Ministry News

Scholar Forced Out of Seminary for Evolution View

Details: Tuesday, 13 April 2010 13:25

A well-known Old Testament professor was forced to resign from his role at Reformed Theological Seminary (RTS) last week after a video was released revealing his endorsement of evolution.

Bruce Waltke, a respected scholar and longtime professor, made the remarks during a workshop with BioLogos Foundation, a group that promotes compatibility between science and theology. According to reports in USA Today, Waltke said that “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.”

The video set off a firestorm at RTS, which is an evangelical seminary with ties to various denominations, in Oviedo, Fla., where Waltke was teaching. Michael Milton, interim president of the RTS Florida campus, said that Waltke was one of the world’s leading Old Testament scholars and that his departure was causing lots of “heartache,” but that the school had no choice.

Milton said the seminary allows views to vary on evolution, but only to an extent. For example, professors can disagree as to the length of time in the original seven days of creation, but they cannot acknowledge a Darwinian perspective, which proposes that humans did not arrive on the earth directly from God.

“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,” Milton said. “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."

Waltke could not be reached for comment, but he did release a statement standing behind the substance of the video. [usatoday, 4/10/10]

Subscribe to Ministry Today magazine

Comments

0 #10 Conrade 2010-04-24 04:15

Hi,
Your title of the article sounds provocative, (bordering on misinformation) as if RTS has forced Dr Waltke to leave. I think it is important to state what the facts are.

1) Dr Waltke offered to resign
2) RTS reluctantly accepted.
3) Both Waltke and RTS has defended each other, and has departed amicably.
4) They made a press release to correct information.

Personally, I feel we need to take what they say and leave it as that. For more, read my reflections here. (http://is.gd/bGiAN)

Quote

-1 #9 Douglas Olena 2010-04-20 15:29

Even though ID has some scientifically testable theories, it harms itself as science and forbids any wide adoption by scientists by its political and educational association with young earth creationism. The appeal to any conflict model engendered by the so-called humanists is what is outdated, not the evolutionary model, and when I say evolutionary model, I am not talking about any explicit Darwinian version, even though the broad outlines of it are useful markers. Let's not pretend that there is some sort of wide consensus in either the scientific or religious community about what constitutes evolution. When challenged, I am sure that the numerous versions of evolutionary theory held by leading scientists will defy any substantial solidarity, except in the broad outlines. There is too much we still do not know. The religious community in general knows very little about Darwinism. Very few have read Darwin and what they do know is more a caricature than any substantial consideration.

Quote

-1 #8 B.Fleming 2010-04-20 09:58

Even though RTS would have found this a difficult exercise I am pleased to see a Seminary that stands for both Biblical and scientific evidence. I think that by now the term science vs Creation is now better termed science vs evolutionary theory which is evidenced by the many non-Christians who are adopting ID over the old evolutionary model. It seems that many within the secular scientific community are relieved that the secularists have developed the ID model which has allowed them to throw away the rather antiquated theory of evolution; even though it is not Creationism it at least acknowledges modern scientific evidence. As for a renowned OT scholar adopting this outdated humanist theory the mind simply boggles.

Quote

0 #7 Douglas Olena 2010-04-14 15:10

Dear Jim,

As you might understand I make no commitment to darwinian evolution. No scientist these days does either. Darwin knew much less than we do today. To allow the atheist to demarcate the lines of this debate by requiring that any commitment to Darwinism be in addition a commitment to atheism is uninformed. Many of us in the faith, especially those of the American Scientific Affiliation think that as inadequate as the evolutionary story is today, it is still the best available. To challenge this is to commit to an anachronistic theory of biblical interpretation that requires the bible to be taken as 20th century science, and 20th century history. The parallelism of Genesis 1 and the anachronistic cosmology of Gen 2 should be enough to scare the scientifically conscious away from reading that text that way. In addition, just because Darwin thought evolution precluded God, doesn't mean it is so. Should the atheist determine the debate parameters? I don't think so.

Quote

0 #6 James Hernando 2010-04-14 12:13

I am concerned with those who see no contradiction between a biblically informed Christian faith and Darwinian Evolution. I am fairly certain that commitment to the latter (materialistic naturalism) makes belief in God unsustainable and certainly the creation account untenable. Interestingly, a recent local debate I attended between theists and atheists supports that view. Every one on the atheist panel was philosophically and scientifically committed to naturalistic evolution. They would laugh at the notion of a theistic evolutionist.
Moreover, it is inaccurate to portray those who support creationism as ignorant uninformed creedalists who are stuck in a 19th century cosmology. I suggest you read some of the works and credits of those interviewed by Strobel in A Case for Creation.

Quote

0 #5 Douglas Olena 2010-04-14 10:07

Anyone who wishes to make an effort finding a better theory than evolution is welcome to try, but brute facts must be resolved, not knee-jerk dogmatisms.

Quote

0 #4 Douglas Olena 2010-04-14 10:03

As long as the church is satisfied with a 19th century cosmology, this expulsion should not come as a surprise. When we chose solidarity on such themes, we shame the Holy Spirit who will lead us into all truth. Remember Genesis does not tell us how God created, but only that he did so. Though Darwinian evolution and its more recently evolved children are an inadequate story of how we came to be here, it is still the best story we have, and it doesn't deny our faith. Sorry that the truth isn't enough for the seminary. Sorry that Prof. Waltke had to fall on his sword rather than deny the truth. This is just one more sign that the Church needs to wake from its 150 year slumber and start researching again.

Quote

+1 #3 Wale Olasoji 2010-04-13 19:42

If we do not stand for anything, we will fall for everything. While we are not supposed to be legalistic in areas where the bible is not emphatic, we sure need to take our stand on areas that touch on the basis of our faith such as God being the Creator from Who we all came.

Quote

+2 #2 Ellie Merritt 2010-04-13 10:08

Thank God for a seminary which will take a stand to defend its doctrinal positions. Darwinian evolution is itself cult-like with followers who still believe an unproved theory after many years of trial and error. Darwinists defend the indefensible as they attempt to erase God from creation. Another article in this magazine is about people who do not attend church and their reasons for being 'unchurched'. One major reason is that churches no longer take a doctrinal stand lest they offend. Blessings and growth to RST, and may they ever keep the faith.

Quote