Creationist Persecution of Theistic Evolutionists – the Real ‘Cancel Culture’
While the creationists’ allegation of persecution and censorship has been shown to be grossly overblown, the reality is that creationists have been swift both to suppress the teaching of evolution through political power, and to drive out of their faith communities anyone who accepts evolution. Examples of anti-evolution legislation in America are numerous and range from the 1925 Butler Act which prohibited the teaching of human evolution in Tennessee public schools through to the 2001 “Santorum Amendment” which promoted intelligent design in public schools[1], and the 2008 Louisiana “Academic Freedom Act”[2] which disingenuously noted that “the teaching of some scientific subjects, such as biological evolution, the chemical origins of life, global warming, and human cloning, can cause controversy” and aimed to allow teachers to “help students understand, analyze, critique, and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of existing scientific theories pertinent to the course being taught”. That the “strengths and weaknesses” of other scientific theories such as the atomic theory of matter were not mentioned positively shouted that this was yet another stealth creationist bill trading on weasel words such as “academic freedom” and “teaching the controversy.” The Santorum amendment was struck from the final bill, and many other anti-evolution bills in U.S. state legislatures were submitted but never became law, but it is quite likely further creationist attempts to mandate the teaching of creationism in public schools.
While the examples of creationists losing their careers or being persecuted for questioning evolution have been shown to be overblown, examples of scholars in Christian universities being removed from their teaching responsibilities, pressured to resign, or sacked are disturbingly common. Notable examples include
* Richard Colling, a tenured professor of biology at Olivet Nazarene University who in 2007 was removed from his teaching roles and banned from using his book Random Designer: Created from Chaos to Connect with the Creator in classes[3], and later resigned.
* Bruce Waltke, Professor of Old Testament at Reformed Theological Seminary after being featured in a 2010 video hosted at BioLogos “acknowledging the overwhelming amount of data in support of biological evolution”. This was hardly surprising as Waltke had previously declared in An Old Testament Theology: An Exegetical, Canonical, and Thematic Approach that “[t]he best harmonious synthesis of the special revelation of the Bible, of the general revelation of human nature that distinguishes between right and wrong and consciously or unconsciously craves God, and of science is the theory of theistic evolution.”[4] Days after the video was published, Waltke advised BioLogos that RTS administration wanted the video taken down. Later that year, Waltke resigned from RTS.[5]
* Thomas Jay Oord a tenured theologian at Northwest Nazarene University who had written many books on how Christians could reconcile their faith and evolution was subjected to considerable vitriol by fundamentalist members of Oord’s faith community, and lost his job when it was eliminated by the university, a move widely regarded as being related to his position on evolution.[6] While the president of the university resigned after a no-confidence vote, with Oord remaining at a lower-paid position, he eventually left the university in 2018.
* Calvin College physicist Howard Van Till who was accused of heresy after publishing his 1986 book The Fourth Day which explored ways to understand Christianity in the light of evolution. This led to a four-year investigation with monthly reviews, with Van Till retiring in 1998.[7]
* Calvin College theology professor John Schneider who in a 2010 article reflected how the evidence for evolution argued against a literal reading of the creation narratives and advanced a literary interpretation of Adam and Eve[8] chose to retire to avoid causing ‘harm or distraction’[9] though as Michael Ruse strongly implied in The Chronicle of Higher Education, this was hardly a free and unforced decision, and one that reflected poorly on Calvin College.[10]
* Biblical scholar Joel Edmund Anderson was forced out of the school at which he was a teacher because the YEC headmaster was dissatisfied by Anderson’s acceptance of evolution.[11]
One could multiply examples but the point has been made. Far from being persecuted and victimised for their faith, creationists are actively persecuting their fellow believers. The hypocrisy is overwhelming, a point physicist Karl Giberson made in an open letter
These are just the examples from your own denomination, President Pearsall--a small denomination increasingly controlled by fundamentalists, despite being part of a theologically moderate tradition that, at least officially, accepts controversial ideas like evolution, the big bang, and biblical criticism. For years I endured harassment from the same fundamentalists who wanted me gone from Eastern Nazarene College and rejoiced when that happened. The story is even worse in traditions that have never accepted evolution, or that are committed to extreme views of Biblical inerrancy. Bryan College just underwent a major purge of scholars who were insufficiently fundamentalist; Westminster Theological Seminary has run off many scholars, including my good friend Pete Enns. Fundamentalist pressures at Calvin College led to the departures of my friends Howard Van Till and John Schneider.
