My Transition from a Conservative Creationist to a Theistic Evolutionist (albeit with some unanswered questions)

This is a guest post by Eric DeVries and is the fourth post in our series on “Evangelicals and Evolution: A Student Perspective”. Eric is a post-grad biology student at Calvin College.

I’m an evolutionist, a theistic evolutionist to be specific. My transition to this position is relatively recent and I still have much to learn about the interaction between faith and science. I can’t say that my journey is a unique story, but maybe it resonates with some readers of this series.

So here it is.

Early impressions of Evolution
I grew up in a typical, western Michigan, Dutch family. By this I mean to say my family was reserved, proper, and attended church every Sunday. Our first church was a mega-church named Calvary which we attended until I was in 4th grade. At this point my dad decided that he was tired of all the behind the scenes drama so we left to find a “better” church. Ironically we ended up at one of the spiritually deadest churches I have ever attended. It was there that the idea of evolution was first presented to me. And in a typical “good” Christian way, it was described as a theory which directly contradicted the bible and was therefore wrong; so wrong in fact that those who accepted it were ostracized as “unbelievers”.

Attending a Conservative Christian school in a Liberal part of America
When I was in grade 6 my family moved to a part of California that many would describe as relatively liberal. Being the only Christian school in the area, my parents enrolled me in a conservative, Baptist school. Again the idea was taught that evolutionary science could not be reconciled with God’s plan for humanity. Only this time instead of just hearing it, I integrated it into my belief system and self-identify. I came to believe that whomever held to the theory of evolution was at best direly misguided and at worst going to hell.

Instead of joining an existing church, my family connected with a couple other families to start our own church. We lived the challenges of launching a church in an area resistant to organized Christianity. One of the biggest challenges was church growth, which was extremely slow. This lead to quickly solidifying the relationship between my family and the few others who were part of the church and it was with these families that my love of the outdoors, of mountains and the ocean, developed. The hobbies of hiking and backpacking became central to my life in California, sparking my interest in biology. Evolution was not really avoided as a subject of discussion with this group of families; it was more put on a side burner, and not considered an important enough issue to waste energy discussing. Instead we went about meeting a much more diverse group of people, realizing that Christianity does actually consist of more than the conservative, Dutch social group we were part of in Michigan.

Learning to be more Open-Minded in a Conservative Heartland
Moving back to Michigan is a turning point in this story. The irony is that I started becoming more open minded in one of the most conservative places in America after I had learned to be a fundamentalist in one of the most liberal areas of the country . On the recommendation of my dad, I became connected with Young Life, which is a Christian organization in high schools. I loved it. These people, instead of hiding their failings, accepted them and worked those weaknesses into their stories, changing them into something that God could work with to teach others. My experiences in the conservative Christian school in California had taught me the exact opposite, to hide my failings and only deal with them between myself and God. It took me a long time to accept this new approach, nearly two years in fact.

We started attending a church in Grand Rapids which was pretty “radical”. The pastor there had no reservations about discussing topics which most churches would avoid. The sermons opened up dinner table discussions. Our discussions became more open minded, and my parents tackled controversial topics; we were not afraid to ask some hard questions about our conservative brand of Christianity. We never outright denied specific traditional beliefs, but we were encouraged to ask questions about these beliefs. Yet through this entire time I never gave up on my belief that evolution was a theory from the devil, and that the proponents of evolution were like little demons running around spreading a theory directly against the will of God.

These discussions, along with my eventual acceptance of my failings, became a crucial point in my ability to mentally prepare myself to engage evolution once I went off to college.

Starting College and my investigation into Evolution
After graduating from high school I attended Calvin College. Calvin was like pouring alcohol on a fire as it caused my desire to ask questions, and in particular questions regarding evolution, to explode. Why did so many Christians at this Christian College actually accept this theory which I had been taught was wrong (notice the difference between belief and taught at this point in my life)? I began to dig deeper into the evidence for evolution; and the more I learned the more concerned I became. Evolution made sense, or at least its basic arguments made sense. Some of the particulars were, for me, a bit sketchy. But the basic claims of evolution had a logical ring to them, and they appealed to that left-brained side of who I am. So I accepted a conditional form of evolution which excluded the common ancestry of apes and humans. These new ideas brought tension between my faith and what I was beginning to accept about evolution. It was a real testament to the changes I had been going through since moving back from California that I was able to spiritually and intellectually engage evolutionary theory.

Evolution and Biblical Interpretation
My exploration of evolutionary theory, and its implications, made me revisit my ideas of biblical interpretation. I began to see that a literalistic interpretation of Genesis leads to many discrepancies. One, which may not seem as blatant as others, but oddly enough is the one I remember most, is the geography of the Garden of Eden. In Genesis 2 the garden is described as having 4 rivers flowing through it. One of those is located in Egypt, while two others are located in current day Iraq, and the fourth has its probable current day location in Ethiopia. How these four rivers found themselves, within the recent past (geologically speaking), to either originate or terminate in one area is still beyond me.

