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

Is the Scientific Academic Community a Hostile Environment for Faith?

This is a guest-post by geologist Keith B. Miller, and is the third installment in our “Evangelicals, 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 will argue that these are exceptions. Furthermore, the secular academy is an ideal environment in which to productively challenge and deepen one’s 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 very dynamic 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 quick to claim persecution when others reject our arguments. Sometimes our arguments deserve to be rejected – we have often been lazy in our thinking, and failed to take seriously the stewardship of our minds. Furthermore, if our faith claims are never rejected, perhaps we are not talking to the right people.

The Scientific Establishment: No Pervasive Hostility to Faith
Like the claim made against the academy, the charge that the scientific “establishment” expresses a pervasive hostility to faith is similarly false. A very important feature of the scientific enterprise is that it takes place within a multi-cultural and interfaith community of scholars. At a typical professional scientific meeting there will be participants from a wide range of nationalities, cultures, and religious traditions. Yet those scientists from these various backgrounds can sit down together and productively discuss scientific questions, examine evidence and reach conclusions. They can do this because scientific knowledge is not tied to a particular religious or non-religious worldview – it is universally accessible. Though science as a discipline is religiously neutral, individual scientists are not – nor should they be. People of faith, including many professing Christians, are active respected members of their professional societies and occupy prominent leadership positions within these organizations. This is true of every professional (geology and paleontology) society of which I am a member. And the Christian representation is not a token one. There are thousands of Christians who are active scientists in academia, government and industry. Beyond their mere presence within the scientific community, Christians are becoming increasingly vocal about their faith in the context of their chosen vocation in science. This has been one very positive response to the increasingly loud voices of those who would see only conflict and hostility between faith and science.

Scientific Organizations: Building Bridges Between Science and Faith
Scientific organizations are also increasingly recognizing the destructive impact of the perception that science and religious faith are in necessary conflict. As a result, many are publishing statements, providing educational resources, and convening symposia that address the nature of science and attempt to dispel the “warfare” view. Such organizations include: the Geological Society of America, the Paleontological Society, the National Association of Biology Teachers, the National Academy of Science, and the AAAS. I personally have been involved in some of these efforts. It is important that the public recognize that the few prominent and vocal atheist activists do not represent the scientific community. Unfortunately, some Christians can see only an atheist face of science, and are blind to their brothers and sisters who have been called by God to serve in a scientific vocation in the academy.

Promoting a Christian Worldview in Science
I will conclude by quoting from a short essay that I co-wrote with my wife Ruth (a faculty member in Electrical Engineering):

“Finally, the academy, and professions, can be engaged by Christians who demonstrate a mastery of their disciplines, and who take seriously the views of others. It is the passionate pursuit of truth, not a defensive response to criticism or a reactionary denouncement of others, that will make the Christian worldview a respected voice. Above all, a life lived with integrity and in sacrificial service will reveal the reality of a God who demands our entire lives.”

(Miller, K.B. & Miller, R.D., 1997, “Taking the Road Less Traveled: Reflections on Entering Careers in Science,” Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith, vol.49, no. 4, p.212-214.)

Beware of Paradigms that begin with "E"

This morning our pastor’s message was entitled “The Story we Live By”. He told us that the Christian worldview was radically different from the worldview of modern culture. Those of us that profess to follow Christ will find ourselves fundamentally at odds with prevailing wisdom, or find ourselves fundamentally at odds with Christ’s radical teaching. He challenged us to rethink how and why we live the way we do: The meta-physical narrative of the “E” paradigm was simply not a story that Christians could subscribe too or live by.

For me, this was a sermon that spoke close to home. What exactly do I put first in my life? What paradigm drives my intellectual and spiritual growth? Am I blinded by the spirit of my own time? More importantly: How do I make choices in life – where exactly do I put my faith? Am I, like so many of those around me, a thrall to the “E” Paradigm?

This has been a big month for Evangelical leaders speaking out against an Evolutionary Paradigm. Last week I critiqued Tony Campolo’s warning. This week Chuck Colson added his voice against “Evolutionary Foolishness” (HT: Cliff) and Albert Mohler argued (yet again) that Christianity and evolution are irreconcilable. But my Pastor was not joining this chorus. Instead he was identifying a way of thinking much, much more pertinent to our culture, a disease that has affected nearly all of us: The Economic Paradigm.

