Hello,
I admire Mr. Waltke's desire to not embroil RTS or the body of Christ in what would surely be fodder for the networks to stir up dissension. In regards to theistic evolution, however, I must disagree. If evolution was God's plan all along, and not the creation account as referenced in the Bible...how did sin enter the world? Where the Bible says that sin entered the world through Adam...and that Jesus is the new Adam....where now do we account for sin entering the world? It's that linchpin I think that this entire theory should be rejected. Jesus IS the Gospel. If the Bible is wrong about how sin entered the world through one man (Rom. 5:12)...then where do you stop rejecting scripture's authority?
Why need a saviour at all....to save us from what? A myth that explains why man is seperated from his Creator?
Just a thought.

Whit,

One way a theistic evolutionist might answer your question, "how do we account for sin entering the world"? is by suggesting that it did indeed enter the world through the first humans, Adam and Eve, but that Adam and Eve were the evolutionary descendants of previously existing (non-human) creatures (apes, etc.). Sin, then, did not enter the world until volitional beings made in God's image (i.e., humans) chose to disobey God. Presumably, the millions of years of animals killing one another prior to this event were a reflection of God's perfect design and not effects of the Fall. Not sure whether that's coherent with the biblical view of creation, but that seems to be the implication of any theistic evolution view.

P. S. What we as Christians absolutely may not do is metaphoricize "Adam and Eve" as figurative of the human race generally. Your observation of the necessity of viewing Adam as one, literal, individual man is required by the New Testament's discussion of Adam and Christ (e.g., Rom 5:12).

evolution is a fact and christianity should teach that its God's
wayof doing it.wake up america befor we get so far behind that we may never recover.

Matt, I don't see why we can't "metaphoricize" (nice word!) Adam and Eve as figurative of the human race generally. 'adam' is just the hebrew word for earthling, 'adamah' meaning ground, after all, and it's only gradually in the story that the translation of adam shifts from 'man' to 'Adam" with a capital a in most translations. also with regard to the new testament's discussion, isn't the point that one man died for all, so it would make sense that adam symbolizes all humanity. ... i think there are a lot of ways of understanding the atonement, let alone the romans take on it, so to insist on a view that requires us to insist on a literal understanding of what seems obviously a myth seems overly rigid to me.

Should he have been fired or forced to resign? Of course. How else can these dogmatists maintain their idiotic literal-interpretation nonsense? The geese need a place to flock. Preserve it at any cost. Allow no transgressions. Purity of rockheadedness must be guarded zealously.

Unfortunately this whole incident has already been spun to bring discredit on evangelicalism and the Lord:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2010-04-09-IHE-evangelical-endorsing-evolution-forced-out09_ST_N.htm

Of course the writer of this article did nothing to bring up the fact that many leading evangelical schools have long embraced theistic evolution (rightly or wrongly), but instead casts the story as another example of evangelicalism's anti-intellectualism.

I deeply appreciate Dr. Waltke's gracious spirit and wish his response was reported as much as the furor over his dismissal.
A few obsevations:
1. A seminary is a theological training school. It has every right, as well as a responsibility to those who support it, to hold teachers accountible for their views on evolution since it involves the professor's views on Genesis 1-3.
2. While there are many evangelicals who hold to a theistic evolution position, I haven't found a good explaination of how to reconcile the entrance of sin and death into the world, that Genesis and Romans attributes to Adam's sin, with millions of years of death in the darwinian model.

If true, Knox will gain and RTS may or may not lose; it will depend upon how RTS acts in the future. Waltke is gracious to blame the way he and BioLogos handled the video. Certainly he has handled his departure from RTS in a manner that should enable RTS to avoid damage. But I respectfully disagree with Waltke's assertion that BioLogos and he himself are to blame. Sure, in hindsight one can always wish to have anticipated and proactively parried more of the misinterpretations and misrepresentations of his views. But I think the blame lies squarely with those who reacted to Waltke's video with such knee-jerk alarm, fear, and indignant hostility. I doubt most of his critics would have been mollified even if every one of the points made in his letter above had been explicit in the video. I'm thankful that Waltke was immediately contacted about another position at another seminary, not only for his sake, but also for the sake of countless others deciding whether it's safe to speak truthfully, even within Christ's church.

Please - everyone should read Miller's "Only A Theory" and Coyne's "Why Evolution Is True". This isn't 1633. Despite what you may hear from ICR, AIG and others, the theory of evolution is on the same scientific footing as the theories of gravity, cell, and relativity. Rejecting evolution will only marginalize and isolate Christians further.

