Earlier today I was thumbing through my Twitter-feed and came across a link to a January 12th article by Avery Foley at Answers in Genesis (AiG) entitled, “Should Christian Schools Teach Evolution?” Needless to say, it caught my attention, for I had taught Worldview at a small Christian school for eight years, and this was one of the topics I covered in my 12th grade Worldview class. I had put together a unit in which we examined the various main views in the Creation/Evolution debate: Young Earth Creationism, Old Earth Creationism, Theistic Evolution, and what I labeled “Atheistic Evolution” (i.e. evolution from a Philosophical Naturalism perspective).
Now, I am not a science teacher. My graduate school background is in Biblical Studies. But, given how contentious the Creation/Evolution debate tended to be, I wanted to provide an opportunity for my students to really ask questions about it and think through the different views. But in order to do that, I had to take them through the basics of what evolution actually claims. After that, we then compared it to the early chapters of Genesis, discussed how Genesis should be interpreted, and then discussed what the students felt were the strengths and weaknesses of each of the major views.
Ironically, when I started the unit back in 2009, I would have told you that I didn’t believe in evolution. At the same time, I didn’t think Genesis 1-11 was meant to be read as history, and it was pretty obvious to me the universe wasn’t 6,000 years old. As I further studied the Creation/Evolution debate, and came to a better understanding of what evolutionary theory actually claims, I came to be convinced it is largely true. Nevertheless, I never let on with my students just what my personal views were. The point of the unit was to get them to think through the issues for themselves.
As it turned out, after I wrote a series of blog posts analyzing the Bill Nye/Ken Ham debate in 2014, the headmaster of that time used them to justify getting rid of me, and effectively ending my career teaching in Christian high schools. I didn’t agree with Ken Ham—and even though I never told my students what I personally thought about the creation/evolution debate, this headmaster was convinced that I was somehow trying to smuggle in an evolutionary worldview into the school.
Back to the AiG Article
Therefore, when I saw this article by AiG, I was interested to find out how they would answer the question. It might surprise you, but AiG actually advocates for Christian schools to teach evolution.
If you think, “Wait, there’s got to be a catch,” you’re right. Go put Alanis Morrisette’s “Ironic” on right now…it is going to be very fitting. Essentially, AiG gives three reasons why Christian schools should cover evolution. Here they are, verbatim:
- Eventually they will run into evolutionary teaching. After all, it’s everywhere. It’s better for them to learn about evolution from someone who will point out the weaknesses and inconsistencies than from someone who dogmatically teaches it as unquestionable truth.
- It’s important to understand and be able to articulate the opposing position. We can’t defend biblical creation if we don’t understand the evolutionary position. It also shows respect and intelligence when you understand your opponent’s position. If you are ignorant of what evolutionists believe, why should your children take your arguments seriously?
- It keeps you from making poor arguments. If you don’t understand evolution, it’s easy to make mistakes in argumentation. Here’s an example: we’ve heard well-meaning creationists argue, “If people evolved from apes, why do apes still exist?” But evolutionists believe we evolved from ape-like creatures and that apes are our cousins. So this argument is poor, inaccurate, and ineffective.
Now, I whole-heartedly agree with the first point: I think if evolutionary theory is properly explained by a Christian teacher in a Christian school, students will realize that evolutionary theory—whether they end up being convinced of it or not—is not a threat to the Christian faith. Of course, what is said in this first point is something quite different. Basically it is saying, “Yes, cover it in Christian schools so that we can convince them it is wrong!”
I also agree with the second point…sort of. First, evolutionary theory is not an “opposing position.” The very fact that AiG sets it up this way reveals their presuppositional bias. No, evolution is a scientific theory that is either convincing or not. But it is true that if you are going to oppose any position, you had better know what it actually is and what it actually claims. If you don’t, no one will take you seriously, and you’ll be laughed at by anyone who actually understands it. And the second point flows into the third point, which is also true: if you don’t understand what something you don’t agree with actually says, then your argumentation is bound to sound silly.
