Statements of Principle
We are a community of committed Christians who wish to contend for the truth as revealed through the person of our Lord Jesus Christ and through God’s Word, the Bible.
We hold a high view of Scripture and contend that no human authority can transcend the authority of the Word of God. We humbly submit to His Word, even to those parts that are hard to understand. We confess that there is much we do not know.
We accept by faith the clear teaching of Scripture that the God of Scripture is Creator, as described in narrative prose in Genesis 1 and 2, and that the creation was miraculous, as witnessed through the whole of Scripture.
We accept by faith, but also by careful scholarship, that the Biblical account of history is true. Scientific principles and historical principles both provide support for the veracity of Biblical history, starting from the miraculous creation of time, space, matter and energy; to the miraculous creation of life; to the miraculous creation of Adam and Eve; to the real consequences of a literal fall; to the devastation of a global cataclysm which flooded the entire world and destroyed all its land-dwelling air-breathing life except that miraculously preserved in the ark Noah had built; to a diaspora of families, languages, and cultures out of the Middle East after the tower of Babel; to the establishment of the Hebrew people as a conduit for human redemption; to a literal Exodus; to the unfolding of Israel’s history leading to the first coming of Christ via His miraculous virgin birth; to Christ’s public ministry punctuated by miraculous signs including raising individuals from the dead; to His own literal death by crucifixion, His burial in a sealed tomb, followed by His bodily resurrection three days later; to His tangible appearances to His disciples on several occasions during the forty days following His resurrection; to His visible ascension into heaven; to the miraculous falling of the Holy Spirit during the feast of Pentecost upon His followers who were gathered together in Jerusalem; to the miraculous empowerment of His disciples after Pentecost and the subsequent explosive growth of the church despite opposition and persecution; to the clear and certain prediction of Christ’s second coming.
We hold a high view of science. We are committed to high standards of academic integrity and rigorous use of the scientific method. We assert that science arose in the context of Christian faith and that most of the founders of science shared our Christian views. We reject the false characterization that Christian faith stands in opposition to science or endangers science in any way.
We wish to exhort ourselves, and all of our fellow believers, to reflect the character of Jesus. This means that we must be humble, we must seek reconciliation with those with whom we have quarreled or disputed, and we must speak the truth in love.
Our Approach to Fellowship
When Logos was started in 2008, one of the first things we did was to extend olive branches to people in the creation movement with whom we had quarreled. This included ID proponents and old earth creationists. We vowed to do our best to be on good terms with all people - especially our brothers and sisters in Christ.
Even as LogosRA has grown from a handful of people to over 70 people, we have been blessed with remarkable internal unity. This was especially evident in our recent gathering in Utah. In addition to being reconciled with fellow creationists, we wish to interact with our adversaries appropriately - showing respect, patience, goodwill, and grace. We exhort one another to speak the Truth in Love.
One of us, Dr. Gordon Wilson, has now drafted a letter further exhorting goodwill within the creation movement. Gordon encourages other Associates to sign this letter - assuming they agree with its message. They can do this by emailing their affirmation to this letter to our secretary/treasurer, Jim Pamplin. The letter is as follows:
Dear Young Earth Creationist community,
We write this letter to make appeal to a community we love. It is apparent to us that division in the creation apologetics movement is widespread and at times there has been clear evidence of ungodly actions and sinful anger. Disagreement is not our problem; discord is. In every scientific endeavor there will always arise strong disagreement between scientists; Christians included. Because our endeavors are to uphold biblical truth, some of our disagreements have also been of a theological nature. Disagreement can be healthy and good if all participants are walking in the light. It can lead to iron sharpening iron. However, it can clearly lead to much sin if we allow those disagreements to sow discord among us. We want to do good science but we also want to do godly science. Although we may have opinions about certain models and theories, this letter is not in any way partisan. It is not about who we think is doing better science and who isn’t. This letter is completely pastoral. We are all well aware that the community of young earth creationists is a tiny fraction of the broader scientific community. It is also a member of the wider Christian community. Not only does it displease our Lord when we YEC creationists are not on speaking terms with each other, it is a poor testimony to the watching world. Will they know we are Christians by our love or by how staunchly we refuse to make things right. We think it is impossible to reconcile because it is impossible to get them to admit they’re wrong and I’m right about a particular creationist model or ministry philosophy. We are sure the enemy is quite pleased at the growth of the root of bitterness that he has cultivated in the YEC community over these years. In this letter we want to address with Scripture two basic groups of folks; the offendees and the offenders.