This rethinking of biblical interpretation was important in my journey. But even more important was the evidence supporting evolution. Coming back to Calvin, following a semester in Spain during my third year, I decided to take a J-term evolutionary biology class. This class was a three week course exploring the evidences behind evolution. I had previously studied population genetics, homology, and common ancestry in first two years of college, but had yet to see a condensed list of the evidence supporting each idea. We examined the various anatomies of the ear bone in the transition from land to water in the story of the whale. We read The Song of the Dodo by David Quamman, which sifts through the various ideas presented by naturalists over the past two centuries before delving into island biogeography and its affects on the composition and genetics of an isolated population. But most important was our discussion about genetics, which was spurred on by our readings in Quamman and our study of the whale. I began to see the picture of history painted by genetics using the mechanism of evolution.

And it convinced me.

Now I identify myself as a theistic evolutionist; an interesting transition.

Conclusion
I transitioned from a conservative creationist to a theistic evolutionist in a journey that took anywhere between 4 and 8 years, depending on the starting point. Today I see evolution as a beautifully fluid display of the creative aspect of God. But that does not mean I have all the pertinent questions answered. One of the biggest unanswered questions is how to explain death. Evolution is pushed forward by death, but according to the biblical account death is an evil only present in the world after “the fall”. And for that reason how do I explain “the fall”? So evolution doesn’t explain everything, and it actually presents new problems.

But evolution happens. For me the bible no longer dictates what I believe about science. I don’t think it was ever meant to. Science describes science. That’s that.

An Evolutionary Biology Student Discovers Christ ... and the Toxic Anti-Evolutionism that often Taints the Gospel

This is a guest post by Emiliano Carneiro Monteiro and is the third post in our series on “Evangelicals and Evolution: A Student Perspective”. Emiliano is a doctoral student studying cellular biology with a focus on morphology at the Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil. He is currently researching the digestive system of a Phasmid (stick bug) species, as well as physiological features of its digestive processes.

A) My New Life in Christ
My story with Christianity, and with its struggle with science, began on January 31st, 2007. In the middle of a great big mess in my life I met Alberto Malta, a very dear friend and a leader with Campus Crusade for Christ at the Universidade de São Paulo. I was in the last year of my undergraduate degree in biology and after a long talk with Alberto, I took the first step towards the Christian faith and accepted Christ. Before that, in my adolescence and throughout college, I would have described myself as an agnostic or an atheist, although today I realize my position was probably pantheistic. The Campus Crusade for Christ website published a little post about my story at: http://www.ccci.org/training/evangelism/cojourners/builder-model.aspx

B) My Introduction to Creationism
At the time, I was already well aware that some Christian denominations did not accept evolution and held a ‘literalistic’ interpretation of the book of Genesis. Although it surprised me at first I didn’t really mind; I was busy experiencing my new life and setting my things straight. Furthermore I saw no problem with Darwin's theory. Evolution didn't get in the way of my faith but actually helped. To me, it was a wonderful and elegant process that explained how life developed. Back then the subject of creation and origins rarely came up. When it did I often told people that I accepted evolution but wasn’t a fanatic about it and that there should be more profound and fulfilling explanations that lay outside science.

But tension soon arose. At the first church I attended (Igreja Batista Esperança) everyone kept talking about “Dr. Adauto Lourenço”. I soon discovered that he was a physicist, with a doctorate degree from Bob Jones University, and a creationist. I wasn’t completely aware at the time of what kind of arguments creationists used to defend their point of view. I never met Adauto Lourenço in person, but I rushed to buy a set of 5 DVDs with his lectures.

C) Discussions: Some Fruitless, some Fruitful
While watching the DVDs I had my first faith crisis. Here was a Christian preacher spreading information that was simply not true. Soon I ran across more and more information about the whole “Creation vs Evolution” subject. In no time I was familiar with most (if not all) arguments used by creationists to defend their point of view. I was also aware that almost all their arguments were false. To make the situation worse the topic suddenly seemed to be really important for those around me. However, the many discussions I had were tiring and fruitless, so I avoided arguments about it as much as I could when at Church or among Christian friends.

I even had one or two arguments with my girlfriend, Karollina, on the subject. She is also a biologist and played a big role in leading me to Jesus Christ. Until recently, she defended a creationist point of view (she was never profoundly interested in the whole controversy though). Through my own investigation, interest and dialogue, she became aware of the full array of Creationist’s arguments. She has since reviewed her ideas and now accepts the compatibility of evolution and the Christian faith.

D) Evangelical Christianity in Brazil
Evangelical Christianity is having truly exponential growth here in Brazil. That is great because many people are getting to know more about the gospel and are engaging in following Jesus Christ. It is also very good that we Brazilians are developing our own identity and addressing the unique problems we face here south of the equator. Still, the process is slow and evangelical Christians in Brazil tend to follow trends in the US evangelical church. Antagonism towards evolution is one harmful idea that the American church has exported to Brazil.

I’m extremely grateful to those who helped me grow in my Christian faith. Still, it breaks my heart to see so many honest followers of Jesus believe that one must deny evolution in order to be a Christian. That is due partly because of a lack of information, but also due to the spreading of misinformation (for example, the ministry of Dr. Adauto Lourenço). I continue to find the subject of evolution completely fascinating, and learn more and more everyday. I do not think that the knowledge of the theory of evolution should interfere in a destructive way with anyone’s beliefs.