This is not a minor issue and it will not go away.[12]
That CVA could seriously try to argue that evolutionists are persecuting creationists while ignoring both the long history of conservative political attempts to attack evolution and the recent purges by conservative creationists against Christian academics who accept evolution again reflects poorly on how well they have researched this subject, a recurring fact that has been quite apparent in examining their argument.
CVA continues with a series of quotes from “leading evolutionists” that they claim show they are actively conspiring to exclude creationism from the “table of consideration”. This argument by CVA has previously been examined in detailed and shown to be unconvincing. Significantly, many of these can be found in lists of creationist quotes[13],[14] suggesting CVA has simply copied them uncritically from creationist sources rather than actually actively researching the subject. This is apparent from the quote by Scott C Todd:
“Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic.” (Scott C. Todd, “A view from Kansas on that evolution debate,” Nature, Vol. 401:423 (Sept. 30, 1999).
That this has been painfully taken out of context is made apparent by John Pieret and Tom Scharle who point out
This comes from what is essentially a "letter to the editor" by Scott C. Todd, an immunologist at Kansas State University, about the Kansas Board of Education's 1999 decision to eliminate the required teaching of evolution in public schools. It was not from a formal scientific or philosophical paper.
Creationists quote the above but leave out the very next sentence:
Of course the scientist, as an individual, is free to embrace a reality that transcends naturalism.
In that next sentence, Dr. Todd correctly identifies the basis of the exclusion of the design hypothesis from science as methodological, not philosophical, naturalism. While it might be quibbled that Dr. Todd could have put it better, science, contrary to the fondest wishes of creationists, is still not metaphysics. To suggest that Dr. Todd was expressing a commitment to philosophical Naturalism is the height of disingenuousness.
Also, the text which immediately precedes the quotation is:
Most important, it should be made clear in the classroom that science, including evolution, has not disproved God's existence because it cannot be allowed to consider it (presumably).
That is hardly dogmatic anti-theism on Dr. Todd's part.[15]
Either CVA has deliberately quoted this out of context, which reflects gross intellectual dishonesty, or they have simply copied this from another creationist without bothering to check the quote in context, which reflects researching incompetence. Either way, CVA’s credibility is sorely challenged by this gaffe.
It also needs to be stressed that science does not venerate authority figures, so compiling a list of quotes from “leading evolutionists” in order to attack evolution simply reflects CVA’s deeply flawed understanding of the epistemological basis of science. It is not unknown for some evolutionary biologists to say stupid things and for others to call them out on it, making creationist attempts to use those controversial quotes for polemical reasons useless. With respect to Mayr’s quote, developmental biologist Paul Myers remarks that Mayr is “often annoyingly wrong” and critiques Mayr’s argument
I don't think that’s at all true -- we don't exclude explanations a priori. I’m reminded of a famous Isaac Asimov quote: “The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not ‘Eureka’ but ‘That’s funny...’” We're always on the lookout for odd result that doesn’t fit our expectations, and when we get one, we’re going to take the whole system apart looking for an explanation. The thing is that “god” is not a particularly useful hypothesis, and it’s always going to be down near the bottom of any list of explanations, and in particular, the lack of any defined characters of this “god” being makes it awfully hard to test.[16] Emphasis in original.
Again, had CVA properly examined this subject rather than resorting to the time-honoured creationist practice of quote mining, they would not have made such an embarrassing mistake.
CVA’s complaint that while debate and controversy does occur over the “how” of evolution, no debate is allowed to occur over the “whether” of evolution” reflects both a failure to differentiate between evolution as fact and evolution as theory, a point stressed earlier, as well as a lack of understanding of just how solid the evidence for evolution is. These points have been addressed earlier, but it is quite fair to stress that evolution is regarded as strong a fact as gravity, continental drift, that microorganisms cause disease and matter is composed of atoms. No scientific journal would ever bother to host debate on these subjects as the evidence for them is beyond reasonable doubt. Would CVA insist scientific journals open their pages to antivaxxers, flat earthers, and believers in the luminiferous aether?