To the Offendees - One of the reasons our relationships become strained (or broken) is that the reviewee’s research/paper was rejected by the reviewer. Remember, the merit or lack of merit of a paper is not our concern here. When our research is submitted for review, what should our attitude and response be to criticism or rejection? Here are some verses that come to mind.
Whoever loves discipline loves knowledge,
but he who hates reproof is stupid. Proverbs 12:1
Note that this verse is an indicative; not an imperative. A lover of knowledge loves discipline but stupid people hate correction. Even if we think the source of the discipline or correction (the reviewer) is wrong in his or her assessment, we should be humble; not hateful in receiving it. We don’t want to fit the definition of a fool by how we respond. A little farther on in verse 16 it says,
The vexation of a fool is known at once,
but the prudent ignores an insult.
Even if the reviewer isn’t manifesting Christian love but is outright insulting, wise people ignore or overlook it (water-off-a-duck’s-back). Fools express their vexation immediately at an insult. In other words, they get huffy at correction. If we do, we are fools.
We must never hold a grudge because they didn’t like our paper and were less than gentle in telling us as much. Our feelings and ego must not be woven into our scientific work. We must take our lumps patiently even if they were wrong in their criticism (in manner or content). We should either cover the offense or correct their manner. We must never gossip or nurse a grudge. If reviewer’s critique is obviously sinful (not just to you but to other neutral parties) and requires correction, then correction must be for their sake; not because we were offended and want to retaliate. Galatians 6:1-2. Brothers, if anyone is caught in any transgression, you who are spiritual should restore him in a spirit of gentleness. Keep watch on yourself, lest you too be tempted.
What are the stipulations for correcting someone? First, you must be spiritual. That means not resentful or bitter at them. Love for them must be the motivation for the correction. Second, you must restore the person in a spirit of gentleness. You must not be vindictive or rancorous. Let your gentleness be evident to all. Philippians 4:5 (NIV). We cannot believe we are upholding truth if we ignore God’s truth about the way we are to go about it (2 Timothy 2:24-26). We need to remind ourselves that words like ‘gentleness’ and ‘kindness’ are every bit as biblical as the dogma we stand to defend and the models we use to serve our positions.
This Christ glorifying way of speech applies to those within and even those who oppose us outside our creation community. We must not react to each other or to the world like the world. To the Offenders -
If you fall into this camp, you might be pleased at my exhortation to the offendees. You might say to yourself, “preach it, brother; it’s about time someone told them to toughen up. The rigors of science are not for the faint of heart. It’s an academic version of American football, after all.” Here are some verses that come to mind. Again, Philippians 4:5 is a good rule of thumb not just for correcting sin but also criticizing science. A reviewer’s gentleness must be evident to all. You must manifest a spirit of gentleness and must be spiritual (Galatians 6:1-2). You can still be honest and straightforward with your assessment of the science but it mustn’t be serrated or barbed…or rash. Just because you are critiquing science; rather than correcting sin, doesn’t mean you get to pull your gloves off. Proverbs 12:18 says, “There is one whose rash words are like sword thrusts, but the tongue of the wise brings healing.” We can learn at least two things from this verse. First, rash (reckless) words do not necessarily have malicious intent; but they nonetheless have the capacity to do the same amount of damage. They pierce like a sword. Just because you didn’t mean to hurt them doesn’t mean you’re not culpable. It does mean you’re not wise. Second, we see that the opposite of a rash wounding tongue is a wise healing tongue. Ask yourself if your tongue is more apt to wound or heal people. These biblical principles don’t go away when we interact with each other while doing creation science. We too often become numb to familiar verses like Ephesians 4:29. “Let no corrupting talk come out of your mouths, but only such as is good for building up, as fits the occasion, that it may give grace to those who hear.” In saying all this, we are not advocating a low standard for science. We must maintain high standards in our science. But in holding that standard we must also love our brothers and sisters in the manner of critiquing each other’s work. Our goal in all our speech (or writing) is to build up each other, give grace to those who hear. If you feel that the paper you are reviewing is sub-par due to poor methodology or is contrary to your views then communicate all of that clearly and graciously. There is no reason to be bitter at each other even if we sharply disagree. Paul and Barnabas experienced that and ministered separately for a time. We are sure that they didn’t hold any animus toward each other. If they did, it would have been contrary to everything they were preaching. At the Logos Research Associates conference this last April in Saint George, Utah, it was apparent that not everyone agreed with each other on every scientific matter, but it was also very apparent that the general tenor or atmosphere was that everyone had “put on love, which binds everything together in perfect harmony.”
