t f p g+ YouTube icon

Are We Facing the Demise of Big Tent Evangelicalism?

Bookmark and Share

October 9, 2010 Tags: Christian Unity
Are We Facing the Demise of Big Tent Evangelicalism?

Today's entry was written by Darrel Falk. You can read more about what we believe here.

The most recent issue of Christianity Today contains a well-written cover story on Albert Mohler, President of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. Mohler is sometimes touted as the "reigning intellectual of the evangelical movement." One good thing about Mohler is that he writes and speaks in a fashion that is crystal clear. In replying to Rachel Held Evans’s “When Atheists and Baptists Agree” article in the Washington Post, Mohler states:

[Held Evans] is frustrated that atheists and Baptists (to use her terminology) agree that evolution and Christianity are incompatible. She may be frustrated, but on this score the atheists and the biblical Christians are both correct, and both understand what is at stake.

Even more explicitly Mohler has written “The theory of evolution is incompatible with the Gospel of Jesus Christ even as it is in direct conflict with any faithful reading of the Scriptures.” So at least we know where Mohler stands—to be an evangelical Christian—to be a biblical Christian— one must reject evolution.

As Scott McKnight writes in a Jesus Creed blog entitled "Shifting Evangelicalism" there was a day when Mohler’s views would have been considered on the fundamentalistic fringes of evangelicalism. No longer. Fundamentalism, as McKnight sees it, is being thrust into the limelight as mainstream evangelicalism, and those who used to be included under the Big Tent are being pushed to the periphery:

But fundamentalism isn’t the whole of evangelicalism nor is it the heart of evangelicalism. But it is the desire of folks like Mohler to bend evangelicalism toward its fundamentalist history…. What we also are witnessing is the end of generous evangelicalism, what I often call Big Tent Evangelicalism that has been noted by a coalition of gospel-oriented people.

Responding to the Christianity Today article, Daniel Kirk summarizes why we non-fundamentalists must not allow ourselves to be excluded from the Big Tent by Mohler et al:

To be an evangelical is to be committed to the notion that the message of Jesus is good news about a God who desires all of humanity, each group within humanity, and every individual to be in relationship with God as the God of all


To be an evangelical is to be committed to scripture as the word of God, a word that always has the power to prophetically confront and challenge what we take for granted–both within the church and as people in diverse cultures.

To be an evangelical is to be committed to telling the gospel story such that it will sound as good news in the ears of those who hear it, even as it summons us to repentance and faith.

McKnight speaks for all of us, I think, when he concludes his outstanding blog with these words:

Today’s scene is not what it was. It’s a new era. When Al Mohler is on the cover of CT, when he represents the shrewd and powerful takeover of a former liberal-to-moderate seminary, when he has publicly claimed any form of evolution is inconsistent with the gospel, and when he is seen as the voice of American evangelicalism, a new world stands before the American evangelical. It’s actually an old world.

The question is who will speak for the Big Tent coalition? Count me in.

We in the BioLogos community urge the Church not to surrender the evangelicalism tent to American fundamentalism. There is far too much at stake.

Dr. Mohler, we are told, has a massive library with over 40,000 catalogued volumes in the basement of his presidential residence. He has whole rooms designated to particular topics: "Church History"; "Biblical Studies"; "Worldview and Culture," for example. I wonder though if he has a biology room. Does he have a room for geological studies? What about nuclear physics and astronomy? Perhaps fundamentalism can live in a world where these rooms are either empty or filled with books grounded in the science of the 18th century. Thankfully, however, evangelicalism also includes a non-fundamentalist contingent. It also is deeply embedded in the view that the Bible is the Word of God. For this contingent, the science rooms are not empty. Science is the investigation of God’s creation and with this contingent the biology, physics, geology,and astronomy rooms are filled with books that enrich our understanding of God and draw us into deep and awe-inspired worship.

An evangelicalism based exclusively in fundamentalist views may exist in some people’s minds, but not God’s. Thankfully, as Christian young people sit through their astronomy and geology courses many will pay little attention to a voice telling them things like “an old age theory of the earth comes with theological and exegetical complications that I believe are in the end insurmountable.” Many will view this as ivory tower. They will think that this is going off to a corner of the universe and closing your eyes, your ears, and even your mind. And when that same voice calls out from a different room in the ivory tower—“the theory of evolution is incompatible with the Gospel of Jesus Christ” –they will know there are other voices within the same tent, and hearing those words, instead of Mohler’s, they will come to realize that they need not set aside the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Mohler’s call for exclusivity will not be heard much longer. Those of us who think so differently are alongside of him within the tent and we don’t think God will allow us to be pushed aside. We are followers of Jesus too. We, like him, love Scripture and believe it to be the Word of God. We also love theology, and be assured, our theology is not bankrupt.

