Rachel Held Evans

A Response to Ken Ham: Let’s Make Peace

Evolving in Monkey Town made national news last week when it was featured in a Nashville Tennessean story that was picked up by USA Today.  The story described various views regarding the evolution-creationism debate and included my perspective that young Christians long for a more nuanced, constructive approach to this issue.  

“My generation of evangelicals is ready to call a truce on the culture wars,” I said. “We are ready to move on."

This quote caught the attention of Ken Ham—president and CEO of Answers in Genesis, the organization behind the famous Creation Museum in Cincinnati.   In a blog post, Ham wrote:

“Well, Rachel, I have news for you.  Your generation is not ready to call a truce in this battle in the culture wars; in fact, we are finding more and more people are getting enthusiastically involved in fighting the culture war by standing uncompromisingly and unashamedly on God’s authoritative Word.” 

According to Ken, the fact that thousands of young people visit the creation museum each year proves that this army is growing. But if you take a step back and look at the bigger picture, the numbers tell a different story. Young adults are leaving the church, with some studies suggesting that up to seventy percent of Protestants age 18-30 drop out of church before they turn 23. (In fact, Ken himself has observed this phenomenon.) 

While the factors behind the trend are complex, I think I speak for a lot of young Christians when I say that you can’t argue us back. We are tired of fighting. We are tired of drawing lines in the sand. We are tired of Christianity being cast as a position in a debate when it is supposed to be a way of life.  

What we are searching for is a community of faith in which it is safe to ask tough questions, to think critically, and to be honest with ourselves. Unfortunately, a lot of young evangelicals grew up with the assumption that Christianity and evolution cannot mix, that we have to choose between our faith in Jesus and accepted science. I’ve watched in growing frustration as this false dichotomy has convinced my friends to leave the faith altogether when they examine the science and find it incompatible with a 6,000-year-old earth.  Sensing that Christianity required abandoning their intellectual integrity, some of the best and brightest of the next generation made a choice they didn’t have to make.

The reason I speak out about this issue is not because I am passionately committed to the theory of evolution; it’s because I am passionately committed to the fact that it’s not worth leaving the faith over! And it's certainly not worth breaking fellowship over either. 

Ken likes to frame his position as an unwavering commitment to the authority of Scripture, but in reality his is an unwavering commitment to one interpretation of Scripture.  Young earth creationists seem unbothered by abandoning other elements of biblical cosmology— like a stationary earth (Ps. 93:1; Prov. 8:28; Job 38:4) and a solid firmament (Genesis 1:6; Job 38:22; Ezekiel 1:22; Daniel 8:10)—but they tend to cast a literal seven-day creation as such a fundamental element of the Christianity that one’s faith cannot survive without it. 

But I am a living breathing example of the fact that it can.  I am a follower of Jesus Christ, and I believe that the earth is old.

I am not asking Ken to change his interpretation of Genesis or even his devotion to it.  If he believes it is the best interpretation, then he should continue to commit his outstanding energy, creativity, and resourcefulness to promoting it. I respect his conviction and I count him as a brother in Christ because, at the end of the day, Ken and I agree on what’s most important —that Christ has died, Christ is risen, and Christ will come again.

All I am asking is that he honor this common bond and join me in making peace, in acknowledging that there is enough room in Christianity for both of us and that we can talk about this issue without our weapons drawn. We don’t need a Church in which everyone agrees on the age of the earth. We need a Church that is committed to the Apostle Paul’s instructions that “if it is possible, so far as it depends on you, be at peace with all men” (Romans 12:18).

How are we ever going to be at peace with all men if we can’t even be at peace with one another? 

I am ready to call a truce, and I hope that Ken Ham will join me. 

Help me pass as an intellectual at the BioLogos Conference

On Wednesday I head to Boston to attend “A Dialog on Creation”—a workshop hosted by the BioLogos Foundation and Gordon College that explores questions at the intersection of science & faith.

Among those in attendance will be Peter Enns, (a biblical scholar and Harvard Ph.D. who has authored multiple books, including the controversial Inspiration and Incarnation: Evangelicals and the Problem of the Old Testament), Karl Giberson, (a physicist and scholar who has published over a hundred articles, reviews, and essays and authored four books),  Darrel Falk, (author of Coming to Peace with Science, and according to Wikipedia, an expert on the molecular genetics of Drosophila melanogaster and the use of gene cloning technology to characterize damaged chromosomes at the molecular level and PCR and DNA sequencing to compare homologous gene sequences in different species of Drosophila), and me (a girl who wrote a memoir with the word “monkey” in the title.)

