Christian Schools and their Students Deal with Teaching Evolution
The Chicago Tribune has this article about teaching evolution in Christian schools. It really has some juicy tidbits, says some things I’ve said before (not that I was the first or only one to say them), and highlights the religious and theological issues Christian colleges and universities are dealing with when it comes to teaching biology.
With the increase in evangelical Christians and the rise in home schooling for religious reasons, Christian schools of all types find that many of their students come from a creationist tradition. “Young Earth” creationists take the Bible’s Genesis account of creation literally while “old Earth” adherents believe the planet is older than 10,000 years. Both consider Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution and particularly its assertion of the common ancestry of all life and the mechanisms of random mutation and natural selection to be evil, faith-threatening concepts.
[…]
“Imagine telling a very devout creationist that evolution is real, but it doesn’t endanger their faith,” said Richard Colling, a professor of biology at Olivet Nazarene University, affiliated with the Church of the Nazarene, in Bourbonnais, south of Chicago. “That’s exactly the journey many of our college students begin when they come into my biology class.”
Toni Moran, 21, a senior biology major from Decatur, Ill., has taken that journey.
“Personally, I think there’s such a divide among Christians that we’re forced to choose evolution or creationism. I think so many Christians are afraid that if they even look at the scientific evidence, they’ll lose their faith,” she said, noting that “‘evolution’ is a taboo word in my church and in my home.”
I find the article interesting because these issues and feelings are very much a part of the school where I did my undergrad, Abilene Christian University. I remember my general biology 2 class where the professor introduced our study to evolution. He did so sensitively, and also discussed briefly some theological issues, saying that his faith wasn’t conflicted by his understanding of science. One student, who sat right on the row in front of me, angrily asked a few questions and then sulked the rest of the class. It wasn’t easy for him to hear something which he viewed as incompatible with his faith.
I think many Christian colleges and universities have really come a long way in how we approach the topic of evolution. Twenty years ago, Abilene Christian and many of these other places would not openly teach evolution in science classes (which shows just how sad things were). Today, there are lots of Christian institutions that have no problem with it.
There’s still a long way to go. I would say that a large majority of the student body at many of these schools lack a proper understanding of evolution and reject it for two reasons. 1) They think it’s incompatible with their faith, but more than that 2) they’ve been so misinformed that they think the theory isn’t really accepted scientifically, is full of holes, etc. When you solve point #2, point #1 generally takes care of itself. (And that’s precisely why so many biology departments at these schools are comfortable with the theory. They have educated people that know something about it).
The article also presented good quotes about intelligent design, showing that at least some in the Christian community who study this area have a good understanding of what the issues are really about.
Colling vigorously opposes ID, calling it “a God of the gaps” concept without scientific merit that uses God to fill gaps in scientific understanding.
“Intelligent design ensures that God will be pushed into an ever-diminishing corner and ultimately be viewed as obsolete. Every time science makes a new discovery, God is erased,” Colling said.
“Science will undeniably advance, and if we hold onto this creationist thought, I fear that Christians will be left behind,” said Suzi Supernant, 21, a senior biology major from Bourbonnais. She said she and her twin sister, Stephanie, also a biology major at Olivet Nazarene, were “radical creationists” until they got to college.
Said Stephanie, “I teach Bible studies to high school students, and I tell them, ‘I’m a Christian and I believe in evolution.’” But several of the students said that Christians who support evolution are sometimes derided as being weak in faith and bound for hell.
The article then moves a little closer to home and talks about Baylor University. Baylor is particularly interesting for it’s former association with William Dembski, ID’s most vocal proponent.
Although intelligent design is not taught at Baylor, O’Brien said, the university had a controversial association with it. In 1999, the Michael Polanyi Center opened at Baylor’s Institute for Faith and Learning, headed by William Dembski, one of the foremost ID proponents and an early fellow of the Discovery Institute, a Seattle-based think tank and leading advocate for ID. After creating a furor among Baylor faculty, the center was stripped of its name and Dembski was dismissed in October 2000.
“Our scientists felt it made Baylor look like it could be stereotyped and placed in a particular fundamentalist camp that Baylor didn’t want to be in,” O’Brien said.
You can read all about the Michael Polanyi Center and Dembski’s firing at Wikipedia here. But I’ll give you the very short and sweet on it. Dembski was brought in by the president of the university to head up this center working on intelligent design. He was extremely controversial, as the overwhelming majority of faculty members in the sciences did not want him there. When the issue came to a head, a compromise was reached that was going to rename the center and move it under Baylor’s theology department. Dembski then sent out a press release braggadociously announcing the university’s support for him. This was seen as an extremely poor choice, futher escalating the tensions at the university, and he was asked to retract his statement. He refused, and was fired.