We’ll exist within the tent together for awhile. Eventually, I think even the fundamentalists will come to see that they need to allow science books in their library and fundamentalism will undergo its own evolution. Until then we can all be patient with one another. Personally, I have much to learn from my fundamentalist sojourners—they know many things about serving Christ that I have yet to learn. Let’s gather in close within the tent. Isaiah, after all, put it this way: “…over all the glory will be a canopy. It will be a shelter and shade from the heat of the day, and a refuge and hiding place from the storm and rain.” (Isaiah 4:5,6). I want to experience that, and I want to experience it together.

The Psalmist (85:6-11) puts it into a beautiful poem. Crowd in even tighter and listen to these words; they speak to us all:

Will you not revive us again,
so that your people may rejoice in you?
Show us your steadfast love, O Lord,
and grant us your salvation.
Let me hear what God the Lord will speak,
for he will speak peace to his people,
to his faithful, to those who turn to him in their hearts.
Surely his salvation is at hand for those who fear him,
that his glory may dwell in our land.
Steadfast love and faithfulness will meet;
righteousness and peace will kiss each other.
Faithfulness will spring up from the ground,
and righteousness will look down from the sky.

Darrel Falk is former president of BioLogos and currently serves as BioLogos' Senior Advisor for Dialog. He is Professor of Biology, Emeritus at Point Loma Nazarene University and serves as Senior Fellow at The Colossian Forum. Falk is the author of Coming to Peace with Science.

View the archived discussion of this post

This article is now closed for new comments. The archived comments are shown below.

Page 10 of 11   « 7 8 9 10 11 »
Rich - #35271

October 18th 2010


I never said that “Christ’s teaching on salvation is essentially unclear and that one could not possibly know what to believe about salvation simply by reading the Bible.”

Neither Protestant nor Catholic doubts that the basic outline of the Gospel teaching is clear.  But when it comes to some of the details of how redemption works, and when it comes to other parts of the Bible which are not central to the Gospel message but are still important, e.g., Calvin’s decretum horribile, not only is there frequently disagreement between Catholic and Protestant, but within each of those groups.  Thus, you get Arian vs. orthodox over the nature of Christ; you get Calvinist vs. Arminian etc.  In every case you have long detailed arguments, which drag in scores of verses and passages, often including some of the most ambiguous passages in the whole Bible.  Your view that one person is logical and the other is too blinded by sin or prejudice to see it, is simplistic.  The problem is precisely that *both* sides are very logical and *both* sides call learnedly upon Scripture and *both* sides are sincere, yet the problem remains intractable.  The solution: the authority of the Church over Scriptural interpretation.

Martin Rizley - #35282

October 18th 2010

Rich,  I would not say that every issue in theology is revealed with the same degree of clarity in the Bible.  The way of salvation is revealed clearly, I believe, as is the deity of Christ and the propiety of worshipping Him.  Other issues are revealed with less clarity.  I do not attribute all differences of judgment on all matters to the fact that one person is being more ‘logical’ or ‘godly’ than the other—I think that would be a gross oversimplification of the matter.  Sincere, godly people do not always agree on every interpretive issue—not because one is lacking a logical mind or spirituality the other has—but because there are some matters that are hard to understand and require a great deal of study to grasp—such as the nature and interrelationship of the biblical covenants, or matters related to prophecy.  There are various interpretive issues on which I have no firm conviction, because they are quite simply, difficult to understand.  But the issues that separate Protestant, Catholic and Orthodox, in my opinion, are not matters on which the Bible is unclear. The Bible is very clear on the way of salvation, and it has nothing to do with sacerdotal system that is propounded, for example, by Rome.

