For more, be sure to read our FAQs How are the ages of the Earth and universe calculated? and What scientific evidence do we have about the first humans?, as well as our recent infographic How Do We Know the Earth is Old?.

Author's Note from Joy Walters

As I mentioned in my first post, I grew up skeptical of the whole idea of evolution. One contributor to my disbelief was the lengthy timescale for the “tree of life” that was presented with the theory. I would hear, for example, that dinosaurs lived hundreds of millions of years ago, but there was no explanation of why this was true; it was just given as a fact. No one explained the methods of dating, and so I thought biologists simply estimated the ages of species to fit their preconceived notions of how long it would take for one species to emerge from another. It also seemed like the ages were periodically revised and extended farther back in time, and I figured scientists needed to manipulate numbers to make evolution plausible. This, in my mind, made the theory both unbelievable and dismissible.

Once I learned about the techniques used to date fossils, I realized that my first impressions were wrong; the ancient ages of species are scientific determinations rather than scholarly conjectures. However, I have found in recent conversations that Christians remain skeptical of old ages and the evolutionary time scale. For this reason, I wanted the videocast to address the process of fossil dating (what the methods are and why they are accurate) while focusing on cases where hominid fossils were discovered and dated using these very methods. My hope is that Believers would be informed about the evidence for human evolution and its scientific grounding.

In today’s video from director Ryan Pettey, theologian Dr. Chris Tilling discusses the need for a mediating voice in the science and faith discussion. He begins by noting that the way the “literalness” of Scripture is framed in much of the evolutionist/creationist debate "is a modern concern," and traces this framing to two sources: the Protestant Reformation and the Enlightenment. Martin Luther rightly rebelled against some of the fanciful interpretations of the Bible in his time by trying to get back to the single meaning of Scripture as he saw it. This focus on a singular meaning of Scripture became coupled with the Enlightenment emphasis on scientific rigor and foundationalism–seeking a "certain truth" that one can build upon–leading to the modern emphasis on the literalness of scripture.

The problem, however, is that not all Scripture wants to be read literally, and to do so is to bypass some of the truth contained in it. Both creationists and New Atheists, then, bring similar presuppositions to the text. Tilling points to a third group that wants to be more sensitive to how we import meaning into the Biblical text. He calls this group “a mediating voice”, one that can listen to the arguments of the New Atheists without being frightened and also listen to the good in the creationist account, particularly God’s role as Creator of the heavens and earth and his plan for redemption through Jesus.

Sadly, he says, this is the same voice that too often becomes lost in the polarized atmosphere of the contemporary science and faith dialogue.

Today's video is courtesy of filmmaker Ryan Pettey, director/editor of Satellite Pictures, and features pastor and author Brian McClaren.

In today’s video, Brian McClaren talks about reconciliation in the face of differences. He offers insight into how to treat those whose opinions differ from yours and points out how to have constructive dialogue. Even if we disagree with a person’s ideas, we can still show interest in the person who holds them and why those interests are important.

As he concludes, “To me the invitation to love and understand and in a sense to not be ruled by reactions, that to me feels like it is part of maturity.”

Today's video is courtesy of filmmaker Ryan Pettey, director/editor of Satellite Pictures and features physicist Ard Louis.

In today's video, Oxford physicist Ard Louis discusses the famous debate between renowned evolutionary biologists Stephen Jay Gould and Simon Conway Morris. Gould believed (and wrote in his book Wonderful Life) that if the "tape" of evolution were rerun, the chance that anything like human intelligence would emerge is essentially zero. In other words, humanity is here through random accident. Gould pointed to the work of Morris and fellow scientists in their research of the Burgess Shale as evidence for this view.

However, Morris himself disagrees, pointing to what is called evolutionary convergence. As Morris notes, there are numerous examples of identical features evolving multiple times throughout the history of life independently. Morris believes that if the tape of life were replayed, we would see something like humans emerge. A Christian might say, it looks like we were planned.

Some Christians might find Simon Conway Morris' viewpoint, with its implicit teleology, more attractive. Others, perhaps motivated by a high view of providence, may find Gould's emphasis on contingency equally congenial to their faith. What do you think?

Today's video is courtesy of filmmaker Ryan Pettey, director/editor of Satellite Pictures.

