Bruce Waltke wasn't actually fired. He submitted his resignation after a nasty dust storm was raised with the appearance of his video blog supporting evolution. The video was done under the aegis of BioLogos, an organization dedicated to a happy and rigorous reconciliation of evolution and Christian faith. The college president, Michael Milton, accept Waltke's resignation after much prayer. Darwinism is not permitted.

See the confusion that brought Waltke's resignation? Waltke was discussing evolution. He was compelled to step down as if he were supporting Darwinism. These are two very different things, and not keeping them distinct ends in just such messes as were created at the Reformed Theological Seminary.

Darwinism is one version of evolution, one theory, one way to try to account for the well-established facts that we do live on a very old earth, and that successive species have indeed risen and died away over millions upon millions upon millions of years. Bruce Waltke was rightly warning his evangelical colleagues that they ignore these facts at their own peril. "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." As Waltke later made clear, he is no loose cannon on the canonical deck: he also affirms the fundamental inerrancy of Holy Scripture.

This is not some kind of wild and impossible combination dreamed up by Waltke. It is, for example, the official position of the Roman Catholic Church, which likewise affirms the inerrancy of Scripture and the basic evidence for an old earth and the succession of species.

Now, if Waltke had indeed affirmed Darwinism, he would certainly deserve to be sacked, because Darwinism is designed to destroy Christianity. Again, Darwinism as a theory is distinct from the general facts of evolution, and it is distinctly bad theory, one that sprung from the 18th century radical Enlightenment. Darwinism looks at the evidence, and presumes that it can and must be explained on entirely materialistic, reductionist, and atheistic terms. It is, as I've said elsewhere, like Marxism, an ideological stance that commandeers legitimate evidence, and twists it to support a secular, God-proof, worldview.

What Waltke and BioLogos are trying to do is disentangle the real evolutionary evidence from the Darwinian ideological baggage. This is not an easy task because the confusion is so deeply entrenched.

This is not even a new task. Charles Darwin himself was—it should come as no surprise—an avid Darwinist. He insisted that the evidence for evolution must be understood in a God-proof way. The co-discover of the theory of evolution by natural selection, Alfred Russel Wallace, came to understand that Darwin's God-less account was scientifically faulty, and offered a theistic alternative. But Wallace's theistic account, along with similar God-friendly approaches to evolution, were buried under the rubble created by the great secular ideologues of the late 19th and early 20th century bent on a secular revolution. Darwinism became their battering ram to destroy the tottering ramparts of Christian culture. As a result, it has become the default theory for understanding the evidence for evolution.

Hence the confusion. It is a simple historical truth that Darwinism destroys Christianity, and turns the Old Testament, as well as the New, into disjointed and foolish myths told by unenlightened primitives. This undeniably corrosive effect of Darwinism brings many a Christian to reel back in horror at any mention of evolution, and think that he must deny undeniable scientific evidence—such as the great age of the earth or the fossil evidence for the rise and fall of species—in order to slay the Darwinian beast. But this is a victory for Darwinists like contemporary Richard Dawkins, because it pushes Christians into being classed as anti-scientific, and thereby reinforces the atheists' case that Christianity is in fact irrational.

As I think Waltke was trying to say, this defensive position makes hash of the Reformed Theological Seminary's motto, "A Mind for Truth. A Heart for God." It would seem to reduce Christianity to a kind of irrational fideism, a heart without a mind, because the mind is intent on denying real evidence for evolution. Evolution must be distinguished from Darwinism, and that sets both the mind and heart free again.

But I would be misleading readers if they now think such a liberation from Darwinism would be a simple thing (and I think, perhaps, that both Waltke and BioLogos believe that it will be an easier task than it actually will prove to be). In realizing that Darwinism has been the default position defining scientific orthodoxy for nearly a century and a half, we need to understand that it has been the defining theory governing all evidence-gathering, evidence interpretation, text-book writing, teaching, and so on, for multiple generations. As a result, the "pile" of evidence supporting evolution is heavily weighted toward Darwinism. The facts and their interpretation are therefore skewed toward the view that the rise and development of species, including humankind, is merely the result of random genetic variation and natural selection. The skewing makes it seem as if God is therefore entirely unnecessary, and that science has sacked from His job as Creator.

