Search News


Browse Archives

News

The Video That Ended a Career

April 9, 2010

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

When it comes to incriminating videos these days, the one of Bruce K. Waltke might seem pretty tame. It shows the noted evangelical scholar of the Old Testament talking about scholarship, faith and evolution. What was incriminating? He not only endorsed evolution, but said that evangelical Christianity could face a crisis for not coming to accept science.

"If the data is overwhelmingly in favor of evolution, to deny that reality will make us a cult ... some odd group that is not really interacting with the world. And rightly so, because we are not using our gifts and trusting God's Providence that brought us to this point of our awareness," he says, according to several accounts by those who have seen the video. Those words set off a furor at the Reformed Theological Seminary, where Waltke was -- until this week -- a professor. (The seminary is evangelical, with ties to several denominations.)

The statements so upset officials of the seminary that Waltke had to ask the BioLogos Foundation, a group that promotes the idea that science and faith need not be incompatible, to remove it from its Web site (which the foundation did) and to post a clarification. The video was shot during a BioLogos workshop. But even those steps weren't enough for the seminary, which announced that it had accepted his resignation.

Waltke is a big enough name in evangelical theology that the incident is prompting considerable soul-searching. On the one hand, his public endorsement of the view that believing in evolution and being a person of faith are not incompatible was significant for those who, like the BioLogos Foundation, support such a view. Waltke's scholarly and religious credentials in Christian theology were too strong for him to be dismissed easily.

But the fact that his seminary did dismiss him is viewed as a sign of just how difficult it may be for scholars at some institutions to raise issues involving science that are not 100 percent consistent with a literal interpretation of the Bible.

"I think it's a really sad situation, even if this isn't the first time a scholar at a religious institution has been released for unorthodox views," said Michael Murray, vice president for philosophy and theology at the John Templeton Foundation, which supports BioLogos and other efforts to bridge science and religion.

Waltke could not be reached for comment on the situation. He did issue a joint statement with the head of BioLogos in which he stood behind the substance of what he said in the video, but also said that he wished he could have provided more context, particularly his view that it is possible to believe in evolution and also believe in "in the inerrancy of Scripture."

Michael Milton, president of the seminary's Charlotte campus and interim president of its Orlando campus, where Waltke taught, confirmed that the scholar had lost his job over the video. Milton said that Waltke would "undoubtedly" be considered one of the world's great Christian scholars of the Old Testament and that he was "much beloved here," with his departure causing "heartache." But he said that there was no choice.

Milton said that the seminary allows "views to vary" about creation, describing the faculty members there as having "an eight-lane highway" on which to explore various routes to understanding. Giving an example, he said that some faculty members believe that the Hebrew word yom (day) should be seen in Genesis as a literal 24-hour day. Others believe that yom may be providing "a framework" for some period of time longer than a day. Both of those views, and various others, are allowed, Milton said.

But while Milton insisted that this provides for "a diversity" of views, he acknowledged that others are not permitted. Darwinian views, and any suggestion that humans didn't arrive on earth directly from being created by God (as opposed to having evolved from other forms of life), are not allowed, he said, and faculty members know this.

Asked if this limits academic freedom, Milton said: "We are a confessional seminary. I'm a professor myself, but I do not have a freedom that would go past the boundaries of the confession. Nor do I have a freedom that would allow me to express my views in such a way to hurt or impugn someone who holds another view." Indeed he added that the problem with what Waltke said was as much his suggestion that religion will lose support over these issues as his statements about evolution itself. (The statement of faith at the seminary states: "Since the Bible is absolutely and finally authoritative as the inerrant Word of God, it is the basis for the total curriculum.")

Given Waltke's role and reputation, Milton said that his resignation wasn't accepted on the spot. But after prayer on the question, Milton said, officials accepted the resignation.

Even before word of Waltke's resignation spread, his need to ask BioLogos to remove the video worried many Christian thinkers who want more public discussion about science. A blogger at Jesus Creed wrote that he didn't agree with all of Waltke's views, but very much agreed that they deserved serious discussion.

The blogger focused his praise on a quote from Waltke in the video in which he said that "to deny the reality would be to deny the truth of God in the world and would be to deny truth. So I think it would be our spiritual death if we stopped loving God with all of our minds and thinking about it, I think it's our spiritual death." The blogger wrote that "we do not preserve the church by drawing lines and building walls." Such a philosophy, he added, will not be easy, but may be essential. "Unfortunately growth causes growing pains -- and growth brings uncertainty. People get defensive and people get hurt. We see this today and are poorer for it. It is also -- my opinion, not from Waltke's comments -- our spiritual death in witness to the world when we backstab, fight, condemn, and censor amongst ourselves. We are our own worst enemy."

At BeliefNet, Rod Dreher blogged that "even though I would agree that Waltke's controversial remarks were overstated, it is all but incomprehensible that in 2010, any American scholar, particularly one of his academic distinction, could be so harshly bullied for stating an opinion consonant with current scientific orthodoxy. Doesn't Waltke at least have the right to be wrong about something like this?

"Don't mistake me, I believe that any and every religion, and religious institution, has the right, and indeed the obligation, to set standards and to enforce them. But is this really the hill these Reformed folks want to die on?" (Dreher is director of publications at Templeton but stressed that his blog does not represent the foundation.)

Darrel Falk, a professor of biology at Point Loma Nazarene University and president of BioLogos, said he was "disappointed" by what happened to Waltke, and said that it showed the need to continue to promote meaningful dialogue between those in the worlds of science and faith. He said that Waltke took "a real risk" by speaking out, and that there is going to be a danger for those who work with religious groups whose leaders and members "just don't understand science."

On the BioLogos Web site, Falk posted a statement Thursday called "On the Courage of Bruce Waltke." He closed the statement this way: "Decades from now, when the Evangelical Church has come to terms with the reality of evolution, we hope she will look back at those who were the pioneers on its journey toward a fuller understanding of the manner by which God has created. I could list other pioneers, a number of whom are good friends and colleagues.

"Right there alongside them will be Dr. Bruce Waltke who, in the latter phase of an extremely distinguished career, had the courage to tell the Church what it needed to hear. The fact that he did so with a remarkably gentle spirit of love will be a reminder to all that the real battles are won when we simply live the reality of the Gospel. To do this -- in the face of adversity -- is the ultimate in courage."

Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on The Video That Ended a Career

  • Posted by SP on April 9, 2010 at 7:15am EDT
  • Waltke is, as almost academics would recognize, entirely correct in his assessment. The creationist viewpoint is an embarrassment.

    Have a look at Creation magazine for the anti-evolution worldview - frankly it is a joke. http://creation.com/creation-magazine . The fact that people holding these views could actually force out one of their own kind, speaks of greater intolerance than they frequently accuse scientists of holding. And I dread to think what they are teaching in the classroom.

  • What century is this?
  • Posted , Professor of Biology on April 9, 2010 at 7:45am EDT
  • Well, he wasn't burned at the stake; I suppose that's some sort of progress. But clearly Bronze Age superstition is alive and well.

  • Someone needs to speak for the other side
  • Posted by Jody on April 9, 2010 at 8:45am EDT
  • Although I believe as Waltke and am greatly pleased to hear a respected professor publicly say that religion and science can work together, before you "burn at the stake" the seminary remind yourself the institution at which he was working. The mission statement clearly states the foundation of the institution--would you expect MIT to teach creationism? I am saddened that he was pushed to resign but a seminary is a seminary not a state-funded college.

  • Posted by Eerdman on April 9, 2010 at 9:00am EDT
  • He knew his context and therefore is responsible for his actions. He clearly should have discussed this with his administration and more carefully constructed his comments or moved into another environment.

    This NOT about creation or evolution. What many people fail to understand is that some of the seminaries are founded and funded by folks with theologies that they want to propagate. When faculty members violate the mission of that particular seminary, they are spitting in the faces of those who have given large donations in good faith.

    The president is simply doing his job of attempting to keep the institution grounded to its unique mission. Those without mission-fit are not hired and those who lose their mission-fit must understand the gravity of the situation.

    I agree that much theology falls short, but so does much "science." As both approach greater approximations of truth, they will be seen to converge.

