Posted on 12/18/2004 5:56:30 PM PST by PatrickHenry
Professional danger comes in many flavors, and while Richard Colling doesn't jump into forest fires or test experimental jets for a living, he does do the academic's equivalent: He teaches biology and evolution at a fundamentalist Christian college.
At Olivet Nazarene University in Bourbonnais, Ill., he says, "as soon as you mention evolution in anything louder than a whisper, you have people who aren't very happy." And within the larger conservative-Christian community, he adds, "I've been called some interesting names."
But those experiences haven't stopped Prof. Colling -- who received a Ph.D. in microbiology, chairs the biology department at Olivet Nazarene and is himself a devout conservative Christian -- from coming out swinging. In his new book, "Random Designer," he writes: "It pains me to suggest that my religious brothers are telling falsehoods" when they say evolutionary theory is "in crisis" and claim that there is widespread skepticism about it among scientists. "Such statements are blatantly untrue," he argues; "evolution has stood the test of time and considerable scrutiny."
His is hardly the standard scientific defense of Darwin, however. His central claim is that both the origin of life from a primordial goo of nonliving chemicals, and the evolution of species according to the processes of random mutation and natural selection, are "fully compatible with the available scientific evidence and also contemporary religious beliefs." In addition, as he bluntly told me, "denying science makes us [Conservative Christians] look stupid."
Prof. Colling is one of a small number of conservative Christian scholars who are trying to convince biblical literalists that Darwin's theory of evolution is no more the work of the devil than is Newton's theory of gravity. They haven't picked an easy time to enter the fray. Evolution is under assault from Georgia to Pennsylvania and from Kansas to Wisconsin, with schools ordering science teachers to raise questions about its validity and, in some cases, teach "intelligent design," which asserts that only a supernatural tinkerer could have produced such coups as the human eye. According to a Gallup poll released last month, only one-third of Americans regard Darwin's theory of evolution as well supported by empirical evidence; 45% believe God created humans in their present form 10,000 years ago.
Usually, the defense of evolution comes from scientists and those trying to maintain the separation of church and state. But Prof. Colling has another motivation. "People should not feel they have to deny reality in order to experience their faith," he says. He therefore offers a rendering of evolution fully compatible with faith, including his own. The Church of the Nazarene, which runs his university, "believes in the biblical account of creation," explains its manual. "We oppose a godless interpretation of the evolutionary hypothesis."
It's a small opening, but Prof. Colling took it. He finds a place for God in evolution by positing a "random designer" who harnesses the laws of nature he created. "What the designer designed is the random-design process," or Darwinian evolution, Prof. Colling says. "God devised these natural laws, and uses evolution to accomplish his goals." God is not in there with a divine screwdriver and spare parts every time a new species or a wondrous biological structure appears.
Unlike those who see evolution as an assault on faith, Prof. Colling finds it strengthens his own. "A God who can harness the laws of randomness and chaos, and create beauty and wonder and all of these marvelous structures, is a lot more creative than fundamentalists give him credit for," he told me. Creating the laws of physics and chemistry that, over the eons, coaxed life from nonliving molecules is something he finds just as awe inspiring as the idea that God instantly and supernaturally created life from nonlife.
Prof. Colling reserves some of his sharpest barbs for intelligent design, the idea that the intricate structures and processes in the living world -- from exquisitely engineered flagella that propel bacteria to the marvels of the human immune system -- can't be the work of random chance and natural selection. Intelligent-design advocates look at these sophisticated components of living things, can't imagine how evolution could have produced them, and conclude that only God could have.
That makes Prof. Colling see red. "When Christians insert God into the gaps that science cannot explain -- in this case how wondrous structures and forms of life came to be -- they set themselves up for failure and even ridicule," he told me. "Soon -- and it's already happening with the flagellum -- science is going to come along and explain" how a seemingly miraculous bit of biological engineering in fact could have evolved by Darwinian mechanisms. And that will leave intelligent design backed into an ever-shrinking corner.
It won't be easy to persuade conservative Christians of this; at least half of them believe that the six-day creation story of Genesis is the literal truth. But Prof. Colling intends to try.
Prof Collins is a brave man, and koodos to him.
Still, he should not so quickly dismiss all of ID as merely 'God of the Gaps' type knee-jerk.
There are still many gaps to our scientific knowlege and many gaps that have been 'filled' still fall into the miraculous category (IMO) despite science slapping a name onto it. The Big Bang for instance had matter/energy moving at faster-than-light speeds for a while shortly after everything in the cosmos came into existance from nothing within a milisecond. How is that NOT miraculous? How does scinece defining and labeling it rob it of its exemplifying Gods power?