A primary concern that seems to emerge from both Waltke's comments as well as many comments on this blog is that, if the church doesn't accept evolution, presumably in some theistic form, then we risk being isolated, marginalized, or considered a "cult." For those who might know something about early church history, the Christians of that era faced the same trials. They were not "mainstream" in any sense, but were indeed marginalized to the point of severe persecution, even unto death in many cases. So, if your primary concern is being relevant or mainstream, then go ahead and fudge the many passages in the Bible regarding creation (and, yes, there are many outside of Genesis 1-3). Please keep in mind while doing so that the virgin birth and resurrection are also scientifically ridiculous, so you may as well dump those, too. Joshua 24:15 (FYI, I have a MTS from RPTS and have done work towards a PhD at Duquesne University.)

The problem of New Testaments references to Adam in Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians 15 has been addressed a number of times. I would suggest reading Denis Lamoureux's "Evolutionary Creation: A Christian Approach to Evolution," or his "I Love Jesus & I Accept Evolution," or Robin Collins' essay 'Evolution and Original Sin' in Keith B. Miller's "Perspectives on an Evolving Creation," or "Darwin, Creation and the Fall: Theological Challenges," edited by R. J. Berry and T. A. Noble. In addition, there are several active discussions on the subject of Adam occurring on the BioLogos blog "Science and the Sacred."

Thanks, Paul Bruggink, for suggesting to read Denis Lamoureux's position. I've been on a personal quest for more than two decades in an attempt to understand better creation and evolution. Lamoureux has helped me enormously in my quest.

Imagine my chagrin when I zapped on the ABC evening news and saw my beloved Professor Waltke in the center of a storm of controversy. Of course, as I was able to look up the letter he addressed to RTS, and to see how he handled himself, I have no doubt that good things will come of all of this. I was lucky enough to be part of a group of students who celebrated Bruce's Festschrift publication at Regent College for his 70th birthday and also fortunate enough to be his student in second year Hebrew, Biblical Interpretation and Biblical Theology. All I can say is, thank heaven he is not shy about speaking his mind and that he has such a good and solid one to exercise. I am also very grateful for this good and godly man and wish the best to him and his family. And I am glad and grateful for Knox being mindful enough of his great scholarship to pipe up and give him a job. Their gain.

I was delighted when I first saw Dr. Waltke's comments on BioLogos. Sadly, I also suspected that he was going to pay a heavy price for his honesty. I just didn't think it would happen so quickly! However, I'm truly grateful to him for his scholarship, his courage, and his truly Christ-like spirit throughout ugly ordeal.

Not able to understand Zulu I sat and read the Bible through the service at Ifafa Mission in S. Africa. Somehow, probably under the liberal influence of my parents, I understood the stories of the Old Testement as the history of a people searching after spiritual meaning, The Creation story is an effort to explain the Earth and similar stories exist among most nations. Later I learned that the Zulus have their own creation story--the aminals came out of the reeds where you will find them hiding in dry season.They also have a fascinating story of how death came because the cameleon bringing the word of life took so long that the lizard coming later over took him and gave the message of death. If you believe in the Bible verbatim how do you treat Genesis 1:27 with 2:21-22. Was the first effort a failure? An uneducated but intelligent Zulu chief helping Bishop Colenso with Zulu ideom when translate the Bible noted this incongruity.
Myths and legens are developed to explain what we don't know but they also include deep lessons for life from common , shared experiences
The Earth has existed for a long time as anyone observing layers of sedimentary rock and finding sea snail shells on mountain tops or visiting the Grand Canyon can surmise. Evolution is science and based on known facts. It does not stop me for being a follower of Christ and to return to a mission hospital for 11 years , McCords in Durban, S. Africa, to express to the non-whites there my appreciation of Christ's message and its healing powers.

I understand there may be difficulties involved with reconciling Evangelical theology with Evolution. But I take issue at the claims that it is impossible to reconcile evolution and all Christian theology and that there's only one way to read Genesis. I mean, c'mon... there are countless Christian denominations and probably as many interpretations of Genesis. I think people should make an effort to see how Genesis can be interpreted within various denominations (including Orthodoxy and Catholicism) and even within religious traditions like Judaism, before rushing to make absolute statements about Evolution and religion.

I can't seem to agree with this luke warm sense of thinking and belief. Do we as Christians not see the problem with this "theory". Why do we desire to balance self comprehension of a divine God? Do you not see that as we continue to tolerate the little it soon becomes something that we did not plan for? My question to you who believe this is ARE WE CREATED in the image of GOD or an ape?

Phil, you put to much faith in science and evolution. The grand fraud has been perpetuated on us by those who hijack design. They claim evolution is fact but they fail to tell you all the details. Life is designed to be robust or it would just die out. God designed it to be able to survive the different environments over the time of our existence. Any engineer knows that when you have to design for multiple environments, the design has to be more complex than a design which only has to withstand one environment. A vehicle that has to withstand just a constant California summer environment is much easier to build compared to a vehicle that has to go to the moon and experience a vast set of different environments. God built life to be able to change. That change is built into the genome and so we see the adaptations of life, but it is limited. The Second Law limits the change of life because outside of the design, there is not enough constraint on the system to allow the directed change. Evolutionists observe the biological change in lifeforms and automatically accept all change as possible. Seeing micro-changes they believe that macro-changes are possible where all life is decended from the first cell. It is impossible to replicate macro-changes in the lab so it is automatically accepted to be possible which is not scientific but a belief or faith. They then exercise great imagination and attempt to build the evolutionary tree of life. So the foundations of evolution are faith and not science.