For those of us that are rich (and, if you are reading this on the internet, you almost certainly qualify as a rich), how do we reconcile the fact that so much of our energy is expended appeasing the “God of Economics”? How do we reconcile Christ’s teachings with our own preoccupation with material things? How do we (in the West) live with the fact that much of the injustice in the world is due to economic systems that prop up our own lifestyle? It makes you think, or at least it should. It makes me think.

An economic paradigm has two chief (not necessarily bad) concerns: generating prosperity and distributing this prosperity. The two most notorious economic paradigms are of course capitalism and communism. Capitalism is pretty good at addressing the first concern (generating prosperity) at the expense of intolerable disparity in the distribution of this prosperity. Communism is very good at the equitable distribution of prosperity (at least theoretically) but generates no prosperity to distribute (ie. you end up with an equitable distribution of poverty). But both of these paradigms share the same assumption: that money is “a good way to keep score”. And, as my pastor noted, “Jesus thought money was a very bad way of keeping score”.

So for those that are concerned that Evolutionary Creationists like myself have been duped by the “Spirit of the Age”, and are bowing to the “God of Evolution”, I will say this. You are correct in warning us of the dangers in serving any God but the God revealed in scripture. You are correct that we need to carefully and critically consider scientific concepts that are often bundled with philosophical ideas alien to the gospel. You are correct that we do not always have good answers to tough theological problems raised by biological evolution.

But you are absolutely wrong to accuse us of abandoning the gospel. We haven’t. We don’t. We won’t. We too see the incarnation, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ as central to the good news. However, we also believe (unlike the vast majority of our Evangelical brothers and sisters) that God’s creation was accomplished through the gradual process of evolution. And before you offer to extract the “evolutionary paradigm” mite from my eye, maybe you should consider the “economic paradigm” log in your own.

And while you are at it, maybe you can help me with the same log in mine.

I’ll conclude this post with the conclusion of my post on Evolution and Morality:

Making an Evolutionary Paradigm (however it is defined) foundational for defining truth, making choices, and finding purpose is unacceptable for Christians. Our primary paradigm must be Christ-centered and biblically guided. If this approach is trumped by any other paradigm, whether a Democratic Paradigm, a Capitalist Paradigm, or an Evolutionary Paradigm, we have committed idolatry. Christians can of course hold democratic political ideas, capitalistic economic ideas, and evolutionary scientific ideas, but these ideas need to be secondary to, informed by, and measured against our primary paradigm, which is faith in Jesus Christ.

A Reasonable Faith

In his current post on choosing between brains and belief, John Stackhouse emphasizes that faith is a gift from God – it is not something that can be accessed by reason alone. So Dawkins and other “new atheists” are correct in stating Christianity is not reasonable if “reasonable” includes only data inferred from “empirical data or self-evident propositions”.

There simply are no chains of inference that can get you from the idea of God-in-general to God-as-Trinity. There are no demonstrative proofs for the contention that Jesus of Nazareth is God Incarnate and that his life, death, and resurrection are the basis for global salvation. There is no way to lead someone step by step from consideration of the Bible’s various qualities (archaeological vindication, literary power, moral persuasiveness, etc.) to the conviction that it is the very Word of God.

The earliest and most fundamental Christian confession was this: “Jesus is Lord.” And one of the Apostle Paul’s earliest and most influential letters makes the following bold epistemological claim: “No one can say ‘Jesus is Lord’ except by the Holy Spirit” (1 Corinthians 12:3).

But this doesn’t imply that Christianity is “unreasonable” simply because it cannot be logically deduced from 1st principles or demonstrated in a science lab. On the contrary, I believe the Christian faith is a coherent framework for the historical, scientific, and philosophical data when viewed through the lenses of God's revelation through his written Word and the Word made flesh. Faith in Christ is not the house of cards that Dawkins seems to think, and cannot be compared to faith in The Flying Spaghetti Monster, or leprechauns, or fairies. It is not, as he claims in The Selfish Gene (page 212), “Blind trust in the absence of evidence, even in the teeth of evidence”. Faith in the Living God starts with adequate evidence and is completed with consent of the will. As Stackhouse states:

Faith is always the exercise of trust beyond what we think we know, beyond what we think we’re sure of. Does that mean we have to choose between our brains and our beliefs? No, but it means we must not let our brains circumscribe our beliefs. We don’t understand electricity, but we use it. We don’t understand light (wave? particle? both? how does that work?), but we are glad for it. We don’t know everything about our business partners or surgeons or spouses, but we trust them with our livelihoods and lives.

