All posts tagged BioLogos

Commenting, Evolution, and Public Forums

Another prominent website in the evolution/creation debates has changed its comment policy.

As you may recall, Popular Science announced recently that it was shutting off public comments entirely.  Now BioLogos has decided to vet, edit, and publish only select comments, along with author response.

For those new to the scene, BioLogos has made itself the leading voice for theistic evolution, what its leaders often call “evolutionary creationism.”  Founded by evangelical scientist Francis Collins, the organization has hoped to spread the idea that good science and good religion do not need to conflict.  Bible-believing Christians, BioLogos believes, can still embrace evolutionary science.

But that does not mean, apparently, that good manners and blog commenting can go together.  BioLogos’ Content Manager Jim Stump explained their reasoning for changing their public comment policy.  Too much of the online discussion, Stump said, was dominated by a few voices.  Instead of merely leaving comments open, editors will solicit email comments.  Those comments will be organized into a more coherent back-and-forth between commenters and original authors.  The hope is that this model will encourage more participation from more people than the open-forum approach.

Will it work?

If it does, is it worth the price of restricting open dialogue?

Ferocious critic Jerry Coyne called this a “desperation move” by an organization foundering on the shoals of reality.  Too many commenters, Coyne argued, were asking awkward questions and making persuasive arguments.  The real questions—about how God interacts with the world—proved threatening to BioLogos’ position on the compatibility of science and faith, Coyne said.  Too wide a chasm yawned between real science—which recognizes the extremely unlikeliness of humanity deriving from only two people—and evangelical religion—which insists on an historical Adam & Eve.

I don’t share Professor Coyne’s contempt for the BioLogos mission.  I believe the evolution/creation debates have plenty of room for scientific belief that rubs along with religious belief.

But I agree with Coyne that shutting down comments to preclude dominance by a few voices doesn’t make much sense.  The purpose of this sort of online publication is precisely to allow a free flow of ideas and discussion between people who might not otherwise meet one another.  If a few vociferous voices dominate that discussion, so be it.

A better way to include the unincluded would be actively to solicit short columns and opinion pieces by a wide spectrum of readers.  That way, more voices could be included from people who might shy away from the hurly-burly of an active and combative open-comment forum.

 

5 Comments
by Adam Laats on October 27, 2013  •  Permalink
Posted in Evolution/Creation
Tagged , , , , ,

Posted by Adam Laats on October 27, 2013

https://iloveyoubutyouregoingtohell.org/2013/10/27/commenting-evolution-and-public-forums/

Why Do Evangelicals Doubt Evolution?

For outsiders like me, it can seem an utter mystery why intelligent, informed American adults remain skeptical about the truths of evolutionary science.

The BioLogos Foundation recently re-posted a 2010 video by evangelical scientist Jeffrey Schloss to help people like me understand evangelical skepticism.

Professor Schloss offers two main reasons why evangelicals oppose evolution.  The video is short and worth watching.  But the message is misleading.

Schloss argues that evangelical faith depends on the reliability of Scripture.  Accepting any ideas that challenge that reliability, he points out, would force evangelicals to make profound changes in their core religious beliefs.

Also, Schloss notes that some visions of evolution force evangelicals to doubt the omnipotence and benevolence of God.  If evolution implies a purposeless development of life, it must be rejected by evangelicals.

Such insights are important, but in the end they suggest misleading conclusions.

The vast majority of evangelicals who reject evolutionary science do not do so primarily for theological reasons, as Dr. Schloss suggests.  Rather, evangelicals who doubt evolution mostly do so due to their complex cultural identities as members of communities who doubt evolution.  In other words, evolution skepticism should not be understood as one rational decision among others, made by evangelicals (and others) based on reasoned theological considerations.  Rather, those who doubt evolution do so as members of communities reliant on authoritative statements about the theological impossibility of evolution.

In other words, people doubt evolution because they come from churches, families, towns, and denominations that doubt evolution.  They explain their doubt in theological terms, and such explanations are immensely important.  But they are not the primary reasons why people doubt evolution in the first place.

Perhaps this problem will make more sense if we try an analogy.  Historically, some economists suggested that people tend to make rational economic decisions.  By plotting a rational economic forecast, the thinking went, economists could predict the ways homo economicus would behave.  Unfortunately, real people don’t act often enough like homo economicus to make those predictions useful.  Some people do, naturally, but not enough to make homo economicus a useful explanatory tool.