Finally, it is worth noting that for all the accusations of evolutionary biologists clinging to naturalistic explanations at all costs rather than permitting a supernatural explanation, a claim that I have shown to be baseless, it is in reality the creationist who clings to dogma no matter how strong the evidence. Perhaps the best example comes from YEC Kurt Wise, one of the few intellectually honest YECs in the community who conceded that his creationist views are held primarily against the evidence
Although there are scientific reasons for accepting a young Earth, I am a young age creationist because that is my understanding of the Scripture. As I shared with my professors years ago when I was in college, if all the evidence in the universe turns against creationism, I would be the first to admit it, but I would still be a creationist because that is what the Word of God seems to indicate.[17]
It would appear that for creationists, every accusation is really a confession.
CVA’s final paragraph in their section arguing that evolutionists only permit naturalistic explanations and are biased against the supernatural unsurprisingly says nothing profound but rather serves to show how poorly they have represented the views of those in our community who accept evolution as well as their profound lack of understanding of the subject:
Hence it is very concerning that GDE view holders within our community are consenting, with very little reservation, to the conclusions of today’s leading evolutionary scientists and their interpretation of history, instead of trusting God’s own eyewitness account of history as plainly stated in the Bible. It is both ironic and tragic that they are taking their cue on God’s own mechanism of creation, not from God himself, but from the gatekeepers of modern evolutionary science who will not allow God’s creativity, intelligence or design to even be tabled as possible explanations. This should ring alarm bells with those who tremble at the authority of God’s word.
Evolutionary Creationists Accept Evolution Because it is a Fact Beyond Dispute
Those who accept evolution in our community[18] accept evolution because the evidence for it is compelling. Evolutionary biologist Ryan Gregory is entirely representative of evolutionary biologists both believing and unbelieving when he says
In The Origin of Species, published in 1859, Darwin cited independent lines of evidence such as the biogeographical distribution of species, homology of structure, the occurrence of vestigial organs and atavisms, and the already well established process of extinction as all pointing to a conclusion that species have changed over time and are connected by descent from common ancestors. Through the force of Darwin’s argument and the mass of supporting data he presented, it was not long before the contemporary scientific community came to acknowledge the historical reality of evolutionary descent. As A.W. Bennett summarized the situation in 1870,
The fascinating hypothesis of [descent with modification] has, within the last few years, so completely taken hold of the scientific mind, both in [Great Britain] and in Germany, that almost the whole of our rising men of science may be classed as belonging to this school of thought. Probably since the time of Newton no man has had so great an influence over the development of scientific thought as Mr. Darwin.
Over the past 150 years, this initial list has been supplemented by countless observations in paleontology, comparative anatomy, developmental biology, molecular biology, and (most recently) comparative genomics, and through direct observations of evolutionary change in both natural and experimental populations. Each of thousands of peer-reviewed articles published every year in scientific journals provides further confirmation (though, as Futuyma (1998) notes, “no biologist today would think of publishing a paper on ‘new evidence for evolution’ ... it simply hasn’t been an issue in scientific circles for more than a century”). Conversely, no reliable observation has ever been found to contradict the general notion of common descent. It should come as no surprise, then, that the scientific community at large has accepted evolutionary descent as a historical reality since Darwin’s time and considers it among the most reliably established and fundamentally important facts in all of science.[19]
It is this absolute refusal by CVA and other Christadelphian evolution denialists to come to terms with the fact the evidence for evolution has been regarded as overwhelming by the vast majority of biologists both believing and unbelieving for over a century which is exasperating, as well as CVAs clearly transparent attempt to rule the question moot by declaring historical sciences like evolution epistemically inferior. To this one can add CVA’s frankly offensive assertion that Christadelphians who accept evolution are “consenting, with very little reservation, to the conclusions of today’s leading evolutionary scientists” which ignores the fact that we are not uncritically accepting the opinion of scientists, but rather regard the evidence as compelling.