E) Portuguese Resources on Science and Faith
Francis Collins’s book Language of God really helped me. I remember thinking while reading: “Hey, this guy agrees with me!”. I also had the opportunity to meet and talk to some ministers and theologians whose views on Christian faith and science differ from the creationists. Unfortunately very few books that show a positive relationship between faith and science get translated into Portuguese, and other resources in Portuguese are almost non-existent.

Instead, creationism is being widely promoted amongst evangelical communities in Brazil as being the one and only Christian approach to science. It is despairing for me to see anti-evolutionary misconceptions and false scientific statements being spread in a country that already has significant challenges with its educational system (poor management, and lack of investment from the state). I don’t think there has ever been a poll in Brazil to measure the acceptance of evolution, but I doubt the results would be good.

F) Conclusion
So that is my story. I am hopeful that with prayer, love and action, we may see a change in the evangelical churches in Brazil. I am hopeful that they can spread the Gospel in a way that is relevant for my fellow countrymen, but without the damaging additions to the Word of God that are intellectually faulty and hinder faith in Jesus Christ.

Paz de Cristo

My Journey from Opposing Evolution to Studying It

This is a guest post by Ryan Bebej and is the second in our series on “Evangelicals and Evolution: A Student Perspective”. Ryan is a Ph.D student at the University of Michigan in the Dept. of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology where he studies the early evolution of whales.

That I am currently studying evolution is somewhat of a miracle. If ten years ago someone had told me that today I would be earning my Ph.D. at a large public university, researching the evolution and paleontology of mammals, I would have never believed them. Why not? Well, for the majority of my life, I believed that the concept of biological evolution was complete rubbish. I was raised in a close-knit Christian family that was very active in our local church, and I had always been taught that the Bible was literal history, precluding any types of evolutionary scenarios.

These anti-evolution sentiments were indirectly affirmed even in my public high school. In the small town where I grew up, being a Christian was virtually assumed, and schools were very accommodating of religious belief—even in the classroom. I recall that the little background on evolutionary theory that I gleaned from my high school biology class was prefaced with a disclaimer that we didn’t have to believe any of it if we didn’t want to. Needless to say, I promptly forgot most of what was said about Charles Darwin, natural selection, and the like, and I continued believing what I thought almost everyone else around me believed: that God created the universe miraculously several thousand years ago and that the idea of evolution was simply not true.

My Initial Exposure to Evolution in College

However, once I got to college, things began to change; it was there that I began to seriously wrestle with evolutionary theory for the first time. In my introductory biology class at Calvin College, we read some articles about evolution by writers ranging from Phillip Johnson to Howard Van Till to Richard Dawkins. These initial readings didn’t convince me to change my views, but they did prompt me to start thinking critically about evolution for the first time.

In my second semester, I took an animal biology class that spent a good deal of time focusing on how evolution works according to population genetics. Prior to this, I had never really understood the basics of evolutionary mechanisms, and I admit that I was a bit alarmed at how plausible it seemed. Could evolution really have occurred? If it did, what would that mean for my faith? This became a crucial issue for me, and I began to read ravenously and watch anything and everything I could get my hands on that discussed evolution. Yet, despite my little obsession with the topic, if someone had asked me what I thought about evolution at that time, I would have answered with a resounding, “I have no clue.”

My Second Year: The Evidence Builds

I read a ton during the summer following my freshman year. By the time my sophomore year began, I had realized that there was an awful lot of strong evidence for biological evolution. During my second year of college, the strength of this evidence continued to grow. In my comparative anatomy course, the homology of structures across disparate animals, as revealed by their development, provided compelling evidence for common ancestry. I also took two geology courses, in which I learned about radiometric dating, stratigraphy, and how to interpret the rock record, and I became thoroughly convinced that the earth had to be billions of years old rather than thousands.

In a January term evolutionary biology class, we surveyed the fossil record, and I was completely overwhelmed by the anatomies of transitional fossils, of which I had virtually no prior knowledge. These fossils exhibited the mosaics of anatomical characteristics that one would expect to see in an intermediate form, and they came from fossil beds during the time periods between their proposed ancestors and descendents. In my mind, the evidence for the evolution of life on an ancient earth continued to grow (and this was before I even knew about the abundant genetic evidence). I became convinced that evolution was anything but false; in fact, given the weight of the evidence, it seemed to be the only coherent explanation of the past and present biological world.

Evolution and My Faith

But even as I began to accept that evolution was a real phenomenon, I still wasn’t sure how this could be reconciled with my Christian beliefs. Growing up, I had always thought that there were two positions: you were either an atheistic evolutionist or you were a Christian who was opposed to evolution—there was no middle ground. Fortunately, my Calvin professors, in both the science and religion departments, demonstrated to me that there are many people who don’t fall into these two polarized camps. There are many Christians who agree with the findings of the greater scientific community, while managing to retain—and even grow and strengthen—their faith. This revelation opened up a whole new set of doors to me that I had no idea even existed.

