Download - Evangelicals, Evolution, and Academics
-
8/14/2019 Evangelicals, Evolution, and Academics
1/22
Evangelicals, Evolution, and AcademicsA Weblog Series published on An Evangelical Dialogue on Evolution
Contributors:
Keith Miller
Dennis Venema
Richard Colling
Stephen Matheson
Karl Giberson
Gordon Glover
Douglas Hayworth
Ted Davis
Edited by:
Steve Martin
Document Version: 1.2
Last Updated: April 7, 2009
This document is a compilation of works by several authors; the individual articles remain the property of the
individual authors. You are free to share, copy, or distribute this document in full within the limitations of the
Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License and the Creative
Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 2.5 Canada License. To view copies of these licenses,
visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/us/ and http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-
nd/2.5/ca/.
http://evanevodialogue.blogspot.com/http://www-personal.k-state.edu/~kbmill/http://www-personal.k-state.edu/~kbmill/http://www.twu.ca/academics/science/biology/faculty/venema/http://www.twu.ca/academics/science/biology/faculty/venema/http://www.randomdesigner.com/author.htmhttp://www.randomdesigner.com/author.htmhttp://sfmatheson.blogspot.com/http://sfmatheson.blogspot.com/http://www.karlgiberson.com/Site/Personal.htmlhttp://www.karlgiberson.com/Site/Personal.htmlhttp://www.blog.beyondthefirmament.com/http://www.blog.beyondthefirmament.com/http://becomingcreation.org/http://becomingcreation.org/http://home.messiah.edu/~tdavis/home.htmhttp://home.messiah.edu/~tdavis/home.htmhttp://home.messiah.edu/~tdavis/home.htmhttp://becomingcreation.org/http://www.blog.beyondthefirmament.com/http://www.karlgiberson.com/Site/Personal.htmlhttp://sfmatheson.blogspot.com/http://www.randomdesigner.com/author.htmhttp://www.twu.ca/academics/science/biology/faculty/venema/http://www-personal.k-state.edu/~kbmill/http://evanevodialogue.blogspot.com/ -
8/14/2019 Evangelicals, Evolution, and Academics
2/22
Evangelicals, Evolution and Academics
2
Table of Contents
I. Overview of the Series and Contributors ..........................................................................................................3II. Evangelicals, Evolution, and Academics: Series Introduction..........................................................................4III. Creation, Evolution and the Nature of Science.................................................................................................5IV. Is the Scientific Academic Community a Hostile Environment for Faith? ......................................................6V. Teaching Evolution in Christian Higher Education: Faith Shaking or Faith Affirming? .................................7VI. Evolution and Faith: Communicating their Compatibility in Christian Higher Education...............................9VII. The Evolution Controversy at Calvin College: Historical Perspective ..........................................................10VIII. Teaching Evolution at Calvin College: A Personal Perspective ....................................................................12IX. Evolution in Public Schools: A Threat or a Challenge?................................................................................14X. Why Evolution should be taught in Christian Schools ..................................................................................15XI. The Challenge of Teaching Science in a Christian Homeschooling Setting .................................................17XII. Teaching Creation in Sunday School ............................................................................................................18XIII. Evangelicals, Evolution, and Academics: Historical Perspective and Future Directions.............................20
XIV. Evangelicals, Evolution, and Academics: Conclusion .................................................................................22
-
8/14/2019 Evangelicals, Evolution, and Academics
3/22
Evangelicals, Evolution and Academics
I.Overview of the Series and ContributorsA series of articles on Evangelicals, Evolution, and Academics was published from May 18, 2008 through July 2,
2008 on the weblog An Evangelical Dialogue on Evolution. It included thirteen posts by nine different authors.
Authors in order of appearance included:
1. Steve Martin wrote the series Introduction on May 18, 2008 and the series Conclusion on July 2, 2008. Hepublishes the weblog An Evangelical Dialogue on Evolution.
2. Keith Millercontributed two articles for the series: Creation, Evolution, and the Nature of Science on May19, 2008 and Is the Scientific Academic Community a Hostile Environment for Faith? on May 22, 2008.
Keith edited the bookPerspectives on an Evolving Creation and has written numerous articles on science
and faith including Theological Implications of an Evolving Creation.
3. Dennis Venema contributed the article Teaching Evolution in Christian Higher Education on May 26,2008. Dennis teaches biology at Trinity Western University.
4. Richard Colling contributed the article Evolution and Faith: Communicating their Compatibility inChristian Higher Education on May 28, 2008. Richard is the author of the bookRandom Designer.
5. Stephen Matheson contributed two articles for the series: The Evolution Controversy at Calvin College:Historical Perspective on June 2, 2008 and Teaching Evolution at Calvin College: A Personal Perspective
on June 4, 2008. Stephen publishes the blog Quintessence of Dust which explores issues of science and
faith.
6. Karl Giberson contributed the article Evolution in Public Schools: A Threat or a Challenge? on June 9,2008. Karl is the author of the bookSaving Darwin: How to be a Christian and Believe in Evolution.
7. Gordon Glovercontributed the article Why Evolution Should be Taught in Christian Schools on June 11,2008. Gordon is the author of the bookBeyond the Firmament. His three children attend a private
Classical Christian school. He is currentlypublishing a series of blog posts on the topic of Science
Education in Private Christian Schools.
8. Douglas Hayworth contributed two articles for the series: The Challenge of Teaching Science in aChristian Homeschooling Setting on June 16, 2008 and Teaching Creation in Sunday School on June 19,
2008. Douglas is an evolutionary biologist.
9. Ted Davis contributed the article Evangelicals, Evolution, and Academics: Historical Perspective andFuture Directions on June 29, 2008. Ted is the vice-president of the American Scientific Affiliation, and is
consulting editor for both Perspectives on Science and Christian Faithand Science and Christian Belief.
3
http://evanevodialogue.blogspot.com/2008/07/index-for-evangelicals-evolution-and.htmlhttp://evanevodialogue.blogspot.com/http://evanevodialogue.blogspot.com/2008/05/evangelicals-evolution-and-academics.htmlhttp://evanevodialogue.blogspot.com/2008/07/evangelicals-evolution-and-academics.htmlhttp://evanevodialogue.blogspot.com/http://www-personal.k-state.edu/~kbmill/http://evanevodialogue.blogspot.com/2008/05/creation-evolution-and-nature-of.htmlhttp://evanevodialogue.blogspot.com/2008/05/is-scientific-academic-community.htmlhttp://books.google.com/books?id=-5utmq5m7TAChttp://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1993/PSCF9-93Miller.htmlhttp://www.twu.ca/academics/science/biology/faculty/venema/http://evanevodialogue.blogspot.com/2008/05/teaching-evolution-in-christian-higher.htmlhttp://www.randomdesigner.com/author.htmhttp://evanevodialogue.blogspot.com/2008/05/evolution-and-faith-communicating-their.htmlhttp://evanevodialogue.blogspot.com/2008/05/evolution-and-faith-communicating-their.htmlhttp://www.randomdesigner.com/index.htmhttp://sfmatheson.blogspot.com/http://evanevodialogue.blogspot.com/2008/06/evolution-controversy-at-calvin-college.htmlhttp://evanevodialogue.blogspot.com/2008/06/evolution-controversy-at-calvin-college.htmlhttp://evanevodialogue.blogspot.com/2008/06/teaching-evolution-at-calvin-college.htmlhttp://sfmatheson.blogspot.com/http://www.karlgiberson.com/Site/Personal.htmlhttp://evanevodialogue.blogspot.com/2008/06/evolution-in-public-schools-threat-or.htmlhttp://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0061228788http://www.blog.beyondthefirmament.com/http://evanevodialogue.blogspot.com/2008/06/why-evolution-should-be-taught-in.htmlhttp://books.google.com/books?id=ktbyIq04QGoChttp://www.beyondthefirmament.com/http://becomingcreation.org/http://evanevodialogue.blogspot.com/2008/06/challenge-of-teaching-science-in.htmlhttp://evanevodialogue.blogspot.com/2008/06/challenge-of-teaching-science-in.htmlhttp://evanevodialogue.blogspot.com/2008/06/teaching-creation-in-sunday-school.htmlhttp://home.messiah.edu/~tdavis/home.htmhttp://evanevodialogue.blogspot.com/2008/06/evangelicals-evolution-and-academics.htmlhttp://evanevodialogue.blogspot.com/2008/06/evangelicals-evolution-and-academics.htmlhttp://www.asa3.org/http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF.htmlhttp://www.scienceandchristianbelief.org/http://www.scienceandchristianbelief.org/http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF.htmlhttp://www.asa3.org/http://evanevodialogue.blogspot.com/2008/06/evangelicals-evolution-and-academics.htmlhttp://evanevodialogue.blogspot.com/2008/06/evangelicals-evolution-and-academics.htmlhttp://home.messiah.edu/~tdavis/home.htmhttp://evanevodialogue.blogspot.com/2008/06/teaching-creation-in-sunday-school.htmlhttp://evanevodialogue.blogspot.com/2008/06/challenge-of-teaching-science-in.htmlhttp://evanevodialogue.blogspot.com/2008/06/challenge-of-teaching-science-in.htmlhttp://becomingcreation.org/http://www.beyondthefirmament.com/http://books.google.com/books?id=ktbyIq04QGoChttp://evanevodialogue.blogspot.com/2008/06/why-evolution-should-be-taught-in.htmlhttp://www.blog.beyondthefirmament.com/http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0061228788http://evanevodialogue.blogspot.com/2008/06/evolution-in-public-schools-threat-or.htmlhttp://www.karlgiberson.com/Site/Personal.htmlhttp://sfmatheson.blogspot.com/http://evanevodialogue.blogspot.com/2008/06/teaching-evolution-at-calvin-college.htmlhttp://evanevodialogue.blogspot.com/2008/06/evolution-controversy-at-calvin-college.htmlhttp://evanevodialogue.blogspot.com/2008/06/evolution-controversy-at-calvin-college.htmlhttp://sfmatheson.blogspot.com/http://www.randomdesigner.com/index.htmhttp://evanevodialogue.blogspot.com/2008/05/evolution-and-faith-communicating-their.htmlhttp://evanevodialogue.blogspot.com/2008/05/evolution-and-faith-communicating-their.htmlhttp://www.randomdesigner.com/author.htmhttp://evanevodialogue.blogspot.com/2008/05/teaching-evolution-in-christian-higher.htmlhttp://www.twu.ca/academics/science/biology/faculty/venema/http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1993/PSCF9-93Miller.htmlhttp://books.google.com/books?id=-5utmq5m7TAChttp://evanevodialogue.blogspot.com/2008/05/is-scientific-academic-community.htmlhttp://evanevodialogue.blogspot.com/2008/05/creation-evolution-and-nature-of.htmlhttp://www-personal.k-state.edu/~kbmill/http://evanevodialogue.blogspot.com/http://evanevodialogue.blogspot.com/2008/07/evangelicals-evolution-and-academics.htmlhttp://evanevodialogue.blogspot.com/2008/05/evangelicals-evolution-and-academics.htmlhttp://evanevodialogue.blogspot.com/http://evanevodialogue.blogspot.com/2008/07/index-for-evangelicals-evolution-and.html -
8/14/2019 Evangelicals, Evolution, and Academics
4/22
Evangelicals, Evolution and Academics
II.Evangelicals, Evolution, andAcademics: Series Introduction
This is the first installment in the Evangelicals,
Evolution, and Academics series.
