Latest Challenges to the Teaching of Evolution

Emancipated modern man acknowledges no great design of which he is a part, and bends the knee before no image. He congratulates himself upon transcending fear and superstition and assumes that he has entered into the bright calms of rationalism. He regards with half-amused dismay the frantic activities of the fanatics and devotees who are so easily mobilised to attack his cherished liberties, but he is too indolent to defend them with as much fervour or tenacity. Nevertheless the liberties survive, because they are not liberties at all but rather decoys which draw him safely away from political activity and the forming of groups which might disrupt the inert continuation of established power. He, never suspecting that he is himself a pawn, assumes that his liberties survive because they are the product of rational thought, and therefore right. The rightness removes from them the property of mere contingency so he regards countries and cultures where these same rights do not prevail as backward, superstitious and inhumane. The modern liberal is a bigot and his bigotry may be heard in the corridors of all the international organisations, the NGOS. the charitable cartels which seek to extend the cultural hegemony of the West with every tittle of "aid".

It has been argued many times that homo occidentalis has far too much faith in reason and his own power to deploy it, and therefore is as arrogant and evangelical as any other who considers himself endowed with ultimate wisdom through revelation or holy writ. The other side of the religion of rationalism is not so often described. Modern man is profoundly religious, but his religion is no longer centred upon the propitiation of heavenly or infernal powers, rather it concentrates on his propitiation of himself.

The great series of scientific discoveries which made it possible were due to a quite preponderating extent to the white race whose original home had been in Western Europe. However, the race proved unequal to its own greatness. Success sapped its energies and killed its spirit of adventure. They could not believe that the harder world, which we know, would be tolerable. They could not believe, as we know, that happiness has little relation to comfort or luxury. Consequently, they started to limit the numbers of their families in the fruitless expectation that in this way they would restrain the multiplication of the human race. Their numbers started to decrease at first relatively to the other races, and then absolutely; their peoples gradually faded away, and this once great race now survives precariously in a few of the less accessible parts of our earth.

150th birthday of 'On the Origin of Species' prompts area colleges to assess Darwin's impact
(Grand Rapids Press, September 26, 2009)

When Charles Darwin wrote “On the Origin of Species” in 1859, the British naturalist posited a theory " evolution by natural selection " that dismayed many scientists and theologians who held to the notion of “special creation.”

Now, as “Origin” is poised to celebrate its 150th anniversary in November, most scientists and many in the faith community have accepted the basic tenets of the book.

But one area of American society " education " continues to grapple with how to implement Darwin’s theory.

Though high schools have been at the center of the controversy, higher education institutions, especially Christian ones, also must make tough choices in determining their science curricula.

In a recent survey of area colleges and universities, The Press found all of the institutions that teach biology teach Darwinian evolution.

Only one, Cornerstone University, questions the theory’s validity and spends significant time teaching alternative explanations. Even most of the Christian schools " Calvin, Hope and Aquinas colleges " base their curricula on Darwin’s theory.

“Evolution is the paradigm out of which we teach biology,” said David Warners, a biology professor at Calvin. “We’re not trying to hide things; it’s just that we’re not looking for a fight.”

Much of the controversy, according to Hope biologist Thomas Bultman, is rooted in how Christians interpret the book of Genesis. Many view it as a literal account of creation, which is a mistake, he said. “It’s not a story about how the world came to be,” he said, “but of what our place in the world is.”

Bultman notices many students enter Hope with a “creationist/intelligent design” worldview, he said, and are frustrated by the biology curriculum.

Warners said there is a similar trend at Calvin, as many students begin college as strong opponents of evolutionary theory.

“It’s a challenge,” Warners said of teaching evolution, “and it needs to be done very sensitively.”

Reconciling faith and science is less of an issue at secular schools, which have no allegiance to religion or sacred texts.

But even there, educators must tread softly, said Gregory Forbes, a biologist at Grand Rapids Community College.

“Students come from diverse ideological backgrounds,” he said, “and you respect that in the classroom.”

Despite the controversy, educators must teach evolution, Forbes said, because it is the best scientific explanation. To reject the theory, he said, is like saying the earth is flat.

And yet, dissent persists in academia.

Cornerstone University, for example, incorporates evolutionary theory but does not base its science curriculums on it, said chemistry professor James Fryling.

“It is important " scientifically, politically, culturally,” Fryling said of Darwin’s theory. “So we do talk about it, but it’s certainly not the focus.”

Fryling said he believes in a six-day creation that happened less than 10,000 years ago. He readily admits this is not a scientific explanation.

“Science, however, is not the only way we have of knowing or explaining things,” he said.

Forbes’ problem with teaching creationism, he said, is it breaches the science-religion divide, which is why it is not included in GRCC’s curricula.

“In science, we’re limited to looking at empirical data,” Forbes said. “If it falls outside that realm of empiricism, science can’t address it. It might be true, but we can’t test it.”

The other schools surveyed expressed similar concern over creationism and intelligent design " the notion certain things in nature are best explained by an intelligent cause.

Calvin’s Warners said they are “worthy philosophical interpretations,” but they shouldn’t be considered scientific.

Though Calvin biology students are immersed in evolutionary theory, not all of them accept it.

Joe Moss, a senior biology major, has had three courses with Warners but remains unconvinced of Darwin’s theory, he said.

Moss, 21, went to a Christian high school in Chicago where he learned the flaws in evolutionary theory and was taught creationism.

He sticks to that view, he said, because “God’s word is true.”

Moss, who is planning a career in naturopathic medicine, said he knew he would be taught evolution at Calvin. But he was surprised at how extensively Darwin’s theory is implemented, he said.

“I’ve had some biology professors,” he said, “who say you’re not a scientist or biologist unless you believe in evolution.”

In the dispute over Darwin’s theory, there are polarizing figures on either side: scientists who ridicule alternatives to evolution, and dissenters who mock the theory.

But in the middle are men like Moss and Warners, who recognize their differences but strive for common ground.

“I still respect him,” Moss said of his professor, “as a Christian and a man of science.”