Latest Challenges to the Teaching of Evolution

"Human beings, as we know them today, developed from earlier species of animals."

Quote:

"Human beings, as we know them today, developed from earlier species of animals."

How exactly do you interpret that statement wande?

The Video That Ended a Career
(Scott Jaschik, Inside Higher Ed, April 9, 2010)

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."

Quote:

The Video That Ended a Career
(Scott Jaschik, Inside Higher Ed, April 9, 2010)

"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.)

Knox County School Board Considers Banning Science Book
(By Jesse Fox Mayshark, Knoxville Metro Pulse, April 14, 2010)

You could attend decades’ worth of school board meetings in East Tennessee and most other places without ever seeing what observers were presented with on April 7 by the Knox County school board: an actual motion by a board member to ban a textbook.

After sometimes heated discussion of a parent’s complaint about a brief description of Christian creationism in the book, Asking About Life, board member Cindy Buttry moved “that the book be banned from Knox County schools.”

With the likely outcome of a vote unclear, board Chair Indya Kincannon used a parliamentary maneuver to postpone the issue until the board’s May meeting. At the moment, the board stands adjourned with Buttry’s motion still on the table.

“I felt like the meeting was devolving a little bit and getting emotional,” Kincannon said a few days later, explaining her assertion of “personal privilege” to shut down the debate, “and we weren’t going to be able to reach an even-keeled, reasonable conclusion.”

Kurt Zimmermann, a Farragut High School parent, filed a complaint in December about the honors biology textbook’s characterization of creationism as a “Biblical myth.” (The reference comes in a section of the book that discusses the political and cultural history of the concept of evolution.) A Farragut High School review committee made up of two teachers, two administrators, a student, and a parent considered Zimmermann’s complaint and concluded that the textbook was “appropriate.” Zimmermann appealed to the school board, setting the stage for last week’s collision of politics, religion, and science.

Speaking to the board, Zimmermann said he had been approached by his son and other Farragut students (who he said are also his Sunday School pupils) who were upset about the implication that Christian beliefs are myths. In the ensuing board discussion, it became apparent that several board members, including Buttry, Robert Bratton, Sam Anderson, and Patrick Richmond, were sympathetic to Zimmermann’s sense of grievance. Debate quickly moved beyond the semantics of the word “myth” to broader concerns, with Anderson declaring, “I personally believe that there has to be some intelligence in the design of life, and no science teacher would ever be able to convince me different than that. It didn’t just happen in Walden’s Pond.”

Donna Wright, the school system’s assistant superintendent for curriculum and instruction, said a few days after the meeting that she had never seen a textbook complaint reach the point of a board motion to remove material from the classroom. “This is not to negate or minimize the parent’s concern with the language,” she says. “My concern is when we get to where we are going to ban a book, pull a book, because of the actions of a few.”

Becky Ashe, who works under Wright as executive director of curriculum and instruction, says she found it “shocking” that a board member would move to ban the book. Ashe, a former science teacher who oversaw the most recent science textbook evaluations, says the treatment of evolution in particular gets careful attention to make sure that the material is scholarly and presented clearly. “In both cases, in this textbook, it’s exemplary,” she says.

Asking About Life was written as a college-level biology text by Allan J. Tobin and Jennie Dusheck. In phone interviews, both authors said they were surprised the book was so widely used in high schools, and stunned that it had provoked such controversy.

“Book banning is very serious, and it’s very upsetting to hear,” says Tobin, a neuroscientist and former faculty member at Harvard and UCLA (where he was director of the Brain Research Institute).

Dusheck, a science writer with a graduate degree in biology and 25 years experience writing about biology, says the word “myth” in the text reflects how courts have repeatedly characterized Christian creationism: “Over and over, the courts affirm that creationism is religious in nature, and that it’s not science.”

She adds, “When we’re writing, we really try to convey a respect for students, and it would never be our intention to hurt the feelings of students. We like students. We want them to understand biology.”

The board debate attracted notice at the University of Tennessee. Andrew Kramer, head of UT’s Anthropology Department, says, “To get rid of an entire book that is promoting biology as it is understood and practiced by today’s scientists, because of maybe an unfortunate word choice, I think that would be ridiculous.”

Gary McCracken, head of the Ecology and Evolutionary Biology Department, notes that Tennessee’s recent selection for education funding from the federal Race to the Top program was based in part on a commitment to improving science education statewide. “This is in fact a very good biology text,” McCracken says of the book.

Buttry did not return calls for comment on her motion to ban the book. Neither did Zimmermann, although he appeared on Fox News the morning after the board meeting, and said, “There’s multiple ways they could remedy this. They could modify the book, they could fix that statement.”