  • Kudos to Dr. Waltke
  • Posted by Pb , Director, IT at Salem Academy and College on April 9, 2010 at 9:15am EDT
  • I feel badly that Dr. Waltke lost his job over something so blatantly logical. But then, logic and religious belief do not necessarily coexist, do they? I'm a religious person, but also happen to believe that the bible and science are not as diametrically opposed as most think. Kudos Dr. Waltke!!

  • Attacks unwarranted
  • Posted by Dr. T on April 9, 2010 at 9:15am EDT
  • What grieves me the most about this story are the comments that take this as an opportunity to take pot shots at Christianity. Professor Waltke is a Christian, and he does not deserve to have his beliefs called "bronze age superstition." Waltke is not alone in his thoughts on science and theology, as the article points out. There are many, many Christians who agree with him. The issue is with a certain group of Christians who hold a different theology based on a different Biblical interpretation, and refuse to consider any alternatives no matter how well rooted in either Biblical exegesis or scientific research. Don't throw the baby out with the bath water. Christianity will survive this and be better for it.

  • That Eight-Lane Highway Is a One-Way Street
  • Posted by John K. Wilson at collegefreedom.org on April 9, 2010 at 10:15am EDT
  • What's most amazing about this cult is that the professor's statement was a hypothetical "if," not a declaration that evolution is real. Apparently, even speculating that scientific reality is real cannot be tolerated by the repressive right-wing at religious institutions.

  • too common
  • Posted by talleyrand on April 9, 2010 at 10:15am EDT
  • This sort of thing is happening too much to Bible scholars at seminaries with fundamentalist roots, like Westminster and Reformed. If scholars let their guard down and are honest about the results of critical scholarship for an instant, they lose their jobs and are replaced with someone whose real loyalties are in dogmatics rather than critical Bible scholarship. For a while it seemed these schools were making some progress in allowing scholars to be honest about what they knew to be true, but they're clamping down hard now.

  • Freedom of Speech?
  • Posted by David , Professor/English at Jefferson Community and Technical College on April 9, 2010 at 10:15am EDT
  • This type of narrow-mindedness is un-American. This violates the basis of an academic community where free speech, free thought, and free inquiry are the foundations of college life. Some religious groups need to catch up to the 20th century if not the 21st. There is no place for such narrow-mindedness in academia.

  • Acceptance of Evolution Does Not Equal the Rejection of God
  • Posted by TF , Grad Student on April 9, 2010 at 10:15am EDT
  • I find it completely archaic ("Bronze Age" if you will) that in an "academic" discussion one would actually throw this into the fray. I think it is important to understand that Dr. Waltke's agreement with the evolution theory is in no way a rejection of his faith OR his point of origin being God as creator. So, in a very specific way, Dr. Waltke still believes in creation(ism). I do not find this to be Bronze age mentality. However, I do find progress in the fact that there was no actal burning at the stake.

  • Four things ...
  • Posted by Frizbane Manley on April 9, 2010 at 10:30am EDT
  • First, this must have been a painful decision for all concerned. If you visit the Reformed Theological Seminary website, you will find ...

    “Each year by the beginning of April, RTS faculty sign and return contracts committing to serve on the faculty for the following year. We are pleased to announce that with more than 50 faculty all but three have committed to continue their teaching with RTS for the 2010-11 academic year ...

    Dr. Bruce Waltke from the RTS Orlando campus has resigned from his position as Professor of Old Testament and will no longer be making his annual trek from the West Coast to teach his winter and early spring classes in Orlando ...

    Each one of these men has had more than a decade of faithful service at RTS and for this we give praise to Christ! We ask you to pray for these men and their families as they make their transitions.” (hyperlink added)

    That’s it! ... and don’t you just love those one-year contracts?

    Second, it frightens me (annoys me too) that a seminary whose views of scientific discovery are so ... well 15th-century ... would assume the special responsibility of training ministers for service on college and university campuses in America (see Institute for Reformed Campus Ministry (IRCM).

    Perhaps if you happen to run into one of these RTS guys on your campus you’ll start the conversation with “Tell me, what’s your sense of the accuracy of Darwin’s theory of evolution? Oh yes, and how do you feel about Newton’s theory of gravity?”

    Third, without fail, when I run into an academic institution like RTS, I go immediately to their Statement of Faith ... to the statement all students and faculty must sign off on to be “religiously legal” members of the community. At RTS, one professes belief in the Westminster Confessions of Faith – which is pretty awful in its own right (among other things, it promises that I and some of my friends, like Thomas Jefferson (remember him?), will spend eternity swimming about in the Lake of Fire ... ouch! – but the RTS Statement of Beliefs also includes (for emphasis I assume) ...

    “1. All Scripture is self-attesting and, being truth, requires the human mind wholeheartedly to subject itself in all its activities to the authority of Scripture complete as the Word of God, standing written in the sixty-six books of the Holy Bible, all therein being verbally inspired by Almighty God and therefore without error" (emphases added).

    I suppose there is that possibility and it is, therefore, true that God (Yahweh) is responsible for the murder of something on the order of 33,041,220 of our ancestors (see Steve Wells’ wonderful list, How Many Has God Killed). By comparison, Satan was a real piker. He only killed eight (Job’s children), and he did so with God’s permission and on the basis of a wager between the two after God started it all by bragging about how terrific He is.(read Job 1: 1-22). Of course, God always has His “reasons.”

    Fourth, I am constantly amazed that of those counting themselves amongst the faithful of the Abrahamic religions, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, only the Jews (in general) seem to be willing to open their eyes to the inexorable march of science. A 2004 Gallup poll discovered that 45% of U.S. adults believe “God created man pretty much in his present form at one time within the last 10,000 years” ... and there’s no telling what the percentage is for American Christians.

    It saddens me that we have been evolving for so long and are still so remarkably ignorant.

    Well, it’s back to work for I.

  • Whatever happened to Academic Freedom?
  • Posted by Joe Beckmann on April 9, 2010 at 10:30am EDT
  • When the concept of academic freedom was formulated, worthy and credible - now liberal, but then far less so - universities typically dismissed faculty for far less dramatic academic apostasy - see Hofstadter and Metzgar's books. Why has the AAUP and other professional professorial associations not intervened, mediated, and protected the right of a senior and reputed faculty member to express an opinion, in his discipline, not shared by the administration of his university? It is astonishing and an embarrassment to all of higher education that this "case" should have progressed so far, and that this "report" is not considered an indictment of the professional associations - in religion no less than in academe. How does the Reformed Theological Seminary maintain its accreditation? Do its students continue to access federally insured funds for tuition? Where is the outrage? Or have colleges forgotten collegiality and professional professorial standards?

  • Why did the report not investigate the accrediting agencies?
  • Posted by Joe Beckmann on April 9, 2010 at 10:45am EDT
  • RTS (Reformed Theological Seminary) is accredited - and its hiring and firing policies approved - by Association of Theological Schools in the United States and Canada (10 Summit Park Drive, Pittsburgh, PA 15275-1103; Telephone number 412-788-6505), and by the Commission on Colleges of the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools (1866 Southern Lane, Decatur, Georgia 30033-4097: Telephone number 404-679-4501) . Not only that, but it's Marriage and Family Therapy degree program is accredited by the Commission on Accreditation for Marriage and Family Therapy Education of the American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy. Not only that, but it's financial aid resources include ten institutional sources and the billions recently approved for Pell Grants. The US Department of Education has a legal responsibility to protect the professional and academic integrity of degrees earned by those who borrow or who use grant funds. This specific kind of academic malfeasance is actionable in most federal and many state courts. There is an entire web of regulated financial and fiduciary regulations that such a firing undermines, both for this individual institution and for any institution awarding comparable certification in any of the areas where it is credentialed. That is the point of those credentials. And where is your reporter on this? How were such questions not asked of the institutional leaders, the regulators, and the accrediting and loan and grant funding sources? Must we finance more domestic Talibans?

  • Bringing shame on Christianity
  • Posted by Phred on April 9, 2010 at 11:00am EDT
  • One of the tragedies here is that the rejection of evolution and the literalist 6-24 hour day notion of creation is such bad biblical interpretation. The apostolic and early church, which generally sought to make use of what was understood to be scientific knowledge, would find this interpretation outside of the mainstream of orthodoxy. The theological implications are even worse, since such people are effectively saying that either 1) the Bible is wrong or 2) God is careless or messing with our minds by providing such convincing evidence of the age of the world and the development of life on our planet. I would rather say that their understanding of the Bible is wrong than to believe in such a God. Science is not always correct and has very little to contribute to the discussion of the existence of God, but truth needs to be recognized as such and best efforts should be made to reconcile the two ways of knowing, just as scientists need to understand the limitations of the scientific method and current scientific understandings.