But skewed science is not real science. This is the exact same kind of situation as one would find, say, if economic evidence had been gathered for a hundred and fifty years only by hide-bound Marxists. To state the obvious, all the evidence would be heavily weighted towards Marxism. And it would be little wonder if some Christians would be tempted to entirely deny the obvious economic aspects of human life, since all the economic evidence was so malodorously tainted by doctrinaire Marxism. But that would lead them to deny real economic facts, and hence appear foolish. Economic facts must be disentangled from the ideological Marxist web.

In just the same way, Darwinism must be disentangled from the evidence for evolution, and the evidence looked at from the angle of Christianity. Even more important, new evidence must be gathered that has hitherto remained unrecognized because it didn't fit into the Darwinian view that chance and mindless chemical reactions had to explain everything. If these twin tasks would be undertaken, I dare say that in another fifty years we would have an understanding of evolution that would reveal the glory of God the Creator so magnificently and powerfully, that evolution properly understood would become the strongest proof for the existence of God. And we would have no more martyrs for confusion.

The Rev. N. T. Wright on Understanding Genesis

Part of the difficulty sorting out the legitimate evidence for evolution is, for a Christian, theological. That God is the Creator is not a doctrinal option, or something to be interpreted as a mere metaphor. How God is the Creator is a more difficult thing to sort out. That human beings were intentionally made, created in the image of God, is a theological, and hence literal, fact. How God did this is more difficult to sort out. Making this distinction is essential to sorting out how the Bible fits with scientific knowledge of God’s creation.

For obvious reasons, wrestling with the creation story in Genesis is essential to figuring out how the Bible and science could fit together. This is a delicate balance. History is replete with examples of those who were filled with zeal to interpret the Bible in light of the latest scientific findings, and ended up revealed truth to fit flash-in-the-pan scientific theories that soon went out of fashion. On the other extreme are those Christians who would deny even the most firmly-established aspects of science if they appear to contradict a literal reading of the passages. Both extremes err.

Anglican Bishop N. T. Wright—a stellar orthodox voice—helps believers make a beginning by reminding us of where, in the Bible, literal reading makes sense and where it doesn’t.

http://biologos.org/blog/nt-wright-on-understanding-ancient-texts/

The Very Real Concerns of Creationists

We at tothesource don’t mind controversy, but we’re also committed to being fair to each side. While the media routinely mock Young Earth Creationists like Ken Ham, they rarely take the time to grasp their deep and legitimate concerns.

Young Earth Christians understand quite rightly that the greatest and most precious truths are those revealed by God. Like husbands who deeply love their wives and children, and will do anything to protect them from harm, Young Earth Christians, out of their deep love of Jesus Christ, want to protect the truths of biblical revelation from corruption, confusion, and slander. We must all admit, our secularized culture deals out all three, and probably the single most influential source of Christian-bashing is the belief that evolution has reduced the Bible to a foolish fairy tale.

There can be no doubt that Darwinism as championed by secularists has contributed directly to the erosion of Christianity over the last century and a half. Nor should there be any doubt that, all too often, Christians with good intentions have passively adapted Christianity to evolution, rather than actively asked hard questions of evolutionists. Finally, there should be no doubt that secular ideologues—both scientists and laypersons—have twisted the facts and offered spurious evidence to make the case for a God-free view of evolution.

Christians can and do disagree about evolution. But every Christian must act, first of all, out of charity, and that means keeping in mind, amidst all the controversy, the very real concerns of Young Earth Creationists.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v17/i4/theistic_evolution.asp

Send your letter to the editor to feedback@tothesource.org.