Polkinghorne Quotes #6: The Mutually Enriching Relationship between Faith and Science

The remarkable insights that science affords us into the intelligible workings of the world cry out for an explanation more profound than that which it itself can provide. Religion, if it is to take seriously its claim that the world is the creation of God, must be humble enough to learn from science what that world is actually like. The dialogue between them can only be mutually enriching. The scientist will find in theology a unifying principle more fundamental than the grandest unified field theory. The theologian will encounter in science’s account of the pattern and structure of the physical world a reality which calls forth admiration and wonder. Together they can say with the Psalmist: “O Lord, how manifold are thy works! In wisdom thou hast made them all.

From Science and Creation, page 117

It may appear that evolutionary creationists are constantly defensive, defending our faith on the one hand, and our science on the other. But that is only because we live in a world that assumes there is an inherent conflict between faith and science. The most salient conflict may be whether or not conflict is necessary. When détente is reached and dialogue occurs, that dialogue between faith and science “can only be mutually enriching”.

The converse is also true: avoidance of dialogue can hamper both faith and science. As Einstein put it: “Religion without science is blind. Science without religion is lame”. I disagree with the limitations Einstein imposes, particularly the claim that Religion is “blind” without science, but I do agree with the claim that faith and science can benefit each other. My own take on the relationship (both positive and negative) is as follows:

1. Through faith we can experience an intimate relationship with the Creator, but science allows us to appreciate more fully the majesty of the Creator and the grandeur of creation.


2. Through science we can acquire an intimate knowledge of the character of creation, but without knowledge of the Creator it is an incomplete knowledge, a knowledge that is limited and ultimately unsatisfying.

Other Polkinghorne Quotes: [Introduction] [Previous] [Next]

Faith and Freedom to ask the Big Questions #4: The Relationship Between Entropy and Evil?

As readers of this blog are aware, I’ve been posting a series of Faith/Science questions for discussion. See here for the introductory post and the comments in #1, #2, and #3 for some interesting dialogue on the first three questions.

For question #4, I’ve decided to take a different tact. Cliff Martin, the reader who originally presented these questions for discussion, has started his own blog Outside of the Box. His latest post “Entropy, the Concept” is the beginning of a series of posts that will (I think) provide an overview how he would start to answer question #4 below:

What is the relationship of evil to entropy? As entropy is essentially death, and the Enemy holds the power of death, how is the driving force of the entire cosmos related to evil, and to the “ruler of the cosmos” as Jesus calls him? If entropy is a temporary bondage from which the whole cosmos longs to be delivered, how might its undoing relate to the undoing of the evil one, the undoing of evil itself? Zoroastrians and Jewish Kabbalists have long seen some connection here. Isn’t it time Christians ask these questions?

I think it’s both more appropriate and productive for Cliff to lay out some of his ideas on his own blog. So rather than comment here, I encourage readers interested in these questions to comment over on Cliff’s site (I have and will). For question #5, which deals directly with evolution, the current plan is to go back to the regular format on this blog.

The questions above are interesting for me because they tie in with some issues I’ve been thinking about:

• What does entropy / evolution have to do with eschatology? I reread Polkinghorne’s chapter on Eschatology in “Science and Christian Belief” this past week. Excellent stuff.
• The incarnation of God in Christ is central to Orthodox Christianity, and Jesus is the only way to God, but does that mean we should ignore what other religions have to say on certain issues? Can we learn from them? (I think John Stackhouse wrote a book on this – I’ve got to dig it up. If anyone has a good recommendation for an Evangelical treatment of this question, please let me know).

A quick personal note: Until 2 months ago Cliff and I had never met (actually, we still haven’t except over the internet – it’s a long way from Oregon to Toronto). However, through a bit of Internet research we were able to determine that we are 5th cousins. I’m wondering if anyone can beat that, ie. say they met their Xth cousin on an internet blog or forum where X > 5.

Faith and Freedom to ask the Big Questions #3: So much death and extinction. For what Purpose?