I can only assume that my name on the registration list is the result of some sort of clerical error on the part of the BioLogos foundation.  While I’m enthralled by the conversation surrounding the compatibility of evolution and Christianity, I feel a little over my head on this one.  I can’t help but wonder if they would have invited me had they overhead the recent conversation with Dan in which I casually mentioned that thunder is the sound of clouds bumping into one another.

I suppose the good people at the BioLogos Foundation just know that there are a lot of Christians out there like me—Christians who want to honor God and make sense of the universe he created, but who aren’t biblical scholars or biologists or physicists… or, apparently, meteorologists.  What I appreciate most about the foundation is its ability to speak to such people in a way that his helpful and gracious without being condescending.

But I still feel a little like a conference-crashing poser, so I need your help.

I want to ask some good, intelligent questions at this conference, and our little online community is usually pretty good at generating those.

So, what questions would you want to ask a group of biblical scholars and scientists about issues related to faith and science?

I’ll choose my favorite questions, do my best to pose them at the conference, and next week write a post about the responses. (Bonus points for big words that will make me look like the kind of person who knows where thunder comes from!) 

Students are the real victims of Waltke’s resignation

* See my first comment for updated information on this story.

As you may have heard, renowned Old Testament scholar Bruce Waltke resigned from his position at Reformed Theological Seminary last week amidst controversy surrounding statements he made in support of evolutionary theory in a video posted by the BioLogos foundation. Conservatives are praising the decision as a firm stand against liberalism, while progressives are hailing Waltke as a martyr for the cause of truth and free thought.

Now, I know enough about university politics to know that there is probably more to this story than meets the eye and that we should be wary of casting Waltke’s resignation in sharp black-and-white terms. He did use some strong language in the video, so the fallout may have more to do with his choice of words than with his actual position. As a private institution, RTS is under no legal obligation to protect academic freedom, and if the administration there feels that its faculty must adhere to a single interpretation of Genesis, then that is their decision to make.

We can easily use this incident as an excuse to slip into our favorite combat positions and rally around our preferred positions as young earthers, intelligent designers, theistic evolutionists, and so on. But I think that misses the point, and I think it actually makes things worse for the true victims in this story—students.

Students are the true victims in this story for the incident (perhaps unintentionally) sends a clear message to young people at Christian colleges, universities, and seminaries around the country: "You have to choose - Christianity or evolution."

What’s worse is that the story reveals the fact that many academic institutions (or their supporters) seem unwilling to preserve a diversity of opinion within their faculties, which means the message is punctuated with this: "You have to choose before you attend our university, for only one perspective will be taught here."

I hope that this is not an indication of a future in which each Christian academic institution adopts a single position on origins, forces out any faculty or staff member who does not hold to that position, and then exclusively recruits students whose parents/denominational backgrounds support that position. 

What this does is deprive young people of the chance to really wrestle with this difficult topic. It deprives us of the chance to think critically and weigh options. It deprives us of the chance to be exposed to a variety of ideas and perspectives and to struggle through this issue in the company of friends and Christian mentors. It deprives us of the opportunity to ask hard questions and engage in debate.  In short, it deprives us of a true education.

I know from firsthand experience that the message that one must choose between faith and accepted science is destructive. After graduating from a Christian college in which this was the prevailing attitude, I nearly lost my faith because I began to fear that being a Christian required checking my brain at the door and ignoring what this world has to teach us.

So on behalf of all the students who have yet to attend Christian colleges and seminaries, I urge administrators to think twice before creating monochromatic faculties and catering recruitment to one camp or the other.

Give young people the chance to wrestle with this issue. We want to talk about it. We want to hear a variety of perspectives. We want to ask questions. We don’t want to to choose between our faith and our intellectual integrity, but if we must, we want that decision to be ours—not yours, not our church’s, not our parent’s. We want an education, not indoctrination.

So, what kind of education did you receive regarding faith, science, Genesis, and evolutionary theory? What is your reaction to Bruce Waltke’s resignation?

Should Christian colleges teach evolution?

So my dad just returned from the International Forum on Higher Education for the Council for Christian Colleges & Universities held in Atlanta, where the hot topic of the week was teaching evolution in Christian colleges. Francis Collins, author of The Language of God and founder of the BioLogos Foundation, spoke at the conference, urging professors and administrators to beware of placing students in the position of having to choose between their intellectual integrity and their faith.