Dembski of course is ever the spin master. Citing O’Brien’s words in this article, he claimed today on his blog:
Notice that Baylor’s main concern in shutting down my Polanyi Center was not the truth of ID but that “it made Baylor look like it could be stereotyped and placed in a particular fundamentalist camp that Baylor didn’t want to be in.” That insightful quote comes from Baylor’s provost.
That’s hardly fair. The real reason is that intelligent design is not science, and all the scienctists at Baylor were well aware of that. Thus, “it made Baylor look like it could be stereotyped and placed in a particular fundamentalist camp that Baylor didn’t want to be in.” Other than a few of Dembski’s followers, everyone understands Baylor’s reasons for canning the center. It wasn’t appearances. It was substance — namely the substance that ID lacks.
You can hardly argue that Dembski’s mentioned complaint wasn’t true. You posted the direct quote then you claimed that they actually fired him because it wasn’t science…the quote itself tells you precisely why they fired him. That they “felt it made Baylor look like it could be stereotyped and placed in a particular fundamentalist camp that Baylor didn’t want to be in.”
Not because “intelligent design is not science.” Creation science, I assume you would also say, isn’t scientist, but hello- the most famous scientist of all time (Newton) was a creationist…does that mean he wasn’t a true scientist or that he was practicing psuedoscience? For the biggest chunk of science’s history, scientists have been creation scientists, and not because of some gaps in evolutionary thinking before evolution came on the scene, but because of the evidence they say in the heavens and on the earth. To proclaim that ID isn’t science is 1. arrogant. how can any person or group decide what constitutes “real science” and what doesn’t? That’s absurd. and 2. You have to put the major scientists of history into the camp of fools who were practicing non-science. Maybe even going further and saying that because they were actually creationists, they weren’t ‘true’ scientists.
Science, for the longest time, had no demand that even the work be solely based on a materialistic view of the world- so, even if you claim that ID demands the supernatural (it doesn’t), then you’re still saying that the longest part of the history of science wasn’t true history because it was based on the assumption that there was more to the world than strictly natural laws. Science was much more broad before, and it was much more open to new ideas, ideas that aren’t mainstream…ideas that could possibly revolutionize the way science itself works. The scientists of old knew all of this and that’s why they were less narrow in their thinking. Claiming that the science they dealt with wasn’t true science (which is precisely what you’re doing when you proclaim that ID isn’t science), that’s just foolish.
Hmm. I don’t think I would agree with you, Mr. Bozeman, about science from the long-ago being more broad and open to new ideas. A few key people may have pushed major new ideas, but they weren’t generally accepted by the public and scientific community at large (such as Galileo and Copernicus, Ptolemy, and Darwin).
However, there is a point, Jay, in the undertone of Mr. Boezeman’s comment that I would agree with. You seem to be mainly featuring all of the people that are loud/obnoxious in the creation/evolution debate…and pointing out all of the negatives does not really help to reconcile the two often opposing worlds of science and faith. But maybe reconcilliation is not the aim of these discussions for you (?). However, I think it may be valuable to also present or profile scientists who have been able to wear both hats (christian and scientist). There are many people out there who do good, “real” science and believe in God and call themselves Christians. If you need a starter example, David Lahti comes quickly to mind. He is a AuSable alum (I found out about him through Dave Mahan), a recent Darwin Fellow at UMass, and studies evolution and African weaverbirds. His Umass webpage is : http://www.bio.umass.edu/biology/podos/Lahti_Biopage/INDEX.HTM
He has written several articles in Christian journals, you won’t find them listed on his CV or webpage (for obvious reasons), but you can find links to two of them here: http://www.asa3.org/ASA/topics/Evolution/.
Hope you’re having a great Tues
I m not totaly sure that Christians of old were more open minded to science than they are now, I feel that many Christians of today have very very weak faith and want to attack anything and everything that might challenge what little faith they have. Alot of these christians are not unintelligent, they just choose not to listen to scientific fact, and sometimes it even happens within the scientific community. One Au Sableite whom I will name Carrey, who was at the time, in the sciences, said that he was a young earth believer and when I asked him about fossil records, he simply stated that God put them there…I don’t mean to bust his balls, but that just seems silly to me. I certainly would not say that God couldn’t do that, there is just too much factual, physical evidence for me to believe the earth is a touch over 6000 years old. And of course this does not apply to all christian scientists now, but I think the weak if faith have more to be scared about because more discoveries are being made that might rattle thier foundational beliefs.
