Concerns About BioLogos

Just Genesis ^ | December 22, 2014 | Alice C. Linsley

[Jandy on Genesis]

eborah Haarsma, the Director of BioLogos, is professor of Astronomy, and her husband, Loren Haarsma, teaches Physics at Calvin College in Michigan. The biology department of Calvin College issued this statement on May 7, 2010: "We teach evolutionary theory as the best scientific explanation for the dynamic diversity of life on Earth. . . . We teach biology from an evolutionary paradigm."

Neither Deborah nor Loren are biologists, though biologists serve on the BioLogos team. Neither are anthropologists, and as far as I can discover, no anthropologists serve on the BioLogos team. That is unfortunate since anthropology has much to contribute to the conversation about human origins.

I have some concerns about BioLogos, especially after talking with the Haarsmas two summers ago at the annual conference of the American Scientific Affiliation.

[Chaguito]

Founder of BioLogos, Francis Collins, in “The Language of God,” says that the genome unequivocally supports some evolutionary model. He proposes theistic evolution, FWIW. So, it isn’t surprising that BioLogos people teach evolution. If they teach Darwinism, that may be a bit beyond the results that led Collins to his conclusions.

[ifinnegan]

Hi.

This is quite a cryptic post.

But, I will say that this statement: “We teach biology from an evolutionary paradigm”

is to me rather refreshing in that paradigm is the best description for evolution and how it relates to biological science.

Can you maybe explain what this post is about?

[Jandy on Genesis]

There is a conflict emerging between anthropologists and evolutionary biologists over how to interpret the data on human origins. One thing is evident, the oldest human fossils (millions of years old) show every evidence of being fully human. So who is right? This conflict over interpretation between two sciences that focus on human origins is not going away.

[ifinnegan]

Thanks Jandy.

I was more wondering about who was who.

I do see now that BioLogos is a Christian group that Francis Collins is associated with.

I see their statement from their web page:

“We at BioLogos believe that God used the process of evolution to create all the life on earth today.  While we accept the science of evolution, we emphatically reject evolutionism.  Evolutionism is the atheistic worldview that says life developed without God and without purpose.  Instead, we agree with Christians who adhere to Intelligent Design and Creationism that the God of the Bible created the universe and all life.  Christians disagree, however, on how God created.  Young Earth Creationists believe that God created just 6,000 to 10,000 years ago and disagree with much of mainstream science. Supporters of Intelligent Design accept more of evolutionary science, but argue that some features of life are best explained by direct intervention by an intelligent agent rather than by God’s regular way of working through natural processes.  We at BioLogos agree with the modern scientific consensus on the age of the earth and evolutionary development of all species, seeing these as descriptions of how God created.  The term BioLogos comes from the Greek words bios (life) and logos (word), referring to the opening of the Gospel of John.  “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.  He was with God in the beginning.  Through him all things”

Which I think a very impressive and clear statement.

I had not heard of BioLogos before this post and I thank you for making me aware of them.

[Boogieman]

“One thing is evident, the oldest human fossils (millions of years old) show every evidence of being fully human.”

Yes, and not only that, but according to the current evolutionary dogma, those fully modern humans, with fully human brains, lived for millions of years without ever inventing anything more sophisticated than a flint axe.

I, for one, find that altogether implausible.

[tbpiper]

I was thinking about how blood moves about the body. I would call it the circulatory system. An evolutionist, to be consistent, shouldn't call it anything other then the circulatory happenstance.

[humblegunner]

What seems to have caused you to excerpt your own material?

Blogpimps all go to hell, did you know?

[Boogieman]

Hehe, that’s funny.

Just imagine, in the evolutionist’s version of history, before that one animal “evolved” a circulatory system where the blood went to the right places, there were millions of his brothers and sisters born with circulatory systems where the blood went to the wrong places. Just generations of organisms with mangled circulatory systems that probably lived very short and painful lives. Then, suddenly, *poof*, a working system.

I find it highly amusing that, in order to avoid supernatural causes, scientists created a fable that pretty much sounds like magic anyway.

[BroJoeK]

Jandy on Genesis: "One thing is evident, the oldest human fossils (millions of years old) show every evidence of being fully human."

Sorry, but you are woefully misinformed.
Yes, remains of thousands of individuals, pre-human and early human, have been found, dating back over four million years ago, and before that, likely common ancestors to humans and apes dating back tens of millions of years.

However there have never been remains of fully biologically modern humans older than about 200,000 years.
All remains older than 200,000 (and some much younger) are considered "pre-human" with names like Neanderthals, Heidelbergensis, antecessor, erectus and habilis.

Yes, there is some debate as to whether Neanderthals and some others (i.e., Denisovans, "hobbits", etc.) should be classified as "pre-human" or just "human", but all were significantly different from us.

Reconstructions of pre-humans:

[Boogieman]

“Reconstructions of pre-humans:”

I would call them “artist’s conceptions”, since there is a whole lot of artistic license involved in those sculptures.

[tbpiper]

It’s like the new dating system. Instead of BC and AD we have BCE and CE. Of course there’s no way to define the Common Era without at least a passing reference to Jesus Christ.

[BroJoeK]

Boogieman: "I would call them “artist’s conceptions”, since there is a whole lot of artistic license involved in those sculptures."

I wouldn't call it "artistic license", since in each case major efforts were made to match bone shapes with expected muscles & skin, along with everything else we've learned about them.
I'd say they did a good job with what they have, always of course, subject to revision as new data is confirmed.