  • Karma
  • Posted by talleyrand on April 9, 2010 at 11:15am EDT
  • Here's another thought. Waltke howled with the wolves at Peter Enns when Enns was going through this at Westminster. Now it's come home to roost. Jesus said, "Judge not, that you be not judged."

  • A Few Things
  • Posted by Dr. K on April 9, 2010 at 11:45am EDT
  • There are a few things for which the article does not seem aware:
    1. The video did not state anything that was new to those familiar with Waltke. His Old Testament Theology promotes theistic evolution and has been used recently as the primary Old Testament theology textbook at both RTS and other evangelical seminaries. It is somewhat deceptive to portray this as only being RTS which was upset about the video. Dr. Waltke himself felt that the video took some statements out of context and was afraid that they may be misunderstood without the greater context of the discussion (which apparently was going to be released in a second video at a later time).

    2. According to those at the school, the seminary initially refused to accept Dr. Waltke's resignation, and only after he insisted and submitted it a second time did they accept it. This is not similar to the situation with Dr. Enns where his work was reviewed by the seminary and found to be outside of the theological framework that he had committed to working under. There was no review by the seminary, and the views in this video have been more clearly outlined in his previous work both at Biologos and in his Old Testament Theology.

    3. In recent correspondence with Dr. Waltke, he has shown frustration in dealing with those on both sides of his theological perspective. It's very possible that he has simply tired of the debates. Only once he discusses the situation will there be any clarification.

  • Evolutionary Faith and Religious Faith
  • Posted by Grouchy Old Man on April 9, 2010 at 12:00pm EDT
  • As one who made a good living looking for oil and gas using a physical evolutionary model but who grew in faith through it all, I may have a valid contribution to this discussion.

    1) Like all models (I dislike the term "Theory" for such a broad set of ideas), Physical Evolution is a good model. Until enough data that contradict this model are collected, we are going to use it.

    However, all the data do not "prove" it nor make it "true". The data make us more comfortable with our model but they only fail to disprove it. If this distinction seems trivial, take a look at writers on the philosophy of science. And yes, my geo-colleagues, we do have a philosophy even though we never took that course in college.

    2) Anyone is old enough to remember when Continental Drift took over Geology and destroyed the Continental Accretion model, can attest to the rapid changes sciences can experience. By its very nature, Science is constantly testing its models and nothing is, no pun intended, set in stone.

    3) Physical evolution is based upon some assumptions, the major one for this discussion being naturalism which, by definition, excludes super-natural influences. OK. As a Christian I get one assumption, too. I assume an all powerful creative being who started the Universe and set it working and, is capable of creating Earth to look any way they wish, even very old.

    4) One's of basic assumption above, totally defines your world view. In this case either assumption is exclusive of the other. And how do we select our basic assumption?

    OK A short review.

    Nothing in Science is static nor is it "proved" pending future data.

    Your world view depends upon your assumptions.

    Your assumptions are taken on faith.

    Conclusion: There is no argument between the Physical Evolution Model and religion since neither view of the origins of what we see on Earth today can be disproved.

    The professor here is guilty of some scientific ignorance or, perhaps the misuse of the word "fact".

  • What century is this?
  • Posted by Andrew on April 9, 2010 at 1:00pm EDT
  • I just wonder how long a biology professor would last at a secular university that turned to question the theory of evolution?

    I'm not sure in this situation the professor would have time to resign. It might be over the top but in my imagination I can see the faculty grabbing the poor fellow by his legs and carrying him to be burned at the stake.

    Maybe he would be given the opportunity to recant, but when people get the red mist you just can't be sure.

  • Darwinian views not tolerated
  • Posted by Ken Badley , Educational Foundations and Leadership at George Fox University on April 9, 2010 at 1:00pm EDT
  • I am not sure I understand the Seminary's position on Darwinian biology. I heard almost nothing but Darwinist, survival-of-the-fittest economics in the health-care debate (the government should not help the poor). Why is Darwin so good for Christians in the economic sphere but not in the biotic? Presumably, such an anti-Darwin seminary would have been in favor of the health care bill. Help me understand this, please.

  • Posted by Lex on April 9, 2010 at 1:30pm EDT
  • No, sorry, but I cannot excuse even a seminary or school of theology for this behavior, any more than I could excuse such a school for firing a seminarian for denying that the sky is magenta with purple polka dots.

    There IS a difference between objective, verifiable fact and belief, between matters of fact and matters of opinion. In the latter realm, educational institutions are welcome to the widest possible latitude, but no educational institution should be in the business of teaching objectively disprovable falsehood (and certainly not with government support, either directly or in the form of student financial assistance).

  • Science v. Bible
  • Posted by frankly speaking on April 9, 2010 at 2:15pm EDT
  • The Science vs. Bible and Evolution vs. Genesis Creation Account debate is a diversion from the real debate. The real debate is on the assignment of overarching "meaning" of data. The debate is quite a mess. Prof Waltke stepped into this minefield with his public position on this. The core values of public/private institutions, in our sound bite world, are often further reduced to shibboleths that define institutions to supporters. Institutional supporters these days have no capacity for nuance. I can't help but recall the goofy firing of David Howard from the DC Mayor's stance because he used the term "niggardly" at a meeting. The fact that the word has no relation in etymology to a racial insult and that he had used the word properly made no difference. There was no room for nuance, no educational moment. The shibboleth ruled the day.

    There is also history and context here. Leading public scientific figures have often converted narrow based scientific views into an all encompassing world view, i.e. a religion, a theology. Thus we read about a "theory of everything," etc. Evangelical Churches have been rightly skeptical of a too easy embrace of the atheistic philosophy of science, one unfortunately joined at the hip with biological evolution and often indistinguishable from it in the classroom. To make matters worse, other disciplines have prostituted the narrow, carefully defined, concept of evolution in biology and applied it to other fields. All fields of study seem to want to emulate the credibility of the hard sciences. Using the terms of the hard sciences is one way to do this. There is no evolution of history, personality theory, etc., Development, yes. Evolution as metaphor, yes. Evolutionary science, no. As Norber Weiner, the famous mathematician, said, "The price of metaphor is eternal vigilance." Often the "evolution" of these fields also comes with religious trappings purporting to explain almost everything human. A radical understanding of the evolution of human societies led to terrible mischief and evil in 20th century, "the new man" of Nazism and Communism. Perhaps, in the end, the lesson is that human beings are incurably, innately spiritual. It seems we are all driven to find an overarching understanding of the world, something higher than ourselves to believe in and serve. As Martin Luther once wrote, "The question is not whether one will worship or not, but at what altar he will worship."

    Prof Waltke needs a better match with his intellectual commitments. I'm sure he will find one. Apparently, going public with this issue was personally important for him. This could have easily been avoided. He probably could have continued to teach, presenting all sides of the issue in class. He is no longer a good fit with his institution. One of the beautiful things about the US is the diversity of institutions, both public and private. He should be able to find another place to thrive. I hope Inside Higher Ed will tell us about his next position.

  • Poor Journalism
  • Posted by Zack Ford , Blogger at ZackFord Blogs on April 9, 2010 at 2:45pm EDT
  • I am extremely disappointed in this article, because there is not one critical voice in it. Everyone in the article is eager to defend the compatibility of science and religion and everyone is happy to treat a seminary like it's a legitimate place of academic learning.

    When there are strict parameters for how you may think, the concept of academic freedom is a complete joke.

    I find it disturbing that Inside Higher Ed continues to humor the work of the Templeton and BioLogos foundations. They are the work of selfish apologetics with little respect for intelligence or academic integrity.

    I have written some further thoughts on this article here: http://zackfordblogs.com/2010/04/science-and-religion-are-not-compatible-the-seminary-says-so/

  • Posted by tim on April 9, 2010 at 5:00pm EDT
  • @Zack,

    Since when did it become "selfish" for foundations to argue for a particular point of view? In America, we have the freedom to express our views and create ways of making those views palatable on the marketplace of ideas. Also, I hardly think it's fair of you to call these groups and the people who run them "selfish." Why would it be selfish to promote views that they see as beneficial to the common good of society?