Since those first couple of years when I was afraid that my knowledge of evolution would lead to a crisis of faith, I have found the opposite to be true. My study of evolution as a scientist and my pursuit of integrating my scientific knowledge with my Christian beliefs have helped my faith to grow by leaps and bounds. I often wonder how my faith would have been affected had I been confronted with the evidence of evolution somewhere other than Calvin. If I had not had the support and encouragement of such understanding Christian professors who cared deeply about my personal and spiritual development, my faith might not have remained intact. But by God’s grace, I was in just the right place at the just the right time, and today I take great pleasure in studying the long history of life in God’s creation.

Evangelicals and Evolution - A Student Perspective: Introduction

This is the first post in a seven-part series on “Evangelicals and Evolution: A Student Perspective”.

For many evangelicals, their first serious encounter with evolution occurs as a student in post-secondary school. Evolution is certainly encountered and discussed prior to this, but it is usually in the form of anti-evolution propaganda. Our churches, youth ministries, Christian camps, and other Christian organizations are very good at attacking evolution; they are not so good at introducing thoughtful material on the dialogue between modern science and an evangelical expression of the Christian faith. Thus the first encounter with the evidence for evolution in college or university can be a formative experience for evangelical students; it can be traumatic or awe-inspiring, depressing or exhilarating, faith shaking or faith affirming.

Better Availability of Resources for Today's Students
Fortunately evangelical students today have access to much better resources than past generations. Today, there are numerous books, articles, and electronic material that provide a positive view of evolution from an evangelical perspective; even twenty years ago these resources were virtually non-existent. Today a healthy minority (maybe majority?) of evangelical scientists accept the scientific consensus for evolution, our OT biblical scholars acknowledge that the best scholarly interpretations of the ancient scriptures (including Genesis) do not in any way exclude evolution, and a healthy number of our theologians accept that God created through the process of evolution.

This recent, and significant, change is reflected in our mainstream evangelical institutions. For example, Wheaton (which could possibly be referred to as “Evangelicalism’s Rome”) has for years been offering a Theories of Origins science course for its undergraduates. The major course objective is to give students a background for evaluating the merits of scientific and theological claims for origins theories. Source material from a range of creationist positions (YEC, OEC, and EC) is reviewed in the course. Student surveys show that a YEC position on human origins is historically the position with the most support at the beginning of the course, and the position with the least support when the course ends.

The Series
Over the next month, in a series of posts on this blog, five post-secondary students will be sharing their perspective on evolution. Three science students will share their personal accounts on reconciling their faith with evolutionary science. In separate posts, Ryan Bebej and Eric DeVries will describe their transition from opposing evolution because of their faith, to accepting evolution while growing in their faith. Sandwiched between these posts, will be the story of Emiliano Monteiro, a student of evolutionary science, who found faith in Jesus Christ through a campus ministry, but then discovered that his new Christian community rejected the conclusions of the science he was studying. The fourth post in this series will be from Jordan Mallon. Jordan has been involved in the creation-evolution dialogue for quite some time, and he will share three concepts that he has found helpful in this dialogue. Finally, Bethany Sollereder, a theology student, will discuss why Christian academics often avoid the topic of evolution. Evangelical academia may be making progress, but there is still room for vast improvement.

The evangelical landscape on the science-faith dialogue has changed dramatically in the last generation. Although we are still a long way from making peace with science, I am hopeful that within another generation evangelicalism will have accomplished this once seemingly impossible objective. If we are to arrive there, it is this generation of students that will be carrying the torch.

Enjoy the series.

A Re-evaluation by Evangelical Theologians?: The ETS, the ASA, and Hints of Change

There has been some discussion on the gap between evangelical theologians and evangelical scientists on the topic of biological evolution. This gap is illustrated by the current relationship between the Evangelical Theological Society (ETS) and the closest thing to an evangelical scientific society, the American Scientific Affiliation (ASA). As Ted Davis noted, it has been a long time since there was significant interaction between the ASA and the ETS.

ASA and ETS Background
Both the ASA and the ETS were formed in the mid-20th century, the ASA in 1941 and the ETS in 1949. Both groups share a commitment to the evangelical faith and sound academic scholarship. The ETS encourages biblical and theological research while maintaining a commitment to biblical inerrancy. The ASA describes itself as a “fellowship that shares a common fidelity to the Word of God and a commitment to integrity in the practice of science”. Although many members of the ASA affirm the inerrancy of scripture, the group’s statement of faith simply states, “We accept the divine inspiration, trustworthiness and authority of the Bible in matters of faith and conduct”.

For many years (I think starting in the late 1950s), the ETS and the ASA held joint annual meetings. However, at some point this was discontinued. I am not sure if ASA fellow Richard Bube’s petition to the ETS to “either to define inerrant or substitute some other term such as authoritative in its statement” was a factor in the fallout, or if this was simply a symptom of larger already-existing differences. (Ten points to anyone who can provide further background). In the ensuing years it seems even those who wished to renew ETS / ASA cooperation did not consider joint meetings to be a realistic target. In 1992 ASA member John McIntyre, commenting on the possibility of resuming joint meetings, said that “I do not believe that such a joint meeting would lead to the cooperation that we desire; we would spend all of our time arguing about evolution”.