Rich - #35313

October 19th 2010


As I said, I am not defending Roman Catholic doctrine per se.  There may be many points of Biblical interpretation where I would take a Protestant rather than a Catholic line.  In fact, the only “Catholic” doctrine I recall defending is the doctrine that both Scripture and Tradition have authority and express the teaching of the Holy Spirit.  And that doctrine is not peculiarly Roman; you will find it in the Orthodox Churches as well.  Anglicanism, and even Calvin and Luther, have traces of it, though the latter cannot state it directly due to their notion of sola scriptura.  It is only in the radical Reformation—of which you and your denomination are the quintessential expression—that the last trace of the idea that Tradition has any authority is utterly extinguished, quite willfully and deliberately so.  I’ve already explained many times why I think that was an unwise move.

I didn’t deny that the Bible is clear about salvation, in a general way.  But about the mechanism of salvation, about how it works, there is much that is very difficult and open to interpretation and debate.  Some of Paul’s statements on the matter are difficult, and Calvin, Luther and other have wrestled with it.  (continued)

Rich - #35314

October 19th 2010

Martin (continued):

The same holds of the Lord’s Supper.  If you know your Reformation History, you will know that it was a major bone of contention between Protestant and Catholic, and also between the various branches of the Protestant Reformation.  Luther was bitterly opposed to the Zwinglians, for example.  And they in turn thought his position on the sacrament too Romish.  And the position of Calvin and of the Anglicans differed from Luther’s as well.

In all these cases, the Bible is simply not self-interpreting.  I think you try to be far too tricky about “self-interpreting.”  The Bible is self-interpreting where no reasonable person can miss its sense.  For example, the Flood comes because of human wickedness; there will not be another Flood; the world was created by an intelligent being, not by random swirling of atoms; the Prophets warn Israel to return to the way of the Lord, or suffer the consequences.  The Bible is self-interpreting on these things.  But how “imputation” works; what sort of “grace,” if any, is in conveyed in the Lord’s Supper; what Jesus meant by “on this Rock I will build my Church,” and many other things—all raise questions and require discussion.  (continued)

Rich - #35315

October 19th 2010

Martin (concluding):

If these and many other things did not require discussion, you would not find thousands of pages of commentary in both Catholic and Protestant sources on them.  The works of Calvin and Luther each take up long library shelves.  You do not find thousands of pages written on why God sent a Flood; you do find thousands of pages written on the sacraments, on the doctrine of the Church, on the nature of the transmission of original sin, on the nature of the Trinity, on predestination, etc.  Obviously the Bible is not self-interpreting on these matters, or such lengthy expositions and often rancorous debates would not exist. 

Where these doctrines are not central, I am all in favor of allowing diversity of opinion.  But where these doctrines are deemed essential, what is the Church to do?  Allow its members to believe what they want, and teach what they want?  In such a case, there has to be the equivalent (even in Protestant churches) of what the Catholics call a teaching magisterium, which is fully authoritative.  Such a magisterium does not have the power to overrule the Bible, but it does have the authority to settle the interpretation of the Bible; otherwise, chaos or schism are inevitable.

Martin Rizley - #35394

October 19th 2010

Rich,  You say,  “the only ‘Catholic’ doctrine I recall defending is the doctrine that both Scripture and Tradition have authority and express the teaching of the Holy Spirit.  And that doctrine is not peculiarly Roman; you will find it in the Orthodox Churches as well.’  And just who defines the elements of this ‘common tradition,’ Rich?  You?  How many people do you think you would agree with your set of ‘commonly held traditions’?  What role would you give to Mary, the saints, and icons?  Would you allow priests to marry?  Would you allow women to serve as priests?  The problem I see with your position, Rich, is that you want there to be an authoritative extra-biblical “tradition” to whom all must bow, but without any authoritative ‘magisteria,’ who defines that tradition?  Few Protestants will deny the legitimacy of all traditions; but they deny the divinely authoritative, binding nature of any tradition that is without scriptural authority.  For example, I have nothing against Christians celebrating the birth of Christ in a special way on December 25 through the singing of Christmas carols, exchanging of gifts, etc.  In fact, I enjoy such Christmas traditions (continued)

Martin Rizley - #35395

October 19th 2010

but as a pastor, I would never tell a fellow believer that they are violating a divine law if they do not wish to celebrate Christmas, for I have no biblical authority to impose that tradition on others(continuing).  Binding men’s consciences, however, is precisely the sort of thing that would result if extra-biblical traditions were allowed to have an authority alongside Scripture in determining how Christians should live and what they should believe.  Church leaders would be forced to censure and possibly excommunicate church members who did not wish to observe these man-made traditions.  Why was Luther excommunicated?  Because he refused to recognize the bishop of Rome as the head of the universal church—a tradition that has no warrant in Scripture. Should he have been excommunicated on that basis?  If church tradition carries the force of God’s law, perhaps.  But it does not.  The authority of tradition is directly related to that of church authority.  No Protestant denies church authority, but insists that that authority is under, and not over, the teaching of Scripture.  Church leaders are accountable to the congregations that they serve to uphold and enforce the teaching of Scripture (continued)