I suggest that Professor Schloss is crafting a similarly misleading picture of homo theologicus.  Professor Schloss suggests that American evangelicals deny evolution due to two important theological considerations.  Doubtless there are some American evangelicals who have done so.  But more people make decisions for other reasons.  The theology is important, but it is not the place to start if we want to understand evolution skepticism.

Professor Schloss is doubtless fully aware of these sociological and cultural reasons for evolution skepticism.  He notes the many factors that go into evolution skepticism.  But by describing two theological ideas as the most important reasons for opposing evolution, he grossly mischaracterizes the nature of American evolution skepticism.

For those of us who hope to improve evolution education, this matters.  If we think of evolution skepticism as a rational theological belief, then we may decide that the best way to spread evolutionary theory is to explain evolutionary theory rationally and repeatedly.  We may be led to believe that reasonable independent actors have chosen evolution skepticism, and may thus be open to rationally and reasonably changing their minds.

That’s not how it works.  As my grad-school mentor Ronald Numbers has shown, the boundaries of acceptable “creationist” belief among evangelicals and other creationists have changed over time.  Such boundaries have not been something each individual evangelical creationist has reasoned out for him- or herself.  Rather, the meanings of evolution skepticism have themselves evolved.  And, as David Long’s ethnographic studies have demonstrated, personal commitments to evolution skepticism are not often changed by exposure to evolutionary theory.

Evolution skepticism is a complex cultural identity.  Americans do not choose to believe in either evolution or creationism in a sort of cultural cafeteria.  Rather, they are born (or adopted) into communities of belief.

Those of us who hope to spread the acceptance of evolutionary science must begin with a thorough and nuanced understanding of evolution skeptics.  Professor Schloss’ overemphasis on homo theologicus does not do that.

 

 

 

25 Comments
by Adam Laats on September 12, 2013  •  Permalink
Posted in Evolution/Creation
Tagged , , , , , ,

Posted by Adam Laats on September 12, 2013

https://iloveyoubutyouregoingtohell.org/2013/09/12/why-do-evangelicals-doubt-evolution/

From the Dust: Evolution? Yes! Creation? Yes, Please!

Is there a stark divide between creationists and evolutionists?  Not always.  But staking out a middle ground can be dangerous.

The Biologos Foundation insists that Christian belief and evolutionary science go hand in hand.

To help make their case for evolutionary creationism, Biologos recently released a film, From the Dust.  Snippets are available for preview.

For old hands of the creation-evolution debates, there isn’t much new here.  But for those who see the debate as one of religion versus science, this film offers ideas that may seem surprising.

Filmmaker Ryan Pettey explains his goals:

we wanted to put something proactive on the table that could help motivate an elevated conversation about the “war” between science and faith. It was our goal to help Christians see (and accept) the complexity of the issues raised by modern science, as well as help them to courageously engage with the theological conversations happening within the sphere of Christian culture today.

As Biologos founder Darrel Falk explains in the film’s introductory segment,

If people think because of scientific evidence, ‘my Christian faith doesn’t stake up anymore’—that day needs to end. All of the richness in life that I know is because of my relationship with God, and so I don’t want people to miss out on that. I don’t want people abandoning the faith because they find out that evolution is really real. It is God’s truth. So here we have this segment, this all-important segment of God’s people, who are out of touch with God’s reality. I mean, it is God’s universe! This natural world is God’s creation—and so the people, who especially need to be in touch with God’s reality, are off in a corner.

Is there a war between Biblical Christianity and evolutionary theory?  Not according to the Biologos Foundation.  Will this message be successful?  Hard to say.  After all, the most dangerous place to be in any trench war is No Man’s Land.  Sure enough, Biologos has earned the enmity of both sides.

Ken Ham of the leading young-earth creationist ministry Answers In Genesis has warned that Biologos is part of the “epidemic” of pernicious doubt.

Jerry Coyne, perhaps the leading American exponent of science atheism, has lamented Biologos’ truckling to religious “fairy stories” and criticized their “duplicitous” strategy.

For many creationists, however, the message of Biologos seems welcome.  The ability to accept the truths of modern science without abandoning one’s faith comes as a blessing.  It might also offer a lesson to those who hope to spread evolutionary science among America’s deeply skeptical public.

