to meet a person in the BioLogos community who accepted our position for any reason other than the evidence.
That brings us to the crux of Luskin’s critique: he charges that we have uncritically accepted the scientific consensus on evolution. But his charge is cloaked in a much higher allegiance to science than we would accept. He chides us for not offering scientific reasons for belief in God, as though these are the only kinds of reasons that matter. Such a view comes straight from the Enlightenment and its conviction (or article of faith?) that science provides the only foundation upon which knowledge can be built. Instead, our foundation is the risen Christ—the Logos through whom all things have been created. Science’s role should be limited to giving explanations for how that created, natural world works, and only in that sphere does it have authority.
Even then the consensus can and should be questioned—a point acknowledged in the same paragraph from which Luskin pulled a quote to claim the opposite about us. That’s how science works. But the burden of proof lies with the dissenters. We’ll follow the evidence wherever it leads. We’ve not rushed to conclusions, but rather welcome the informed participation of those who understand the science and take the Bible seriously.
J. B. Stump, PhD
Content Manager
The BioLogos Foundation
Due to space limitations in this exceptionally full issue, we are unable to include a reply from Casey Luskin to J. B. Stump. However, Luskin has prepared a response that can be accessed online at http://www.equip.org/articles/casey-luskins-replybiologos/. —The Editor