    Also, without parameters of some kind, there is no furthering of knowledge, every discipline has parameters, methods, ways of getting at truth and meaning.

  • Posted by Chuck Beem on April 9, 2010 at 5:15pm EDT
  • Some of these comments are hopelessly naive when it comes to seminaries and seminary education. 'Bronze Age'? 'Domestic Taliban'? Really? Especially when the Prof in question- Waltke- himself believes much of the things you label as Bronze Age?

    Look, you might disagree all you want with the Seminary's position on Creation, but the fact of the matter is that it is there to train up ministers within a specific framework- Reformed theology. (Waltke went to Knox Theological Seminary, a school with almost identical beliefs, BTW- one which is in some ways more conservative, and which has even shared professors with RTS!) If constituents in the sponsoring churches disagree with what Waltke is teaching then criticism is just fine- and strong criticism at that. As someone pointed out, they are paying him to do his job. Like it or not, it works the same way in the business world and politics. Scott Brown got elected in MA- why? Because they didn't want the other ones! And how come foreign cars do so well in the U.S.? They serve the constituents better!

    Look, Waltke is extremely respected, and rightly so on many things. And while he might not work at RTS any longer, I am certain he will not be hated or villified. Many here do not seem to understand evangelicals- and especially confessionally based ones- one whit. Given a similar situation in reverse, Waltke would have- and should have- lovingly reminded the other prof the official position of the school and moved him on.

  • The "real" issue
  • Posted by justaperson on April 9, 2010 at 5:15pm EDT
  • Dr. Waltke was let go because he articulated views that were in conflict with his institution's doctrinal requirements. Professors, according to the director, "do not have a freedom that would go past the boundaries of the confession." This means simply that it is not permissible to raise certain questions, or even admit the possibility of research from outside the official views of the institution that might tend to discredit those views. The problem with this is that it tells the world that this is a school where certain lines of inquiry are prohibited even when the method of inquiry (i.e., the scientific method) is universally used in all the sciences. The school isn't simply offering an opinion, it is requiring of its faculty and students to intentionally ignore or discredit a legitimate branch of science. Evolution is a scientific theory and a scientific fact, and it can only be falsified by better science, not theology and religious dogma. RTS, in my opinion, deserves all the bad press it gets.

  • Please, please
  • Posted by James Pakala , Library Director at Covenant Theological Seminary on April 9, 2010 at 8:15pm EDT
  • The situation is much more complex. For starters, there is a wide range of views among evangelicals just as there is among others. In any case, it is fascinating to see among comments the difference between modernism (e.g., this is the 21st century; yank that fact-denying seminary's accreditation) and postmodernism (e.g., this is the 21st century; people have rights and their own realms of reality).

  • Displeased taxpayer
  • Posted by CKM-W , Adjunct at Community Colleges of Indiana on April 10, 2010 at 7:00am EDT
  • What concerns me most about this story is that it is yet another case of an institution's being given or otherwise profiting from Federal funds while being allowed to disregard Federal laws and regulations with impunity. Since the decision to open numerous Federally-funded programs to faith-based organizations, I have seen many of the constantly-increasing number of such programs violate the program regulations by, for instance, forcing participants to attend religious services as a condition for receiving services, while monitors look the other way; or ensuring that the bulk of the services go to members of their congregation. It is particularly distressing to see this flouting of law and regulation in services where the state has exempted the program from normal licensing requirements on the ground of religious freedom (such as in pre-school programs.)

    The school may be a seminary rather than a secular institution of higher education, but it has sought and accepted some secular accreditations that it is reasonable to assume place on it some obligations to provide at least some degree of academic freedom and inquiry. It participates in the Pell program and therefore should respect Constitutional guarantees of freedom of speech.

    I resent my tax dollars being used in this manner.

  • Yes, They're Selfish
  • Posted by Zack Ford , Blogger at ZackFord Blogs on April 10, 2010 at 1:15pm EDT
  • @Tim,

    It's selfish because there is no inherent benefit to their cause. They are trying to twist science to allow them to continue benefiting from religious privilege. I would contend that there are actually quite negative consequences to trying to reconcile science and religion.

    Take a look at the scientific literacy of our nation. LESS THAN HALF "believe" in evolution. This is outrageous, because there is nothing to believe in at all. You either understand it and recognize that it does not jive with creation or you reject it in favor of your beliefs. Reinforcing the idea that you can mix the two only holds our scientific literacy back.

    That's why I'm outraged that we even CARE about this seminary "professor." Theology is all made up, and the study of theology is just making up new ways to make things up. Religious history and anthropology I'm fine with, but theology is supernatural make believe. It's anathema to science and scientific literacy. If we're going to condemn RTS for anything, it should be for being wrong. It's alarming how many folks seem eager to "give them their place." As far as I'm concerned, they have no place in respectable academia.

    Waltke, himself, said it best when he suggested they might be a cult. Why do we encourage them to keep denying reality?

  • Narrow minded
  • Posted by In6Days on April 11, 2010 at 4:30pm EDT
  • The Bible is very narrow-minded, i.e., God is One. God clearly teaches through his Word that His Creation was created in six days. This theologian of the Old Testament deviated from the clear teaching of Scripture, from the very Beginning. His dismissal is warranted.

  • response
  • Posted by mark , student at RTS on April 11, 2010 at 9:30pm EDT
  • As an RTS student, let me clear up some of your mis-informed (at best) and uninformed (at worst) statements.

    1. RTS DOES NOT accept government funds. They completely rely upon donor giving and revenue off of investments. They do this to avoid any governmental imposition/intrusion (real, possible, or hypothetical) on what they can teach. So stop decrying how your tax money is being used because it's not being used by RTS. They won't even accept the G.I. Bill.

    2. It's amazing the uncritical acceptance of evolution and the uncritical blasting of the Bible. Have you taken Hebrew? Systematic Theology? Church History? Genesis-Joshua? Can you see how unequivocal the Bible is in the creation account?
    When it comes to evolution, science is dealing with something that is outside science proper. evolution is philosophy and the beginning of the universe is unobservable and unrepeatable. All one can do is look at evidence and then interpret the evidence. Evolutionists interpret the evidence using science and reason as ultimate authorities. Creationists interpret the evidence using God's Word as the ultimate authority.

    3. It's hypocritical to cry "ACADEMIC FREEDOM" when an evolutionist is shown the door, but to deny any creationist to teach in an academic institution. Where is your academic freedom? You shut out those who don't agree with you. You shut out the minority simply because you're the majority. Your cry for academic freedom is hypocritical and reveals your intolerance for any view that you deem intolerant. 100% tolerance demands tolerance of all views, including so-called "intolerant" ones.

    4. RTS is not the official seminary of any church denomination. Officially, it is non-denominational. Yet it does teach from a certain theological perspective--that of Reformed Theology and the Westminster Standards (Confession of Faith, Larger and Shorter Catechisms). These standards are the boundaries for the seminary. The professors have to sign an annual contract agreeing to these standards. "Academic Freedom" has no room for confessionalism, yet RTS is a confessional seminary. We actually believe some things are right and some things are wrong.
    As a student, I'm constantly exposed to arguments from those "on the other side" and then those arguments, instead of being dismissed, are revealed for their errors in logic and Biblical truth. Evolutionism and Arminianism are not dismissed as being Bronze Age or any such thing. They are dealt with as present realities that some people accept and then we're shown how these people are in error. THAT is academic freedom. We don't ignore error. We expose error for what it is.

  • Straining gnats and swallowing camels
  • Posted by Rory Roybal on April 12, 2010 at 5:00am EDT
  • Mainstream media again strains at a gnat while swallowing a camel. This is nothing compared to intense and widespread discrimination against people who believe in an intelligent Creator, as exposed in Ben Stein's movie 'EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed'. Evolution is not only unscientific, but is the exact opposite of science, see <a href="http://www.articlesbase.com/christianity-articles/miracles-of-god-evolution-or-false-prophets-1460044.html">Miracles of God, Evolution or False Prophets?</a>

  • Posted by Tim on April 12, 2010 at 6:30am EDT
  • @Zack,

    Thanks for responding. I'm just afraid that you are overstating your case by quite a bit. I take it that you are a well-educated man who has a strong grasp of science. I would suggest that your blanket statements about the moral motives of an entire group of people (be it at this particular seminary or religious people in general) is decidedly UNscientific. You are classifying the staff, students, professors of an entire institution as selfish without ever even observing their lives, listening to their perspectives and beliefs as they express them. It is irresponsible, from an academic and scientific standpoint to attack the character of those who disagree with you. It is called an ad hominem argument. Instead of engaging with religous people in dialogue, you are attacking their character.

