He coined the new name to avoid negative connotation that comes with the old baggage of theistic evolution.

How successful that will be is anyone's guess.

The upshot with science and faith debate in general and BioLogos proposal in particular is this: will Christians indoctrinated by almost two millennia's orthodox teaching about a (nearly) literal Genesis Creation account come out to embrace the refreshing scientific illumination about the evolutionary origin of our cosmos and life on earth?

Personally I think honest believers will have no choice but to embrace the truth, truth in whatever shape and f0rm, scientific and biblical. It is tough to give up a particular brand of understanding of biblical truth (not to be confused with the biblical truth per se) in order to embrace a new brand and possibly truer understanding of biblical truth.

It takes courage and humility to admit that we have been wrong in our previous understanding about certain biblical truth. The common argument that it is impossible to imagine that the Church orthodoxy has been less than accurate on a particular teaching for 2000 years hardly hold much water in the discourse of truth. People tend to be wrong since the fall of Adam and Eve. Count the years if one knows how.

If human turns out to be evolved from a common ancestor with chimps, who are we to protest against God in his very interesting and possibly hands-off way of making human in his own image? What this means is this: we need to rethink theologically what it entails to be imago dei. Is God really hands-off or does his grand scheme of design simply defy our puny mind's understanding?

Let's welcome truth in whatever shape or f0rm. This is not to mean that BioLogos is veritas penultimate. A foot of progress toward truth is far better than an inch of backsliding toward falsehood.