How Should Evolution be Taught in Christian Schools?
Now even those three points are generally true, they are only valid if Christian school truthfully teach what evolutionary theory is, and then challenge the students to think through the pros and cons, strengths and weaknesses, are of the respective views. Basically, what I tried to do in my 12th grade Worldview courses when I covered the Creation/Evolution debate.
Predictably, the validity of those three points gets flushed down the drain in the second half of the article, where AiG outlines how evolution should be taught in Christian schools. After saying you should have age-appropriate materials, the article provides these guidelines:
- “Teach evolution—warts and all.” And what are the “warts”? Apparently, the whole “millions of years paradigm” fails to explain the origin of the universe, how life began from non-life, and where the information in DNA comes from.
Here’s the thing though—if one properly understands what evolutionary theory actually addresses, one will immediately see that those supposed “warts” aren’t addressed by evolutionary theory. Evolution doesn’t attempt to explain the origin of life in the first place. The irony is, of course, this first point of advice thus violates the article’s second and third reasons for teaching evolution in Christian schools: it’s not teaching what evolutionary theory actually is, and thus the argument regarding the “warts” is silly and wrong from the jump.
- “Ground them firmly in the truth.” And what is the truth, according to AiG? The Bible (namely Genesis 1-11) should be the starting point, and that “observational science” confirms the Bible.
But the truth is that if you read Genesis 1 in its historical and literary context, you’ll realize that it isn’t giving scientific or historical information about the creation of the material universe. AiG elsewhere calls the Bible “God’s Science textbook.” No it’s not—that’s not the truth.
***Okay, so thus far, according to AiG, the way to teach evolution in Christian schools is to (A) misrepresent evolutionary theory, and (B) misrepresent the early chapters of Genesis. What’s next?
- “Explain that it’s a difference of worldviews.” As AiG sees it, evolution isn’t science; it’s a religious worldview. Therefore, “creation” starts with “God’s eyewitness testimony” of what He did when He created the universe 6,000 years ago; whereas evolution “starts with man’s ideas about the past.” Therefore, since no one can really prove anything, it all comes down to interpretation of the evidence. So you’d better trust God over rebellious man.
Again, this piece of advice violates their own reasons as to why evolution should be taught in Christian schools—evolution doesn’t attempt to answer the origin of the universe itself. It simply addresses how the various species came to be, once life had already started somehow. Secondly, let’s clarify something: what AiG calls “creation” is simply their YE interpretation of Genesis 1-11 that contradicts how most of the early Church Fathers read Genesis 1-11. AiG does not teach “creationism.” It teaches young earth creationism. Thirdly, notice that in its attempt to discredit evolutionary theory, AiG recommends, not simply denying that it is even a valid scientific theory to be analyzed (i.e. it’s a “worldview based on man’s ideas”), it also ends up denying its own position is really scientific (i.e. God said so, so just believe it).
- “Highlight the two different kinds of science.” No AiG-influenced argument would be complete with their claim that “observational science” deals with what can be tested and observed in the present, whereas “historical science” is untestable beliefs about the past that determine how you interpret the evidence. And, as AiG then likes to say, if that’s the case (which it isn’t), who are you going to believe? God, who cannot lie, or rebellious secularists who are trying to corrupt the morals of our culture?
I’ve said this numerous times elsewhere: the “historical science” that AiG defines is not science. They have made up that category so they can call their unbiblical and unscientific claims “science.” But just because you offer blind faith in a claim that has never been claimed before in Church history, and say, “Oh, but this is a special kind of science—the kind that can’t be tested and must be believed on authority,” –that doesn’t make it science.
- “Connect them to good resources.” And what might those good resources be? Why the AiG curriculum, of course.
Isn’t It Ironic, Don’tcha Think?