    2. I am not sure if you have studied theology before? If so, I would love to know which authors you have read or what you know of them. Definitely some parts of theology are "made up" but that doesn't mean we should abandon its study. Phrenology was once part of science right? You don't abandon science just because some theories were false. The creative arts - literature, painting, sculpture-those things are "made up". Many, many, reasonable people, some even who hold Ph.D's in science from the top universities in the world (many of which were started by people with religious motives) believe in the possiblity of divine life, and theology is the study of divine life. Academic freedom, to remain free, simply MUST allow room for theological scholarship in the academic world. Should it be questioned? YES! Should it be scrutinized? YES! But it should not be summarily dismissed because you believe there is no God.

    3.Your language of "privilege" (if i understand your meaning correctly) on your website and in this post would probably mesh well with what is called liberation theology or even Black theology. These theologies, even if as you say, they are "made up," argue for abolishing privilege from a deeply religious standpoint and these theologies have had a big impact in some areas of the world. You might want to enter into this world and see what you think. Some authors for you to check out would be James Cone or Gustavo Gutierrez.

    4. You said that theology is "anathema" to science. It's curious to me that you used a word that religious people used to use to oppress those they disagreed with. The discipline of science does not have a set of codified beliefs does it? Is there some creed you have to sign, when you become a scientist, to say you are abandoning religious belief? It is simply not true that scientific inquiry is an inherently atheistic discipline.

  • Posted by LR on April 12, 2010 at 9:00am EDT
  • I agree with many of the comments here on the existence and reign of superstition. It is amazing that in the 21st century with all of the scientific advances that we have people so superstitious that they defend evolutionary theories in the face of all the incontrovertible evidence to the contrary. I can understand how years ago, without benefit of scientific advances, people would adhere to the idea of biological evolution, but it is inexcusable today.

    Waltke is a good example of why religion and science must be mixed only very carefully. Those who know little about science should not take firm positions such as Waltke did.

    Having said that, RTS and every other institution has standards for their professors that are not allowed to be contradicted. That's hardly surprising or unexpected. The notion of "academic freedom" in the educational realm isn't believed by anyone. Every institution has limits.

    So let's dispense with the superstitution and just work with science. Let's go where science takes us. It will quickly lead to dissolution of evolution as a viable theory of origins.

  • The right thing to do
  • Posted by Kyle Simpson on April 12, 2010 at 10:30am EDT
  • Not only is he wrong on evolution, he's categorically wrong that evolution and the Bible can co-exist. They're diametrically and inexorably opposed. To say otherwise is to either not understand evolution or not understand the Bible (or both!).

    However, I don't think they should have fired him for being wrong. BUT, if they asked him if he would keep such views to himself and not allow them to affect his teaching, and he couldn't honestly commit to that, I think they had every right to force him out.

  • Creation vs. Evolution
  • Posted by Gary on April 12, 2010 at 10:49am EDT
  • From the void of nothingness God created the heavens and the earth. From the dust of the earth he created man. I can touch, feel, see and experience much of His creation. Within His creation, I exist. I have the freedom of thought. I can obtain knowledge through my existence and my experiences. I can explore. I can reason. I can speculate. I can doubt. I can believe. I can imagine. I can question. I can make assumptions from all my experiences. My assumptions and my reasoning can evolve from experience to experience. Within this freedom of thought, I can theorise and postulate.

    Hypothesis: I will imagine that I alone exist in the void of nothingness.

    I will question my existence. Do I exist? Yes.

    I will speculate as to how I exist. Did I evolve? No, there is nothing to have evolved from. Did I create myself? No. There is nothing from which to have created myself. Am I created?

    I will theorise. I might have been created, because there is nothing from which to have evolved.

    I will doubt. I cannot have been created because I can't imagine a creator.

    I will reason. Is there any other possible way I could exist? No, but because I do exist, there must be a creator.

    I will theorise. There must be a creator.

    I will postulate. I exist, therefore there is a creator.

    I will imagine. Why did this creator create me? Is there a purpose? Can I communicate with the creator? Can I see the creator? Can I touch the creator? Can I experience the creator?

    Each person has the freedom to theorise his or her own path to existence. I feel comfortable in knowing that even if I existed in a void of nothingness, there would still exist a creator.

  • Secular Attacks of Evolution.
  • Posted by oldmoal , Engineer on April 12, 2010 at 3:15pm EDT
  • This is for Andrew who wondered what would happen to a secular professor who attacked evolution (with the assumption that he would be treated worst than Prof. Waltke). The fact is that evolution is un constant attack by the secular professors, who regard it as necessary to the scientific process to question any theory, and in particular to question the very assumptions the theory is based on (mostly because that is the easiest way to debunk a theory). Not only does evolution survive these attacks, but ideas suggested by extrapolation of evolution have led to great advances in many disciplines.

    The strength of evolution is that it has not only survived all attacks, but has opened itself to further attacks from almost every scientific discipline (e.g. biology, geology, anthropology, physics, chemistry, medicine, virology, bacteriology, genetics, radiology, zoology, comparative anatomy). All these "ologies" co-exist quite well and support one another so closely that research into one often is research in several others. So to contradict evolution you have to contradict the evidence from all theses sciences, and then show that a different system of argument fits the observable facts. Many have tried, and all have failed.

    The other idea I would like to point out that the is that the "Theory Of Everything" in physics is not antithetical to a monotheistic religion. It is a quest based on the idea that matter, energy, time, and space itself all stem from a single set of principles. Within this quest they have questioned every axiom of science, and in fact have developed theories that do not include time as a necessary condition for existence (and good luck to them in reconciling that with observation - if they live long enough). All these theories require is a means to test themselves against observable evidence. And that is the ONLY means by which the competing theories of everything will be sorted. This is the major aspect of science that differs from any faith based system of logic such as creationism, or any system based on strict adherence to a single source whose tenets are not open to question.

    The final idea is that if you start with a false axiom, you can show that anything is true, and you cannot argue from truth to false. But logically, if you can show that an axiom of logic is false, then ALL the conclusions from that axiom, while not proved false, are immediately shown to be not proved, and must therefore be proved with a different set of axioms.

  • The point of it all
  • Posted by One More Opinion on April 12, 2010 at 4:00pm EDT
  • The reality of the situation here is this: no one on this discussion thread is going to convince anyone else of their position. The one thing that creationists and evolutionists share is a tendency to hold firmly to their beliefs: we are all stubborn and unshakable, and short of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, are not likely to change our minds At a certain point, we must agree to disagree.

    The pertinent question here is, should Waltke have been given a chance to defend himself or contextualize his argument before being summarily dismissed. It seems like, regardless of whether the university was forced to give him the chance, the sporting thing would have been to do that. All of us would want the same courtesy extended to us were we in his shoes.

  • Response To Oldmoal
  • Posted by Frizbane Manley on April 12, 2010 at 5:00pm EDT
  • Your post was so excellent, I hate to complain. My complaint is not that you are wrong, it’s that you could have said something better. So vis-à-vis your last paragraph about logic, here goes …

    In my experience, most logical novices, given the implication, “if p, then q,” confuse the implication itself and the consequent, “q.” Many times when one says (as you did), “If you start with a false axiom, you can show that anything is true,” they think “Oh, if I start with a false p, then anything that shows up in q must be true.”

    I try to explain it this way, When you see “if p, then q,” you actually see three propositions … “p,” “q,” and “if p, then q.”

    Now the truth or falsity of the implication is completely dependent on the combination of the truth and falsity of p and q, and, as it happens, whenever p is false the implication,if p, then q is true. It’s the implication – the logical argument if you will – that is false. And it says nothing whatsoever about the truth or falsity of the consequent, q.

    Assuming I’ve confused everyone by now, let me summarize very clearly. Suppose you’re given the three propositions, p, q, and if p, then q. Suppose, in addition, you know p is false. Then it automatically follows that if p, then q is true, and God only knows about q. It could be true, false, who knows? We get all of that simply by knowing p is false.