 

6 Comments
by Adam Laats on September 8, 2013  •  Permalink
Posted in Evolution/Creation
Tagged , , , , , , ,

Posted by Adam Laats on September 8, 2013

https://iloveyoubutyouregoingtohell.org/2013/09/08/from-the-dust-evolution-yes-creation-yes-please/

What do Pastors Believe about Origins?

What do America’s professional Protestants think about evolution and creation?  Biologos has published the results of a survey of US Protestant pastors.

Those concerned with creationism and evolution have published many surveys of the ways evolution is taught in public schools.  Those surveys tend to focus on the ideas of high-school biology teachers.  Most recently, the work of Penn State political scientists Michael Berkman and Eric Plutzer offered a thorough nation-wide look at what biology teachers think and teach.

Source: Biologos Forum

Source: Biologos Forum

This survey, in contrast, asked 602 “senior pastors” for their views.  The results invite a few comments.

First of all, we should note that this is not a survey of religious Americans’ views about evolution and creation.  Rather, this is specifically a survey of a spectrum of US Protestant pastors’ views.  There were no leading Catholics involved, much less Muslims, Jews, Hindus, or any other religious group.  That matters.

Second, the numbers themselves make some interesting points.  We are not surprised by the majority (54%) who call themselves young-earth creationists.  We are surprised, though, by the strong showing for “uncertain” (12%) and the relatively weak showing for “theistic evolution” (18%).  Could these two answers be reasonably combined to form a much stronger bloc—nearly a third—of American pastors who take a theistic but uncommitted view of evolution?

Finally—for now, though the Biologos editors have promised to dig in more deeply to these survey results in the future—what about the striking Biologos note in its seventh point?  As the Biologos editors point out, a majority of pastors with young-earth creationist (YEC) beliefs agreed that publicly challenging those views might cost them their jobs.  In other words, for pastors with YEC beliefs, even a whiff of doubt or skepticism must be avoided.  This seems to confirm the accusations of anti-creationists.  If YEC pastors feel obliged to maintain their positions—feel dug in to YEC beliefs regardless of evidence or personal struggles—it seems fair to accuse YECs of closed-mindedness, obdurate clutching of YEC due more to social and economic pressure than to Biblical conviction.

Certainly, Biologos is not a disinterested party.  The organization hopes to promote “evolutionary creationism” or “theistic evolution.”  And my social-science chops, I’m afraid, aren’t sharp enough to offer a good critique of this survey methodology.  But if we take Biologos’ word for it, there might be a large number of YEC pastors out there who stick to their YEC guns for other reasons than Bible-based conviction.

 

Leave a comment
by Adam Laats on May 11, 2013  •  Permalink
Posted in Evolution/Creation
Tagged , , , , , ,

Posted by Adam Laats on May 11, 2013

https://iloveyoubutyouregoingtohell.org/2013/05/11/what-do-pastors-believe-about-origins/

Creationist Mom Reaches Out to Evolution

Sometimes stereotypes have some truth to them.  Then there’s “D.”

D first got in touch with me a couple of months ago.  As she described herself, she is a Christian young-earth creationist homeschooling mom.  She had read about my blog on Ken Ham’s Answers in Genesis page.  I’ll include our brief correspondence to let D speak for herself:

From: D
Sent: Monday, January 21, 2013 8:36 PM
To: alaats@binghamton.edu
Subject: thank you

Hi Dr. Laats,
I have to say that it is very refreshing that you don’t think creationists like myself are complete idiots.  Really, I appreciate that. 
As a young earth creationist that homeschools, I wouldn’t give any Richard Dawkins books the time of day.  If someone is THAT hostile towards me, then I have no interest in what they have to say.  But I look forward to reading your blog when I have a chance because you try to understand where I am coming from, and you don’t think we are completely unable to do any science. 
Thank you,
“D”

I suggested that D might give Dawkins a shot.