CVA’s admonition to “instead of trusting God’s own eyewitness account of history as plainly stated in the Bible” as has been repeatedly pointed out also betrays a complete failure to properly understand that the Genesis creation narratives are not eyewitness accounts of creation given that a literal reading of the two creation accounts in Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 contradict each other, while Genesis 1 assumes the earth is covered by a solid firmament. The approach to reading Genesis 1-2 that CVA advances is simply untenable, and as independent scholar Paul Seely and others counsel needs to be replaced by one that interprets the creation narratives in their ancient Near Eastern context
The biblical approach that I believe better relates science to the Bible is to accept the historical-grammatical meaning of Genesis 1. Admit that it reflects the cosmology of the second millennium B.C., and that modern science presents a more valid picture of the universe. Then, recognize the fact that the theological message of Genesis 1 stands out in such superior contrast to the mythological accounts of creation (both ancient and modern) that even so radical a critic as Gunkel could see the difference. Finally, draw what seems to me the obvious conclusion: Science and the Bible are complementary.
Admittedly, this does not uphold the common but unbiblical assumption that the divine inspiration of Scripture cannot entail concessions to ancient “science.” But, there is no biblical reason why the theological message in Genesis 1 cannot be eternally valid, while the package in which it came was a temporal concession to the people of that time. Indeed, it was Jesus who taught that divinely inspired Scripture can and does include concessions to hardened hearts, concessions in the area of faith and morals (Mark 10:5). How much more then is concession possible in the area of mere science? [20]
Reading the creation narratives as “eyewitness accounts” is frankly perilous as it forces the believer to place the Bible and science in needless conflict, increasing the chances that they will have a crisis of faith. Theologian Randal Rauser in an article on how YEC destroys faith ended with this salient warning that I cannot endorse enough
If you persist in cultivating what is, in essence, something akin to a conspiracy position which entails that a fundamentalist high school teacher from Australia and his fundamentalist parachurch organization and other fringe groups like them, know more about biblical interpretation than the world’s leading biblical scholars and that they know more about science than the world’s Nobel laureates in the natural sciences, then you are doing nothing more than setting up kids for an even harder fall when they go to university and discover an entire world of brilliant scholars and powerful arguments and evidence to which they were never exposed.[21] Emphasis in the original
CVA’s final rhetorical flourish again betrays the usual exegetical and scientific failures, as well as a shabby attempt to pit science and the Bible against each other, a fideistic approach that needs to be called out for the reckless stunt that it is
It is both ironic and tragic that they are taking their cue on God’s own mechanism of creation, not from God himself, but from the gatekeepers of modern evolutionary science who will not allow God’s creativity, intelligence or design to even be tabled as possible explanations.
What actually is tragic is that CVA is reading Genesis as a science of creation rather than a theology of creation. Genesis is entirely silent on the mechanism of creation other than referring to God as the ultimate cause, a mistake addressed earlier when I referred to fundamentalists failing to differentiate between proximate causes of creation, addressed by science and ultimate causes of creation addressed by theology. One looks in vain in the creation narratives for any description of orogenesis[22], the biogeographic distribution of wildlife in oceanic islands, or stellar nucleosynthesis[23] for the simple reason that the creation narratives have nothing to do with science, a fact that should be made clear by the concession in Genesis 1 to ancient cosmogeography. While early Christadelphians did not accept evolution (but generally accepted an old earth) they recognised that science was not an enemy to be feared, but the proper area for understanding the mechanism of creation
It is both amusing and painful to behold the contortions of the so-called “clergy” over the discoveries of geological and paleontological research in the crust repositories of old mother earth. They seem to have a pious dread of science contradicting the Bible; and, finally, believing that it has, they are busy heaping their maledictions upon science, or else twisting the Bible-teaching into a supposed harmony with science, in either event very much hampering the geologist in his search after Nature’s truth’s. Their pious dread, however, comes from their needless gross ignorance of the Bible. Old mother earth will reveal no secrets that will hurt the Bible, for the same God is the author of both, and He is no liar, if the “clergy” are, in their intemperate pious zeal in behalf of the Bible as against science. Go on, therefore, ye scientists, but be very careful that you stick close to what mother earth tells you, and do not seek to draw from your imaginations, and then attempt to hold the good old dame responsible therefor. And, ye “pious clergy,” let the scientists alone, and go search the Bible and learn, in simplicity of heart, what it really does teach.[24]