    I try to avoid saying “If you start with a false hypothesis, you can show that anything is true,” because it’s not an unambiguous statement … it requires clarification. If you read InsideHigherEd very often, you know there are many posts in which the writer started with either a false antecedent, p or a “proposition” whose truth-value is pure conjecture, uses an often incorrect stream of “logic,” reaches a conclusion, q, and thinks s/he has proved something. I notice it with almost equal frequency amongst those who extol the virtues of critical thinking and those who couldn’t care less about CT.

    In any event, yours was an excellent post.

  • Damn ,,, My Fault
  • Posted by Frizbane Manley on April 12, 2010 at 10:45pm EDT
  • In my last post, my fourth paragraph should read ...
    "Now the truth or falsity of the implication is completely dependent on the combination of the truth and falsity of p and q, and, as it happens, whenever p is false the implication,if p, then q is true. It’s the implication – the logical argument if you will – that is true. And it says nothing whatsoever about the truth or falsity of the consequent, q."
    Sorry about that.

  • Response to Gary …
  • Posted by Frizbane Manley on April 12, 2010 at 10:45pm EDT
  • Needless to say, Gary, your logic is irrefutable.

    I have only one question. When you say “From the void of nothingness God created the heavens and the earth. From the dust of the earth he created man” am I to assume you are referring to Yahweh/Allah, the God that sprung from the Abrahamic faithful? … the God of Jesus and Muhammad?

    If so, there’s a distinct possibility you’re off to a bad start.

    The Mayan story of creation begins with the emptiness of the primordial waters of space, in a darkness which contains no manifested thing. There Hunab Ku, the divine one, the first cause, eternal, unborn, undying, all that was, is, and will be, uncontained, boundless, absolute, awakened from the dreamless sleep of thirteen eternities and emanated out of his own will the Heart of Heaven.

    A one-dimensional emanation of Hunab Ku's own divinity, the Heart of Heaven was the recipient of all potentialities. Its only dimension, length, disappeared into the nonexistent breadth and height, and set in motion the process of cosmic evolution in planes of existence so spiritual that only the eye of the mystic could conceive it. Space was not, since there was nothing to contain it. Time was not, since there were no events to divide it. There was only the incomprehensible divinity of Hunab Ku, permeating the Heart of Heaven which slumbered for seven eternities.

    Then by the power of his word Hunab Ku thrilled the Heart of Heaven. Awakening from its dreamless sleep, Heart of Heaven emanated the God Seven, the cosmic Demiurgus, the creator, one in essence, seven in manifestation [with help from Wikipedia].

    Now that we’ve got the correct God, I think the rest of your logic is spot on.

  • Pell grants; what is a day to God?
  • Posted by Disgruntled taxpayer , Adjunct at Community Colleges of Indiana on April 13, 2010 at 5:15am EDT
  • 1) To student Mark--Pell grants are Federal funds administered by the institutions and in fact, whether the funds go to the school, then through the students' hands first (as at a proprietary school I was familiar with), then back to the school, or are received by the school on the student's behalf,retained by the school, and credited to the student's account doesn't matter--the school is participating in a Federal education funding program.

    2) Manley, thanks for the correction--your field is one of my many weak spots, and you really had me scratching my head there for a minute.

    3) I swore I wouldn't get into this, but--I do not see why someone who believes the Bible is the inspired word of God needs to reject evolution as a consequence. God created man from the dust--life emerges from the Big Bang, which was how God started it. If seven days tired an omnipotent God, they must have been days in God's time, not the 24-hour days humans are restricted to. Do not forget that the sun, stars, etc. were not created on the first day, showing that it is impossible for the time previous to that day of creation to be 24 hours long. There is no reason to believe that God did not create the aniamls and man during HIS days, through the process of evolution. It smacks of hubris to ignore the God-given evidence of evolution and assume that one's limited human intellect fully understands and properly interprets the word of God.

  • Two Kinds of People
  • Posted by David , Retired on April 13, 2010 at 1:30pm EDT
  • There are two kinds of people, and further study of DNA will find the necessary evidence to "prove" that some people "know" they are descended from Adam and Eve and were created fully human in the image of God - and others who "know" they evolved from an ape - there should be no argument about this - each of us knows in our heart which we are - let's stop fighting and let Jesus Christ decide which of us is worthy, for He is the only trustworthy judge (it is worth noting that He knows who His human ancestors are)!!!!

  • To "Disgruntled Taxpayer"
  • Posted by LKL on April 13, 2010 at 5:15pm EDT
  • Sorry if I am missing it, but where do you find that RTS participates in pell grants? There is absolutely nothing on their website - even searching for pell grant does not find anything. Currently attending a private non-government funding school, pell grants are not permissible because it violates the non-government funding policy. Students cannot apply for or use pell grants to attend our institution, and it would seem to be the same would apply to RTS. Just wondering where you found it.

  • The essence of orthodoxy
  • Posted by DeSwiss on April 13, 2010 at 10:15pm EDT
  • "Extreme orthodoxy betrays by its very frenzy that the poison of skepticism has entered the soul of the church; for men insist most vehemently upon their certainties when their hold upon them has been shaken. Frantic orthodoxy is a method for obscuring doubt." ~ Reinhold Niebuhr

  • Apologies
  • Posted by Disgruntled taxpayer , Adjunct at Community Colleges of Indiana on April 14, 2010 at 5:30am EDT
  • My apologies to student Mark [Marc?] and to the school--I went to the source where I believed I had received some information about the school's Pell grant program allocation, and the information simply was not there. I therefore withdraw my objection to my tax dollars being used in support of suppression of free expression, because it appears that the school does not, in fact, use Federal funds. And I am now disgruntled with myself for not exercising proper caution before speaking out.

  • He should know better
  • Posted by Nikk on April 14, 2010 at 12:45pm EDT
  • Waltke knew the confession which he agreed to. To teach against this was foolish. One must question his postion at the institution on this basis alone. If he disagreed with the confession he should have admitted it to those in authority and move on instead of embarrassing himself and the intitution.

    Evolution is not a fact. It is nothing more then a bad hypothesis poorly supported by conjecture. If anyone tells you different, they do not understand evidence and the interpretation of this evidence. Evolution is historical science and not applied science. Hence not repeatable, not testable. Evolution is contrary to Christ. Christ confirmed creation, Adam and Eve, Noah, the Flood, Able, etc... Christ then is contrary to evolution. Evolution may dare say be the "Spirit of Anti-Christ" that Jesus spoke of. For, evolution comes from the Greeks and was at the time of Christ. Darwin merely copied his grandfathers, Erasamus Darwins, book Zoonomia, renamed it and added his own examples. Erasamus got the idea from the ancient Greeks. For a Christian to believe evolution, removes their religious leg to stand on and if let to continue on the wayward path will deny Christ and then are no better then the heathen.

    Waltke can move on to some liberal college that denies the Christ and whole heartedly embraces evolution. I am sure he will feel more comfortable there among his own kind.

  • Waltke's letter to the faculty as sent to Christianity Today
  • Posted by LKL on April 14, 2010 at 6:45pm EDT
  • Waltke submitted his RTS-Orlando letter to Christianity Today on Monday. Here it is in its entirety:

    Dear Colleagues:

    Holy week and the Monday through Wednesday of this week have been a uniquely hectic experience in my 79 years, to say the least. So hectic, I did not even follow the New York Yankees in the New York Times, my team for more than 70 years! I knew the issue of Genesis 1-3 and evolution was emotionally charged, but not this charged. Worse yet, I unwittingly involved the RTS community, especially Ric, in the brouhaha. I sincerely apologize to you and especially to Ric for not handling the matter more discretely.

    Ric’s acceptance of my resignation has only added to the emotional turmoil; I have received letters from many quarters condemning RTS for his action. In fact, I was asked to be interviewed about my resignation on ABC News with Diane Sawyer! Of course, I refused because I am certain it would have been spun to reflect negatively on RTS and the church.

    I am writing to assure you that I find no fault with the RTS administration; in fact, I think they did the right thing. Let me explain.

    As noted, I did not have a chance to vet the video. How would I have edited it?