From: D
Sent: Monday, January 22, 2013 9:48 PM
To: alaats@binghamton.edu
Subject: Re: thank you

Dear Dr. Laats,
I also agree that we should be looking at the other side, and I do plan to do that.  As a Christian homeschool Mom I am not trying to protect my sons from learning evolution.  The public school is not a place we feel comfortable putting our children because their thoughts and beliefs are not welcome in the classroom.  They would have to follow the advice my father in law got from his father before he joined the Navy, “keep your eyes and ears open and your mouth shut”.  Learning can not take place, in my opinion, in that kind of environment.
I am going to teach my kids about evolution, somehow.  There is a lot of material out there.  I would read Dawkins if I had to, but the amount of information out there that he has published alone is way too much to look at, sort through, and figure out what to teach.  For the sake of time, I’m looking for something comprehensive and succinct, and what a child in high school should know about the subject.  I am familiar with the NCSE website and that is what I plan to use as of now, though it will be guess work to know what all to cover.  
Thanks for your time,
D

I was surprised and happy to hear that D was using materials from the National Center for Science Education to teach her kids.  I think the folks at NCSE would be happy to hear it, too.  The NCSE is a leading voice for evolution education and a staunch opponent of creationism in public schools.  And too often, people like me tend to suggest a stark division between two sides: either Answers in Genesis OR the National Center for Science Education.  D has reminded me that smart people make all kinds of decisions about what to read and what to do with that material.  People choose public schools, private schools, or homeschools for all sorts of different reasons.  D’s work reminded me how quickly and easily we can oversimplify the many approaches people make to these snarled questions of evolution, religion, and education.

Yesterday, I heard back from D:

From: D
Sent: Monday, March 18, 2013 5:09 PM
To: alaats@binghamton.edu
Subject: Hi

Hi Dr Laats,
Well, I wanted to let you know that I checked out the [Dawkins] book The Greatest Show on Earth.  I never would have considered it except for your response.  Dawkins says on page 155 ” it would be so nice if those that oppose Evolution would take a tiny bit of trouble to learn the merest rudiments of what it is that they are opposing.”  I couldn’t believe that I totally agreed with Dawkins about something!  I am happy to listen, minus the hostility.  I don’t sense hostility in this book, which makes it readable.  This has made me realize that I can not get my head wrapped around what evolution IS.  He says we did not descend from monkeys, but we have a common ancestor.  I do understand that we would find no missing links because of the extreme gradual process, that is what I understand from the book, hopefully that is correct.  So I looked on Internet, and I guess I don’t understand phylogenies.  So we did not descend from monkey, but have a common ancestor, and then branched off to chimpanzees and humans etc.  So, it seems to me that we descended from something “monkey like”.  I guess I don’t understand how he can say that we did not evolve from monkeys, whether it was monkeys or monkey like, it seems similar.  Can you shed any light on this please?  As you can see, I am making an honest attempt to understand this so I don’t teach it incorrectly.  Thanks for the help,
D

First of all, my hat’s off to D for engaging with Richard Dawkins’ writings.  It is far too easy for all of us to read only those materials that confirm our own beliefs.  I am optimistic that there may be far more “Ds” out there than we might think: people who have strong beliefs, yet hope to find out as much as they can about the other side.  How many of us can say–like D–that we have taken the time to puzzle through books and websites of people with whom we totally disagree?

As for D’s question about phylogenies, I suggested she check out Dennis Venema’s series about evolution theory on recent pages of the BioLogos Forum.

Any other suggestions for someone like D?

 

 

7 Comments
by Adam Laats on March 19, 2013  •  Permalink
Posted in Evolution/Creation
Tagged , , , , , , , ,

Posted by Adam Laats on March 19, 2013

https://iloveyoubutyouregoingtohell.org/2013/03/19/creationist-mom-reaches-out-to-evolution/

Evolution for Christians

How are evangelical Christians supposed to understand evolution?  This morning at BioLogos, evangelical scientist Dennis Venema begins a series that hopes to explain why evolutionary ideas do not conflict with a Bible-based evangelical faith.

One of the trickiest aspects of understanding American creationism is that there are potentially as many “creationisms” as there are creationists.  Many outsiders like me tend to use the term “creationist” as a catch-all term, when in fact the differences among and between types of creationism are perhaps the key to bridging many of our evolution-creation culture-war divides.

Some “creationists,” for instance, embrace the young-earth creationism promulgated by organizations such Answers in Genesis or the Institute for Creation Research.

Others might find an old-earth version more compelling, one such as that defended by Hugh Ross and Reasons to Believe.

Yet others might prefer the big-tent creationism of the intelligent-design movement, promoted most assiduously by the Discovery Institute.