Making things right - Whether you are an offendee or an offender or both or a creationist layperson that is a loyal partisan of an offendee or offender, reconciliation is the order of the day. I John 1:7 says, “But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin.” This is very clear. If we are walking in the light…we have fellowship with one another. It follows that if we do not have fellowship with one another, then one or both parties involved are not walking in the light. We may be scrupulous about the quality of science but are we as scrupulous about being in fellowship with one another? We often think fellowship is dependent on scientific agreement. No. True fellowship is based on all the parties involved walking in the light as he is in the light. we can have sweeter fellowship with someone in a different denomination than someone in our own denomination. Why? Two people who have confessed their sins and have been washed clean, are able to love, forgive, cover offenses, and consider others better than themselves. They can have fellowship with someone else in that same state of forgiveness, regardless of denominational or scientific differences. When we put on love, which binds everything together in perfect harmony, we are then able to discuss our differences in a spirit of unity and harmony. Ephesians 4:1-3 says, “I therefore, a prisoner for the Lord, urge you to walk in a manner worthy of the calling to which you have been called, 2 with all humility and gentleness, with patience, bearing with one another in love, 3 eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.” We don’t have to sweep our differences under the carpet. Colossians 3:16 says, “Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly, teaching and admonishing one another in all wisdom, singing psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, with thankfulness in your hearts to God.”
In the gospels we can find the need for the offender to be urgent about seeking reconciliation with the offended (Matthew 5:23-26). We also find that the offended can approach the offender with a desire to win him/her (Matthew 18:15).
The Holy Spirit using the New Testament authors as a mouthpiece gave us clear marching orders in these and many other passages. He has given us license to correct, admonish, and rebuke but he also gave us clear instructions about how we should do it and the spirit in which we are to do it. We are to be gracious, kind, gentle, humble, forgiving, and eager to cover offences.
If you are an offendee and are hurt, bitter, and resentful at another YEC brother or sister, you must forgive them. Even if they do not come to you for forgiveness, you are given the command to love and Romans 12 gives us clear attitudes and actions that we, as Christians, must have. We should always love and always be ready to forgive. If it isn’t there, you’ll be slowly consumed with bitterness. If you know someone that has taken offence at your ungracious tone or rudeness or arrogant manner (even if you think your scientific assessment is correct), you must seek his or her forgiveness. If someone asks you for forgiveness, forgive completely and immediately (seventy times seven). Our prayer is to have the Holy Spirit hound all of us relentlessly until we lay our pride down, confess our sins, and reconcile (as far as it depends on us) ourselves to each other. God is doing a great work through the various creation research centers and the various creation ministries in spite of our sins against each other, our lack of forgiveness, and discord. Creation ministry can be a great servant to the church, but to be so we must exhibit the same qualities that God expects from his church. They should know us by our love.
Can you imagine how God would use us if we were all in fellowship with Him and each other? Denominational and scientific disagreements seem like intractable differences. His command that we be like-minded still stands (Philippians 2:2). Like-mindedness isn’t the same as agreeably disagreeing…although it is a far cry better than disagreeably disagreeing. How can we strive toward like-mindedness if we refuse to love and forgive each other? Love and forgiveness is the only Christian way to bind everything together in perfect harmony. As in the case with Paul and Barnabas, our differences may preclude working in the same organization or research group (which may have different views, doctrinal statements, goals, etc.). However, those differences should never preclude true Christian fellowship (unless there’s church discipline or apostasy involved) or give us license to nurse grudges, gossip, or fertilize the root of bitterness. For Jesus’ sake, let us restore true Christian fellowship and forsake our petty grievances.
 Sinful does not mean they disagreed with your conclusion or thought your research was poor. It means they were harsh, insulting, derogatory, etc.
 warn or reprimand someone firmly.
In Christ - Signatories:
Gordon Wilson, Senior Fellow of Natural History, New Saint Andrews College
John Sanford, Logos Research Associates, President
John Baumgardner, Logos Research Associates, Board
Jay Seegert, Logos Research Associates, Board
Jimmie L. Pamplin, Logos Research Associates senior administrator
Raymond Strom, President of Calgary Rock and Materials Services Inc.