I think it’s important for Christian colleges to transition into teaching evolution (both micro and macro, if you make a distinction) for a few reasons:

1) The scientific data in support of evolutionary theory and an old earth is overwhelming and sound.  Scientists continue to make testable predictions based on the theory, and 99 percent of the scientific community embraces it.  Graduates entering any field of scientific study without a proper understanding of evolution will be severely crippled.

2) I fear that if Christian institutions continue to teach young earth creationism, they will render themselves irrelevant in the marketplace of ideas.  This only perpetuates the myth that religion and science are at odds, and that one has to choose between faith and reason. 

3) Biblical scholarship relating the creation account of Genesis and ancient Near Eastern cosmology continues to become more accessible to the average reader, so Christian university students are in a great position to learn from Bible professors why a literal, scientific reading of Genesis 1 and 2 need not be a fundamental element of the Christian faith. (The Lost World of Genesis One by John Walton would be great required reading for Christian college students.)

4) College is just about the best environment in which to wrestle with tough ideas and learn to think critically about your faith. Trying to “protect” Christian students by not exposing them to the science of evolution will only cause them harm in the long run. I can personally testify to the fact that, if evolution is presented to college students as being incompatible with their Christian faith, there is a good chance that many of those students will walk away from their faith later on in life, having been presented with a dangerous false dichotomy.

What do you think? Should evolution be taught in Christian colleges? Should both old earth and young earth models be presented, or are academic institutions obligated to stick with established science?

I’d love to hear your thoughts on this controversial issue!

[For more on the science, see "Eight Reasons to Give Evolution A Second Chance"]

Eight Reasons to Give Evolution a Second Chance

If you have already embraced evolution as a credible explanation for why life on earth is the way it is, I hope you will find the resources below useful in helping to harmonize this view with your faith. If you still aren’t sure what to make of evolution or if you have always been suspicious of it, I hope these ideas will inspire you to at least give the theory second chance.  They certainly inspired me.

1. I recently discovered The Biologos Foundation and have been really impressed with its Web site and blog. Established by renowned geneticist and Christian Dr. Francis Collins, the foundation seeks to advance the claim that “faith and science both lead to truth about God and creation.” The site includes reliable resources and reflections on contemporary issues surrounding the creation/evolution debate. Plus it boasts a really clean, pleasant design.  One of my favorite features is the “questions” section, which addresses everything from belief in miracles, to the nature of The Fall, to the age of the earth, to the fossil record. 

2. Non-literal interpretations of Genesis 1-2 did not originate in response to evolutionary theory, but have been around for a long time. Many historical Christian scholars acknowledged the possibility of interpreting the creation account non-literally, including Origen, Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, and C.S. Lewis.  Believe it or not, 1500 years before Darwin conducted his research, Augustine wrote in The Literal Meaning of Genesis that “in matters that are so obscure and far beyond our vision, we find in Holy Scripture passages which can be interpreted in very different ways without prejudice to the faith we have received. In such cases, we should not rush in headlong and so firmly take our stand on one side that, if further progress in the search for truth justly undermines our position, we too fall with it." (This article by Alister McGrath examines Augustine’s position more closely.)

3. Ancient Israelites accepted a completely different cosmological paradigm than we do today, and the Old Testament was written within that context.   John Walton’s new book, The Lost Word of Genesis One: Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate explores the creation account in light of ancient cosmology, concluding that "its message transcends the culture in which it originated, but the form in which the message was imbedded was fully permeated by the ancient culture" (page 21). The Bible includes references to many of these ancient assumptions. God does not take it upon himself to “correct” such assumptions or to reveal to his people science that is beyond their culture. (Scot McKnight posted a series of reviews about Walton’s book on his Jesus Creed blog this summer. See also this Denis O. Lamoureux’s article about ancient cosmology.)

4. Evolution is not just a theory. It’s not merely a guess or a hunch. In science, the word theory refers to a well-supported, well-established framework for understanding a set of observations (e.g., the theory of gravity, the theory of relativity, germ theory, etc). A good theory enables scientists to make predictions. Einstein’s theory of relativity, for example, predicted that stars in the Hyades cluster should appear in a different place during an eclipse. Sure enough, in 1919 scientists observed such movement during an eclipse.

A theory is accepted as true when its predictions are tested over and over again and repeatedly confirmed. By all legitimate accounts, Darwin’s theory of evolution has consistently made testable predictions.  For example, scientists predicted that if whales evolved from land mammals, they should find intermediate fossils that show whales with feet. Sure enough, whales with just such limbs were discovered in the 1990s in the exact geological strata that the scientists predicted. This is just one example among thousands.