Oh, and I need a massage from Dave Mahan’s wife.
Oh man, I could use one of those too
Tim, you probably ought to mention that Dave’s wife is a massage therapist before making comments like that. Otherwise, people could walk away with a very bad impression.
Mr. Bozeman, nice to see a passionate ID advocate coming by to challenge what I’ve said. Here’s some brief replies to your comment.
And the scientist Leonardo da Vinci, painted The Last Supper. Is it art or is it science? Your point is simply bizzare. I consider myself a creationist and have publicly stated so on this blog. (See the link “First Time Here?” in the navigation for my background). Creationist and creation science are completely different things. One is a religious viewpoint, the other is
absolutely horriblenot science.I don’t know… I figure scientists do a pretty good job of defining science. Kind of like people who speak Hebrew and Greek get to translate the bible, people who study literature decide that Shakespeare should be studied, etc. Apparently you call these people arrogant. I just think of them as knowledgable in their fields.
Where on Earth did you get that idea? A scientist that believes in God, Allah, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or no God at all is still a scientist when his work follows the practices of science. (Namely making falsifiable predictions). I might think the person is wonderful, or the most rotten SOB this side of Hitler. Their science stands on it’s own when it’s science. As a Christian, I enjoy learning about scientists of old that were also Christians. Some of their ideas were scientific and are still widely taught today. Sometimes their ideas (within science) were religious in nature and are viewed as such — religious not scientific.
This statement is false, as any casual reading of the history on science will show. Darwin’s theories themselves were just one such idea that was met with some resistance but ended up revolutionizing the way science itself works. He presented his evidence quite thoroughly, and in little more than decade the landscape of scientific thought had aligned itself with his views. If someone can present a better theory, the same will happen again.
Here’s a repeat of something I said in an earlier comment which you would do well to read.
The comparision is striking. There are many areas in science that are controversial today. Scientists work on these ideas to put forward predications and evidence to win others over to their side. I am strongly of the opinion that if ID had anything to put forward, it would have done so by now. If ID had any merit what-so-ever, but simply needed more time to develop as a theory, they wouldn’t have taken the battle to the public arena via popular books, lawsuits, etc but instead would have worked to convince other scientists.
Kelley, a little explaining would probably be appropriate.
I have pointed out scientists before who are good examples of Christian evolutionary biologists, and bad examples of evolutionary biologists. Ken Miller is my favorite when it comes to an example of a Christian evolutionary biologist. He’s very respected, very prominent, and honest about his faith. I’ve mentioned Richard Dawkin’s on the other hand as a scientist who obviously has an extreme dislike of religion of any kind, one that he is very vocal about. His statements to me are the worst kind of behavior from a scientist, as his views on athiesm approach the militant level.
I simply think we can’t judge people’s science by their egos and personalities. Newton, born on Christmas day, had an insatiable ego. He believed he was God’s gift to the world. (Who knows, his work just might suggest that he was.) Likewise, Richard Dawkin’s is highly respected for the science he does, even though he can’t stand religion of any kind.
Now, here’s the bigger issue. You asked about reconciliation and the aim of these discussions… I do not think reconciliation will come, by any stretch of the imagination, by accommodating ID. It’s not science, as I’ve spelled out every chance I get, and it’s horrible theology. (I don’t need to repeat what I’ve said — read my first post about ID).
To put it another way, if someone comes into my church and basically demands that we don’t read the bible or study the teachings of Jesus, there’s no room for accommodation. I can be polite to that person if I see them around town or have dealings with them in my job, but any time that issue comes up in church, I’ll kind of be forced to have an opinion.
So it is with ID. I’m not out to fight with people over their personal beliefs. If Mr. Bozeman and lots of other people want to believe that nature shows evidence of
Goddesign, that’s their right. But when ID proponents basically try to subvert the process of science, and use a political approach by turning their ideas into a culture war, I finally had to stand up and say, “You know what… I’m a Christian. And ID sure aint science, and I personally view it to be horrible theology.”I hope to be a Ken Miller… I hope to be an intelligent scientist (that’s going to take a lot of work
) that people can see as an example of a Christian who has faith. I’ll continue to talk about my worldview here on this blog. I just don’t have much sympathy for ID.
“It wasn’t appearances. It was substance — namely the substance that ID lacks.”
Oh, I suspect it was both appearances and substance, if I know anything about administrators.
Fair enough… I was just saying that it wasn’t solely appearances.