Part V-How do we proceed from here?

In response to this question, I find that the best answer is broader than considering evolution alone. Christians have good reason to keep informed about what their children are being taught. When anti-religious positions or overtly atheistic or humanistic positions are presented as fact, the teacher and the school system should be challenged. However, I would suggest that this is a very rare occurrence. However, to object to the teaching of evolution as a scientific theory (all of which are provisional) is not likely to be productive and I believe doing so harms the cause of Christ more than helps.

Two reasons are usually given for opposing the teaching of evolution in the public schools: 1) It is scientifically unsupportable and 2) It unavoidably undermines belief in the Bible and fosters the religion of secular humanism. As I have outlined in previous posts, #1 is simply wrong. Please understand I came to this conclusion after being a creation science supporter, strictly because I had to study carefully in preparation for teaching this material at a college. This study demonstrated conclusively to me that evolution is a useful scientific theory and that creation science is scientifically (and religiously) unsound. Perhaps I seem arrogant to you in saying such things when there are a number of well-known creation science proponents who are also scientists and who have come to the opposite conclusion. I do not know how to make this point without sounding immodest, but I think it is an important, so I will tell you a little about my career. I have been working as an experimental biologist since 1980 (when I earned my Ph.D. in immunology), and my research has been funded by competitive grants from the federal government and private companies continuously since 1987. I am on the editorial boards of 6 scientific journals, including the leading journals in immunology and toxicology. I have published over 90 peer-reviewed papers. In contrast, I do not know a single creation science proponent who works as a scientist. Several have Ph.D. degrees, but some are in marginally related fields. They do not have to worry about scientific integrity, because they are not working as scientist. However, those of us who are working as scientists are obligated by our chosen profession and by our belief in the Bible, which teaches against bearing false testimony, to speak with integrity. I cannot say that evolution is an unsupportable theory without abandoning integrity.

The second point listed in the previous paragraph is also in error. Few public schools in states where the SBC has most of its members teach evolution at the K-12 level at all. They simply do not want the controversy. When evolution is taught, teachers generally go out of their way to teach it in ways that minimize conflicts with the Bible or religion. When I taught this topic in college, I introduced it by telling the students that I would be teaching evolution, because it is a reasonably good scientific theory about the NATURAL origins of life. However, I specifically told them that this does not preclude a role for God, but science is unable to establish or even investigate this role. Other professors I knew had a similar approach.

So, how does opposing evolution hurt the cause of Christ? It prevents almost all scientists from taking the gospel seriously, because the people most likely to present it to them have classified them as enemies to be shunned and hated. Of course, this is a small number of people. However, many people are taught evolution in college, and most professors do an excellent job of presenting compelling evidence confirmed by multiple methods (including dating) for evolution. The evidence is almost as overwhelming as the evidence that the earth orbits the sun, so teaching our youth that evolution conflicts with the Bible sets them up for an absolutely unnecessary spiritual crisis. When they learn that the evidence for evolution is not as inconsequential and error ridden as they have been taught, they may begin to doubt other things that they were taught. This is unnecessary, because the first two chapters of Genesis can be taken literally (Adam and Eve were real people and God created everything) and still be consistent with the occurrence of evolution. Stating that God could not create partly by using natural mechanisms like evolution is another way of saying, I do not believe God is sovereign. He can only create ex nihilo all at once, because that is the interpretation I prefer. Of course, that is not the only interpretation that is possible from a careful and literal interpretation of Genesis 1 and 2. It is important to note that, as I point out in previous posts, a current SBC seminary professor (remember, there are no liberals or moderates left among our seminary professors) supports the idea that Genesis is not intended as a strict chronology and that the issue of the length of days cannot be settled with certainty from the text.

Christians would do well to partner with public schools and to help them in every way possible. Community interest and volunteerism is sorely needed in almost all schools, and Christians should (more than anyone else) have a desire to serve. In addition, this would allow access and understanding of what is being taught. Christians should run for a position on the School Board. I live in a community where this has happened and where many leaders in the public school system are committed Christians. I cannot recall my children ever being taught anything to which I objected. It seems to me that we cannot possibly act as salt and light in our culture unless we infiltrate our culture, and the public schools are the one place where we can reach almost everyone. Christians should be the strongest supporters of public schools and should be involved in them in every way both to fulfill our role as servants and to insure that inappropriate content is challenged quickly and effectively.

There seems to be considerable interest in a resolution that was made at a recent SBC annual meeting calling on parents to withdraw their children from public schools. In the interest of full disclosure I should tell you that my mother, father, wife, and sister-in-law are or were teachers in public schools. I attended public schools. For various reasons, my wife has taught and my children have attended private schools. Thus, I would not criticize anyone who preferred home schooling or private school. However, to propose that all Southern Baptists withdraw their children from public schools suggests a selfish isolationism that Baptists have always avoided. Of course, parents are responsible for protecting their children and looking to their best interests. However, I am become convinced through experience that it is in the best interest of our youth to teach them by experience to evangelize and serve, wherever life takes them. My daughter attends a public high school and she is also an intern at our church, where she serves as minister to middle school girls. She has a positive witness and has invited many of her classmates to join her at church. Do you really believe that the best approach is simply to abandon those kids? Of course, it takes extra time and effort to teach our children to avoid temptations and to resist belief systems contrary to our own to prepare them for public schools. It takes constant involvement in their lives to insure that things are not taking a wrong turn, but surely the effort is worth it if they are able to share the gospel with even one classmate. One final thought. Choosing a private school to protect our children from negative influences is by no means foolproof. Every sin that can be found in public schools can be found in private schools, and private schools tend to be a good deal more sinful in areas like pride and haughtiness. I would prefer to see us take personal responsibility for protecting and preparing our children and raise them up in the way they should go; which would include fulfilling the great commission.