Still others might prefer the sort on offer by Dennis Venema in this series.  BioLogos calls its brand of creationism “evolutionary creationism.”  In general, BioLogos’ creationism embraces the tenets of evolutionary science.  Such evolution, many evolutionary creationists insist, is simply God’s method of creation.
I’m looking forward to following Venema’s series.  Venema describes it this way:

“The goal of this course is straightforward: to provide evangelical Christians with a step-by-step introduction to the science of evolutionary biology. This will provide benefits beyond just the joy of learning more about God’s wonderful creation. An understanding of the basic science of evolution is of great benefit for reflecting on its theological implications, since this reflection can then be done from a scientifically-informed perspective. From time to time we might comment briefly on some issues of theological interest (and suggest resources for those looking to explore those issues further), but for the most part, we’re going to focus on the science.”     

 

Leave a comment
by Adam Laats on February 8, 2013  •  Permalink
Posted in Evolution/Creation
Tagged , , , , , , , , ,

Posted by Adam Laats on February 8, 2013

https://iloveyoubutyouregoingtohell.org/2013/02/08/evolution-for-christians/

CS Lewis: You Don’t Know Jack

WWAD: What Would Aslan Do?

A new essay series at the BioLogos Forum by Intervarsity Christian Fellowship NC State staffer David Williams insists on a more complex understanding of CS Lewis’ theology.

This essay series arose in part as a response to a new collection of essays about Lewis and science. As we’ve noted, editor John G. West of the intelligent-design-friendly Discovery Institute presented a portrait of an evolution-skeptical Lewis in The Magician’s Twin.

Williams argues for a more nuanced understanding of Lewis’ work. Williams gives us a CS Lewis–“Jack” to his friends—that might not be comfortable to many of Lewis’ new best friends in the American evangelical community. As Williams writes,
“Lewis is no safer a lion than Aslan, and he will not go quietly into our tidy evangelical boxes. To be frank, American Evangelicalism’s infatuation with Lewis is in many respects somewhat odd. For here is a pathologically populist movement with a penchant for Big Tent Revivalism, an obsession with liturgical innovation, a deep-seated suspicion of ecclesiastical tradition, and a raw nerve about the doctrine of justification, falling head-over-heels for a tweed-jacketed, Anglo-Catholic Oxford don—a curmudgeonly liturgical traditionalist who was fuzzy on the atonement, a believer in purgatory, and, as we shall see, whose views on Scripture, Genesis, and evolution position him well outside of American Evangelicalism’s standard theological paradigms. All of that is to say that Lewis was not ‘just like us’—any of us—and if we would do him justice, we must be prepared to be surprised by Jack.”

In the first essay of the series, Williams notes that Lewis was not as hostile to modern methods of Biblical criticism as many American evangelicals might like. And the Bible, Lewis felt, must be understood as a human product. For those evangelicals who insist on the theological centrality of a young-earth interpretation of Scripture, Williams offers this warning: For Lewis, “Apart from the Incarnation, then, much of the Old Testament would be but ‘myth,’ ‘ritual,’ and ‘legend.’”

For an evangelical movement that has clung tenaciously to its nineteenth-century hostility to much of this sort of Biblical criticism, Williams’ Lewis presents some challenges. Just as other heroes from outside of the evangelical tradition might make things intellectually difficult for their evangelical fans, so a fuller portrait of Lewis’ intellectual world might generate some healthy confusion.

4 Comments
by Adam Laats on December 11, 2012  •  Permalink
Posted in Evolution/Creation
Tagged , , , , , , ,

Posted by Adam Laats on December 11, 2012

https://iloveyoubutyouregoingtohell.org/2012/12/11/cs-lewis-you-dont-know-jack/

Jesus Teaching Evolution

We’ve been hearing a lot in the last few days about 47% of Americans: Governor Romney’s comments about the 47% who don’t pay federal income taxes, or the 47% whom he assumes won’t vote for him. 

I’m more interested in the 46% of adult Americans who believe humans were created in “pretty much their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so.”  For believers in evolution like me, that number is hard to understand.  How can so many adults–almost half of whom hold college degrees–believe in this kind of young-earth creationism? 

As we’ve discussed here recently, this is not merely a question of shoddy science education.  Mere exposure to evolutionary science does not promise to increase the number of believers in evolution.  The important element seems to be the messenger of evolutionary science, not just the message. 