Most Evangelicals strongly believe that the theory of
evolution is incompatible with their Christian faith.
The conflict thesis is deeply ingrained in both our
cultural and theological thinking. And for many
Evangelicals the halls of scientific academia are the
heart of enemy territory, an academic guild (so it is
feared) that is wedded to Atheistic Darwinian
philosophy. The movie Expelled feeds off (and further
feeds the fire) of these fears.
Evangelicals vs. Evolution & Academia: The
Conflict ThesisBut is the theory of biological evolution equivalent to
Atheistic Darwinian Philosophy? Are evolutionary
science and an Evangelical expression of the Christian
faith incompatible? Must Christians who accept the
scientific consensus for evolution also abandon belief
and trust in a personal God by whom all things are
created, and in whom all creation is sustained? Is the
scientific establishment our enemy? Must we fear it?
For a small but growing number of Evangelicals, the
answer to all these questions is an emphatic NO. We
do not believe that the scientific evidence for
biological evolution warrants atheism. Our acceptanceof evolutionary science in no way compromises our
faith in the Creator God who revealed himself through
the incarnate and risen Christ. Through science,
including evolutionary science, we are discovering the
wonders of Gods creation. This discovery should be
celebrated, not feared.
A Chorus of Evangelical Voices that Reject the
Conflict Thesis
Over the next month, I will be publishing a series of
guest posts on the topic of Evangelicals, Evolution,
and Academics. All of the authors in this series are
Evangelicals; all of them accept the scientificconsensus for biological evolution; and all of them
believe that there can be a positive relationship
between Evangelicals and evolution in academia.
Keith Millerwill begin the series by discussing the
nature of science. Since the misunderstanding of this
nature is a primary cause for the perceived conflict
between science and faith, this initial essay sets the
stage for much of the later discussion. In a second post,
Miller will examine whether the scientific academic
community is a hostile environment for faith.
Three biologists who teach at Evangelical colleges or
universities will provide the next four posts in the
series. Dennis Venema from Trinity Western
University will discuss whether teaching evolution inChristian higher education is faith shaking or faith
affirming. Richard Colling from Olivet Nazarene
University will highlight the importance of language,
words, and emotions in communicating compatibility
between evolution and faith in Christian higher
education. Finally, Stephen Matheson will provide a
brief historical sketch of the evolution / creation
discussion at Calvin College, and, in a second post,
will offer some personal reflections on his own
experience at Calvin.
Although much of the public discussion focuses on
post-secondary scientific academia, most Evangelicalsare introduced to evolution, and form their biases
towards it, much before setting foot inside a university
lecture hall. Our next four posts will discuss aspects of
this introduction. Karl Giberson will summarize the
results of a small research project he conducted on the
teaching of evolution in public schools. Gordon Glover
will share his thoughts and experiences on evolution in
Christian schools. Douglas Hayworth will discuss the
challenges of teaching evolutionary science in a home
school setting. Finally Hayworth will provide some
guidance on teaching creation theology in church
Sunday Schools.
Ted Davis will then wrap up the series with some
concluding thoughts on the historical context and
future direction of Evangelicals and evolution in
academia. The landscape has changed dramatically in
recent years, but there are still significant challenges to
be addressed.
Full Circle
In one way, this series brings me full circle. My initial
encounter with biology and anthropology in high
school was a very painful experience. Thereafter I
carefully avoided all opportunities for the evolution
demon to raise its ugly head. This series presents
voices and viewpoints that I wish I had heard all those
years ago. For Evangelicals currently grappling with
the implications of an evolving creation, I hope these
voices prove much more timely.
Enjoy the series.
4
http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/AnEvangelicalDialogueOnEvolution/~3/292794346/evangelicals-evolution-and-academics.htmlhttp://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/AnEvangelicalDialogueOnEvolution/~3/292794346/evangelicals-evolution-and-academics.htmlhttp://evanevodialogue.blogspot.com/2008/07/index-for-evangelicals-evolution-and.htmlhttp://evanevodialogue.blogspot.com/2008/07/index-for-evangelicals-evolution-and.htmlhttp://www.expelledthemovie.com/http://www-personal.k-state.edu/~kbmill/http://www.twu.ca/academics/science/biology/faculty/venema/http://www.randomdesigner.com/author.htmhttp://sfmatheson.blogspot.com/http://www.karlgiberson.com/Site/Personal.htmlhttp://www.blog.beyondthefirmament.com/http://becomingcreation.org/http://home.messiah.edu/~tdavis/home.htmhttp://home.messiah.edu/~tdavis/home.htmhttp://becomingcreation.org/http://www.blog.beyondthefirmament.com/http://www.karlgiberson.com/Site/Personal.htmlhttp://sfmatheson.blogspot.com/http://www.randomdesigner.com/author.htmhttp://www.twu.ca/academics/science/biology/faculty/venema/http://www-personal.k-state.edu/~kbmill/http://www.expelledthemovie.com/http://evanevodialogue.blogspot.com/2008/07/index-for-evangelicals-evolution-and.htmlhttp://evanevodialogue.blogspot.com/2008/07/index-for-evangelicals-evolution-and.htmlhttp://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/AnEvangelicalDialogueOnEvolution/~3/292794346/evangelicals-evolution-and-academics.htmlhttp://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/AnEvangelicalDialogueOnEvolution/~3/292794346/evangelicals-evolution-and-academics.html -
8/14/2019 Evangelicals, Evolution, and Academics
5/22
Evangelicals, Evolution and Academics
III.Creation, Evolution and theNature of Science
This is a guest-post by geologistKeith B. Miller, and is
the second installment in ourEvangelicals, Evolution,
and Academics series. Keith edited the book
Perspectives on an Evolving Creation and has written
numerous articles on science and faith including
Theological Implications of an Evolving Creation.
Despite the long theological dialogue with
evolutionary theory, many people continue to view
evolution as inherently atheistic and inseparably
wedded to a worldview that denies God and objective
morality. Although this understanding of the meaning
of evolutionary theory is strongly promoted by some, it
is widely rejected as philosophically, theologically, and
historically false. Science is a methodology, a limited
way of knowing about the natural world. Scientificresearch proceeds by the search for chains of cause-
and-effect, and confines itself to the investigation of
"natural" entities and forces. This self-limitation is
sometimes referred to as methodological naturalism.
The Limitations of Science
The first detailed use and discussion of the term
methodological naturalism (MN) was in 1986 by
Paul deVries, an evangelical Christian philosopher at
Wheaton College. He used the term to describe the
legitimate purview of science as one limited to
explaining and interpreting the natural world in terms
of natural processes and causes. Furthermore, deVriesembraced this understanding of the nature and
limitations of science because he saw it as consistent
with, and supportive of, a vibrant and vital role for
theology. In his view, to broaden science to include the
supernatural would be yielding to a culture of
scientism.