Has Enquirer ever thought of the ages that are past? Surely, he would be humbled by doing so? It is well for us to contemplate the mighty works of God. Geology teaches us much; it speaks of a time and creation on this earth when animal life, if not totally, was nearly unknown, and only the lower order of vegetable life covering its face, and this must have existed many thousands of years; and during the whole of that long period, the earth was undergoing wonderful and necessary changes to fit it for a creation of a higher order, and evidently with the creature man in view.[25]
Nature explains herself. In this she subjects herself to herself, not to man; man is subject to her, not she to him. And it is the same in scripture. In former times, nature was explained by the imaginations of a school philosophy, and the result was a heap of absurdities regarding her. Now, she is made to explain herself, and the results are the incontestable facts of science.[26]
CVA and other fundamentalists would do well to emulate this early approach and recognise that the mechanism of creation is a scientific question and is properly delegated to science. Were they to do this, they would recognise that evolution and Christianity are not mutually exclusive. If they were also to engage with the Christian scientific, philosophical, and theological mainstream they would realise much productive work is being done in understanding Christianity in the light of evolution. For example, theologian Erkki Kojonen argues that
The assumption that evolutionary biology and biological design arguments are in conflict continues to be influential not only on the popular level, but also in the science and religion literature. Design arguments are commonly thought to require the intervention of God into gaps in natural processes, setting up an opposition between nature and grace. Yet the arguments for incompatibility are not as strong as commonly assumed, and the negation of design arguments should not be understood as a part of evolutionary biology. Rather, both claims, whether incompatibility or compatibility of design arguments and evolution, are fundamentally philosophical in nature. The Compatibility of Evolution and Design presents a case for compatibility, throwing the challenge to those who continue to defend incompatibility. But the argument also presents the opportunity to free design discourse and design arguments from being shackled to the creation-evolution controversy. Neither evolutionary biology nor strong design intuitions are about to disappear, so it seems to me that there should be plenty of value for many people in an account of the compatibility of evolution and design.[27]
Palaeontologist Simon Conway Morris also argues for the compatibility of evolution and design in his book Life’s Solution where he asserts
In essence, we can ask ourselves what salient facts of evolution are congruent with a Creation. In my judgement, they are as follows:
(1) its underlying simplicity, relying on a handful of building blocks;
(2) the existence of an immense universe of possibilities, but a way of navigating to that minutest of fractions which actually work;
(3) the sensitivity of the process and the product, whereby nearly all alternatives are disastrously maladaptive;
(4) the inherency of life whereby complexity emerges as much by the rearrangement and co-option of pre-existing building blocks as against relying on novelties per se;
(5) the exuberance of biological diversity, but the ubiquity of evolutionary convergence;
(6) the inevitability of the emergence of sentience, and the likelihood that among animals it is far more prevalent than we are willing to admit.[28]
By recycling stale, long-debunked fundamentalist arguments, CVA is doing their best to ensure young people in our community who read outside the self-imposed bubble in which CVA and other fundamentalists live will quite likely leave the community having been taught that the only options available are atheism or YEC fundamentalism. CVA may believe they are being ‘valiant for the Truth’ but frankly what they are doing is to condemn the community to fundamentalist irrelevance and extinction.
Conclusion
CVA’s argument when boiled down to its essentials is that (1) historical sciences like evolution are inferior and can be dismissed out of hand and (2) supporters of evolution are atheists who are determined to drive out of contention any supernatural explanation of origins so are not being impartial and fair-minded. Given this they argue, supporters of evolution in the Christadelphian community have been duped. As we have seen, this argument is baseless. At most, one can argue that mainstream biologists and philosophers who accept evolution but are not anti-theists and seek to maintain good relations with theism have adopted a too-strict definition of methodological naturalism that a priori excludes the supernatural. Rather, given that supernatural claims of origins have consistently been ruled out by science such as flood geology and a young earth, a pragmatic form of methodological naturalism that presumes natural causes for natural phenomena but is willing to scientifically examine supernatural claims is a reasonable one to take. As someone who has been involved in evolution-creation debates for over a quarter of a century, nothing in CVA’s arguments is new or compelling and as such can be safely dismissed.
