Over a Video Endorsing Evolution

Christian scholar Bruce Waltke loses his job for endorsing evolution.

Full-text access for registered users only. Existing users login here.
New to GenomeWeb? Register here quickly for free access.

Wow. Ok, let me get my coffee

Wow. Ok, let me get my coffee down while I mull on this.

Academic freedom doesn't include the freedom to 'express ..views in a way to hurt or impugn someone'? Yes, we should refrain from statements of "He's an a__hole!" when we don't like someone's professional views, but saying someone is flat out wrong - or even saying it in a way which impugns them - isn't that the basic responsibility of an academic? For example, someone suggests genocide, you're not ok to say 'that's a bad idea, and you're a really screwed up person to call for it'?

Unfortunately, Professor

Unfortunately, Professor Milton has chosen to "punt" when asked to stand for academic freedom. Perhaps this should not be surprising. Why would a Reformed Theological Seminary president take such a stand. I think the question given him was wrong. A better question might have been: So, in the face of overwhelimng evidence from common experience that God can cause His will by arranging the surrounding circumstances, do you really think God could not have employed evolution to create the biological world we live in? Certainly Dr. Collins has suggested this, and many "confessing" Christians, including myself, adhere to this belief. I applaud Professor Waltke for his stand that "overwhelming evidence" is good reason for reconsidering the foundations of one's World View.

Hypocrite? President Michael

Hypocrite? President Michael Milton says: "...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.", yet he endorses zero tolerance for those who believe in evolution. President Milton's seminary requested that a video be removed from the BioLogos site and Waltke "resigned" from the seminary.
Unfortunately, there are some with the idea that anyone who believes in evolution must be either an atheist or an agnostic. It is not difficult to find prominent people who are counterexamples to this mistaken idea.

It's gotten to where calling

It's gotten to where calling someone an 'atheist' is like calling someone a 'Muslim.' Whether or not there is evidence for any scientific theory is irrelevant to an individual's belief (or lack thereof) in a deity.

Are we scientists just as

Are we scientists just as willing to toss out objectivity for passion as quickly as non-scientists?

The seminary is "a confessional seminary." That means to become a part of it you have agreed with its stated beliefs. To later change your position is fine - but then you no longer agree with the organisation's beliefs, and there is no point in being a part of that organization anymore. The seminary has just as much right to ask Waltke to leave as a Vegetarian Club would have a right to ask a meat lover to leave - or an Evolution Club would have if one of its members were a Creationist for that matter.

The real point of disagreement so many of us have is the seminary's stance on Evolution. Fine. We are free to criticize them about this. But a lack of objectivity is displayed by overreaching and calling Milton a hypocrite when the organization is making a legal and internally consistent choice based on their stated beliefs.

The key issue is not whether

The key issue is not whether an ideology-based organization in a free country may require that its employees not publicly trash its core beliefs. Of course it may.

Rather, consider Dr. Waltke's challenge: "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".

Evolution is a pervasive reality in modern biology. An organization that denies evolution in the genomic age has all the credibility of the Flat Earth Society in the 1960's, desperately claiming the orbiting satellites and moon missions were hoaxes. People had and have a right to believe what they like, but IMHO Waltke's criticism stands: denying an overwhelming body of evidence makes you increasingly irrelevant to the rest of the world.

Dr. Howard Goodell, Boston MA