Science restricts itself to proximate causes, and the
confirmation or denial of ultimate causes is beyond its
capacity. Science does not deny the existence of a
Creator -- it is simply silent on the existence or action
of God. Methodological naturalism simply describes
what empirical inquiry is. It is certainly not a statementof the nature of cosmic reality. Science pursues truth
within very narrow limits. Our most profound
questions about the nature of reality (questions of
meaning and purpose and morality), while they may
arise from within science, are theological or
philosophical in nature and their answers lie beyond
the reach of science.
From the perspective of scientific inquiry, a
supernatural agent is effectively a black box, and
appeals to supernatural action are essentially appeals to
ignorance. A supernatural agent is unconstrained by
natural laws or the properties and capabilities of
natural entities and forces -- it can act in any way, and
accomplish any conceivable end. As a result, appealsto such agents can provide no insight into
understanding the mechanisms by which a particular
observed or historical event occurred. Belief in the
creative action of a supernatural agent does not answer
the question of how something happens. A miracle
occurs here is no more an answer to the question of
How? than is We dont know.
Divine Action and Scientific Explanation
One commonly held perspective that tends to reinforce
a conflict view of science and faith is that God's action
or involvement is confined to those events which lack a
scientific explanation. Meaningful divine action isequated with breaks in chains of cause-and-effect
processes. This view has been called a "God-of-the-
gaps" theology. God's creative action is seen only, or
primarily, in the gaps of human knowledge where
scientific description fails. With this perspective, each
advance of scientific description results in a
corresponding reduction in the realm of divine action.
Conflict between science and faith is thus assured.
However, this is a totally unnecessary state of affairs.
God's creative activity is clearly identified in the Bible
as including natural processes, including what we call
chance or random events. According to scripture, God
is providentially active in all natural processes, and all
of creation declares the glory of God. The evidence for
God's presence in creation, for the existence of a
creator God, is declared to be precisely those everyday
"natural events" experienced by us all.
Some people will argue that MN arbitrarily excludes
supernatural agency from scientific explanation and
unnecessarily restricts the search for truth. It does
nothing of the sort. If God acted in creation to bring
about a particular structure in a way that broke causal
chains, then science would simply conclude -- "There
is presently no known series of cause-and-effect
processes that can adequately account for this
structure, and research will continue to search for such
processes." Any statement beyond that requires the
application of a particular religious worldview. "God
did it" is not a scientific conclusion, although anyone is
of course free to draw such an inference. However, if
God acted through a seamless series of cause-and-
effect processes to bring about that structure, then the
continuing search for such processes stimulated by the
tentativeness and methodological naturalism of science
5
http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/AnEvangelicalDialogueOnEvolution/~3/293430050/creation-evolution-and-nature-of.htmlhttp://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/AnEvangelicalDialogueOnEvolution/~3/293430050/creation-evolution-and-nature-of.htmlhttp://www-personal.k-state.edu/~kbmill/http://evanevodialogue.blogspot.com/2008/07/index-for-evangelicals-evolution-and.htmlhttp://evanevodialogue.blogspot.com/2008/07/index-for-evangelicals-evolution-and.htmlhttp://books.google.com/books?id=-5utmq5m7TAChttp://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1993/PSCF9-93Miller.htmlhttp://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1993/PSCF9-93Miller.htmlhttp://books.google.com/books?id=-5utmq5m7TAChttp://evanevodialogue.blogspot.com/2008/07/index-for-evangelicals-evolution-and.htmlhttp://evanevodialogue.blogspot.com/2008/07/index-for-evangelicals-evolution-and.htmlhttp://www-personal.k-state.edu/~kbmill/http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/AnEvangelicalDialogueOnEvolution/~3/293430050/creation-evolution-and-nature-of.htmlhttp://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/AnEvangelicalDialogueOnEvolution/~3/293430050/creation-evolution-and-nature-of.html -
8/14/2019 Evangelicals, Evolution, and Academics
6/22
Evangelicals, Evolution and Academics
may uncover those processes.
Some non-theists see God as an unnecessary addition
to a scientific description of the universe, and therefore
conclude that there is no rational basis for belief in a
personal God. In fact, as I have argued, God is
unnecessary for a scientific description, but a scientificdescription is not a complete description of reality.
Science excludes appeals to supernatural agents simply
because the actions of such agents cannot be
investigated by scientific methods. To then use this
methodological exclusion to support a
philosophical/religious exclusion is completely
fallacious. That science does not make reference to
God says nothing about whether or not God is actively
involved in the physical universe or in people's lives.
Continuous Creation
I fully and unhesitatingly accept the doctrine of
creation. God is the Creator of all things and nothingwould exist without God's continually willing it to be.
Creation was not merely a past accomplished act, but
also is a present and continuing reality. The best term
for this view of God's creative activity is "continuous
creation." I also believe that God's existence can be
known in the creation through faith. However,
scientific observation provides no proof of the
existence of a creator God, indeed it cannot. Neither
does scientific description, however complete, provide
any argument against a creator. Since God acts through
process, scientific description and the theology of
creation are perfectly compatible. Thus Christians
should not fear causal explanations. Complete
scientific descriptions of events or processes should
pose no threat to Christian theism. Rather, each new
advance in our scientific understanding can be met
with excitement and praise at the revelation of God's
creative hand.
IV.Is the Scientific AcademicCommunity a HostileEnvironment for Faith?
This is a guest-post by geologistKeith B. Miller, and isthe third installment in ourEvangelicals, Evolution,
and Academics series. Keith edited the book
Perspectives on an Evolving Creation and has written
numerous articles on science and faith including
Theological Implications of an Evolving Creation.
An extension of the warfare view of science and
Christian faith is the often-stated claim that the secular
academy is hostile to faith. Many conservative
evangelicals unfortunately do see the secular university
as hostile territory. There are certainly individuals
within secular institutions who are openly hostile to
faith, and there are also no doubt some few particular
departments at some institutions where there is a
culture of antagonism toward faith. However, I willargue that these are exceptions. Furthermore, the
secular academy is an ideal environment in which to
productively challenge and deepen ones faith, and to
develop a Christian mind.
My Personal Experience with Secular Education
First, a bit of personal background. I attended public
schools growing up, and all of my college and post-
graduate education has occurred in secular public or
private colleges and universities. My faith grew and
matured both through my studies and through my
involvement in Intervarsity Christian Fellowship.
While pursuing my PhD I was involved in a verydynamic graduate student Bible study that challenged
me to pursue a more thorough integration of my faith
and my chosen discipline in geology. I was
intellectually and spiritually stretched in a way that I
might never have been otherwise. In addition, never
once in my 12 years as a student in college and
graduate school, nor in the nearly 20 years as a faculty
member at a state university, have I experienced
hostility toward my faith. By contrast, I have been
encouraged to deepen my faith and to increasingly see
all that I do in the academy as part of my Christian
vocation. We all have that challenge, regardless of our
occupation or situation, to live our lives in a consistent
and transparent manner and to image God to the world.
Secular Academia: This is not Enemy Territory
Part of the perspective that underlies the portrayal of
the secular academy as enemy territory is a broader
secular/sacred dichotomy that pervades much of
evangelical religious culture. Ignorance breeds fear,
and the more Christians isolate themselves as a
community from the rest of the world the more they
will fear that world. This fear is misplaced, because the
real enemy is not external but internal. And the
interactions we have with others, both inside and
outside of the faith, serve to help us more rightly see
ourselves. We also are called to transform the world
around us, and that requires being engaged with it.
Seriously engaging the ideas and arguments of others
is part of that challenge. Having someone reject or
argue against our faith is an expected part of that
engagement. This need not involve hostility or
personal rejection, and, as I have stated above, I have
experienced neither from my non-Christian teachers or
colleagues. We Christians, I believe, are often too
6
http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/AnEvangelicalDialogueOnEvolution/~3/295703798/is-scientific-academic-community.htmlhttp://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/AnEvangelicalDialogueOnEvolution/~3/295703798/is-scientific-academic-community.htmlhttp://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/AnEvangelicalDialogueOnEvolution/~3/295703798/is-scientific-academic-community.htmlhttp://www-personal.k-state.edu/~kbmill/http://evanevodialogue.blogspot.com/2008/07/index-for-evangelicals-evolution-and.htmlhttp://evanevodialogue.blogspot.com/2008/07/index-for-evangelicals-evolution-and.htmlhttp://books.google.com/books?id=-5utmq5m7TAChttp://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1993/PSCF9-93Miller.htmlhttp://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1993/PSCF9-93Miller.htmlhttp://books.google.com/books?id=-5utmq5m7TAChttp://evanevodialogue.blogspot.com/2008/07/index-for-evangelicals-evolution-and.htmlhttp://evanevodialogue.blogspot.com/2008/07/index-for-evangelicals-evolution-and.htmlhttp://www-personal.k-state.edu/~kbmill/http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/AnEvangelicalDialogueOnEvolution/~3/295703798/is-scientific-academic-community.htmlhttp://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/AnEvangelicalDialogueOnEvolution/~3/295703798/is-scientific-academic-community.htmlhttp://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/AnEvangelicalDialogueOnEvolution/~3/295703798/is-scientific-academic-community.html -
8/14/2019 Evangelicals, Evolution, and Academics
7/22
-
8/14/2019 Evangelicals, Evolution, and Academics
8/22
Evangelicals, Evolution and Academics
is, of course, evolution. Darrel Falk puts it well when
he describes his early university career:
During those years, I was inclined towards the
natural sciences and math. I found that if I
restricted my intellectual energy to chemistry,
physics and math, leaving aside biology, allwould go much more smoothly for me. In contrast
to biology, those disciplines seemed to have no
direct implication for my Christian faith. Biology
did, so I shied away from it in large part because
studying it would entail thinking about the details
of evolution, and my faith was too important to
me for that.
