In recent years Arkansas and Louisiana laws requiring balanced treatment of creation science whenever the theory of evolution is taught in public school classrooms have been struck down in the courts. When such laws have been overturned, those who work to establish the religion of evolutionism in the public schools have been quick to caution their followers that the war is not yet over—that at the local level those Christian fundamentalists will be at work to challenge the exclusive teaching of evolutionary theory. The evolutionist crusaders warn that successes in the big court cases will mean little if there are losses in the classroom.

There is much for us to learn from the evolutionists. As we express our concerns regarding the theistic evolutionary views of such men as Howard Van Til, Clarence Meninga, Davis Young, John Stek, and others who teach or have taught at our college and seminary, we may be tempted to think that if only we can win these “big court cases” that the war is won. Far from it.

The proponents of unbridled theistic evolution have already taken long strides toward accomplishing their expressed goal of introducing the teaching of theistic evolution (including man) into the Christian high school classroom.

This fact has recently been made painfully clear to me and to others who support Christian education in the city of Kalamazoo, Michigan. Readers of the science page of the June 2, 1987 Kalamazoo Gazette had their attention drawn by a two-column photo bearing the caption “Kalamazoo Christian Principal Roger Sikkenga and biology teacher Colleen Bode teach that mankind evolves under divine control.” Moving to the article itself one read such statements as the following:

There’s no uniform approach to teaching creation science among parochial schools. The treatments range from fundamentalism, in which the Bible’s version in the Book of Genesis is interpreted literally, to the versions taught at Kalamazoo Christian and Hackett Catholic Central—versions in which man evolves in an orderly way under the intimate care of God.

“Creationism versus evolution really isn’t the issue at Kalamazoo Christian High School,” says Bode. Sikkenga adds the issue is not so much the details of man’s biological journey, but the author of that journey.

Kalamazoo Christian uses the same textbooks that the public high schools do, showing development of the species, genetic theory and the evidence for evolution through fossils. “But in none of these texts does it ever actually relate the human species to apes,” Sikkenga points out. “The actual jump as to man from the fossilized remains is left up to the readers.” The creation of man is “completely separate” from the evolution of the rest of the world, they believe. “We are evolving, but it is in an orderly way, designed and controlled by God,” Bode said.

Nowhere in the article was there a testimony to a belief in an historical Adam and Eve, and nowhere was there any affirmation of the historical-event character of Genesis 1–11. Rather, man is evolving, the details of man’s “biological journey” are not at issue, and the secular texts used present evidence for evolution.

   

A local CRC consistory was concerned enough about the article to send a representative to discuss the matter with the KCHS principal. In a separate action, I personally urged the principal, both verbally and by letter, to make his and the school’s teaching on this topic clear to both constituents and the public at large, charging that the article at best was unclear and misleading. The fact that CRC Synods have repeatedly affirmed (Acts of Synod, 1982, p. 107; 1972, pp. 68–69; 1959, p. 68) the historical factuality of the events recorded in Genesis 1-3 as the teaching of both the Bible and our creeds (Belg. Conf. Arts XIV, XV; Heid. Cat. L.D. 3; Canons of Dort I, 1 and III, 2) was pointed out. Despite all this, no public clarification was made.

I and at least one other individual wrote the KCHS school board. The board was urged to publicly affirm its committment to 1) belief in an historical Adam and Eve, miraculously created by Almighty God as the first two human beings, from whom all of mankind is descended; 2) beliefin the historical-event character of Genesis 1–11; 3) belief in an historical Fall. The board was further urged that if it could not affirm these unqualifiedly, to make clear precisely what the position of the school was with regards to man -specifically, whether it viewed the origin of man via evolutionary processes as being consistent with the Biblical testimony.

In a personal letter dated August 26, 1987, the board replied. The board offered this partial disclaimer: “The article that appeared certainly did not clearly state the school’s position nor that of our principal or science teacher.” This assurance: “Please rest assured that Kalamazoo Christian High’s position on creation/evolution is in no wise different than the one with which you are historically familiar.” And these affirmations: “We all stand firmly on the position that the universe was created by God and that the first man and woman were given an immortal soul upon creation. We further affirm that man fell into sin and that all of creation has been affected by this fall from perfection. Further, we affirm that Jesus Christ, the perfect Son of the Creator, has been sent to redeem the creation from sin, and we place our faith firmly in this risen Lord and Savior.” The board took no action to publicly clarify the school’s stance.

And, to my mind, the personal letter which I received does not really clear things up either. If the position of the school was not well-represented in the Gazette article, why the reluctance of staff and board to publicly set the record straight? The statement affirming “that the first man and woman were given an immortal soul upon creation” clearly leaves room for the position that man’s physical nature evolved from the apes and falls short of affirming the historical Adam and Eve. Nor is the historical-event character of Genesis 1–11 affirmed.