A brief autobiography this morning by evolutionary creationist educational writer Abigail McFarthing seems to confirm this notion.  McFarthing describes her upbringing as a youngster homeschooled into the tenets of young-earth creationism.  As she writes,

“In ninth grade, I went to public high school armed and ready for the fight I had been trained to expect. When my biology teacher taught evolution and required us to write an essay, I hi-jacked the essay topic and turned it into an apologetic for six-day creation. Because I was in ‘conflict mode,’ I was not ready to consider the arguments for evolution, or the possibility that Christians could actually accept it.” 

It was not until McFarthing attended the evangelical Wheaton College that she was brought out of conflict mode.  As she studied to become a high-school teacher, one of her evangelical Christian professors insisted, “‘Jesus is not going to be standing at the gateway of heaven . . . holding a clipboard in his hand and asking, “Did you believe in six-day creation? Did you believe in evolution?” He’s going to be asking the one question that matters: “Did you believe in ME?”‘” 

The goal of McFarthing’s new homeschooling curriculum is not to train students away from their conservative evangelical faith.  Rather, she describes her goal as “resilience.”  She wants young people to realize that they can be Christian and accept the evidence for evolution. 

I’m not advocating McFarthing’s curriculum.  I do not think that her evolutionary creationism will fit in public schools, nor does she suggest that it should.  The interesting point here is McFarthing’s story.  It seems to add one more bit of evidence to a growing pile.  The way to educate people about evolution is not simply to bash them over the head with scientific evidence.  As we noted recently, evidence alone does not convince.  Rather, for people like McFarthing, the messenger is more important than the message.

3 Comments
by Adam Laats on September 20, 2012  •  Permalink
Posted in Evolution/Creation, In the News
Tagged , , , , ,

Posted by Adam Laats on September 20, 2012

https://iloveyoubutyouregoingtohell.org/2012/09/20/jesus-teaching-evolution/

Faith, Creation, and the “Secular” University

What does it mean to be a “secular” university?  Despite the name, it clearly does not mean a lack of religion on campus. 

A recent essay by David Vosburg on the BioLogos Forum discusses some of what it can be like to share religious and creationist ideas in a “secular” university.  Vosburg is a chemist at the decidedly non-religious Harvey Mudd College in California.  He earned his PhD at the similarly non-religious Scripps Research Institute.  He is also an evangelical Christian and an admirer of Darrel Falk’s evolutionary creationism. 

So what does being at a “secular” college mean for Vosburg’s faith?  As he notes, “Christian faculty at secular colleges and universities often do not feel safe publicly revealing their faith (due to a real or imagined hostile campus climate) or feel ill-equipped to tackle intimidating and controversial topics.”  Yet he also has found a variety of ways to remain actively involved in students’ faith lives.  As a pilot program, he directed a program for students in which they viewed the BioLogos film From the Dust.  Vosburg asked them to pair this viewing with readings from Genesis.  How did they react?  According to Vosburg,

“My students, several of whom I did not know prior to our science & faith study, were from both Protestant and Catholic backgrounds. Many had not deeply engaged the intersection of science and faith previously, but were dissatisfied with what they had been taught at church or at Christian primary or secondary schools. While individual responses at each session varied, the group was overwhelmingly positive about the content and the process of our study together. Many of the questions we discussed were difficult and emotional, and having the space to wrestle with the ideas together in a supportive group was incredibly helpful.”

When Vosburg calls his school “secular,” he means it in the sense that the school is not explicitly religious.  But clearly his own activism demonstrates that students do not study in an environment free from religion. 

As David E. Long has argued in his book Evolution and Religion in American Education: An Ethnography, “secular” college campuses are usually teeming with religion.  Protestant Fundamentalist evangelists were a common feature on the campus he studied.  Students crossing the quad were often warned, “all sinners are going to hell” (97). 

More intriguing, Long described a number of creationist faculty at several “secular” public universities, including his alma mater University of Kentucky. 

Clearly, when we talk about a “secular” university, public or private, we don’t mean it lacks religion.  Anyone who has spent any time at a “secular” school can attest to the lively religion among both students and faculty.  The difference, clearly, is that “secular” schools do not sponsor any particular religion, but promise to welcome all voices within their quads. 

In this sense, the “secular” part of life at a non-religious university seems perfectly to embody Charles Taylor’s “secularity 3.”  In A Secular Age (2007), Taylor pointed out that our secular society actually teems with vibrant religion.  Unlike earlier societies in which religion formed part of state and society, in “secularity 3,” society “contains different milieux, within each of which the default option may be different from others, although the dwellers within each are very aware of the options favored by the others, and cannot just dismiss them as inexplicable exotic error” (21).