Evolution is the same thing. It shows how finely tuned the entire universe is toward the existance of life, and has been from its inception.
That design speaks far more persuasively to me than some trivial reduction to 'God did it.' That isnt sciencel it is a slogan.
Science needs more than slogans.
I do not know where you stand as such but I am satisfied in a faith in creation.Most evolutionists feel the need to state that evolution is a proven fact which it is not.
Well said. Finally some common sense to all the nonsense posted on this thread.
With regards to Post 15, I was just about to ask what these 'massive amounts of evidence which science has accumulated over more than a century' were all about. There was a great story in Phillip E. Johnson's book 'Darwin on Trial' were some academic group of evolutionists (British I believe) were having a meeting and after a bunch of argumentative discussion, the director stood up and asked the question 'so can we name one thing for certain that we know about evolution and that we can all agree on?' The room went silent.
We're here to help:
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution. Yes, macro-evolution.
Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ. Yes, transitional fossils exist.
Evidence for Evolution . Compilation of links.
Observed Instances of Speciation. That's right ... observed!
Ring Species. We can observe two species and the intermediate forms connecting them.
Fossil whale with legs. Land animal to whale transitional fossil.
Feathered Dinosaurs.
Archaeopteryx. Reptile-to- bird transitional fossil.
Archaeopteryx: FAQS . A true transitional fossil
All About Archaeopteryx.
Human Ancestors.
The Evidence for Human Evolution. For those who claim there isn't any evidence.
Comparison of all Hominid skulls.
I agree with you. It takes much more faith to believe in evolution. I place my faith in Intelligent Design (God).
Teaching complex numbers to Fundamentalists (inter alia) isn't easy either.
Personally, I'm inclined to believe that all random is apparently random. Random seems to be one of those concepts that are easy to understand (like "infinity" or "forever") but don't really exist. Even the randomness found in quantum theory disappears on a large enough scale.
You have no clue what you are talking about. None. Natural selection has been thrown out? By whom? Duane Gish?
The two laws of thermodynamics say that 1)new matter is not being created and 2)all matter is in a state of decay.
Militant ignorance.
Mutations when occurring are almost always regressive in nature and are not beneficial to the original species.They are also usually sterile so that the mutation stops with that individual whether animal or human.
It's been estimated that the average human is born with 2-3 unique mutations. We should all be sterile if you're right. You're wrong. There are tons of mutations floating around all the time. Some may be slightly harmful. Many are neutral. Some will be helpful. Only the immediately harmful are immediately weeded out. You don't have to be a genius to realize this.
Evolution is the religion of those who would elevate man above God.
The worst thing religious people seem to be able to say about evolution is that it's a religion. Funny that they should consider such to be an insult, but I guess it should be taken that way.
The people who think science is a religion also think science is argued with dishonest quoting and by attacking the founder of the "religion." We see that all the time and it's a hoot.
The situation is not reciprocal at all. All the attacks upon evolution by creationists are based upon absolute militant ignorance and religious horror of what evolution even says. By comparison, the people who defend science on these threads have become quite familiar with creationist literature. (Of course, it isn't very hard to absorb. The information content is virtually nil.)
We've seen everything you've got and it's all bogus. You don't even know what punctuated equilibrium is. One thing it definitely is not is Goldsmith's "hopeful monster" theory. Go to the back of the class.
If the world evolved then it was set in motion by God and he planned it that way.
Problem solved.
Oh, it's the usual hilarious Creationist misunderstanding of the second law of thermodynamics and entropy, of course.
Any summer you can see amorphous and disorganized masses of clouds "spontaneously" organize themselves into hurricanes with perfectly circular eyes surrounded by spiral bands. They 1) aren't even alive and 2) aren't being directed by any higher intelligence to organize.
The earth isn't a closed system and gets a net energy input from the sun.
Hey who doesnt like to read comic books?
For pure entertainment, I take a Jack Chick over a Stan Lee any day.
Teaching science to creationists?
Better to teach algebra to a donkey.
I've seen two creationists already who are citing an article about Antony Flew accepting an intelligent entity that started up the universe that contains the line "He acceps Darwinian evolution" and claiming that he has rejected evolution. Clearly there are a number of creationists who don't care about reality. They've already decided that evolution == atheism, and any facts that would contradict their predetermined beliefs are completely ignored.
Hey, stranger. ;)
Hear, hear! I will have to search out and read Prof. Colling's works. He says what I have been thinking for years. I myself stand amazed at the subtlety and omniscience of a God who can set these forces in motion and then stand back, content to let His forces roll along on their own until they produce His masterwork -- a creation who is self-aware and can (someday) hope to understand the universe on two levels -- the physical and the spiritual -- and who can love and revere the original Creator in the way He deserves.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.