Time and time again, scientists have confirmed the prediction that we should find evidence for evolutionary change in the fossil record with the deepest, oldest layers containing fossils of more primitive species and the youngest layers containing fossils of species similar to those of present day. Time and time again, they have confirmed the prediction that we should find cases of speciation in the fossil record.  Scientists have also confirmed the prediction that species should show genetic variation for traits, that we should observe imperfect adaptation in nature, and that we should see examples of natural selection occurring in the present.  The evidence in support of evolution is overwhelming, which is why about 99 percent of scientists accept it as fact.

(Biologos addresses the fossil record here. The best presentation I’ve encountered regarding evolutionary theory’s success at making predictions was in Jerry Coyne’s book, Why Evolution is True. For a response to so-called “gaps” in the fossil record, check out this excerpt from Richard Dawkin’s new book, The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution.)

5. The easiest way to disprove evolution would be to find a fossil in the wrong geological stratum. This has never happened.

6.  Advances in the field of genetics provide powerful support for Darwin’s theory of descent from a common ancestor with natural selection operating on randomly occurring variations. In fact, a computer can construct a tree of life based solely upon the similarities of the DNA sequences of multiple organisms. Its similarities to conclusions drawn from studies of comparative anatomy/ the fossil record are staggering.  I’ve always been impressed with this evidence.

7.  Francis Collins. Enough said. (If you haven’t read The Language of God, consider adding it to your Christmas wish list!)

8.  These days, you can find more and more books about harmonizing evolution with faith. If you’ve already read The Language of God, consider checking out A Fine-Tuned Universe by Alister McGrath, Coming to Peace With Science by Darrel Falk, Saving Darwin by Karl Giberson, or I Love Jesus and I Accept Evolution by Denis Lamoureux.

Can you think of more? What is your position on evolution? How did you arrive at that position?

The Missing Link?

This week I recorded and watched the History Channel documentary, “The Link,” which featured the recent scientific findings surrounding a miraculously intact primate fossil, estimated to be about 47-million years old.

The documentary was interesting, but far too long. I’ll save you some time and summarize the two-hour presentation in two sentences:  The fossil, (discovered in the Messel Shale Pit in Germany), appears to be a transitional species that shows characteristics from both the non-human and human evolutionary lines.  Though the animal has features from the prosimian (lemur) line of primates—a grooming claw, a tooth comb—it also has features from the anthropoid (monkey, ape, man) line—a talus bone in the ankle that makes standing upright possible...so it appears to be a well-preserved snapshot from our evolutionary line dating from just after the split with the lemurs, something scientists expected to find within the estimated time period.

This is certainly a significant finding, although I’m not sure it was worth all the hype it has received over the past few weeks. I’m still a little unclear about what characteristics a specimen would need to exhibit in order to undoubtedly represent a  “missing link.”

Having grown up in a conservative Christian environment that taught young earth creationism exclusively, I’m still playing catch up with my basic knowledge of evolutionary theory. Over the past few years, I’ve studied the subject, and found scientific evidence in support of evolution to be too compelling to ignore. I’m beginning to believe that Theodosius Dobzhansky was right when he said that “nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.” Dobzhansky was a devout Eastern Orthodox Christian.

However, I still have quite a few friends and family members who remain committed to young earth or intelligent design paradigms...( I live in Dayton, Tennessee, home of the Scopes Monkey Trial of 1925, after all)...so I always try to give these groups a fair hearing.

I went to the Answers in Genesis Web site and found an article about how these recent findings “should in no way faze creationists” because “the fossil does not resemble a human skeleton,” because it  “was found in two parts,” and because the fossil’s lack of a grooming claw and toothcomb “are easily explained by variation with a kind.” The article concludes that “nothing about this fossil suggest it is anything other than an extinct, lemur-like creature” and that “the remarkable preservation is a hallmark of rapid burial...consistent with a catastrophic flood.” 

I’ll let you guys critique that argument.

Marlin Lavenhar once said, “...Now that we have discovered DNA and its code, we know that we are not only related to monkeys, we are related to zucchini. So let’s get over it.”

This quote makes me smile and wince at the same time. On the one hand, I think that the idea that we are interconnected to all of life is quite beautiful and spiritual...maybe even biblical. On the other hand, one has to wonder how descending from apes makes us “created in the image of God.”

Sometimes I wonder if, just as Galileo’s paradigm of a sun-centered solar system offended man’s pride, evolution is meant to remind us that we are not the center of the universe after all. Sometimes I wonder if God uses science to provide us with a healthy serving of humility every now and then.

So what do you think about the news surrounding “The Link”? Is it dangerous propaganda or a reality check?