Martin Rizley - #35396

October 19th 2010

as long as they do that, their legitimate, God-given authority is to be respected and submitted to.  But if church leaders exalt themselves above the Scriptures and attempt to bind the conscience of the people with unbiblical traditions and teachings, they should be cast out of office by the people who elected them to their office.  Why?  Because the people have a right to determine under God whether their leaders are teaching and leading them in accordance with the Word of God.  You say, how can uneducated laity have that sort of authority?  For two reasons.  First, because the Bible IS an essentially clear book on its most basic teachings, especially those necessary for salvation.  Its clarity is only apparent, however, to a literate people who are able to read it and who devote time and attention to studying it.  That is why, in Protestant nations, the importance of literacy has always been so strongly emphasized, because a literate congregation knowledgeable of Scripture is the key to safeguarding the church from being hoodwinked by authoritarian leaders who try to impose on the people heretical ideas and practices (cont.).

Martin Rizley - #35397

October 19th 2010

So I believe in the legitimacy of tradition and church authority within biblical limits; but any tradition that is without biblical warrant should never be imposed on the conscience believers, and any church leader or group of leaders who attempt to bind the conscience of God’s people with unbiblical traditions or teachings should be cast out of their office.  This is especially true when unbiblical requirements are imposed on the conscience as ‘normatively necessary’ for receiving the blessings of salvation, for then the gospel itself is tampered with, and such an unbiblical imposition falls under Paul’s anathema as a perversion of the gospel.  So when a church says, for example,  that to receive God’s gift of righteousness, faith alone in Christ alone is not sufficient; that in addition,  one must submit to baptism at the hands of a priest authorized by the bishop of Rome, who alone has divine authorization to dispense saving grace, then one has departed from the biblical gospel, for where is such a requirement found in the Bible?  That is why the Bible alone must have the authority to bind the consciences of men, NOT the Bible plus tradition.

Rich - #35402

October 19th 2010


You tend to launch into a long sermon when all that is needed is to answer the points raised.  Also, you tend to impute views to me which I have never asserted.

I never insisted on any set of traditions.  I never spoke of celibate priests, etc.  I never said that my views should govern any Church.  I said that the Church (and I clarified that it needn’t be the current Roman Church) needed to have certain powers in determining doctrine.  That’s all.

I never said that not celebrating Christmas is violating divine law.  I never said you should force anyone to celebrate Christmas.

I did not say that tradition, *as such*, carries the force of God’s law.  Not even the Catholic Church says that tradition, *as such*, has the force of God’s law, though it may say that of *some* traditions—in which case it will give a theological argument for that tradition.

You still are dodging the bullet, the bullet that no free-church Protestant can ever permanently dodge; how, given your position, can you *ever* say that a schismatic or heretic is “wrong”?  You can say that his position is “against Scripture”; but he will deny it.  He will say *your* position is against Scripture.  (continued)

Rich - #35405

October 19th 2010

Martin (continued):

What you don’t see is that by justifying Luther’s breakaway (as you did), you justify all subsequent breakaways.  And before you jump on that without understanding, let me clarify.  I *don’t* mean that all other theological breakaways have been as well-based in Scripture as Luther’s was.  Far from it.  I think most of them, as I’ve said, have been based on Scriptural ignorance, combined with narrow partisanship and personal pride. Rather, what I am saying is that you can have no possible objection to breakaways in principle.  After all, your own Church is a breakaway of a breakaway of a breakaway, who knows how many times?  If you deny the right of, say, the Seventh Day Adventists to interpret Scripture according to their conscience (as they conceive it), you deny the right of the founders of all the denominations all the way back to Luther—and you’ll have to deny Luther’s right, too.  Again, to clarify, so you won’t write another long irrelevant sermon:  I’m *not* defending Adventist readings of Scripture.  I’m saying that the *principle* they appealed to in founding their (doubtless heretical in your eyes) denomination is the principle that Luther appealed to, and which you stoutly defend.

