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/


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


3/22


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


4/22


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


5/22


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


6/22


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


7/22


8/22


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


9/22


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


10/22


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


11/22


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


12/22


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


13/22


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


14/22


15/22


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


16/22


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


17/22


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

Date post:	30-May-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	steve-martin
View:	213 times
Download:	0 times

Evangelicals, Evolution, and Academics

Documents