(Falk, Coming to Peace with Science, p.21).
Chemistry in many ways is the perfect science to teach
at a Christian university. It avoids the young-earth /
old-earth issues that challenge physicists and
geologists, and no mention of evolution is required. Ifonly this middle path was of stronger interest to me as
an undergraduate student.
Approaches to Teaching Evolution in Christian
Higher Education
There are several options for teaching evolution (1) in
Christian settings. One approach is to denigrate
evolution, either overtly or subtly. This is remarkably
simple in practice omit a few key details here, change
of tone there, smatter some distortions of genuine
scientific controversies, et voila you are everyones
hero, a stalwart defender of the faith. You will never
ruffle feathers telling people (students, administration,parents) what many of them long to hear. The problem
with this approach is, of course, ones own intellectual
honesty.
A second option is to minimize evolution to mention
it as little as possible. This is easy for a chemist, but
almost impossible for a biologist. Biology without
evolution is like physics without either Newton or
Einstein. Or, to continue the chemistry motif, imagine
if atomic theory was perceived to run counter to
Christian faith and a Christian professor needlessly
emphasized gaps in current understanding to minimize
or denigrate it. It is hard for non-specialists to
appreciate just how central evolution is to biology, but
it is precisely that central. Teaching biology without
evolution reduces it to an 18th-century-style litany of
descriptive lists devoid of meaningful connections. No,
this way will not do either not if we are to honour
God with our hearts, souls and minds.
The more difficult path, but the one I believe needs to
be followed, is to teach evolution thoroughly and to
teach it well. At a secular institution, this is
straightforward; at a Christian institution, this can be a
nightmare. Yet few things worth attaining are easy
and Christian students deserve an education as
scientifically rich as anyone. Indeed, our calling as
Christian faculty behooves us to offer students the best
education possible, for it is for Gods purposes thatthey are in training. Should we sell them short when
teaching evolution, the central organizing principle of
modern biology? God forbid.
Christian Universities: Ideal Settings for Learning
About Evolution
A Christian university is an excellent setting for
dealing with the theological implications of evolution.
Students for whom evolution is a faith-shaking
experience are in a place of safety surrounded by
faculty, staff and peers who care about their whole
person, not just their scholarship. There are
opportunities for asking hard questions, and hashingthrough the issues. To be sure, this is a difficult process
for some students, especially those from families
dedicated to young-earth creationism. For other
students, it is hardly an issue at all. In either case, it is
far better to deal with evolution in a setting where
positive, faith-building support is available. Given the
prevalent belief in our society that faith and evolution
are in conflict, the absence of this support in many
academic environments can lead students to confuse
the evidence for evolution as being evidence against
God.
Faith Shaking or Faith Affirming?
Does teaching evolution shake or affirm faith? It can
do both. Ironically, the greater danger may be denying
or denigrating the evidence for evolution. In the face of
overwhelming evidence (and more mounting by the
day) this approach sets students up for a fall in the
future, should they ever closely examine the data.
Then, faced with the false dichotomy of God or
evolution, they cannot choose well. At best, they will
choose God and reject His works; at worst they will
choose His works (not seeing them for what they are)
but reject Him. One of the joys of teaching biology at a
Christian institution is putting the lie to this false
choice. The history of the cosmos and life on earth is
an amazing story, one that displays the power,
creativity, majesty, and patience of our Creator. As
evangelical students come to see the beauty of
evolution as a vehicle for Gods creative design, many
are affirmed in their faith. They see that they need not
fear evidence for evolution if God Himself has
ordained it as a mechanism of His creative acts in the
past, present and future.
8
http://books.google.com/books?id=NX-otutjNVoChttp://books.google.com/books?id=NX-otutjNVoC -
8/14/2019 Evangelicals, Evolution, and Academics
9/22
Evangelicals, Evolution and Academics
1. In this post I refer to evolution as the scientific consensus
that all life descended from a common ancestor through natural
processes of speciation (see Allan Harveys definitions,
specifically E1 E4). It is important to note that thesescientific definitions in no way imply the absence of God in the
process of evolution
VI.Evolution and Faith:Communicating theirCompatibility in Christian HigherEducation
This is a guest-post by biologistRichard Colling, and
is the fifth installment in ourEvangelicals, Evolution,
and Academics series. Richard is the author of the
bookRandom Designer.
God has not given us a spirit of fear, but of power,love, and a sound mind. II Timothy 1:7
One would think this verse would energize and enable
all Christians in the mission of confidently
communicating Christs primary messages of love,
forgiveness, and relationship. Yet from first-hand
experience as a veteran biology educator at a Christian
university I can attest that something is tragically
amiss: A peripheral issue (evolution) is getting in the
way. Indeed, an ungodly and consuming fear of
evolution has engulfed the Christian community. And
when fear reigns, power, love, and sound thinking are
casualties. In addition, this disabling fear is ascontagious as influenza or AIDS blindly passed from
generation to generation, hence not easy to overcome.
This fear infecting the Christian community derives
from concern that the foundations of the faith, based
upon literal interpretations of scripture, are being
undermined by the claims of science. Regarding
evolution, this concern seems legitimate, especially in
light of advances in biology and genetics. The human
genome project - a 3.1-billion letter linear digital
directory of humanity - was deciphered in 2003. Now,
for the first time in history, we have acquired the letter-
by-letter document revealing humanitys present andpast genetic connections with all other life at levels of
precision never before imagined. This is not your
mother or fathers gap-laden fossil record. Rather, it is
an exquisitely-defined map of our entire evolutionary
history! So how do Christian educators in the sciences
help people recognize that their fear of evolution is
unnecessary?
Teaching with Truth and Love
I believe that education is the key, but it is essential to
recognize that there is much more to education than
just reciting scientific facts and concepts. If we
legitimately claim the badge of bona fide secular or
Christian educators, we must unapologetically speak
the truth of science, but we must also do so with a
sensitive, loving, and accepting spirit activelyengaging students where they are at.
When my book, Random Designer was published, a
National Public Radio interviewer asked an intriguing
question: What is the greatest challenge you
experience in teaching evolution at a Christian
college? I told her that the greatest challenge had
nothing to do with teaching evolution per se: Evolution
is what it is. Rather, I told her that my greatest
challenge was to sensitively listen to and gauge my
students backgrounds and understanding so that I
could effectively reassure them that new
understandings in science need never threaten theirfaith.
In a diverse classroom of 230 students, this is no small
undertaking because it flies in the face of what they
have been taught growing up. For students coming
from very conservative Christian backgrounds where
evolution is routinely pronounced as evil and regarded
as a litmus test of Christian orthodoxy, the challenge is
to encourage and affirm them in their faith. For non-
believing students, the task is different, but no less
important - encouraging them to keep an open mind -
perhaps even giving this God thing a second look.
When successful in striking just the right balance in the
classroom speaking the truth in love while also
recognizing and affirming each student where they are
in their spiritual and intellectual journey - something
magical happens. The preconditioned division and
discord that they brought to the classroom begins to
melt away - replaced by understanding and acceptance.
The Importance of Language, Words, and
Emotions
As I suggested above, teaching the actual scientific
facts of evolution is straightforward. However, if the
goal is actual student learning and effective integration,
two practical obstacles come into play - both of which
must be successfully addressed.
