Predictably, "Jesus Wept" did not make into the Jefferson Bible. John 11 was cut out entirely, falling onto the floor of his Monticello home and discarded, along with Martha's confession.

If Adam and Eve were historical figures could they have been the product of EBP? An older, evangelical commentary on Genesis by Derek Kidner provides a model for how that could have been the case.

In today's video, Dr. David Finch, a biologist at New York University, discusses his thoughts on both Creationism and the effects of "new atheists" like Richard Dawkins.

Story authority, as Jesus knew only too well, is the authority that really works. Throw a rulebook at people’s head, or offer them a list of doctrines, and they can duck or avoid it, or simply disagree and go away. Tell them a story, though, and you invite them to come into a different world.

Today we welcome Ted Davis as the BioLogos Senior Fellow for the History of Science. This week, Dr. Davis begins his regular posts on the BioLogos Forum with a bit of personal background; next week, he outlines his plans for an informal on-line course in the history of the science and faith conversation, with an emphasis on the Bible and science in the United States.

By the time I was ten years old, I was already determined to follow a career in physics and cosmology, both because of the wonder I felt for the natural world and as a means to better resolve serious questions that were developing within me.

A combination of observation and interpretation can help us better appreciate the way the whole world speaks of the glory of its Creator, including those parts we are inclined to find supremely inglorious.

Some may respond, “Even though we don’t think there was a literal Adam, we can accept the teaching of Genesis 2 and Romans 5, namely that all human beings have sinned and that through Christ we can be saved. So the basic Biblical teaching is intact, even if we do not accept the historicity of the story of Adam and Eve.” I think that assertion is too simplistic.

We have already discussed hind limb and hair loss in whales, and now we turn to one of the remaining questions: tooth loss in the lineage leading to modern toothless whales.

When people in the church talk about authority they are very often talking about controlling people or situations. They want to make sure that everything is regulated properly, that the church does not go off the rails doctrinally or ethically, that correct ideas and practices are upheld and transmitted to the next generation.

Humanity faces tremendous moral dilemmas today, and science has relevance to most of them. As followers of Christ, we understand that our lives are entrusted to us for a short time, and that we will give an account for the things we do.

The Psalmist affirms that the created world speaks of its creator, and that everywhere we look or listen there are words, speech pouring forth in abundance. But are we prepared to hear that speech?

One of my favorite Christian writers, C.S.Lewis, did not believe in a literal Adam and Eve, and I do not question the reality or soundness of his personal faith. But my concern is for the church corporately and for its growth and vitality over time. Will the loss of a belief in the historical fall weaken some of our historical, doctrinal commitments at certain crucial points?

Perusing the writings of atheistic scientists and philosophers like Daniel Dennett, one could easily get the impression that arriving at a simpler explanation for something equates to a revelation that things are “lower, cruder, and more trivial.”

The Christian tradition has assumed, of course, that what scripture says, God says, but even those who were most concerned to make this point – specifically the Protestant reformers – were often, from our perspective, somewhat cavalier in how they applied this.

In today's video, theologian Alister McGrath discusses how we can make sense of the world in light of a fallen creation. One way, he notes, is to look for evidence from as many sources as possible, as science does.

Since God is responsible for all nature, there is nothing to fear in studying the details; in fact God calls us to study his handiwork as a means to learning of God’s character and glory.

As physicists and mathematicians see beauty in an equation that renders an elegant explanation rather than just a correct answer, Truth is beautiful and becomes known when it is experienced and not just as it is studied.

This creates a problem for the Christian layperson if they hear their teachers or preachers telling them that God could have used evolutionary processes to bring about life forms. Evolution as a ‘Grand Theory’ is now being used at the popular level to explain nearly everything about human behavior.

In science, we don’t really know the true way things actually work. What we have are theories—broad explanatory frameworks supported by experimentation, which we can use to make testable predictions about the natural world.

When I started turning to the work of theologians to understand what the biblical doctrine of creation entails, the most wonderful thing I learned is how both historic Christianity and the Bible itself present a robust picture of how God works continually from within nature.

I’ve loved science for as long as I can remember, and from an early age I imagined my future career as a scientist. I also grew up immersed within Christian Fundamenatalism.

The words of this great hymn convey the proper overwhelming sense in which the wondrous Creation of God should translate directly into a response of awe and praise from mind, body, and spirit. The writer sees and hears the wonders of nature with his body, considers with his mind what all this implies, and responds with songs from his soul.

In 1967, biologists Roger Payne and Scott McVay discovered that humpback whales “sing” and published recordings of the whales’ complex vocalizations, after which “whale song” quickly entered the popular consciousness and helped propel the “save the whales” environmental movement forward.

The way to take the Biblical authors seriously is to ask ‘how does this author want to be understood?’ This is common courtesy as well as good reading. Indeed it is a way to practice the Golden Rule. We all want people to take time to consider whether we want to be taken literally or not.

Keathley declares the historicity of Adam and Eve to be a “litmus test,” though for what exactly he does not say. Presumably he means a litmus test for biblical orthodoxy, but not for being a Christian.

The entire BioLogos community would like to thank Dr. Keathley not only for his work in writing his introductory essay, but for his willingness to organize a small collection of essays by other Southern Baptist scholars describing their concerns about the BioLogos perspective. We welcome this opportunity to clarify our positions and remove stumbling blocks where possible.