The assurance of the board that their “position” on creation/evolution has not changed does not give me rest. I wrote the KCHS board a second letter indicating my dissatisfaction with their responses and asking “has KCHS ever had a specific and detailed policy regarding creation/evolution? If the school has such a policy, please send me a copy.” I have yet to see any such policy. The board replied a month later. “We reaffirm the position outlined in our August 26 letter to you.” The policy has not changed, but has the teaching in the classroom changed? This is where the rubber hits the road. When I took Reformed Doctrine at KCHS as a student in ‘72-‘73 our textbook was Manual of Christian Doctrine by Louis Berkhof, a text which was used at KCHS as recently as two years ago. I quote from page 109 of that text:

. . . some Christian scholars take refuge in what is called “theistic” or “creative evolution.” This postulates God as the almighty Worker back of the whole process of evolution, a process of natural development, in which God does not miraculously intervene, except when this is absolutely necessary, as in the origin of life and of man. The very fact that it has a certain religious appeal makes this theory a dangerous hybrid. As a matter of fact it is no more in harmony with Scripture than naturalistic evolution. It, too, teaches that . . . man at least on his physical side descended from the brute, and that there was no fall in the biblical sense of the word.

As I indicated to the board, the teaching at KCHS with which I am historically familiar, agreed with Berkhof’s rejection of theistic evolution at least as far as his analysis applied itself to the origin of man. Nor was there a pedagogic schizophrenia between the Reformed Doctrine and Biology classes on this matter. If this is still the teaching at KCHS, why cannot the board say so clearly and publicly?

So why do I write about this? To hurt Kalamazoo Christian High School? Assuredly not. I have had correspondence with staff and board over a period of more than four months in the hope that they would clarify their position and give their constituents who affirm the importance of maintaining the historical-event character of Genesis 1–11 better reason to hold full confidence in the school. Nothing would make me happier than if they would do so even now. Certainly I do not write because I think KCHS is worse than most other Christian high schools supported by Reformed people. No, I write precisely because I believe the teaching and testimony ofKCHS is typical of many, if not most of our Christian high schools. We do our schools no good, but rather harm, if we adopt an apathetic “ignorance is bliss” attitude towards the doctrinal soundness of their teaching.

It is ironic that whereas the public schools claim to be neutral, liberal (committed to the free exchange of ideas), and undogmatic, in the area of origins they are in fact one-sided and doctrinaire. As Justices Scalia and Rehnquist stated in their dissent to the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in the Louisiana Creation Law Case: “. . . the Court’s position is the repressive one. The people of Louisiana, including those who are Christian fundamentalists, are quite entitled, as a secular matter, to have whatever scientific evidence there may be against evolution presented in their schools, just as Mr. Scopes [in the famous “Scopes Monkey Trial”] was entitled to present whatever scientific evidence there was for it . . . . Yet that illiberal judgment, the Scopes-in-reverse, is ultimately the basis on which the Court’s facile rejection of the Louisiana Legislature’s purpose must rest.”

It is doubly ironic that whereas our Christian schools rightly hold that neutrality is impossible, and rightly claim to be dogmatic (that is, to teach in accordance with Biblical doctrine), that there is in them more and more a watering down of doctrine, particularly in the area of origins, to accommodate a more pluralistic (read main-stream) liberal Christianity.

There is even the danger that the evolutionistic dogma promulgated in._the public schools will be adopted by the Christian high school (christened with the moniker Theistic, of course). Already the same secular texts are being used, and we may be sure that these texts show “development of the species, genetic theory and the evidence FOR evolution through fossils.” Can we be sure the evidence AGAINST evolution will also be presented –even in the Christian classroom? Will the systematic absence of transitional forms in the fossil record be pointed out? Will the inadequacies of present “scientific” speculations concerning chemical evolution and the origin of life be brought to light? Will there be an examination of the presuppositions which secular evolutionists operate with when looking at genetic similarities between species? Even secular scientists who are hostile with regards to creation science are pointing out these problems² while the teachers at our colleges and schools in the main seem to be ignoring them!

Dare we complain about the teaching at Calvin College and Seminary when we do not demand an accounting at our local Christian high school? Winning the “big court cases” will mean little if the battle is lost at the level of the local Christian high school.

Notes:

1. In the Arkansas case the American Civil Liberties Union was aided in its challenge of the law by testimony given by (at that time) Calvin College History professor George Marsden. 2. For example, Steven M. Stanley, professor of Paleobiology at John Hopkins University and a prominent punctuational evolutionist, writes in his 1981 book The New Evolutionary Timetable: “Since the time of Darwin, paleontologists have found themselves confronted with evidence that conflicts with gradualism, yet the message of the fossil record has been ignored (p.101).” Professor of Chemistry at New York University Robert Shapiro, a scientist who has directed a research group in nucleic acid chemistry for 25 years concludes in his 1986 book Origins: A Skeptic’s Guide to the Creation ofLife on Earth that all current scientific theories regarding the origin of life must be discarded as unsatisfactory or unfounded, and that scientists must at the present time admit that they do not know how life began.

DavidA. Kloosterman lives at 3610 Konkle St., Kalamazoo, MI 49001.