Rich - #35408

October 19th 2010

Martin (continued):

If I may add one more thing.  You keep saying that scripture is clear in all matters pertaining to salvation.  Well, I agree that *the general outline* is clear.  But the fact is that even on matters pertaining to salvation, some of the greatest minds in the history of the Church have debated endlessly.  If you have the slightest knowledge of Reformation history, you will know that Luther, Calvin, and various Roman theologians wrote lengthy letters, articles, books, etc. pertaining to salvation—on justification, imputation, prevenient grace, etc.  These were people who knew Greek, Latin, in some cases Hebrew, philosophy, theology, Patristics, etc. far better than any current pastor knows those subjects, and they did not always find it easy to balance all the statements of Scripture and weave them into a coherent doctrine.  That is why they studied so long, wrote so much, attended so many meetings of learned divines to thrash things out, etc.  You speak as if theology is something easy that all the local yokels can master, provided they have basic literacy.  But it isn’t.  That’s another reason why authority is necessary, to rein in autodidacts who think they know much but are in fact ignoramuses.

Gregory - #35418

October 19th 2010

“Scripture interprets Scripture” - Martin Rizley

I didn’t read this one before today. That’s another keeper, Martin! ; - )

And is *this* (a Text’s agent-less self-interpretation) the reason you embrace pseudo-science and haven’t yet ‘grown-up’ to accept the discoveries of natural-physical sciences (e.g. the *vast* geological evidence for an ‘old’ Earth) since the days of Calvin and Luther?

And is this also why you don’t teach your parishioners how to properly respect science - ahem, you accept science *only* if it is done by fellow ‘sola Scripturists,’ so insular and narrow-minded - and thus the point of this thread?

Because ‘Scripture interprets Scripture’?!

Have you ever heard ot the ‘epistemic fallacy’? Might want to look it up.

Bibliolatry seems to be a serious problem here.

Gregory - #35420

October 19th 2010

“Its clarity is only apparent, however, to a literate people who are able to read it and who devote time and attention to studying it.  That is why, in Protestant nations, the importance of literacy has always been so strongly emphasized, because a literate congregation knowledgeable of Scripture is the key to safeguarding the church from being hoodwinked by authoritarian leaders who try to impose on the people heretical ideas and practices.” - Pastor Martin Rizley

Do you have any facts or data to back that statement up, Martin? People do surveys on literacy as I’m sure you’ll know depending on which state you’re from.

A quick internet search of world literacy statistics shows between 1 and 3 countries in the top 20 for rates of literacy are primarily Protestant countries. Barbados and Finland score high, they are Anglican and Lutheran by majority respectively. In other words, 17-19 out of the top 20 countries in the world in terms of literacy, including Cuba, are *not* Protestant countries.

I think you’d find it hard to argue that ‘sola Scripturists’ score ‘higher’ on literacy than non-‘sola Scripturists,’ which it seems was the point you were trying to make.

Martin Rizley - #35424

October 20th 2010

Rich,  I assure you that I am not dodging any bullets!  I am trying to avoid writing an even LONGER ‘sermon,’ as you put it, by focusing on the central issue you raise—whether Christ’s church must should attempt to base its faith and practice, not on Scripture alone, but on Scripture PLUS a universally recognized tradition that will keep autodidacts ‘in check.’  You seem to be ignoring the fact that many conservative evangelical churches have confessional standards, subordinate to Scripture, that they expect their leaders to abide by, so it’s not as if people can teach anything they please in evangelical churches, with no accountability to anyone.  But no evangelical church, to my knowledge, would say that extra-biblical traditions have authority to bind the conscience of God’s people or to govern the life and discipline of the church.  I think our disagreement arises out of different conceptions of how Christ builds His church and the TYPE of visible unity He wants His people to pursue.  Regarding the first question, it is clear to me that Christ builds his church through the preaching of the gospel, which all true Christians embrace in their inmost hearts.  (continued)

Martin Rizley - #35425

October 20th 2010

Christians may disagree on many secondary issues, but not on the essential content of the gospel itself, as Paul affirms in Galatians 1:6-9, where he says that anyone preaching a different gospel is under the threat of God’s curse!  It is the gospel that creates the only type of visible unity that can be reasonably expected among God‘s people in their present, imperfect condition—not an organizational unity of shared government, such as liberal ecumenists are always trying to achieve, but a spiritual unity in truth, love and fellowship, which is compatible with the church existed organizationally among many diverse, even disconnected denominations.  The false type of unity which seeks to draw all Christians together under one organizational umbrella is built only at the expense of truth—even the truth of the gospel.  I don’t think Christ has any interest in seeing all who CALL themselves Christians united externally and organizationally in that way.  He is only interested in the type of unity that is created through the gospel itself uniting the hearts of His people by the Spirit.  (continued)