I have indicated (on several occasions) my disappointment that evangelical theologians seem oblivious to the evidence for biological evolution. However, maybe this disappointment (and sense of impatience) is not warranted. Although I have no reason to believe that the ETS and the ASA are planning any formal dialogue in the near future, two potentially significant events give me reason for hope. The first is the participation of two theologians at the CIS conference later this year; the second is the open acceptance of theistic evolution by a former president of the ETS.

Evangelical Theologians at Christians in Science (CIS) Conference
The CIS is the UK sister organization to the ASA. Its 2008 annual conference is entitled “Celebrating Darwin? Creation, Evolution, and Theological Challenges”. It is interesting to note that two impeccably evangelical theologians will be presenting at this conference (HT: David Opderbeck). The conference program includes lectures from both Henri Blocher (Wheaton), the author of the very important In the Beginning: The Opening Chapters of Genesis, and Richard Hess (Denver Seminary). I’m not sure if either of them would describe themselves as EC or TE, but the very fact they are presenting at this conference indicates that an important & neglected dialogue may be occurring. (Note: While in the UK, Hess will also be leading a session at the Faraday institute on God and Origins: Interpreting Genesis).

Bruce Waltke’s Support for Theistic Evolution
Bruce Waltke is a former president of the ETS. He has taught at Dallas Theological Seminary, Regent College, WTS, and RTS. Last year Waltke released his massive An Old Testament Theology. In a chapter entitled “The Gift of the Cosmos” (the whole chapter is excellent) Waltke candidly states his acceptance of theistic evolution, noting that Francis Collins “The Language of God” was very helpful to him (HT: to Glen Davis in this comment). Here is Waltke’s summary of his own position (pages 202 and 203 – note, the capitalized ADAM below refers to humanity):

The best harmonious synthesis of the special revelation of the Bible, of the general revelation of human nature that distinguishes between right and wrong and consciously or unconsciously craves God, and of science is the theory of theistic evolution.

By “theistic evolution” I mean that the God of Israel, to bring glory to himself,

1. created all the things that are out of nothing and sustains them

2. incredibly, against the laws probability, finely tuned the essential properties of the universe to produce ADAM, who is capable of reflecting upon their origins

3. within his providence allowed the process of natural selection and of cataclysmic interventions – such as the meteor that extinguished the dinosaurs, enabling mammals to dominate the earth – to produce awe-inspiring creatures, especially ADAM

4. by direct creation made ADAM a spiritual being, an image of divine beings, for fellowship with himself by faith

5. allowed ADAM to freely choose to follow their primitive animal nature and to usurp the rule of God instead of living by faith in God, losing fellowship with their physical and spiritual Creator

6. and in his mercy chose from fallen ADAM the Israel of God, whom he regenerated by the Holy Spirit, in connection with their faith in Jesus Christ, the Second Adam, for fellowship with himself.

Now, I could quibble with a few points in the description above, and I’d never personally use the term “theory of theistic evolution”, but on the whole this is pretty good. That someone of Waltke’s pedigree can change his mind in this matter is heartening. Maybe we should provide some of those ten books to more evangelical theologians. Maybe we just need to be patient and let them think this through for awhile.

Index for Evangelicals, Evolution, and Academics Series

The "Evangelicals, Evolution, and Academics" guest-post series was published from May 18, 2008 through July 2, 2008. It included thirteen posts by nine different authors. The following is the index for the entire series.

Setting the Stage

1. Introduction by Steve Martin

2. Creation, Evolution, and the Nature of Science by Keith Miller

Teaching Evolution in Higher Education

3. Is the Scientific Academic Community a Hostile Environment for Faith? by Keith Miller

4. Teaching Evolution in Christian Higher Education by Dennis Venema

5. Evolution and Faith: Communicating their Compatibility in Christian Higher Education by Richard Colling

6. The Evolution Controversy at Calvin College: Historical Perspective by Stephen Matheson

7. Teaching Evolution at Calvin College: A Personal Perspective by Stephen Matheson

Teaching Evolution to Children and High School Students

8. Evolution in Public Schools: A Threat or a Challenge? by Karl Giberson

9. Why Evolution Should be Taught in Christian Schools by Gordon Glover

10. The Challenge of Teaching Science in a Christian Homeschooling Setting by Douglas Hayworth

11. Teaching Creation in Sunday School by Douglas Hayworth

Wrap-up

12. Historical Perspective and Future Directions by Ted Davis

13. Conclusion by Steve Martin

Evangelicals, Evolution, and Academics: Conclusion

This is the final installment in our “Evangelicals, Evolution, and Academics” guest-post series.

After six weeks and thirteen posts we have come to the end of our series on Evangelicals, Evolution, and Academics. As nearly every post indicated, the Evangelical engagement with evolution in academia is one characterized by considerable tension and conflict. It is a conflict that, to most observers, will not end anytime soon.

However, many Evangelicals, including all those who participated in this series, hope and pray that the continuation of this conflict will be short lived. We want our community to rediscover an authentic theology of creation, and to stop relegating the opening words of scripture to simple science and history. We want science classes in our homeschools, in our Christian schools, and in the public schools to be viewed as opportunities to explore the wonders of creation, all of God’s creation, even processes of creation that seem threatening to our faith. It is these sometimes threatening opportunities that can enable robust spiritual growth.

