The overwhelming sense I had from this article was that faith-learning integration is not a matter of unseating falsehoods or challenging anti-Christian worldviews, but of fitting in within existing academic culture, doing work that is unobjectionable, and then being able to say, “See, I’m a Christian.”
The article is an article in Christianity Today which criticizes Baylor for having hired D. Aside from his whining about being called a fundamentalist (which he probably is), that passage above was the most interesting part.
All academics want to unseat falsehoods. To suggest that "fitting in within existing academic culture" is contrary to that is dumb. And name those "anti-Christian worldviews" please. Is it "godless communism"? No. Militant Islam? I doubt it. No, I think we're talking about materialism, or what we used to call capitalism.
In any event, his critique is silly, but revealing. He sees his work on evolution not as good, unobjectionable science, but as a challenge to anti-Christian worldviews. Remember that next time someone says IDC is motivated by a pure and academic desire to find the truth. It's a project to defend a Christian worldview, nothing more.