Martin Rizley - #35426

October 20th 2010

When you ask, “How can Christian unity exist we do not allow ‘historical tradition’ determine the interpretation of Scripture for all?”  you are forgetting the fact that real spiritual unity does in fact exist among true Christians because of their faith in the same gospel, despite denominational differences and disagreements on secondary matters.  The idea of “denomination” sees the church as being like a house with many rooms.  Although not all of God’s people are in the same room, it doesn’t matter, because they are all under the same roof.  But that roof (their shared unity) is perfectly visible only in heaven, not on earth—hence, the deceptive appearance (to some) of complete disunity here on earth, allegedly created by the false concept of ’sola Scriptura’ shattering the unity that could exist if Christians only united under a shared ‘tradition.’  The fact is, however, not all church splits are avoidable or even desirable, since they do not always involve a denial of the underlying spiritual unity of Christ’s body. (continued)

Martin Rizley - #35427

October 20th 2010

Sometimes, difference in secondary matters of faith and practice,  not essential to salvation itself, make organizational unity between different churches impossible from a practical standpoint.  The Reformers disagreed on many things, but not on the content of the gospel itself.  To my knowledge, they never accused each other, as they accused Rome, of preaching a different gospel.  Their disagreements over the Lord’s Supper, church government, and other matters were not seen as a disagreement over the way of salvation—by which I mean, the Bible’s teaching on how sinners receive the gift of righteousness from God.  All were agreed that God saves sinners by imputing to them Christ’s personal righteousness, apart from works and all priestly mediation, through faith alone—personal trust—in the all-sufficient Savior and His finished work of atonement.  There was absolutely no disagreement on that point.  The sacraments were seen as ‘signs’ and ‘seals’ of salvation to those who were saved through faith alone; they were not themselves the instrument of conferring salvation through an intermediary priesthood like that which Rome claimed to have.

Rich - #35432

October 20th 2010


Why do you keep repeating things I’ve already agreed on?  I’ve already said, two or three times at least, that the core notions of the Bible are fairly clear, and that there isn’t much disagreement about them, not even between Protesant and Catholic for the most part.  (Your idea of present-day Catholicism, by the way, is filled with stereotypes drawn from the Catholic practices and teachings of the Middle Ages.  It’s as if you have not read anything about Catholic doctrine—by Catholic scholars, anyway— starting with the Council of Trent and moving forward.)

I don’t know where I said “extra-biblical traditions have authority to *bind the conscience* of God’s people or to govern the life and discipline of the church.”  This is hyperbolic misrepresentation of my point.  Our original debate here was about Biblical exegesis.  It is not “binding the conscience” of anyone for the Church to make a ruling on highly difficult matters of Biblical interpretation, when the meaning of the text is not plain and some readings appear to be taking the Church in a bad direction.  If you are going to say that then you must say that the Church had no right to “bind the conscience” of Arius.  Is that your position?

Martin Rizley - #35434

October 20th 2010

Gregory,  Some who hold to the principle of Sola Scriptura believe that, when Scripture interprets Scripture, the resulting understanding of Genesis ALLOWS for old earth views; others believe the resulting understanding does not allow for old earth views.  But neither would make belief in an old earth or evolution a doctrine of “the faith,” since our doctrines are determined by Scripture alone, and Scripture does not explicitly TEACH either an old earth or evolution.  So you cannot say that all who hold to the principle of Sola Scriptura are YEC’s; that would be a false equation.  Second, if the Roman Catholic church—in contrast to ‘close-minded’ Protestant fundamentalists—gives to science absolute authority to revise church teachings, why hasn’t Rome adopted yet the “polygenetic origin” view of humanity held by so many on the Biologos website.  Many scientists would claim that the ‘assured results of science’ make it impossible now to believe that all mankind has descended from one human couple.  To deny that one must be a narrow-minded fundamentalist who embraces psuedo-science and refuses to grow up.  (continue)

Page 10 of 11   « 7 8 9 10 11 »