The first obstacle is language - the words we use to
communicate meaning and purpose. The unfortunate
reality is that words like randomness, evolution, and
mutation positively drip with ambiguity frequently
poorly defined and easily misunderstood. The
consequences for relationships can be disastrous as
well-meaning good people talk right past one another
9
http://members.aol.com/steamdoc/sci-nature/Chapter5.pdfhttp://members.aol.com/steamdoc/sci-nature/Chapter5.pdfhttp://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/AnEvangelicalDialogueOnEvolution/~3/300095658/evolution-and-faith-communicating-their.htmlhttp://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/AnEvangelicalDialogueOnEvolution/~3/300095658/evolution-and-faith-communicating-their.htmlhttp://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/AnEvangelicalDialogueOnEvolution/~3/300095658/evolution-and-faith-communicating-their.htmlhttp://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/AnEvangelicalDialogueOnEvolution/~3/300095658/evolution-and-faith-communicating-their.htmlhttp://www2.olivet.edu/academics/CAS/faculty_bios.php?id=14http://evanevodialogue.blogspot.com/2008/07/index-for-evangelicals-evolution-and.htmlhttp://evanevodialogue.blogspot.com/2008/07/index-for-evangelicals-evolution-and.htmlhttp://www.randomdesigner.com/index.htmhttp://www.randomdesigner.com/index.htmhttp://evanevodialogue.blogspot.com/2008/07/index-for-evangelicals-evolution-and.htmlhttp://evanevodialogue.blogspot.com/2008/07/index-for-evangelicals-evolution-and.htmlhttp://www2.olivet.edu/academics/CAS/faculty_bios.php?id=14http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/AnEvangelicalDialogueOnEvolution/~3/300095658/evolution-and-faith-communicating-their.htmlhttp://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/AnEvangelicalDialogueOnEvolution/~3/300095658/evolution-and-faith-communicating-their.htmlhttp://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/AnEvangelicalDialogueOnEvolution/~3/300095658/evolution-and-faith-communicating-their.htmlhttp://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/AnEvangelicalDialogueOnEvolution/~3/300095658/evolution-and-faith-communicating-their.htmlhttp://members.aol.com/steamdoc/sci-nature/Chapter5.pdfhttp://members.aol.com/steamdoc/sci-nature/Chapter5.pdf -
8/14/2019 Evangelicals, Evolution, and Academics
10/22
Evangelicals, Evolution and Academics
and misunderstanding, confusion, and agitation
escalates. Therefore, it is absolutely critical that terms
like mutation and evolution are precisely defined and
understood by all parties.
The second and perhaps the most significant obstacle
to understanding evolution and mapping a path topeace is that in addition to being poorly defined, words
such as mutation and evolution often carry enormous
negative emotional baggage. Emotions are powerful
because they typically (at least initially - until we have
counted to ten!) overwhelm rationality. After all, I
doubt you would take it kindly if someone called you a
mutant! In addition, although actually inherently
compatible when properly understood, referencing
seemingly counterintuitive words like random and
evolution in the same sentence with God is likely to
elicit red-faced responses from even some of the most
sedate Christians and secular scientists.
These two things imprecise definitions and negative
emotions - erect powerful barriers to effective
communication and understanding of evolution.
It has been said that people do not care how much you
know until they know how much you care. In my
experience, this is true. Therefore, the first step in
overcoming resistance to evolution is is to establish
understanding and trust.
At Stake: A Credible Faith
Twenty-first century college students are a savvy and
discerning lot: They can smell a fraud a mile away. On
the other hand, they appreciate a Christian educator
who respects and cares enough about them to speak the
transparent truth regarding controversial subjects like
evolution. In short, they want and deserve the real stuff
including everything that modern biology and
genetics can teach them. Then, armed with actual
knowledge and understanding, they can intelligently
make up their own minds how to put it all together. My
experience is that they do this very well.
It is truly a sad day in the life of a Christian community
when new understanding and insights into Gods
marvelous creation revealed by biology and genetics -
including evolution - are viewed as a threat to faith. No
doubt there are many legitimate questions to address,
but continued denial of evolution by the Christian
community is a sure-fire losing proposition for the
credibility of the gospel and our Christian faith. We
can, and must do better. The next generation is
depending on us to confidently speak the truth in love -
and with no fear!
VII.The Evolution Controversy atCalvin College: HistoricalPerspective
This is a guest-post by biologistStephen Matheson,and is the sixth installment in ourEvangelicals,
Evolution, and Academics series. Stephen publishes
the blog Quintessence of Dustwhich explores issues of
science and faith.
At Calvin College, we describe our institution as "a
comprehensive liberal arts college in the Reformed
tradition of historic Christianity." Our college is owned
by and is an official ministry of the Christian
Reformed Church (CRC). Like all pastors and officers
of the CRC, Calvin faculty are required to formally
affirm three Reformed "forms of unity": the Belgic
Confession, the Heidelberg Catechism, and the Canonsof Dort. Furthermore, Calvin faculty are required to
attend a Reformed church, choosing from a list that
excludes prominent Reformed denominations such as
the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA), such that
only the CRC and its sister denomination, the
Reformed Church in America (RCA), are workable
choices.
The point of the foregoing is this: Calvin College is an
outgrowth of the CRC, an ethnically Dutch Reformed
denomination with some distinctive characteristics.
(One of those characteristics is a tendency toward
deliberate action and careful documentation of suchaction, as we'll see below.) And so, when considering
the history of controversy over evolutionary science at
Calvin, it is important to start with the CRC.
Evolution and the CRC
The CRC has an official position on "Creation and
Science." The summary statement begins as follows:
All of life, including scientific endeavor, must be
lived in obedience to God and in subjection to his
Word. Therefore, Christian scholarship that
integrates faith and learning is to be encouraged.The church does not impose an authorized
interpretation of specific passages in Scripture;
nor does it canonize certain scientific hypotheses.
Instead, it insists that all theological
interpretations and all scientific theories be
subject to Scripture and the confessions.
In my opinion, there is much to commend here,
although the "insistence" that scientific theories "be
10
http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/AnEvangelicalDialogueOnEvolution/~3/302884440/evolution-controversy-at-calvin-college.htmlhttp://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/AnEvangelicalDialogueOnEvolution/~3/302884440/evolution-controversy-at-calvin-college.htmlhttp://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/AnEvangelicalDialogueOnEvolution/~3/302884440/evolution-controversy-at-calvin-college.htmlhttps://www.calvin.edu/cgi-bin/people.pl?uidd=smathesohttp://evanevodialogue.blogspot.com/2008/07/index-for-evangelicals-evolution-and.htmlhttp://evanevodialogue.blogspot.com/2008/07/index-for-evangelicals-evolution-and.htmlhttp://sfmatheson.blogspot.com/http://www.calvin.edu/http://www.crcna.org/http://www.crcna.org/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Forms_of_Unityhttp://www.crcna.org/pages/belgic_confess_main.cfmhttp://www.crcna.org/pages/belgic_confess_main.cfmhttp://www.crcna.org/pages/heidelberg_main.cfmhttp://www.crcna.org/pages/dort_canons_main.cfmhttp://www.crcna.org/pages/dort_canons_main.cfmhttp://www.crcna.org/pages/positions_creation.cfmhttp://www.crcna.org/pages/positions_creation.cfmhttp://www.crcna.org/pages/dort_canons_main.cfmhttp://www.crcna.org/pages/dort_canons_main.cfmhttp://www.crcna.org/pages/heidelberg_main.cfmhttp://www.crcna.org/pages/belgic_confess_main.cfmhttp://www.crcna.org/pages/belgic_confess_main.cfmhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Forms_of_Unityhttp://www.crcna.org/http://www.crcna.org/http://www.calvin.edu/http://sfmatheson.blogspot.com/http://evanevodialogue.blogspot.com/2008/07/index-for-evangelicals-evolution-and.htmlhttp://evanevodialogue.blogspot.com/2008/07/index-for-evangelicals-evolution-and.htmlhttps://www.calvin.edu/cgi-bin/people.pl?uidd=smathesohttp://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/AnEvangelicalDialogueOnEvolution/~3/302884440/evolution-controversy-at-calvin-college.htmlhttp://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/AnEvangelicalDialogueOnEvolution/~3/302884440/evolution-controversy-at-calvin-college.htmlhttp://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/AnEvangelicalDialogueOnEvolution/~3/302884440/evolution-controversy-at-calvin-college.html -
8/14/2019 Evangelicals, Evolution, and Academics
11/22
Evangelicals, Evolution and Academics
subject to Scripture and the confessions" does give me
pause: competing understandings of this conviction led
to the painful struggle I will describe shortly. The
statement then turns to human origins:
Humanity is created in the image of God; all
theorizing that minimizes this fact and all theoriesof evolution which deny the creative activity of
God are rejected.
I don't know any Christian who would disagree with
that. But there's more.
The clear teaching of Scripture and the
confessions rules out holding views that support
the reality of evolutionary forebears of the human
race.
This blunt disavowal of human common ancestry with
non-human species is, it would seem, completely
unambiguous, committing the CRC to an unqualifiedrejection of entire fields of scientific inquiry.
More to the point of this post, those who know me
should be worried. I am fond of exploring genetic and
genomic findings that are best explained by common
descent, and in various public forums I teach students
(and others) that the human genome is overrun with
features that point quite unmistakably to our kinship
with other organisms on earth. How can a Calvin
professor get away with this? Well, consider the final
sentence of the CRC's statement.
But further investigation or discussion regardingthe origin of humanity should not be limited.
This final declaration is the reason I can be a professor
at Calvin College. Without it, I wouldn't even consider
being a part of the faculty or of the denomination.
So how did this enigmatic statement come to be?
Evolution and Creation at Calvin College: Initial
Controversy 1984-1988
The statement, which summarizes a report approved by
Synod(1) in 1991, represents the culmination of a
controversy that rocked both church and college forseveral years. According to Harry Boonstra, author of
Our School, a nice little history of Calvin published in
2001, "the creation-evolution debate became the most
critical controversy in the history of Calvin College." It
came at a time of simmering conflict over issues of
women in church office and other concerns
(hermeneutics, secular politics) that loosely
characterize recent struggles in Christian churches and
denominations of many kinds. Dark threats of
"secession" were already being uttered in the early
1980's, and by the mid-1990's, dissatisfaction with
CRC decisions on creation and on women in office had
driven thousands of people and scores of
congregations out of the denomination, birthing one
new denomination in the process. It would be amistake to underestimate the intensity of the conflict.