"I would have clarified in writing that by evolution I mean theistic evolution, not naturalistic evolution." - Bruce Waltke, RTS-Orlando letter of resignation (above).

"Adam and Eve are historical figures from whom all humans are descended; they are uniquely created in the image of God and as such are not in continuum with animals."
http://biologos.org/blog/why-must-the-church-come-to-accept-evolution-an-update/

The difficulty for Dr Waltke is two-fold. First, while it may be claimed that every physical, chemical and biological interaction at all timescales over the Universe's 13.7 billion year history since the Big Bang was determined in advance by god, so as to arrive at the present, there is no basis for such a view other than to preserve the concept of god at all costs. Indeed, the essence of both genetic drift and Darwin's concept of natural selection – the primary mechanisms by which evolution is thought to take place – not to mention the environmental context of evolution, is random change, not directed change. While superficially attractive, the concept of 'theistic evolution' therefore is fundamentally at odds with our understanding of natural phenomena. (continued)

A second difficulty is that fossil and genetic data demonstrate a clear continuum between humans and animals. So the fudge in which humans are supposed to have been created after the Universe was permitted to set the stage through protracted natural development won't fly. The simplest interpretation of available facts is that our existence as individuals and as a species is the result of a huge array of contingent events over billions of years. Were any detail to have been different, we wouldn't be here. In short, we're a fluke, though a welcome one to be sure. Biblical creation made sense when the Earth was the center of the Universe, when the timescale of 'creation' was short, and when it could be claimed that Man was unique. None of those propositions has survived scientific scrutiny. We must contemplate an alternative: There is no god, at least no entity remotely consistent with the god of contemporary religions. God was created in our likeness, by us, and not the other way around – a cultural holdover that while worthy of scholarship in a historical context has outlived its usefulness as an explanation for our place in nature or as a basis for the organization of society.

Read the above comments,
Just my 2-cents:
Many people thought creation is religion and evolution is science, that is because we do not clarify the definition of science. Science means 'knowledge'. using the 'scientific method' of observation, forming hypothesis, doing experiments, evaluation the data, see if the data support the hypothesis (if not, modify hypothesis and do experiments etc again). If the data support the hypothesis, repeat the experiment a few more times before forming a theory. If after many experiments the results were all consistent, we may call it a law (such as the law of gravity where we have not yet found exceptions). However, we cannot repeat evolution, we cannot repeat creation. If one or the other or both happened, it is in the past (history). One cannot repeat history. So this is not a case of science, it is a case of history. And method for historical investigation should be used, such as in a court. We gather evidence and evaluate to see what it supports. e.g.evolution (the word just means 'change', here we take the commonly thought of definition) requires change from single cell to human, upward change, increase of genetic information. Biblical creation says creatures were created 'according to its kind', meaning there are boundaries, e.g. bird kind, fish kind, beast kind, human kind etc. The Bible also says God created everything 'very good'(therefore, if there was change, it would not be upward). Go look at the real world and see what the evidence support. God (the mighty one) needs no time to create: He said, and it was done. In the 10 commandments, God 'wrote with His finger' that He created everything in 6 days, I'll take His word for it. He was there, I was not there. I trust the trust worthy eye witness. 'the wages of sin is death'. So things were created 'very good', then man was tempted to be 'like God', 'knowing good and evil', (self centered rather than God centered. e.g.a car not following the instruction of its maker--not using petro but using pepsi--it would not work ideally which is the meaning of 'sin'). This results in death. The Creator loves us, so He came and died for us, taking the consequence of sin upon Himself. But He rose again, conquering death. this is now the Good News for us.

As illustrated by Bruce Waltke, there is a pressing need within Christianity for a credible explanation of Genesis, one that respects the biblical text (1) yet allows for extensive time (backed by solid evidence) and (2) rejects evolution (random, undirected change) as a powerful constructive mechanism. Millions of years are not a cure for the severe limitations of random change.

I have just finished reading The Real Genesis Creation Story: A Credible Translation and Explanation at Last by J. Gene White. Of all the books I have read on the subject that attempt to explain Genesis, this is the most comprehensive, lucid and logical. Based on solid scientific evidence and his in depth analysis of the Hebrew text, he appears to have a translation and explanation of Genesis Chapter 1 and 2 that finally makes sense. Without giving away the main thesis of the book, I will say that he does not focus on redefining the terms, “day, create, make, heaven or earth.” He does not treat any verses as metaphorical, mythological or untrue. He does not view evolution as a powerful constructive force. His book can be ordered from the publisher’s website at http://www.sunnybrookepub.com/.