I am not taking sides in this matter, because I think that there are some very important questions that have not been answered. However, given some of the conclusions that people have drawn, I thought it important to note some factual issues that have not been highlighted.
1. The video was a very short clip in which Professor Waltke gave the impression (at least to some) of endorsing and promoting the Biologos agenda including its version of “theistic evolution.” Waltke later clarified: “I had not seen the video before it was distributed. Having seen it, I realize its deficiency and wish to put my comments in a fuller theological context.” I saw the video several times before it was taken down, and now that I know Waltke’s full position, I believe it was very misleading. Biologos had reason to know that the video was misleading, and bears some responsibility for its decision to post a very short clip without showing it to Waltke first.
2. In the video, Waltke says, “if the data is overwhelmingly in favor of evolution, to deny that reality will make us a cult.” Given the context of the video on the Biologos blog, it was not unreasonable for viewers to conclude that Waltke was suggesting that if Evangelicals did not accept the Biologos version of theistic evolution, that will make them a cult. The suggestion that those who disagree are a “cult” is inflammatory, and arguably does not set the right tone for civil discourse. If that language had been seen in the context of the entire interview, it might not have had the inflammatory impact that it did. Again, this raises questions about the Biologos editing choices.
3. RTS seems to accept a variety of views on creation and evolution, including some versions of theistic evolution. Waltke published his version of theistic evolution at least as early as 2007, and this apparently did not raise problems with RTS. Therefore, it is reasonable to consider that the problems in the present situation had to do with the specific video clip, the context of the video on the Biologos blog and the impressions it gave.
4. Some commentators have noted that James Orr and B.B. Warfield accepted some version of theistic evolution. The suggestion is that RTS and all Evangelicals should accept theistic evolution in all or most of its varieties. However, the Biologos version of theistic evolution is not the same as Waltke’s version of theistic evolution. It also is not the same as the versions held by James Orr and B.B. Warfield. There are significant theological and scientific differences. It is highly misleading to suggest that these versions of theistic evolution are the same and have the same theological status.
5. The Biologos blog has been highly critical of ID proponents and has arguably misrepresented their position. Waltke in a paper published on the Biologos website appears to criticize Biologos for apparently taking the position that it “will not publicly engage” proponents of ID.