The CRC's current position on the matters at hand is
the fruit of that conflict, and it all started at Calvin
College.
The basic outline, sketched by Boonstra, is as follows.
In 1982, Davis Young (then professor of geology)
published the now-classic (and soon-to-be-updated)
Christianity and the Age of the Earth. Young
specifically disclaimed human evolution, but embraced
the great age of the earth and repudiated YEC claims.
This surely lit some fuses, but the eruption of open
conflict seems to have followed the publication (in theofficial church magazine, The Banner) of an interview
with Clarence Menninga (then professor and chair of
geology at Calvin) in which Menninga openly asserted
the likelihood of an ancient earth, a lengthy span of
human history, and even the possibility that Adam was
a Neanderthal. Angry letters became an "avalanche"
which became more of a firestorm in 1987 with the
publication ofThe Fourth Day by Howard Van Till
(then professor of physics and astronomy, and subject
ofa previous post at my blog). Like the geologists,
Van Till did not specifically endorse human evolution
(or common descent in general), and the book focuses
on cosmic history without delving into biological
evolution in any detail. But The Fourth Day openly
explores approaches to Genesis that view it as
something other than narrative history. At that point,
the college empanelled a committee to examine the
professors' conduct. I find Boonstra's description to be
riveting:
The mandate of the committee was to determine
whether these statements are in accord with the
synodically adopted guidelines for the
interpretation of Scripture and with the doctrinal
statements of the Christian Reformed Church."
[...] The committee's conclusions and report were
greeted with considerable fanfare. This was
probably the only committee in the history of the
college that elicited a press conference.
Evolution and Creation at Calvin College:
Synodical Conflict 1988 - 1991
The subsequent trustees' report to Synod in 1988 was
"generally supportive of the professors," but the
11
http://books.google.com/books?id=l2I9dAwovPUChttp://www.trinityurc.net/urcna.htmhttp://www.trinityurc.net/urcna.htmhttp://www.amazon.com/Christianity-Age-Earth-Davis-Young/dp/093466627Xhttp://thebanner.org/http://books.google.com/books?id=lKPc8EoyIVgChttp://sfmatheson.blogspot.com/2008/03/in-high-praise-of-howard-van-till.htmlhttp://sfmatheson.blogspot.com/2008/03/in-high-praise-of-howard-van-till.htmlhttp://books.google.com/books?id=lKPc8EoyIVgChttp://thebanner.org/http://www.amazon.com/Christianity-Age-Earth-Davis-Young/dp/093466627Xhttp://www.trinityurc.net/urcna.htmhttp://www.trinityurc.net/urcna.htmhttp://books.google.com/books?id=l2I9dAwovPUC -
8/14/2019 Evangelicals, Evolution, and Academics
12/22
Evangelicals, Evolution and Academics
response of the denomination was a swarm of
overtures, overwhelming in their condemnation of the
report. The Synod meeting saw "vigorous" debate,
ending with unenthusiastic endorsement of the
college's report. But Synod empanelled its own
committee (it's a CRC thing), "mandated to study the
relationship between general and special revelation."And 1988 saw the publication, by Van Till, Young and
Menninga, of the excellent but hard-hitting Science
Held Hostage, which was subtitled "What's Wrong
with Creation Science AND Evolutionism."
It was during this time that public attacks on the
professors' views reached levels of slanderous vitriol
that make me angry and ashamed even now. I will omit
the details; suffice it to say that great harm was done to
the cause of Christ and to the good name of the CRC.
As Boonstra puts it, "scurrilous accusations were used
as often as genuine arguments." These slanders
appeared in huge advertisements in the localnewspaper and in a magazine (Christian Renewal)
popular with conservatives (and, later, secessionists).
I'm glad I wasn't here to see it, and I'm certain I
wouldn't have exhibited the restraint that Dave,
Clarence and Howard showed, and continue to show,
toward people who have earned the strongest of
rebukes for indefensible behavior.
(It should be noted that the professors were not the
only targets; college leaders and trustees were
disparaged with comparable opprobrium.)
Reasoned debate and discussion occurred as well,
thank God, and the best example is the exchange
initiated by Alvin Plantinga which played out on the
pages of Christian Scholar's Review and Perspectives
on Science and Christian Faith.
The committee made its "lengthy and thorough" report
three years later, in 1991. Again, a storm of critical
overtures set the stage for protracted debate in the
Synod meeting. Here's Boonstra:
This time synod debated for eight hours much
of it focused on a minority recommendation
(Declaration F) that "the church declares that the
clear teaching of Scripture and of our confessions
on the uniqueness of human beings as image
bearers of God rules out all theories that posit the
reality of evolutionary forebears of the human
race." Synod, however, refused to accept this
statement, largely on the grounds that the CRC
had never made an official pronouncement on the
scientific details of creation.
If you're confused by this, join the club. That
declaration seems not to differ in any significant sense
from the statement that was adopted and is quoted in
the first section of this post. Boonstra does not explain
how Synod got from Declaration F to the position
statement we have now, but the only real difference I
can see is the all-important disclaimer, the onesentence that saved academic freedom for biologists
(among others) at Calvin College.
The Conflict Subsides
Shortly thereafter, the conflagration seemed to end
not with a bang, but a whimper, according to Boonstra:
Synod 1991 still received twenty-four overtures
mostly critical of Van Till's views but these
overtures were now in competition with the thirty-
eight overtures against women in ecclesiastical
office. By 1992 this number was reduced to three,and two final overtures in 1994 were the last blip
on the synodical screen. The church seemed to
signal that the storm was over.
Well, there it is: a not-so-brief overview of the most
intense controversy in the 125-year history of Calvin
College. In the next post, I'll offer my personal
reflections on Calvin College as it is today, based on
my seven years as a biologist and evolutionist at one of
the finest Christian colleges in the world.
(1) The CRC is governed by a yearly assembly, a synod,composed of representatives of each classis, which is a group of
congregations. A classis, or an individual congregation, can
bring recommendation or complaint to Synod through the
delivery of an overture.
VIII.Teaching Evolution at CalvinCollege: A Personal Perspective
This is a guest-post by biologistStephen Matheson,
and is the second in a 2-part essay on the evolution
controversy at Calvin College; view part 1 here. It is
the seventh installment in ourEvangelicals,
Evolution, and Academics series. Stephen publishes
the blog Quintessence of Dustwhich explores issues ofscience and faith.
In the previous post, I summarized the momentous
conflict over evolution and creation that rocked Calvin
College and the Christian Reformed Church (CRC)
throughout the 1980's. By 1991, the dust had largely
settled, although ongoing conflict regarding the roles
of women in ecclesiastical office compounded the
12
http://books.google.com/books?id=DmdZAAAACAAJhttp://books.google.com/books?id=DmdZAAAACAAJhttp://www.asa3.org/asa/dialogues/Faith-reason/http://www.asa3.org/asa/dialogues/Faith-reason/http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF.htmlhttp://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF.htmlhttp://www.crcna.org/pages/crc_governance.cfmhttp://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/AnEvangelicalDialogueOnEvolution/~3/304760805/teaching-evolution-at-calvin-college.htmlhttp://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/AnEvangelicalDialogueOnEvolution/~3/304760805/teaching-evolution-at-calvin-college.htmlhttps://www.calvin.edu/cgi-bin/people.pl?uidd=smathesohttp://evanevodialogue.blogspot.com/2008/06/evolution-controversy-at-calvin-college.htmlhttp://evanevodialogue.blogspot.com/2008/07/index-for-evangelicals-evolution-and.htmlhttp://evanevodialogue.blogspot.com/2008/07/index-for-evangelicals-evolution-and.htmlhttp://sfmatheson.blogspot.com/http://evanevodialogue.blogspot.com/2008/06/evolution-controversy-at-calvin-college.htmlhttp://evanevodialogue.blogspot.com/2008/06/evolution-controversy-at-calvin-college.htmlhttp://sfmatheson.blogspot.com/http://evanevodialogue.blogspot.com/2008/07/index-for-evangelicals-evolution-and.htmlhttp://evanevodialogue.blogspot.com/2008/07/index-for-evangelicals-evolution-and.htmlhttp://evanevodialogue.blogspot.com/2008/06/evolution-controversy-at-calvin-college.htmlhttps://www.calvin.edu/cgi-bin/people.pl?uidd=smathesohttp://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/AnEvangelicalDialogueOnEvolution/~3/304760805/teaching-evolution-at-calvin-college.htmlhttp://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/AnEvangelicalDialogueOnEvolution/~3/304760805/teaching-evolution-at-calvin-college.htmlhttp://www.crcna.org/pages/crc_governance.cfmhttp://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF.htmlhttp://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF.htmlhttp://www.asa3.org/asa/dialogues/Faith-reason/http://www.asa3.org/asa/dialogues/Faith-reason/http://books.google.com/books?id=DmdZAAAACAAJhttp://books.google.com/books?id=DmdZAAAACAAJ -
8/14/2019 Evangelicals, Evolution, and Academics
13/22
Evangelicals, Evolution and Academics
damage and led to significant departures of members
and congregations from the CRC. Ten years later, in
2001, I joined the faculty. I offer here some thoughts
and observations on the current situation at Calvin and
in the denomination regarding biological evolution.