Anyway, my point here is that all of these critters should be classified as "pre-modern humans", including such near-moderns as Denisovans, "hobbits", Red Deer Cave people, and Idaltus.

[Boogieman]

Of course there is artistic license. We have no idea what their skin looked liked, but the older specimens are given more ape-like rough skin, and darker complexions, while the newer specimens are given smooth skin and caucasian complexions. We have no idea what their hair was like either, for all but the most recent specimens, and yet there is a similar continuity in the reconstructions that serves to buttress a certain narrative. The same could be said for the appearance of the eyes, and other features that are not preserved in fossils.

[BroJoeK]

Boogieman: "Of course there is artistic license.
We have no idea what their skin looked liked, but the older specimens are given more ape-like rough skin, and darker complexions, while the newer specimens are given smooth skin and caucasian complexions."

That is hardly "artistic license", since older bones have more ape-like characteristics and newer bones are more human-like.
So it's only reasonable to conclude that their outward appearances followed those patterns.

Also, scientists have decoded some Neanderthal DNA, and found it quite similar to our own, suggesting skin, eyes, hair etc. resembling ours.

So I wouldn't call that "artistic license" so much as scientific conclusions.

[Boogieman]

Sure, it’s not artistic license, yet look at any 2 reconstructions based on the same species, or even the same specimen, done by different people, and they look radically different.

Even the people who do the reconstructions freely admit that there is artistic license involved in many of their choices, so I have no idea why you are so intent on denying it.

[BroJoeK]

Boogieman: "Even the people who do the reconstructions freely admit that there is artistic license involved in many of their choices, so I have no idea why you are so intent on denying it."

Obviously, because a Walt Disney cartoon takes "artistic license" with it's animal characters, giving us dancing bears and talking puppets, and that "artistic license" is far from what we see in these science-based reconstructions of ancient creatures.
Of course, I'm not saying the reconstructions are totally accurate, because that's impossible, given how much we don't know about them.

I'm only suggesting that your term, "artistic license" implies something wildly imaginative, and that is opposite of what these reconstructions are trying to do.

[Boogieman]

That's your argument? Then I think you simply have a misunderstanding of the term:

"In summary, artistic license is:

* Entirely at the artist's discretion

* Intended to be tolerated by the viewer (cf. "willing suspension of disbelief")[3]

* Useful for filling in gaps, whether they be factual, compositional, historical or other gaps[4]

* Used consciously or unconsciously, intentionally or unintentionally or in tandem[5]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artistic_license (Emphasis added)

The elements I referred to from the forensic reconstructions (which are sculptures, and hence, art) meet all those criteria. They are created by forensic artists, and the elements which use license are at the artist's discretion, as we can see from the varying reconstructions they come up with. There is an assumption that we will tolerate such variations. The variations are due to the license that the artists use to fill in gaps in our knowledge of the specimens. Criteria #4 is silly, since it's impossible to fail, so they meet that as well.

[BroJoeK]

Boogieman: "* Entirely at the artist's discretion..."

But that's exactly my point: nothing in those reconstructions is "entirely at the artist's discretion."
Instead, everything must be justified by our best scientific understandings of what those features were.

Boogieman: "* Intended to be tolerated by the viewer..."

No, exactly the opposite: the artists work is intended to be reviewed, inspected and approved by the most knowledgeable scientific minds available.
In that sense, they're like police lab forensic artists -- no deviations from known facts can be tolerated, period.

Boogieman: "* Useful for filling in gaps, whether they be factual, compositional, historical or other gaps[4]"

Sure, however the rule is not "anything goes", but rather: where precise facts are not known, use the most likely estimates available, subject to scientific review & approval.

Bottom line here: you are using that term "artistic license" to discredit their work, implying it's nothing more than wild imaginations.
I'm merely saying that by necessity, everything the artists do must conform to the best available evidence, and is subject to scientific review & approval.

So what, exactly, is your problem with that, FRiend?

[Boogieman]

“Instead, everything must be justified by our best scientific understandings of what those features were.”

Yet we know that is false, or there would not be such wildly different reconstructions of the same species, or even the same specimen.

“In that sense, they’re like police lab forensic artists — no deviations from known facts can be tolerated, period.”

What is in question is not deviations from known facts but interpretations that are substituted in the place of unknown facts.

“Sure, however the rule is not “anything goes”, but rather: where precise facts are not known, use the most likely estimates available, subject to scientific review & approval.”

Where are these reconstructions peer reviewed? If that is true, then why so much variation?

“Bottom line here: you are using that term “artistic license” to discredit their work, implying it’s nothing more than wild imaginations.”

Certain aspects of it are certainly the work of their imagination, and to deny it just makes you seem dogmatic.

“So what, exactly, is your problem with that, FRiend?”

Well, to deny the interpretive aspect of these reconstructions is also to ignore a fundamental flaw in using them for this purpose. Originally, forensic reconstructions techniques were created to be used on species that are extant, whose features we are familiar with (namely humans). In that case, the amount of artistic license that came into play was minimal in most cases. That is because, for the features that are not present in remains, we can look at living examples to fill in the gaps.

Thus, we can also systematically determine how to fill in those gaps from the remains, by collecting information about the amount of variation in those features in the extant organism. We simply don’t have that capability with extinct organisms, so there is an automatic deficiency to the technique when applied for this purpose, that can only be compensated for by increasing the amount of license that goes into the reconstruction.