School board member Dan Murphy, who was the most outspoken defender at the April 7 meeting of the Farragut review committee’s decision to keep the book, says any action by the board to restrict or amend the text would just lead to more complaints about the teaching of any number of controversial subjects. He adds that he doesn’t think the school board has the expertise to micromanage the curriculum.

“We’re going to create the intellectual version of the Tower of Babel,” Murphy says.

The board’s next regular meeting is scheduled for May 5. Kincannon says, “What I hope happens is that we take this time to study this issue fully, and hear from people on the review committee and people who have taught the class.”

She adds, “I’d like to hear from the community as a whole. I think we did not hear from the whole spectrum of people during that one evening.”

Even an essay in Hebrew has appeared on it, showing that the theory is contained in the Old Testament!

Historians decry social studies revisions
(By Kate Alexander, AUSTIN AMERICAN-STATESMAN, April 15, 2010)

Historians are decrying the social studies curriculum standards crafted by the State Board of Education that they say misrepresent and distort the historical record.

About 800 college history professors from across the country have so far signed on to a letter circulated this week by seven academics from the University of Texas campuses in Austin and El Paso.

"Those of us who teach and conduct research in colleges and universities have grown concerned that social studies curriculum standards in Texas do not meet student needs," the letter reads.

The letter says that some board revisions undermine "the study of the social sciences in our public schools by misrepresenting and even distorting the historical record and the functioning of American society."

The board has been working on the standards for months and is scheduled to vote in May on their final approval. The standards, which are more than a decade old, serve as the basis for the textbooks and lessons used in Texas public school history, government and economics classes.

The historians have called for a delay of the final vote to allow for "qualified, credentialed content experts" to review the changes and make recommendations.

The signatories mostly teach at Texas schools " including Baylor University, Texas A&M University and Abilene Christian University " but also come from out-of-state colleges such as Stanford University, Brigham Young University and the Virginia Military Institute.

Board Chairwoman Gail Lowe , R-Lampasas, said that the process has already been extended to allow for additional input and that further delay is not likely.

The board has received more than 20,000 e-mails on the standards and will hold an all-day public hearing on May 19 before the final vote two days later.

These historians "seem to have waited until the end of the process to make some noise," Lowe said, adding that she doubted many of them had read the latest draft, which was posted online Thursday, before signing the letter.

She recommended that the historians "actually look at the primary source data" and offer specific criticisms and alternative language through the public comment process.

Keith Erekson , a history professor at UT-El Paso, said he and other historians have been watching the process closely for more than a year.

But they are speaking out now en masse because of recent changes by board members that they say reflect a "lack of historical knowledge," according to a news release.

"It is this last-minute maneuvering that is causing the alarm," Erekson said, referring to the hundreds of amendments made by the board members in recent months.

Among the changes that prompted the concerns, the historians say, are efforts to tidy up American history, emphasizing the positive and downplaying the darker periods. There have also been repeated conflicts over how minorities and women are portrayed in both U.S. and Texas history.

"You can quibble for and against this person or that event," said Emilio Zamora , a UT history professor. "But what is most important and glaring is that this revision does not come close to reflecting the state of historical research on the state of Texas."

Erekson said he recently spoke at Oxford University in England and was hit with a barrage of questions from his international colleagues about the Texas revisions.

"That was all anyone wanted to talk about," Erekson said.

Some board members, however, might not be very interested in what the historians have to say. Those board members have repeatedly dismissed expert testimony and said their objective is to provide a counterbalance to the liberals who have dominated the academic landscape for decades.

In a USA Today op-ed this week, board member Don McLeroy , R-Bryan, wrote that the board's revisions have caused a stir because they "challenge the powerful ideology of the left and highlight the great political divide of our country."

McLeroy added that the board "wants our children to understand how free societies rose to greatness and how they can fall."

A similar tension developed during last year's science curriculum debate when McLeroy, then the board's chairman, challenged scientists' testimony about how evolution was addressed in the standards.

"Somebody has got to stand up to these experts," McLeroy said last year.

David Hillis , the University of Texas biology professor who organized his science colleagues around that evolution debate, said that some board members might disregard the academics but that they must still reach out.

Even if the historians cannot change the outcome, Hillis said "they need to provide the input so the public can to see that this is not mainstream curriculum."

TEXAS UPDATE

Quote:

Historians decry social studies revisions
(By Kate Alexander, AUSTIN AMERICAN-STATESMAN, April 15, 2010)

"Somebody has got to stand up to these experts," McLeroy said last year.

TEXAS UPDATE

Quote:

Historians decry social studies revisions

As for a wife, that most interesting specimen in the whole series of vertebrate animals, Providence only knows whether I shall ever capture one or be able to feed her if caught.