I literally laughed out loud a few times as I read the article. After all, the article itself essentially said, “Yes, Christian schools should teach evolution, it is important to understand something before you argue against it.” But then it turned around and purposely misrepresented what evolution even is. Let’s be clear, if you follow AiG’s blueprint for how to teach evolution, you won’t be teaching evolution. As Inigo Montoya said to Vizzini in The Princess Bride, “You keep using that word, ‘evolution,’ I don’t think it means what you think it means!”
And we all know what happened to Vizzini.
Here is a further irony from my own experience. When I did my “Darwin Unit,” I made it a point to show some sort of visual presentation or video that articulated each view, be it Intelligent Design (i.e. Ben Stein’s movie, Expelled), YEC (a video from AiG), or Theistic Evolution. What I had used for the TE position was Connor Cunningham’s special, Did Darwin Kill God?
Again, I made it a point to clearly put forth each view—let each view essentially speak for itself—and then encourage discussion and questions.
Well, when I was trying to convince the headmaster not to fire me, one of the things he brought up in one of his emails was my showing of Did Darwin Kill God? To the point, he didn’t want me showing it anymore. I told him that if he didn’t want me to show it, I wouldn’t, but then I explained to him how I tried to show something that represented each view. He responded with the following:
“My concern with DDKG is not the opposing view, but that it is a tool for you to promote a position not consistent with the school community. It may be admirable to allow students to defend or refute a particular point espoused in a movie or documentary or book, but if you as a teacher are not, with authority, correcting that error (and Dr. Cunningham is in error) then you are affirming that error. That is not education.”
Here is what I wrote in response:
“The showing of the DDKG video is an example of a Christian who holds to the view of theistic evolution. I have the students discuss and analyze it. The students find some points valid, and they question other points—again, that’s what I want them to do: think critically about a controversial issue.
Now when you say, “if you as a teacher are not, with authority, correcting that error (and Dr. Cunningham is in error) then you are affirming that error,” –that is very troubling to me. You seem to be saying that you already know Cunningham is wrong, and you don’t want the students to figure it out for themselves. That is undercutting the very purpose of education; it borders on indoctrination. What I am doing is clearly showing students the different viewpoints of a particular current controversial issue, and reassuring them that honest Christians can have differing opinions on this topic because it is a secondary issue. Yet what you want done is to indoctrinate them to believe that your particular view—one that is not held by the majority of the Church; one that is not supported by the historical and literary contexts of Genesis; one that has never been held in the history of the Church; and one that is completely ignored by mainstream science—is the one and only view they can have if they are a Christian.”
Needless to say, I don’t think he was impressed. As you tell, his understanding of “education” is telling the students ahead of time, “Hey, this view is wrong! Don’t think for yourselves!” When I explained to him that wasn’t education, but rather indoctrination…well, by then I already knew my fate was already sealed, so why not just speak the truth?
In Conclusion
Should Christian schools teach evolution? Absolutely. In fact, I think Christian schools should have a unit like the one I put together, possibly in a Bible or Worldview class, that corresponds to the evolution unit taught in Science class, so that students could both study the actual scientific theory, and wrestle with the biblical/theological issues that often go along with it. It should be taught in this way in Christian schools, so that students will realize that evolution isn’t the boogeyman. They should be reassured that, even if they end up not being convinced of evolution, that’s fine—the more important point is to realize that it isn’t an attack on Christianity or the Bible.
What AiG advocates for, though, isn’t education. It isn’t teaching evolution. It is purposeful misrepresentation and scare tactics. This AiG article is funny, in that is contradicts its very reasons for teaching evolution. But at the same time it is incredibly sad, for far too many Christian leaders in education think the way that headmaster who fired me does. As his comments show, the very definition of education that many YEC advocate have, isn’t education. It is pure indoctrination.
Yes.For too many, critical thinking has come to mean, “Here is WHAT to think,” not “Here is HOW to think.”