Again, I have to agree with the following. Biologos has had ample time to make a case as to why their version of evolution (i.e., Darwinian, unguided natural evolution) is compatible with orthodox Christianity. In fact, all we have seen so far is a denial of the biblical basis for redemption, which is the historical person of Adam and his rebellion against God, a denial that the Bible is completely inerrant, and a denial of Augustinian views of God's interaction with the world, which can be seen throughout the Bible as well as takes it true place in orthodox Christianity. In other words, it is the same denials that liberalism proposes against orthodox Christianity. In short, Biologos theology is liberal theology, and that's why it works well among liberals and emergings (i.e., young liberals). It has failed to convince the more theologically robust camps of evangelicalism, because by its seemingly own admission, it must reject the theology of those camps in order to have agreement with its interpretation of the data (i.e., its empirical experience). I've spoken before on this blog concerning the reason why liberalism and atheism are in so much agreement (i.e., because they share the same Enlightenment-oriented presuppositions concerning knowledge). In any case, I thought this article once again displays that either orthodox Christianity is right or Biologos is. But the two seem to be completely incompatible at this point.