John Doane, Logos Research Associates
Our Approach to Research
At Logos we wish to produce very high quality research. We recognize that like all scientists, we are subject to personal bias, and can never be perfectly objective. For this reason we carefully consider competing models and explanations (we are very aware of the competing evolution perspectives). We strive to include in our work minimal unspoken assumptions. Wherever possible we attempt to include appropriate positive and negative controls in our experimental designs. We double check our results and document our methodology so that our work can be repeated by others.
Like the founding fathers of science, we believe in a God of order – who is always honest and true. Therefore, we do our best to guard our scientific integrity, and we trust that honest and open investigation will support our broader thesis. We do not feel compelled to force-fit our results to match our expectations, our hopes, or the consensus of the day. We realize that a diversity of views and models can enrich the scientific community and should provide the best opportunity to discover what is really true.
The Importance of Genesis 1-11
Since its inception, Logos Research Associates has been committed both to a high view of Scripture and to a high view of science. We contend, contrary to popular perception, that good science strongly and consistently affirms Scripture. We acknowledge that this view is rejected in most academic circles today, and even within many Christian circles. While we earnestly seek to contend for the faith, we are at the same time committed to demonstrating respect toward fellow Christian believers who do not agree with us. This motivates us to find ways to defend what we believe to be true while not offending or denigrating other earnest Christians.We humbly look to God for the wisdom and grace to help us be faithful on both counts.
We at Logos Research Associates are convinced that the first 11 chapters of Genesis are foundational to the coherence of the rest of the Scripture, and so we cannot in good faith minimize their face-value meaning – as so many urge us to do. In humility we are convinced that good science allows us to defend Genesis 1-11 as genuine history. There are four prominent reasons we view these chapters as so foundational.
First, we are persuaded that Scripture clearly describes and builds upon a miraculous and perfect creation which originally was free of sin, death, suffering, disease, parasitism, and predation. The perfect creation described in Genesis 1 and 2 is a fundamental reflection of God’s own perfect character. The perfect nature of the pre-Fall world is in fact a powerful picture of the heavenly state which is the eager expectation of every true Christian. To reject a perfect and miraculous creation calls the character of God into question, undermines the veracity of Scripture, and diminishes the glimpses Scripture gives us into the reality of heaven.
Secondly, we are persuaded that the description of a literal Fall in Genesis 3 provides the only coherent explanation today for the origin of natural evil, human sin, suffering, disease, parasitism, and predation. Most of the rest of Scripture reveals the mind-numbing consequences of the Fall as well as the nature of the spiritual war which still rages around us. Rejecting a literal Fall not only brings the character of God into question (is God the author of evil?), but leaves the origin of death and suffering entirely unanswered. More importantly, if in reality there was no Fall, and the human race did not in reality acquire a sin nature as a result, then the proposition that we actually can and do commit acts of rebellion against God is undermined. If our actions are only natural impulses, then there is no basis for judgment, we do not need to be saved, and Christ had no reason to go to the cross.
Thirdly, catastrophic judgment in the form of a global Flood (Genesis 6-9) is foundational to understanding the Scriptural themes of God’s holiness, His unconditional requirement for justice, and His need to purge away evil. It is only in this light that we can understand the need for the Mosaic Law, for atoning sacrifice for sin, and for the substitutionary work of Christ on the cross. To reject the Flood blurs the certain reality of the coming final judgment. It calls into question Christ’s description of the world conditions just prior to His return, which He likens to the time just prior to the Flood of Genesis (Mat 24:37-39).
Lastly, if there was no Flood then there was no Tower of Babel event (Genesis 10-11), and therefore no adequate explanation for the astonishing diversity of ethnic groups and languages we observe in the human population today.
For nearly 2000 years, these basic truth claims concerning the history of the world (a perfect original Creation, the Fall, and a global Flood judgment) have been foundational to our understanding of the Gospel. However, in light of modern interpretations of certain scientific evidences, some now say that believing such things is simply no longer possible. Many good, intelligent, honest, Christian believers say the scientific evidence now demands that we must set aside the face-value meaning of Genesis 1-11 (and many other parts of Scripture) to accommodate certain modern scientific findings. The following article tries to explain, in good faith and with Christian love, why those Scriptures are simply too important to dismiss, and why good science allows, and sometimes even seems to require, a Genesis 1-11 understanding of world history.
To our brethren who are committed to the “old earth” perspective, we wish to re-affirm that we consider you our brothers and sisters in Christ, we respect your differing perspective, and we understand the complexity of the scientific issues being debated.
See also a more indepth article on, The Importance of Genesis 1-11, by John Baumgardner, Bill Hoesch, and Alicia Hoesch.