This third in a series of Faith/Science questions Cliff Martin presented for discussion. Please read this introduction first. For previous discussions, see the comments in questions #1 and #2.

As a result of the processes of entropy, millions of species of animal and plant life have become extinct upon our planet. What strange purpose of God would create so much life only to see it die out? Why would there be many times more extinct species than surviving species? Does this suggest anything about life, and God’s purposes?

Faith and Freedom to ask the Big Questions #2: Why is Death & Decay part of Creation?

This is the second in a series of Faith/Science questions that Cliff Martin presented for discussion. Please read this introduction first. There was some excellent discussion in Question#1: So old, so vast. So Insignificant?

Why did God create the universe in such a way that it is driven by a principle of death and decay? Why would he intentionally subject the cosmos to decay in hope that it would someday be liberated? Now that we know that entropy dates back to the very creation moment, what does all of this suggest about God’s creative purposes? And what significant role does Romans 8 suggest for people of faith?.

Faith and Freedom to ask the Big Questions #1: So old, so vast. So insignificant?

First in a series of Faith/Science questions Cliff Martin presented for discussion.

Why is the Cosmos 13 billion years old, and yet man (seemingly the crowning achievement of Creation) has a history of 10 or 20 thousand years only? Does this say something about the possible purposes of God? Or are the skeptics right when they say Christians are ridiculous for believing we are anything special in light of our extremely short blip on the radar screen of cosmic history?

Also, why is the Universe so incredibly vast? If man is central to what God is doing in the cosmos, why is our part of the cosmos so extremely infinitesimal? Does this suggest anything about the plan and process of Creation, and the purpose of the cosmos? Or are the skeptics again correct in saying that Christians ignore this salient fact and are ridiculously self-important.

Faith and Freedom to ask the Big Questions: Introduction

Trust is at the heart of any good parent / child relationship. However, this trust does not preclude questions. If anything it assumes there will be questions – lots of questions. As a parent, we long to have our children take an interest in the world around them, in our own lives, and ultimately in finding their own purpose.

I believe this is also true of our relationship with God. At the heart of a good relationship with God is trust, trust that his revelation in the incarnation and in the scriptures is authentic, that this authentic past revelation leads to authentic hope for the future, and maybe most importantly, that we act on this trust in the present. However, I believe he also welcomes our questions about his revelations, his creation, and the implications for our lives. An unquestioning attitude, a “just follow the rules” attitude is for slaves. We are not slaves, but children of God, joint heirs with Christ. Heirs are never disinterested. And that’s why asking questions is not only OK, but also what God desires. Part of our mandate as stewards of God’s creation is to understand it.

A new reader of this blog, Cliff Martin (no known relation), provided me with a list of “Big” questions regarding science & faith, including those to do with evolution – questions he has grappled with for some time. He comments:

In our time, science is opening many portals for viewing Creation that were not available to generations of believers that have gone before. We understand our universe much better than most of those who are responsible for traditionally accepted Christian theology. While we cannot ask science to give us ultimate answers regarding the Creator, or his purposes in Creation, science can at least help us to frame the right questions. Questions that never would have occurred to Christian thinkers throughout most of the Church age. Such questions, and a renewed study of the Scriptures in light of them, might just help us to develop theological understandings that are richer, more satisfying, and closer to Truth. Over the centuries, the Church has been guilty of lagging woefully behind science, sometimes playing catch up for hundreds of years. Isn't it time we begin to give heed to science as it unfolds, and allow it to adjust the parameters of our search for truth?

The questions he poses are excellent questions, and include many of the same ones I have either grappled with, or continue to grapple with. I think these are appropriate questions to share on this blog. Over the next few months I’ll be posting Cliff’s questions here. They should stimulate a very interesting dialog – if nothing else between Cliff and myself.

Note that neither of us has satisfactory answers to all of these questions, not even necessarily satisfactory to ourselves. Do not expect a simple catechism question and answer session. However, I believe asking these questions together, discussing them together, providing tentative answers together, and at times, conceding that there is no satisfactory answer together is worthwhile. This, I believe, is a necessary function of the Church, the community of Christians, the body of Christ. These are not questions we should answer alone. Sometimes, maybe most of the time, God provides answers to his children only through other children. As always, you are welcome to join the conversation.