    1. I would have entitled it “why the church should accept creation by the process of evolution,” not “why the church must accept evolution.” Also I would have emphasized in writing that the introductory “If” is a big “if,” because I am not a scientist. Having familiarized myself with reconciliations of religion and science by: Institute of Creation Research (Henry Morris, young earth, no evolution), Reason to Believe (Hugh Ross, old earth, no evolution), Intelligent Design (Philip Johnson, no view on age of earth, but no evolution), BioLogos (intelligent design [lower case] and evolution) and Framework hypothesis (non-committal to any of these views), I consider that of BioLogos the best.
    2. I would have deleted my position as a professor at RTS. This was the real problem. I was speaking as an individual, not as a representative of RTS. It may well be that I am the only one on the faculty holding the view of creation by the process of evolution as understood by mainline science, apart from its normal atheistic philosophy. As it stands, I dragged the whole community in the misunderstandings.
    3. I would have clarified in writing that by evolution I mean theistic evolution, not naturalistic evolution. And I would have defined theistic evolution as I do in my Old Testament Theology
    4. I would have called attention to literature such as Henri Blocher, In the Beginning, and Francis S. Collins, The Language of God that present the case for evolution. (I read Blocher, a brilliant French Reformed Baptist theologian 25 years ago.)
    5. I would have also called attention to my An Old Testament Theology and W.R.L. Moberly, The Theology of Genesis, explaining why I think Genesis can accommodate creation by the process of evolution.
    6. I would have called attention to older classic dogmatic theologies such as Shedd and Strong who also held to theistic evolution. I am told that B.B. Warfield held this view but I have been unable thus far to document that.
    7. I would have suggested to Ric that he call attention to others in the PCA who also held this view.

    All “would haves” due to the poor way in which the video was handled by BioLogos and me.

    Regarding the future I hope and pray:

    1. this fiasco will not hinder RTS from being open to theistic evolution as I have defined it.
    2. I will not be identified by the idiosyncrasy of being “a theistic evolutionist,” like a “cripple,” “a mute,” etc. This topic is neither my field of expertise nor my hobby-horse, I want to get off it as quickly as I can.
    3. RTS’ reputation will not be tarnished. I will do all I can to that end, such as writing this letter.
    4. our love for one another will increase more and more

    Our community is based on the rock-solid foundation that our Triune God’s sovereignty over all things is informed by sublimities that surpass our imagination and our ability to praise them.

    Tuesday evening I received the call from the dean of another seminary to teach there. He, the executives of the seminary and I are praying about this with thanksgiving.

  • Evolution from a Christian Viewpoint
  • Posted by Charlotte Ward , Assoc. Prof. Physics, emerita at Auburn University on April 15, 2010 at 11:30am EDT
  • I am a Christian in the evangelical tradition. I am also a scientist. Long ago, as a student, I struggled with the apparent conflict between my faith and my chosen (called to?) career. I have come to see the Bible, the foundation document of my faith, as a collection of writings by godly people who expressed in the terms of their times their inspired perception of God at work in the world. To take its words literally is often to misuse it. (My children are thankful I am not a Biblical literalist; I did not take them to the center of town and stone them for their rebelliousness, and all four turned out rather well.) It is fairly apparent that God's method of creation is an evolutionary process - something that would have made no sense to the ancient Hebrews. Even today, it is simpler to say "God created the heavens and the earth" than to say "there was a quantum fluctuation in the false vacuum, followed by a period of rapid inflation..." I believe we dishonor God and show an ungodly hubris when we think we know all there is to know all there is to know about God's methods, either in our own lives or the natural universe.

  • Accomodationism
  • Posted by Michael Kingsford Gray on April 16, 2010 at 6:00am EDT
  • Anyone who claims that the evolution and the Christian religion are "compatible" is at best "mistaken".
    Generally this error arises via a PROFOUND disconect between the questioning of reality on a day-to-day basis, and the total fear of questioning one's indocrtination into ridiculous impossiblities by those who still somehow manage to wield ecclesiastical power over children's minds.
    I am Australian, by the way; but I note that thise fear & iundue deference to anyone who sets themselves up as a bogus Priest, Pastor, Evangelical fraud, etc is at the root cause of this mental cowering, and subsequent irrational thinking in sectioned-off departments of discourse.

    Those from overseas see this as utterly astoundingly bizarre and very frightening, when Professors of hard physical sciences can confidently pronounce that they are in daily contact with a mythical sky-torturer.
    Even more so, when I remember that you lot have nuclear weapons.
    Frightening to be reminded that such willful ignorance is even acceptable in the USA, let alone alarmingly pervasive.

    Do something about it before it is too late for the world, please.
    Gods are a dangerous fiction.
    Grown-ups know that.
    Many are willing to voice that adult opinion.
    It strikes me that many academics in the USA still believe in Santa-Clause, or are too cowardly to admit that they do not, for fear of rejection.

  • The religious disconnect from reality
  • Posted by RealityGuy on April 17, 2010 at 6:45pm EDT
  • Just another example of the the dangerous religious disconnect from reality, one theme in a book I'm working on. Religious dogma fosters a stagnant mindset--believers can find all they need to know in their particular version of The Holy Book. Have you noticed that, ironically, many supposedly ethical religious folk have no qualm about intentionally deceiving or lying--or worse--to proselytize or protect their turf? After all, if you're doing God's work, it's easy to rationalize that the ends justify any means. In this mindset, how could it be otherwise? A key example of religious deception concerns evolution, the topic in question. Religion-based opponents desperately wish to hoodwink people into believing that evolution is only a theory. This view is either misinformed (to be charitable) or deliberately deceitful (all too common). The "theory of evolution" is not synonymous with "evolution." They are two different things. That evolution occurs is incontrovertible fact. The "theory of evolution" is an ongoing attempt to fill in the gaps in the process of evolution--as with any theory. At least the Catholic Church has officially admitted that evolution IS fact after all (as well as the Copernican "theory" that the earth revolves around the sun and not vice versa). But don't expect fundamentalists/evangelicals to follow suit any time before the next Flood, as evinced by the terrified reaction to Professor Waltke's gentle nudging of their House of Cards. (He's a hero in the sense of someone willing to go against power in an effort to do what's right.) Next time you hear someone smugly claim that evolution is only a theory, don't let them get away with it, particularly in the presence of other people who might be "fence-sitters." Consider educating them on the facts--it just might make a difference.

  • Response To David, Nikk, and Bruce Waltke …
  • Posted by Frizbane Manley on April 19, 2010 at 10:00pm EDT
  • Three things …

    First, David implores us (emphatically I might add) …

    “… let's stop fighting and let Jesus Christ decide which of us [those who are descended from apes or those who are made whole by Almighty God] is worthy, for He is the only trustworthy judge (it is worth noting that He knows who His human ancestors are)!!!!”

    I recently wrote in a long essay titled “The Founding Fathers and a Christian America” in which I addressed the ancestry of Jesus Christ. Here’s a bit of it …

    “● Heretofore, God was only marginally successful communicating directly with his SAs [Special Animals] ... and, in fact, even with his ESAs [Extra Special Animals … the descendants of Abraham]. He kept relating his expectations, and they kept disobeying. It just wouldn’t do for him to spend too much of his valuable time with the somewhere between 90 billion to 110 billion of us SAs who have ever lived on this Earth, so he invented an alter ego, the Holy Spirit, to take care of his Earthly business. By that I mean someone had to intercede between the Unmoved Mover – aka Yahweh … aka God … aka Allah ... aka God-the-Father – and those privileged, yet sinful, SAs.

    ● It turns out that that, for whatever reason, God created humankind in a manner that made us incapable, on our own, of overcoming the original sin he gave us in full measure. We needed his help to pull it off. So he had this idea ... ‘what if I had a son ... and then sent that son ‘down’ to Earth – you know, that tiny speck in this enormous Universe I’ve created – and I’ll set things up so my son will die for the sins of my SAs.’

    Needless to say, God must be the father of his son, so he, apparently in the form of his alter ego, the Holy Spirit, inseminated a young, virginal Jewish woman of Nazareth in Galilee. Lest the young Mary be surprised by the once-in-an-eternity event of being impregnated by the Holy Spirit, God sent his favorite Archangel, Gabriel, to fill her in on the details. Nine months later the baby Jesus Christ of Nazareth in Galilee was born.

    Jesus was Jewish in the sense that his mother was Jewish (and, by the way, Jesus, the ‘son’ of David, was of the lineage of Ruth who was of the lineage of one of the sons of one of Lot’s daughters, who got the old man drunk for the purpose of having sex with him … and after he tried to make things easier for himself by making his daughters available for sex with a bunch of rowdy Sodomites).