Harry Boonstra's history of Calvin College (OurSchool) was published in 2001, on the occasion of the
college's 125th birthday, and a decade after the
momentous synodical report on "Creation and
Science." Before describing the episode, he provides
some rationale for his decision to emphasize it, and
here is one interesting claim:
...after the 1991 synodical report, "Creation and
Science," there has been very little formal
discussion on creation and evolution in either the
CRC or Calvin College. Neither has there been,
to my knowledge, an overview of this controversy.
No doubt many of the participants were battleweary, but the questions require ongoing
discussion.
That was seven years ago, and I haven't noticed
"formal discussion" of evolution in the CRC since
then, nor does it seem that the topic is being discussed
more actively at Calvin than when I came in 2001.
Most notably, it seems to me that the subject is not
considered to be strongly controversial or dangerous.
There was a small brouhaha in the student paper and
on the faculty listserv in 2004, centered on comments
by a faculty member that I and others found to be
muddled and somewhat dismissive of evolutionary
science, and there were tiny ripples of dissent when Iand others agreed to participate in an "Origins
Symposium" that included presentations by four Calvin
faculty in juxtaposition with presentations by four
YEC proponents. There have been some uncomfortable
moments, and there are surely many on our faculty and
staff who harbor doubts and suspicions regarding
common ancestry. (This includes some who are fans of
the old-earth creationism of Hugh Ross and colleagues
at Reasons To Believe.) We still hear from disgruntled
constituents, and some of them can be obnoxious. But
there is no strong reason to expect a campus conflict
centered on evolutionary biology.
On the positive side, some of my colleagues, most
prominently Loren Haarsma, have contributed to
discussions of evolution, creation and design, openly
embracing evolutionary explanations. And Deb and
Loren Haarsma (both of the physics and astronomy
department) have recentlypublished a bookexploring
origins from a Reformed perspective; published by the
CRC itself, the book discusses human evolution
without obvious equivocation. I am known as an
outspoken advocate for common descent on and off
campus, and have spoken publicly on the topic of
evolution and explanation quite recently, at a large
CRC church and in tandem with my friend and
colleague in the philosophy department, Kelly Clark.
My blog is well known to my colleagues, and oneparticularly successful entry (which deals explicitly
with evolutionary biology) is featured in the current
issue of Calvin's e-zine, Minds in the Making.
These observations indicate that the Calvin College of
today is a safe place for a Christian biologist who is
excited about the explanatory power of common
descent. But I'm not sure they communicate just how
far the college seems to have come. So let me close
with a personal account that should make it very clear
that academic freedom at Calvin, with respect to
evolutionary theory, is quite strong.
A few months ago, I went before the Calvin College
Board of Trustees to be interviewed for reappointment
with tenure. The interview went very well, and I was
recommended for tenure. We discussed several
interesting topics, one of which was my emphasis on
God's sovereignty regarding his creation. My
"statement on the integration of faith and learning"
outlines my contention that the typical creationist
notion of the Fall a cataclysm so radical that it utterly
ruptures the fabric of creation and makes the world
before the Fall completely incomprehensible is an
unacceptable underestimation of God's sovereignty
over the cosmos. From there, we turned to questions
about the Fall itself, and I described my position quite
bluntly: I have no doubt about human common
ancestry with other animals, but I also recognize that
this creates difficult questions about the nature of the
Fall, and I look forward to further work (by scholars
more qualified than I am) on this problem. After a
time, I was asked to step out of the room while the
group deliberated. In the hallway, I ran into the
president of the college, Gaylen Byker, and we were
soon having an engrossing and amiable chat about
human animal ancestry (with animal welfare and
veganism as a backdrop). Unfortunately, we were
interrupted by the Trustees, who summoned me back
into the room to affirm my work as a Calvin College
professor and to warmly congratulate me on being
recommended for tenure.
I hope the point of all this is obvious: the leaders of
Calvin College may well have preferences regarding
the amount and timing of discussions of common
descent, and perhaps the fundraisers would love it if
we never brought it up at all. But they have never
13
http://books.google.com/books?id=l2I9dAwovPUChttp://books.google.com/books?id=l2I9dAwovPUChttp://asa3.org/asa/education/origins/pec.htmhttp://asa3.org/asa/education/origins/pec.htmhttp://www.asa3.org/ASA/Education/origins/origins-hh.htmhttp://www.churchoftheservantcrc.org/index.php?s=skepticshttp://www.churchoftheservantcrc.org/index.php?s=skepticshttp://www.calvin.edu/academic/philosophy/china/summerseminar/clark/http://sfmatheson.blogspot.com/http://www.calvin.edu/minds/http://www.calvin.edu/minds/http://sfmatheson.blogspot.com/http://www.calvin.edu/academic/philosophy/china/summerseminar/clark/http://www.churchoftheservantcrc.org/index.php?s=skepticshttp://www.churchoftheservantcrc.org/index.php?s=skepticshttp://www.asa3.org/ASA/Education/origins/origins-hh.htmhttp://asa3.org/asa/education/origins/pec.htmhttp://asa3.org/asa/education/origins/pec.htmhttp://books.google.com/books?id=l2I9dAwovPUChttp://books.google.com/books?id=l2I9dAwovPUC -
8/14/2019 Evangelicals, Evolution, and Academics
14/22
-
8/14/2019 Evangelicals, Evolution, and Academics
15/22
Evangelicals, Evolution and Academics
to tell the people that all doubts about naturalistic
evolution are inherently absurd and that their silly
misgivings will be allowed no hearing in public
education.
Our research suggested exactly the opposite, and I
suspect that this inference could be extended to themajority of public school systems in America. Anti-
evolutionary pundits like Johnson and Ham are simply
wrong. They are little more than shrill demagogues
pretending to fight imaginary foes and selling lots of
books in the process. Quincy public schools nowhere
teach students that they are the result of a mindless
evolutionary process.
The Theological Challenge for Evangelicals
This is not to say, however, that all is well and that
evolution can be comfortably harmonized with
traditional religious understandings. It is one thing to
note that evolution need not exclude God as creatorand quite another to show exactly how creation and
evolution are to be harmonized. In "Saving Darwin:
How to Be a Christian and Believe in Evolution",
published this month by HarperOne, I offers some
tentative suggestions in this direction. But this
harmony comes with a price that many evangelicals
may be unwilling to paythe loss of some key aspects
of the traditional creation story.
I suggest in Saving Darwin that we must abandon the
historicity of the Genesis creation account. Adam and
Eve must not be thought of as real people or even
surrogates for groups of real people; likewise the Fall
must disappear from history as an event and become,
instead, a partial insight into the morally ambiguous
character with which evolution endowed our species.
Human uniqueness is called into question and we must
consider extending the imago dei, in some sense,
beyond our species. These are not simple theological
tasks but, if we can embrace them, I think we may be
able to finally make peace with Darwins Dangerous
Idea.
There is a lot of work to be done. Evangelical churches
have typically been unwilling to confront this topic
except to run off evolutionists like Howard Van Till
when they become controversialand it will be a great
effort to reorient the teaching ministry of the church to
bring it into alignment with the generally accepted
ideas of modern science. But only when this task has
been accomplished can we declare the war in the
public schools to be over.
X.Why Evolution should betaught in Christian Schools
This is a guest-post by Professional EngineerGordon
Glover, and is the ninth installment in our
Evangelicals, Evolution, and Academics series.
Gordon is the author of the bookBeyond the
Firmament. His three children attend a private
Classical Christian school. He is currentlypublishing
a series of blog posts on the topic of Science
Education in Private Christian Schools.
Private Christian schools exist to give parents a
distinctively Christian alternative to secular education.
From my experience, however, the way that the
Christian worldview is compared and contrasted to
secular philosophies often results in academic subjects
being treated as individual battle-fronts in an all-out
war against secularism. While the intent is to prepareChristian students to effectively argue the case for
Christ and promote biblical thinking wherever they
find themselves, good science often becomes a casualty
of friendly-fire.
Methodological Naturalism: Friend or Foe?
Somewhere along the way, as the shifting lines of
battle were being hastily redrawn, methodological
naturalism (MN) the methodology traditionally used
to approach questions about the physical world
found itself pinned down in the same foxhole as
materialism a worldview philosophy that says the
physical world is all that exists. Even though MNraises no weapon against Christianity, it unfortunately
wears the same uniform as materialism and the two are
easily confused in the fog of battle. Once this happens,
the natural sciences cease to be effective tools of
learning and discovery, and are instead taken by force
and conscripted into the service of Christian
apologetics.