While the reader may wonder why two short sections in an internet document warrant over 30,000 words in response, sometimes there is merit in comprehensively rebutting a malign dogma that threatens the intellectual well-being of the community. I am aware of many young people who have either left the community or suffered no little intellectual anguish over the community’s stand on evolution and the belligerent approach taken by self-appointed defenders of the faith in hunting down and driving out those whom they believe are heretics. This state of affairs is simply intolerable, and cannot be defended at all.
Afterword – Cognitive dissonance and the perils of protecting dogma at all costs
The objective reader will no doubt have recognised that the creationist case is simply not backed by the facts. Given that the evidence for common descent and large-scale evolutionary change is beyond rational dispute, and creationist attacks on the epistemological basis of the branches of science that provide support for these facts are unfounded, the only rational position is to reject the creationist worldview and retool Christian faith in the light of the reality of an ancient, evolving universe.
Humans however are not rational creatures, and the reality is that when faced with evidence that falsifies a deeply-held view, many will dig in their heels, close their eyes and ears and double down on their belief. Many will no doubt be aware of the classic study When Prophecy Fails by psychologists Leon Festinger, Henry Riecken, and Stanley Schachter who examined a UFO cult and predicted that if its prophecies were falsified, group members would resolve the cognitive dissonance by doubling down on their beliefs and trying to get others to join their group. While some have criticised the methodology of their study, there is strong evidence that when a deeply-held belief we hold is challenged, our tendency is to find a way to protect that belief rather than abandon it. As an article at the Thinking is Power website observes
When faced with evidence that contradicts a deeply held belief, we don’t change our minds. Instead, we act like lawyers trying to win our case and prove ourselves right.
To make matters worse, our current media environment allows us to avoid dissonance altogether, by surrounding ourselves with like-minded believers and information that reinforces those beliefs.
The real question is, which is more important to you? Defending your beliefs? Or understanding reality?
Our beliefs are often based in emotion and tribal identity, not on an objective evaluation of the facts. (If you think that’s not you, it’s probably you.)
Plus, the more we’ve invested in a belief, the more invested we are in maintaining the belief. We don’t want to think we’ve wasted time, effort, or money.
And if the belief is important to our identity or social standing, we are even more motivated to protect it. Dissonance is the strongest, and most painful, when it threatens how we see ourselves.
But cognitive dissonance is our brain’s way of telling us we might be wrong. Reality doesn’t care what we believe. Smoking is harmful to our health whether we accept the truth or not.
So to make better decisions, we need to think better. Metacognition, or thinking about thinking, and intellectual humility, or recognizing we might be wrong, are essential.[29]
The videos and articles hosted by Christadelphian Video serve primarily to protect pre-existing beliefs and provide a group of like-minded believers with material to help reinforce their fundamentalist worldview, rather than aiding them in understanding reality. Our community needs to serve its members in a post-Christian age in a much better way.
Concluded
[1] U.S. Congress (June 13, 2001). "Congressional Record: Proceedings of the 107th Congress, first Session – Senate" https://web.archive.org/web/20100427151442/http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=111 Accessed 19th December 2023
[2] Antievolution legislation in Louisiana National Center for Science Education 24th March 2008 https://ncse.ngo/antievolution-legislation-louisiana Accessed 19th December 2023
[3] Academic Freedom and Tenure: Olivet Nazarene University American Association of University Professors https://www.aaup.org/report/academic-freedom-and-tenure-olivet-nazarene-university Accessed 19th December 2023
[4] Bruce K. Waltke and Charles Yu, An Old Testament Theology: An Exegetical, Canonical, and Thematic Approach (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2007), 202.
[5] Evangelical scholar expelled over evolution National Center for Science Education 12th April 2010 https://ncse.ngo/evangelical-scholar-expelled-over-evolution Accessed 19th December 2023
[6] Scott Jaschik “Evolved Out of a Job?” Inside Higher Education 8th April 2015 https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2015/04/09/theologian-whose-views-evolution-differed-his-church-loses-tenured-job Accessed 19th December 2023
[7] Charley Honey “Scientist still explores ‘mystery of God’ Grand Rapids News Archives 2nd February 2008. https://blog.mlive.com/grpress/2008/02/scientist_still_explores_myste.html Accessed 19th December 2023.