For Vosburg at Harvey Mudd, or Long’s creationist faculty at the University Kentucky, or the innumerable evangelists who spread the gospel on college quads nationwide, Taylor’s definition fits to a T.  A “secular” university is not free of religion.  But each of the enthusiastic religious groups and individuals on campus are keenly aware that they are one voice among many.  Like Vosburg, they can lead discussions that hope to persuade students to see their points of view.  Like Long’s creationist faculty at public universities, they can propound their religious views outside of the classroom.  But they cannot rest on institutional support, nor can they dismiss other worldviews simply as “inexplicable exotic error.”

1 Comment
by Adam Laats on September 16, 2012  •  Permalink
Posted in Evolution/Creation, Higher (Power) Education
Tagged , , , , ,

Posted by Adam Laats on September 16, 2012

https://iloveyoubutyouregoingtohell.org/2012/09/16/faith-creation-and-the-secular-university/

Required Reading: Who’s Afraid of Evolution?

Stop me if you’ve heard this story before.  I started this blog when I discovered many of my secular, liberal friends and family shared my ignorance about the complexities of life in Fundamentalist America.  One academic acquaintance once asked me regarding young-earth creationists, “What’s wrong with these people?”  She didn’t mean to be patronizing, but she dismissed a huge group of Americans with one sarcastic comment.

As we’ve noted here before, American creationists embrace a wide variety of beliefs.  Calling oneself a “creationist” doesn’t necessarily mean one believes in a six-thousand-year-old planet, or a literal six-day creation.  But it might.

Venema. Image source: Trinity Western University

Dennis Venema of Trinity Western University recently shared some of his experiences teaching evolution at an evangelical Protestant university.  Writing on The BioLogos Forum, Venema discusses the thrill he experiences when he shares his evidence for evolution with his evangelical students.  As he describes, some of his students resist accepting the evidence.  Even when they do recognize the power of chromosomal similarities, students still reach individual conclusions about how this science impacts their faiths.

Venema’s reflections demonstrate the complexities of creationism within the borders of Fundamentalist America.  We outsiders must be careful not to lapse too glibly into a simple evolution/creation binary.

As Venema relates,

“For me personally, the most difficult circumstances to watch are students who feel torn between the evidence and their faith. In some cases these are extremely bright students, who easily see the strength of the evidence, but feel the need to remain unengaged and uncommitted because they fear a backlash from their churches, or (especially) their parents.  While an evangelical university can be a wonderful, safe environment for students to explore these issues, that environment doesn’t follow them home. These struggles are painful to watch, and I’ve spent more than a few hours in prayer for students facing them.”

This experience is different at an evangelical university than it would likely be at a mainstream school.  For starters, the assumptions about students’ home lives would not be the same.  No matter how caring and sympathetic a professor might be at a mainstream college, he or she would not likely assume that evolution would cause such struggles for his or her students.

Students who learn about evolution at my institution, for example, would do so under the auspices of David Sloan Wilson’s EVoS program.  This is a wonderful and powerful academic experience for undergraduates.  But the students in the program generally assume that anyone who does not embrace the science of evolution is trapped somehow in a bizarre and archaic subculture.  My chat about the intellectual culture of creationism with a group of bright and talented students in the EVoS demonstrated the intense secular bias of the program.  (You can listen to a podcast of that conversation here.)

As Venema continues, at an evangelical college, the situation is vastly different.  Many students come from churches and families in which the word “evolution” has long been associated with every sort of rank sin.  At Venema’s school, for instance,

“evolution matters. That intensity of student engagement is invigorating, and the students feel it too. Regardless of where students ultimately decide to “land” on the issue, many report that they enjoyed the process – the exchange of ideas, the discussions and debates, and the new understandings gained.”

So who’s afraid of evolution?  Many of my secular friends and family would likely assume that students at evangelical colleges are taught simply to hate and fear the truths of modern science.  As Venema shares, the real experience is a much more complicated thing.

Leave a comment
by Adam Laats on August 27, 2012  •  Permalink
Posted in Evolution/Creation, Required Reading
Tagged , , , , , ,

Posted by Adam Laats on August 27, 2012

https://iloveyoubutyouregoingtohell.org/2012/08/27/required-reading-whos-afraid-of-evolution/

Newer Posts »