There is certainly hope. Many evangelical scientists, and evangelical biologists in particular, see no conflict between their orthodox Christian faith and the evidence for biological evolution. Even though anti-evolutionism often remains strong in their churches and college affiliations, these evangelical scientists have worked hard to present the truth contained in both of God’s books. This presentation of the truth frequently takes courage as well as healthy doses of all nine fruits-of-the-spirit (Gal 5:22,23).

Although the implications of biological evolution can seem faith shaking, they can also be faith affirming. This is certainly true in Christian universities where the support of Christian educators can help students work through the theological minefields. However, it can also be true in secular universities, institutions that are often ideal environments to challenge and deepen one’s faith.

This series has been a learning experience for me personally. I very much appreciated the perspectives and experiences shared by all contributors. Some presented ideas that were completely new to me; others helped me clarify thoughts that I was not able to articulate adequately. Some gave me encouragement; others challenged me. But all of them enriched my own spiritual and intellectual journey. So to Keith, Dennis, Richard, Stephen, Karl, Gordon, Douglas, and Ted – thanks. Thanks a lot.

Evangelicals, Evolution, and Academics: Historical Perspective and Future Directions

This is a guest-post by historian of Science Ted Davis, and is the twelfth installment in our “Evangelicals, Evolution, and Academics” series. Ted is the vice-president of the American Scientific Affiliation, and is consulting editor for both Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith and Science and Christian Belief.

For at least a century, evangelicals have typically rejected both evolution and higher biblical criticism. Sometimes there are good reasons: the claims of some biblical scholars are so outrageous, and the claims of some scientists so anti-religious, that a strongly negative response is entirely appropriate. Too often, however, the evangelical encounter with modern science conforms to what historian Mark Noll has called “the scandal of the evangelical mind”—namely, “that there is not much of an evangelical mind.”

Fundamentalists and Evangelicals: Significant Differences

John Stackhouse has given an excellent definition of an evangelical. I especially like the breadth of his criteria for being an evangelical and his emphasis on ecumenical cooperation. Evangelicals and fundamentalists share many core beliefs, but differ from one another mainly in attitude, especially their overall attitude toward modernity, including science. George Marsden, the leading historian of fundamentalism, defines it as “militant anti-modernism,” and both parts of that definition are crucial. Where fundamentalists have historically emphasized separation from the world and its “worldliness,” evangelicals have typically been much more willing to engage the world on its own terms, and thus their understanding of the world is negotiated to a much greater extent than that of fundamentalists.

Evangelical Tension with Science

Nevertheless, evangelicals exhibit considerable tension and ambivalence when it comes to science, especially human evolution. On the one hand, evangelicals enthusiastically embrace the findings of science, when it comes to most applications in medicine and engineering. They also accept the experimental sciences, such as physics, chemistry, physiology, or thermodynamics. They have no problems with gravitation, the periodic table, the circulation of the blood, or the law of entropy. Here, their attitude is highly empirical: if it can be shown from repeatable experiments and observations, it’s true and presents no challenge whatsoever to religious belief.

On the other hand, evangelicals are quite hesitant to accept some conclusions of the so-called historical sciences, such as geology, cosmology, and evolutionary biology. Fundamentalists reject the very legitimacy of those sciences, and have created their own alternative explanation, “creation science,” which comports with their particular views of biblical authority and hermeneutics. Evangelicals are more ambivalent. Many evangelicals accept the big bang – indeed, quite a few evangelical leaders believe that aspects of the big bang theory strongly support belief in the divine creation of the universe. Many evangelicals also accept modern geology, with a 4.65 billion-year-old earth and the long history of living things before humans arrived on the planet. But evolution - understood here to mean the common descent of humans and other organisms - presents very serious problems for many, perhaps most, evangelicals.

Evangelicals and Evolution: Looking for Alternatives

This motivates many evangelicals to look for alternative views. Some embrace creation science. Others prefer one of the many varieties of “old earth creationism” or “progressive creationism.” Probably a large number prefer the confident, sometimes even cocky tone of the “intelligent design” movement. Officially (at least), ID takes no stance on the age of the earth and universe, though most ID adherents have no quarrel with mainstream science on those issues. Technically ID has no stance on human evolution, either: as long as “design” can be shown within science itself, evolution is in theory acceptable to ID advocates. In practice, however, many ID leaders have said strongly negative things about both “evolution” (or “Darwinism”) and “theistic evolution,” leading most observers to conclude that ID is just another form of antievolutionism, albeit the most sophisticated form that has yet appeared. Many ID advocates view the hypothetical “just-so stories” of evolutionary biologists with scorn: they want to see convincing evidence that what might have happened actually did happen, before they embrace a fully evolutionary account of life’s history.

Reconciling Evolution with Scripture

Most evangelicals do not see any viable way to combine human evolution with the following beliefs, which they base on their interpretation of the Bible:

• the uniqueness of humans, who alone bear the “image of God”
  
• the fall of Adam and Eve, the original parents of all humans, from a sinless state, by their own free choices to disobey God
  
• the responsibility of each person for their own actions and beliefs, within a universe that is not fully deterministic
  
• the redemption of individual persons by the atoning sacrifice of Christ.