This unfortunate case of mistaken identity is most
evident in the life sciences, where comparing and
contrasting our material frame to that of other creatures
for the sake of scientific inquiry is summarily rejected
as a dangerous philosophy that treats mankind as ameaningless cosmic accident. As a result, science
teachers in Christian schools have little choice but to
fight the good fight by shielding students from any
practical utility of evolutionary biology and supplying
them with every conceivable reason why this 150 year-
old paradigm of natural history is fundamentally
flawed. So why would any private Christian school
risk losing students, teachers and financial support by
15
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0061228788http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0061228788http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/AnEvangelicalDialogueOnEvolution/~3/310022425/why-evolution-should-be-taught-in.htmlhttp://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/AnEvangelicalDialogueOnEvolution/~3/310022425/why-evolution-should-be-taught-in.htmlhttp://www.blog.beyondthefirmament.com/about-the-author/http://www.blog.beyondthefirmament.com/about-the-author/http://evanevodialogue.blogspot.com/2008/07/index-for-evangelicals-evolution-and.htmlhttp://books.google.com/books?id=ktbyIq04QGoChttp://books.google.com/books?id=ktbyIq04QGoChttp://www.beyondthefirmament.com/http://www.beyondthefirmament.com/http://www.beyondthefirmament.com/http://www.beyondthefirmament.com/http://books.google.com/books?id=ktbyIq04QGoChttp://books.google.com/books?id=ktbyIq04QGoChttp://evanevodialogue.blogspot.com/2008/07/index-for-evangelicals-evolution-and.htmlhttp://www.blog.beyondthefirmament.com/about-the-author/http://www.blog.beyondthefirmament.com/about-the-author/http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/AnEvangelicalDialogueOnEvolution/~3/310022425/why-evolution-should-be-taught-in.htmlhttp://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/AnEvangelicalDialogueOnEvolution/~3/310022425/why-evolution-should-be-taught-in.htmlhttp://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0061228788http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0061228788 -
8/14/2019 Evangelicals, Evolution, and Academics
16/22
Evangelicals, Evolution and Academics
teaching evolution an issue that has become a key
litmus-test of faith for evangelicals?
Why Teach Evolution? #1 - It is Good Science
The most obvious reason to teach evolution is that it is
good science. There is simply no other natural cause-
and-effect approach that unifies the life sciences undera single coherent paradigm. And unlike the
supernatural intervention paradigms typically taught in
the place of physical science (such as special creation
and intelligent design), evolution actually allows
practicing scientists to draw non-trivial conclusions
about Gods creation an important point entirely
underappreciated by Christian parents and teachers
who are not called to sort through the challenging data
of natural history and make sense of it.
It is important that students understand how scientific
ideas, even when incomplete, fundamentally flawed, or
theologically offensive can still add to our materialunderstanding of the created order. However, all too
often Christian schools use biology class to highlight
the perimeters of our scientific ignorance and focus on
only those areas where the theory of evolution breaks
down. They mercilessly criticize the paradigm for
failing to answer questions that don't even fall under its
jurisdiction. If we took this same paralyzing approach
with us into the physics classroom, Newtons laws of
motion, Einsteins theory of relativity, and
Heisenbergs uncertainty principle would all be
mocked as godless paradigms of matter and motion
that fail to address spiritual realities, and are hopelessly
flawed at the fundamental level. After all, none of
these ideas even pretend to offer a complete picture of
reality; and each are based on necessary assumptions
that fall apart on some level. While such an approach
might have the temporary effect of making science
look silly and incompetent in the face of biblical truth,
it doesnt prepare our graduates for success in the real
world where seeing through a glass darkly doesnt
require us to close our eyes completely.
Why Teach Evolution? #2 - It Enhances Critical
Thinking
Teaching evolution in a private Christian school can
also provide many fruitful opportunities for students to
exercise critical thinking skills. Whether we like it or
not, the undeniable patterns found in comparative
anatomy, the fossil record, biogeography and
molecular genetics all converge on a single universal
scenario of common ancestry. If Christian students
face this overwhelming reality for the first time in the
workplace or at a secular university, a crisis of faith
can follow. It is much better for students to learn about
evolution in a Christian school setting where they have
access to Christian faculty, staff, and parents that can
provide faith-building support.
The questions that are bound to arise can indeed be
challenging. Do these obvious patterns reveal an
authentic natural process of creation, or could they
have been purposefully built into the created order (byfiat) to enable man to make sense of the world around
him? What are the theological consequences Christians
face if this scenario is authentic? What are the
theological consequences we face if this scenario is
only apparent? And if the traditional Christian doctrine
of special creation is indeed non-negotiable, does
enabling scientific progress excuse God for creating
a biosphere that conspires at every level against a
superficial reading of the biblical creation account?
These are the real challenges of evolution not blood
clotting or the bacterial flagellum!
Why Teach Evolution? #3 - It Offers anOpportunity to Discuss Biblical Inspiration
Teaching evolution also provides ample opportunities
to discuss the nature of special revelation and the scope
of biblical authority in a very relevant context. Rather
than cause us to question the inspiration of Scripture,
teaching evolution should force us to examine the very
nature of biblical inspiration itself. On what level does
God speak to us? Does God emphasize the technical
details of cosmic structure, making the Scriptures
relevant only to those generations who shared the
cosmology of the biblical authors? Or does God
emphasize the teleological details of cosmic function,
making the Scriptures relevant to every generation
regardless of their contemporary scientific
paradigms?
Not Easy, but Essential
The questions raised above are difficult and there are
no easy answers. But Christian educators must be
willing to tolerate a certain amount of unresolved
tension in the science classroom. Not every question
will have a satisfying answer, but our children are
better served by teaching them to think through the
issues and deal with the theological consequences that
are inevitable once we start poking around the cosmos.
If we fail to teach our students the proper use of
contemporary scientific paradigms in their current
form, no matter how theologically unsettling they
might be, we are effectively denying them a seat at the
table of discovery and isolating an entire community
(professional scientists) from the light of the Gospel.
We all want our children to have the best education
possible, to succeed in their various life pursuits, to
learn how to think critically about the world around
16
-
8/14/2019 Evangelicals, Evolution, and Academics
17/22
Evangelicals, Evolution and Academics
them, and to develop a theologically robust God-
centered worldview. Teaching evolution as a valid
paradigm for understanding the life sciences, at the
appropriate age level, is entirely consistent with these
goals.
XI.The Challenge of TeachingScience in a ChristianHomeschooling Setting
This is a guest-post by Evolutionary BiologistDouglas
Hayworth, and is the tenth installment in our
Evangelicals, Evolution, and Academics series.
Douglas and his wife homeschool their three children.
One of the most challenging tasks facing
homeschooling parents is providing a good science
education to their children. And providing a healthyacademic and theological perspective on evolution is
one of the most difficult aspects of this task. There are
several specific challenges that must be faced. First,
there is typically a knowledge gap; few parents have
the training necessary to properly guide middle- and
high-school level learning in science subjects. Second,
few if any science curricula from Christian publishers
provide the necessary academic and philosophical
guidance on issues of science and faith. To make
matters worse, these publishers often claim or imply
that they do provide strong guidance in these areas and
thus give typical parents a false sense of security.
Third, grade-appropriate supplementary resources arecurrently nonexistent or unavailable to homeschoolers.
Fourth, hands-on laboratory experimentation, which is
necessary to reinforce the empirical nature of science,
is more difficult and expensive for individual
households than for public and parochial schools. I
derive these points from my personal experience as a
homeschooling parent of three children and from my
observation of nonscientist Christian homeschooling
friends.
Challenge #1: Lack of Parental Scientific
Knowledge
Lack of parental scientific knowledge is often asignificant challenge. No parents are trained in the
broad range of academic areas required to fully
examine the evidence for cosmological, geological,
and biological evolution. They must depend on the
expertise of others. As their children grow older,
parents must increasingly rely on the authority of their
chosen curriculum and textbooks rather than their own
life experience and direct knowledge. Ironically, this
knowledge gap begins to form at exactly the time in
children's education when they should be learning to
critically evaluate information and authorities. This
makes it more and more difficult to answer or
meaningfully discuss important questions that will (or
at least should) arise concerning the relationship of
scientific knowledge and Christian faith.
Challenge #2: Inadequate Science Curricula
Most Christian homeschooling parents choose science
textbooks and resources from Christian publishers.
Having done so, most parents will become uncritical
about its primary content and theistic perspective,
falsely assuming that the curriculum adequately fills
the knowledge gap by raising all the important
questions and providing all the appropriate Christian
answers. In fact, I am not aware of any "Christian"
texts that fairly (i.e., meaningfully) cover science in
relation to origins, natural history, evolution and
design, not to mention other significant science topicsthat have theological implications. I contend that
Christian parents (even young earth creationists (YEC)
who wish to perpetuate the "incompatibility" or
"conflict" thesis) would provide their children with a
better science education (i.e., critical thinking skills) by
learning from a secular textbook because they would
be more vigilant in scrutinizing what is presented and
therefore also more engaged in the subject.
Challenge #3: Finding Supplementary or
Alternative Resources
Three years ago, my daughter's 7th grade curriculum
included the first text (physical science) in J. Wile's
series (Apologia Press), which our curriculum supplier
(Sonlight) had recently adopted for middle and high
school. I soon discovered that the book's entire
presentation is bent and contorted to support