    And the father of Jesus (i.e. the Holy Spirit) ... who knows? I suppose Jesus was at least multi-racial. In any event, Mary had the very remarkable status of being God’s daughter (we are all God’s children), his wife/mistress (vis-à-vis her tryst with his alter ego, the Holy Spirit), and His mother (since Jesus, the Father, and the Holy Spirit are ‘three in one’). This was quite an undertaking for a young woman who may well have been a teen-ager at the time ... and apparently after having spent only one night with the Holy Spirit.”

    In my essay, I elaborate on this concept and describe other characteristics of Yahweh, the Holy Spirit, and Jesus Christ, but David, you get my point. The ancestry of Jesus is more than a little bit unusual (and by “unusual” I simply mean it is completely inconsistent with the personal experiences of anyone who is alive today). It’s quite “unbelievable.”

    Second, Nikk tells us, “Evolution is not a fact. It is nothing more then a bad hypothesis poorly supported by conjecture. If anyone tells you different, they do not understand evidence and the interpretation of this evidence. Evolution is historical science and not applied science. Hence not repeatable, not testable. Evolution is contrary to Christ. Christ confirmed creation, Adam and Eve, Noah, the Flood, Able, etc... Christ then is contrary to evolution.”

    It may well be a waste of time to try to explain to Nikk that the 13.75 billion years of events that encompassed the evolution of humankind – not to mention the evolution of everything else – is just as non repeatable and non-testable as the creation of everything he believes came straight from the hands of God. And he apparently he believes that story with some certainty. I keep telling folks who believe Yahweh is responsible for creation to read Robert Crumb’s The Book of Genesis because it’s trivial – even enjoyable -- to read at a single sitting … and it illustrates the tale (verbatim, of course, from the King James Bible and Robert Alter's translation) quite “accurately” and beautifully.

    I would also like to remind Nikk that there are many, many creation superstitions in which the Unmoved Mover is a god other than Yahweh (see my post above in which I mentioned Hunab Ku, one of the Mayan gods). One of the advantages of Nikk’s creator is the fact that, by accepting a literal interpretation of the Bible, it is possible to fix the date of creation, thus calling into question the overwhelming scientific evidence supporting evolution and natural selection. John Ussher spent most of his lifetime – at least several decades -- counting up and verifying all of those Biblical begats to set the time of the creation at nightfall preceding October 23, 4004 BCS. I have a barbeque dinner at my house every October 23 to celebrate that event.

    Also, Nikk, if you think about it, the Great Flood – I call it Yahweh’s Mulligan – is little more than God admitting he screwed up the first time around and wanted to give it one more shot.

    Third, I appreciate LKL providing us with Bruce Waltke’s letter. There is much valuable information therein, but I am particularly interested in two different perspectives on Professor Waltke’s “tenure” at RTS …

    Waltke: “I would have deleted my position as a professor at RTS [from the video]. This was the real problem. I was speaking as an individual, not as a representative of RTS. It may well be that I am the only one on the faculty holding the view of creation by the process of evolution as understood by mainline science, apart from its normal atheistic philosophy.” (my italics)

    Nikk: “Waltke knew the confession which he agreed to. To teach against this was foolish. One must question his postion (sic) at the institution on this basis alone. If he disagreed with the confession he should have admitted it to those in authority and move on instead of embarrassing himself and the intitution (sic).”

    Whether Professor Waltke stayed or moved on – and I’m certain he’s not the kind of guy who would drag RTS through the mud in order to “stay on” – says a great deal about the purpose of RTS. If its purpose is to indoctrinate men and women in accordance with a body of fixed beliefs, then perhaps Nikk is right. If the purpose of RTS is to prepare its students to be thinking individuals who are committed to a broadly based, Biblically sound, philosophy of life, then Nikk is completely wrong and it is actually important for Professor Waltke to remain on the RTS faculty.

    Finally, on this point – and I know I am an anachronism in this regard – I think any “community of scholars” consists of little more than the students and teachers ( and thank goodness there are more than a few staff and administrators whose sole purpose should be providing the scholars with the time, space, and resources required to carry out their responsibilities). First and foremost, however, RTS is its students and faculty … and Professor Waltke should never apologize when his thoughts and statements are “associated” with RTS. That’s because he -- and the other 49 faculty members and their students -- are RTS. Of course any intellectually-based statement he makes should be interpreted as being a (not the) perspective of the institution … and it only speaks to the strength and vitality of the institution if it embraces more than one – and perhaps even contradictory – perspectives.

    In the final analysis, however, it’s my prejudice that Nikk is right. RTS is all about indoctrinating students (unscrew the tops of their heads and pour in the “true Christian dogma,” a la Monty Python), and the thoughts and statements of anyone who questions – or even evaluates too closely -- the written-down, Biblically-based, administratively-endorsed tenets of the institution are grounds for dismissal. It’s all employees and customers … and “if you’re the boss man, you calls the shots.”

    Paraphrasing George Orwell just a bit, “If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear. Don't imagine that for years on end you can make yourself the boot-licking propagandist of [religious zealots], or any other [kind of zealots], and then suddenly return to mental decency. Once a whore, always a whore.”

  • Faith and evolution aren't incompatible ...
  • Posted by Townsend Harris at CUNY on April 30, 2010 at 3:45pm EDT
  • ... for the Jesuits who taught me in high school and college. Those guys have come a long ways since The Inquisition. Despite their chagrin over being tarred with the same broad brush as the child molesters in the Roman Catholic Church, I believe they'll not resurrect the thumbscrews and the racks.

  • Truth?
  • Posted by Quine on May 2, 2010 at 6:15pm EDT
  • Throwing him out of the institution does nothing to address the truth of what he says. How do you expect to continue your organizations if you do not face what the rest of the world can demonstrate with objective evidence is the truth? Consider this famous quote from Thomas Jefferson: "Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is closer to the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong."

  • Posted by Simon on May 3, 2010 at 4:15am EDT
  • Sad to see a moderate hung. Take a backward step on the progress board.

  • Waltke & Evo
  • Posted by frank williams , retired philosophy/religion at Eastern Ky Univ on May 3, 2010 at 8:45pm EDT
  • Michael Milton, RTS President comment:

    "But while Milton insisted that this provides for "a diversity" of views, he acknowledged that others are not permitted. Darwinian views, and any suggestion that humans didn't arrive on earth directly from being created by God (as opposed to having evolved from other forms of life), are not allowed, he said, and faculty members know this."

    WHERE, in the RTS Westminster Confession, is there anything whatever about Darwinian views of anything? WHERE is there anything about Darwinian views not being allowed???

    Ans: NOWHERE!!!

  • The Tools of God
  • Posted by Leigh on June 16, 2010 at 5:15am EDT
  • Exposure of the Wedge strategy and blatantly dishonest propaganda attempts such as the movie Expelled put the world of science on notice– DI/ID had declared war, and in their battle nothing was sacred. How can any thinking, caring person accept an institution's lack of integrity, whether it's deceit at the hands of writers and film-makers or smugly pious justification for cutting short a man's career and cutting off debate?

    Note: Mere months ago, the Church of England that originally pilloried Darwin, apologized and admitted the Church was mistaken in its understanding of evolution. Why are American churches that were so quick to follow the CoE in condemning Darwin, so slow to follow the Episcopal acceptance of evolutionary truth?

  • Posted by James Green on April 23, 2011 at 2:45pm EDT
  • <p>As illustrated by Bruce Waltke, there is a pressing need within Christianity for a credible explanation of Genesis, one that respects the biblical text (1) yet allows for extensive time (backed by solid evidence) and (2) rejects evolution (random, undirected change) as a powerful constructive mechanism. Millions of years are not a cure for the severe limitations of random change. <p>
    <p>I have just finished reading <i>The Real Genesis Creation Story: A Credible Translation and Explanation at Last </i> by J. Gene White. Of all the books I have read on the subject that attempt to explain Genesis, this is the most comprehensive, lucid and logical. Based on solid scientific evidence and his in depth analysis of the Hebrew text, he appears to have a translation and explanation of Genesis Chapter 1 and 2 that finally makes sense. Without giving away the main thesis of the book, I will say that he does not focus on redefining the terms, “day, create, make, heaven or earth.” He does not treat any verses as metaphorical, mythological or untrue. He does not view evolution as a powerful constructive force. His book can be ordered from the publisher’s website at http://www.sunnybrookepub.com/. </p>