Evangelicals cannot and must not be separated from their crucial beliefs about human dignity, freedom, responsibility, sin, and redemption. The 64-dollar question is: can they maintain those beliefs without simultaneously affirming the necessity of an historical, separately created first human pair?

Evangelical Theologians and Biblical Scholars: It is your move

Reconciling the theory of evolution with these core beliefs depends to a great extent on evangelical academics, particularly theologians and biblical scholars. Can they be persuaded that the scientific evidence for evolution is sufficiently strong to warrant a re-examination of the traditional view? Can a credible gospel and credible science be harmonized?

There exists an enormous gap between popular conceptions of science – conclusions, methods, and attitudes – and those of scientists themselves. This gap is not unique to science among practitioners of specialized knowledge, and it is not unique to evangelicals among the lay public. But it is real and very significant, and it affects theologians and biblical scholars no less than anyone else. Those who try to bridge this gap are mostly scientists (in their role as educators at colleges and universities and insofar as they write books for lay readers) and science journalists. Both of those professional communities tend to be skeptical if not hostile toward Christian beliefs, and this can exacerbate an already difficult state of affairs. If ways can be found to popularize good science, while showing appropriate sensitivity to the concerns of evangelicals, it would be a very good thing.

Signs of Hope

Certainly there are reasons to hope. The conversation about science and religion is considerably broader now than it was at the time of the Scopes trial in 1925. Back then, many Protestants faced a very grim choice. On the one hand, they could follow politician William Jennings Bryan and the fundamentalists, rejecting modern science in the name of biblical authority and orthodox beliefs. On the other hand, they could follow theologian Shailer Mathews and the modernists, rejecting biblical authority and orthodox beliefs in the name of modern science. There was no one out there like John Polkinghorne, a leading contemporary scientist who accepts evolution but also upholds the Nicene Creed (a pertinent example is his book, The Faith of a Physicist).

And Polkinghorne has plenty of company – Francis Collins, Joan Centrella, Owen Gingerich, Simon Conway Morris, William Phillips, and Ian Hutchinson (to name just a few) are all excellent scientists, and they all believe in the divinity of Jesus, the bodily resurrection, and the actual divine creation of the universe. But they are all scientists, not theologians (except for Polkinghorne, who is both). In Galileo’s day, it was the scientists who eventually convinced the theologians and biblical scholars to accept Copernicus’ theory of the earth’s motion around the sun, but it took a long time. And the process was difficult and often painful. I suspect we are in for more of the same.

Why Evolution should be taught in Christian Schools

This is a guest-post by Professional Engineer Gordon Glover, and is the ninth installment in our “Evangelicals, Evolution, and Academics” series. Gordon is the author of the book Beyond the Firmament. His three children attend a private Classical Christian school. He is currently publishing 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 prepare Christian 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 MN raises 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 a meaningless 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 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 under a 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 God’s 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 material understanding 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, Newton’s laws of motion, Einstein’s theory of relativity, and Heisenberg’s 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 doesn’t prepare our graduates for success in the real world where seeing through a glass darkly doesn’t 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 (by fiat) 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 an Opportunity 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 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.

Evolution in Public Schools: A Threat or a Challenge?

This is a guest-post by Physicist Karl Giberson, and is the eighth installment in our “Evangelicals, Evolution, and Academics” series. Karl is the author of the book Saving Darwin: How to be a Christian and Believe in Evolution.

America’s evolution controversy is rooted, curiously, in her noble attempts to provide every child with a free quality education. Early in the 20th century, when public schools began to educate students beyond the 8th grade, the curriculum included impressive amounts of science. And, although evolution in textbooks like that used in the Dayton school where John Scopes taught was a minor topic, students were bringing home accounts of origins at odds with what they were learning at home and in their churches. William Jennings Bryan was the first great champion of the idea that taxpayers should not have to fund schools that undermined their values.

Evolution in the Public Schools: A Recipe for Atheism and Moral Anarchy?
The public schools have remained the primary battleground for the origins controversy, particularly in the courts where endless challenges to the teaching of evolution have been launched by local school boards from Pennsylvania to Louisiana and California. Anti-evolutionary pundits like Phillip Johnson have charged the public schools with promoting atheism in the name of science, even suggesting that evolution is responsible for widespread moral anarchy of the sort we saw at Columbine.

Johnson is joined by crusaders like Ken Ham, the late Henry Morris, John Ankerberg, the late D. James Kennedy, Anne Coulter, and others who claim, as earnestly as any Old Testament prophet, that evolution is the basis for Nazism, homosexuality, rising divorce rates, pornography, drug addiction, socialism, atheism, and every other imaginable ill. School children are supposedly being taught to think of themselves as meaningless assemblages of molecules with no more purpose or meaning to their existence than the pencils in their desks.