[8] Schneider, John R. "Recent Genetic Science and Christian Theology on Human Origins: An “Aesthetic Supralapsarianism.”” Perspectives on Science & Christian Faith 62.3 (2010).
[9] Dave Murray “Calvin College explains exit of professor with controversial view of Adam and Eve” Grand Rapids 10th August 2011 https://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/2011/08/calvin_college_controversial_p.html Accessed 19th December 2023
[10] Michael Ruse “The Shame of Calvin College” The Chronicle of Higher Education 20th July 2011 https://www.chronicle.com/blogs/brainstorm/the-shame-of-calvin-college Accessed 19th December 2023
[11] Joel Edmund Anderson “The Sad Truth I’ve Learned about the Creation/Evolution Debate, YECist Fundamentalism, Progressive Christianity, and the Culture War” Resurrecting Orthodoxy 7th April 2022 https://www.joeledmundanderson.com/the-sad-truth-ive-learned-about-the-creation-evolution-debate-yecist-fundamentalism-progressive-christianity-and-the-culture-war/ Accessed 19th December 2023
[12] Karl Giberson “An Open Letter to a New Evangelical College President” 28th July 2015 http://www.karlgiberson.com/blog/2015/9/9/an-open-letter-to-a-new-evangelical-college-president Accessed 19th December 2023
[13] Primer: Naturalism in Science IDEA Center http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1169 Accessed 20th December 2023
[14] A Designer is Unscientific – Even If All the Evidence Supports One! Answers in Genesis https://answersingenesis.org/theory-of-evolution/a-designer-is-unscientific/ Accessed 20th December 2023
[15] https://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part4.html#quote4.9 Accessed 20th December 2023
[16] P. Z. Myers “Bergman” Pharyngula https://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2015/12/31/bergman Accessed 20th December 2023
[17] https://creation.com/kurt-p-wise-geology-in-six-days Accessed 19th December 2023
[18] Once again, I and others who accept evolution do not use the term GDE which was invented by Christadelphian evolution denialists as we no more believe God directs evolution than gravitation, radioactive decay, or continental drift. God is not a cosmic tinkerer who has to routinely interfere in the maintenance of the universe.
[19] Gregory, T.R. Evolution as Fact, Theory, and Path, 49
[20] Seely, Paul H. “The first four days of Genesis in concordist theory and in biblical context.” PSCF 49 (1997): 85-95. https://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1997/PSCF6-97Seely.html Accessed 20th December 2023
[21] Randal Rauser Young earth creationism destroys the faith of young people. Don’t let it. Randal Rauser 25th July 2019 https://randalrauser.com/2019/07/young-earth-creationism-destroys-the-faith-of-young-people-dont-let-it/ Accessed 20th December 2023
[22] Orogenesis refers to the process of mountain building at the margins of continental plates.
[23] This refers to the process of how elements are forged via fusion in the core of stars.
[24] L. B. Welch “Knowledge No. 12 – Geology” The Christadelphian (1891) 28:344.
[25] Simons “Why Man was not at once made Perfect” The Christadelphian (1881), 21:177.
[26] W. D. Jardine “The Bible as a Law of Life and Immortality” The Ambassador of the Coming Age (1865) 2:114
[27] Kojonen, Erkki VR. "RESPONSE: THE COMPATIBILITY OF EVOLUTION AND DESIGN: with Zachary Ardern,“The Contentious Compatibility of Evolution and Design: Introduction to the Book Symposium”; David H. Glass,“An Evaluation of the Biological Case for Design”; Meghan D. Page,“Thomist or Tumblrist: Comments on The Compatibility of Evolution and Design by EVR Kojonen”; Peter Jeavons,“The Design of Evolutionary Algorithms: A Computer Science Perspective on the Compatibility of Evolution and Design”; Denis R. Alexander,“Evolution ...." Zygon® 57.4 (2022): 1108-1123.
[28] Conway Morris, Simon. Life's Solution: Inevitable Humans in a Lonely Universe. Cambridge University Press, 2003, 329
[29] “The Person Who Lies to You The Most… Is You” Thinking is Power https://thinkingispower.com/the-person-who-lies-to-you-the-most-is-you/ Accessed 21st November 2023