In this video, author and pastor Brian McLaren discusses the idea of surrogate arguments, in which a debate over one thing is really a means for arguing something completely different. According to McClaren, the argument over the age of the earth is one such example, in which an apparent scientific debate is actually a discussion over the nature of religious authority and how previous generations have understood how we should interpret the Bible. Such debates can lead to two crises: one of confidence and one of ethics. While some have the confidence to differ with the views of the generation that raised them in the faith, McLaren points out that some are not able to overcome the ethical challenge of differing with grace and love. When this happens, he notes, the end result is damage to the Church and a retrenching of the views of the older generation. Managing the crises well requires courage of convictions while also respecting tradition and maintaining a gracious spirit. Anything less, is not only unwise, it is also unfaithful.

In this video Conversation, Joel Hunter notes the inherent strengths of both Calvinist and Wesleyan faith traditions. In fact, he points out that what are often cast as “competing” approaches really are complementary rather than at odds with one another. As we listen to different perspectives we become not just stronger, but more accurate in our understanding of the world around us, says Hunter. In turn, we will understand more of God and his Kingdom will become stronger as a collective of believers.

At its core, Reformed theology is intellectual and focuses on theological structures which build on each other, which is important—yet the spirit, devotional, and emotional passion of the Wesleyan tradition is an essential part of a complete faith experience too. When combined, both perspectives and traditions yield a fuller picture of religious belief. It is only through a combination of intellect and sensitivity that Christians can hope to have the level of sophistication and strength of a mind and heart encounter with God.

In this video conversation, Kathryn Applegate, biologist and BioLogos program director of website development, discusses the implications for the church if we ignore scientific developments.

Applegate notes that even ten years ago, before the Human Genome Project and before some of the recent fossil discoveries, there were still a lot of open questions about biological evolution. But Applegate states that this is no longer the case, and that we can no longer deny the scientific evidence.

Applegate reminds us that if we continue to ignore evolution –– and not just evolution, but science more broadly –– many may leave the church, unable to reconcile a rigorous belief in science with orthodox Christian belief.

Thus the need to open the dialogue between science and religion isn’t just about evolution, it is about science writ large. Science has implications for many bioethical issues that pastors will need to confront in their congregations. The church needs to foster an open inquiry into scientific truth, because all truth is God’s truth.

Science is useful—it brings us technology and a deeper understanding of creation. Applegate believes that BioLogos is doing is “a good service for the community” as more educational materials are needed—especially for churches—that articulate the various positions and scientific theories in a way that is accessible to the layperson.

Update on April 2, 2010: This video has been removed from our site on at least a temporary basis. For a full explanation, click here.

In this video conversation Bruce Waltke discusses the danger the Church will face if it does not engage with the world around it, in particular with the issue of evolution, which many evangelicals still reject.

Waltke cautions, “if the data is overwhelmingly in favor of evolution, to deny that reality will make us a cult…some odd group that is not really interacting with the world. And rightly so, because we are not using our gifts and trusting God’s Providence that brought us to this point of our awareness.”

We are at a unique moment in history where “everything is coming together,” says Waltke, and conversations—like those initiated by BioLogos—are positive developments. “I see this as part of the growth of the church,” he says. “We are much more mature by this dialogue that we are having. This is how we come to the unity of the faith—by wrestling with these issues.”

Waltke points out that to deny scientific reality would be to deny the truth of God in the world. For us as Christians, this would serve as our spiritual death because we would not be loving God with all of our minds. It would also be our spiritual death in witness to the world because we would not be seen as credible.

While Christians may still disagree with one another on some issues, Waltke emphasizes that it is important that we are really interacting in a serious way—and trusting God as truth. Testing these things but holding fast to that which is good will bring greater understanding and unity among Christians.

If we don’t do that, Waltke cautions, we are going to die. If we refuse to engage with the greater cultural/scientific dialogue, we may end up marginalized and that would be a great tragedy for the Church.

In this video conversation, Os Guinness addresses the question of why it is essential for Christians to engage in scientific discourse. He points out that science is “at the very heart of the modernizing world” and as such, it is all around us.

We cannot ignore it.

Resistance, skepticism, and hostility to science, however, are not biblical precepts. Such a myopic ideology originates from Christian movements that emerged in the 19th century, and they are just that, movements—they are not scriptural.

In the scriptures, science is a source of worship and praise, not argument and controversy.

Also, these movements are driven by fear, which as Guinness points out runs counter to the message of “do not fear” that permeates the scriptures.

The current antipathy by some Christians towards science is not productive and Guinness even characterizes it as “sub-Christian”. In regard to this trend, Guinness remarks, “I hope in the next generation we will overcome it.”