These hyperbolic claims should raise our eyebrows. They certainly raised mine. Having known schoolteachers for all my life, from my sainted mother, to my sister and brother-in-law, to all the teachers I had in public school, to my countless students studying to become teachers, and so on, I simply could not imagine that any public school teacher anywhere would teach any of these things. These peculiar ideas are not in the textbooks; they are not natural extensions of evolutionary theory; they are very unlikely to be a part of the worldview of the teachers—so why are Johnson and Ham claiming children are being indoctrinated with these ideas? Do they know something we do not?

Research Reveals the Rhetoric is Wrong
My intuition gave rise to a modest research project a few years ago. My student, Tim Johnson, and I looked at the public school curriculum in Quincy, Massachusetts. Quincy schools, located on the bulls-eye of America’s bluest state, are hardly restrained by local conservatism and far beyond the reach of the creationists. There is thus no reason to suspect that public schools are constrained by any pandering to the foes of evolution.

As we expected, our examination of the textbooks and teaching standards, and our interviews with teachers confirmed that evolution was being taught with thoughtful and careful consideration of the concerns of the students. Religious issues were addressed directly in the classrooms and students were assured that evolution did not rule out belief in God as Creator. No doubt the imaginary wall between church and state was repeatedly breached by Quincy’s conscientious educators.

Our study, summarized in the article “The Teaching of Evolution in Public School”, concluded that there was “no evidence that public school teachers in Quincy are exacerbating tensions with students and parents in the way that evolution is presented; indeed, most of them are expending energy in minimizing such tensions…Quincy public school teachers are appropriately sensitive to the religious backgrounds of their students.”

We concluded there was no basis whatsoever for Johnson’s charge, in "Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds", that American educators have chosen 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 the majority 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 creator and 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 pay—the 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 Darwin’s 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 controversial—and 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.

Addition to the Series: Karl Giberson, author of “Saving Darwin”

I am pleased to announce that Physicist Karl Giberson has been added to the roster of authors in our “Evangelicals, Evolution, and Academics” series. Karl’s new book Saving Darwin: How to be a Christian and Believe in Evolution will be released on Tuesday. On Monday, he will publish the eighth installment in our “Evangelicals, Evolution, and Academics” series. His topic will be “Evolution in Public Schools”. Given the high visibility and continuing media coverage of the conflict over the teaching evolution in public schools, this is indeed a welcome (and necessary) addition to our discussion.

Thanks Karl. Welcome to the series.

Note: The series introduction post has been amended to indicate Karl’s involvement. Not sure if changing old posts is kosher from a blogging etiquette perspective, but "Blogging Etiquette for Dummies" is not part of my personal canon.

Teaching Evolution at Calvin College: A Personal Perspective

This is a guest-post by biologist Stephen 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 our “Evangelicals, Evolution, and Academics” series. Stephen publishes the blog Quintessence of Dust which explores issues of science 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 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 (Our School) 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 battle weary, 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 I and 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 recently published a book exploring 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 one particularly 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 expressed any opposition of any kind to anything I have ever said or written about evolution.

There is much more that could be said, but we'll save it for comments and discussion. But I would be remiss if I didn't end with a tribute to Davis Young, Clarence Menninga, and Howard Van Till, not just for writing a book that changed my life but for courageously paying a price that purchased the blessings I now enjoy at Calvin College. Dave...Clarence...Howard... thank you.

The Evolution Controversy at Calvin College: Historical Perspective

This is a guest-post by biologist Stephen Matheson, and is the sixth installment in our “Evangelicals, Evolution, and Academics” series. Stephen publishes the blog Quintessence of Dust which 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 Canons of 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 such action, 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 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 theories of 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 unqualified rejection 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 regarding the 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 for several 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 a mistake 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 the official 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 of The Fourth Day by Howard Van Till (then professor of physics and astronomy, and subject of a 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 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 local newspaper 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 one sentence 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.

Evolution and Faith: Communicating their Compatibility in Christian Higher Education

This is a guest-post by biologist Richard Colling, and is the fifth installment in our “Evangelicals, Evolution, and Academics” series. Richard is the author of the book Random 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 Christ’s 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 as contagious 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 humanity’s present and past genetic connections with all other life at levels of precision never before imagined. This is not your mother or father’s 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 – actively engaging 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 their faith.

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 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 to peace 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 God’s 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!

Teaching Evolution in Christian Higher Education: Faith Shaking or Faith Affirming?

This is a guest-post by biologist Dennis Venema and is the fourth installment in our “Evangelicals, Evolution, and Academics” series.

Teaching biology at the university level is a joy and privilege. There are days that I wonder at the fact that I am paid for doing what I love. Watching students “get” the material, see connections, and grow in confidence as scholars is exactly why I love what I do. While I enjoyed teaching (as a graduate student) at a large public university, I enjoy it all the more at a Christian institution. Here I get to see students develop holistically: deepening in their faith as well as honing their intellects, and all for the glory of God.

The Challenge for Christian Academics in Biology
Yet there are also days when I can be heard muttering “should have been a chemist, should have been a chemist” – my tongue-in-cheek response to the realities of being an evangelical Christian biologist. The issue 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, all would 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. If only 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 everyone’s 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, one’s 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 God’s purposes that they 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 hashing through 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 God’s 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.

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 Harvey’s definitions, specifically E1 – E4). It is important to note that these scientific definitions in no way imply the absence of God in the process of evolution