Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Tough Assignment: Teaching Evolution To Fundamentalists
Ft. Wayne Journal Gazette ^ | 03 December 2004 | SHARON BEGLEY

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.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Miscellaneous; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: christianschools; christianstudents; colling; crevolist; darwin; evolution; heresy; intelligentdesign; nazarene; religionofevolution; richardcolling; scienceeducation
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 1,081-1,093 next last
To: Nebullis

Hi, Nebullis! Whatcha been up to?


41 posted on 12/19/2004 12:12:58 AM PST by jennyp (Latest creation/evolution news: http://crevo.bestmessageboard.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Cicero
The harder you look at it the less sense it makes

Lol! Where did God come from?
If there is no God, would evolution eventually evolve God?
Does any of this really matter?
42 posted on 12/19/2004 12:53:47 AM PST by mugs99 (Restore the Constitution)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

This article makes the assumption that creationists are just ignorant of the THEORY of evolution. The fact is, the whole country has had this crammed down it's throat in public school for decades.

Evolution is being rejected because of what people know about it, not because of what we don't know.

Similar mistake is made by the Democrats-- they think they just didn't get their message out. Right.


43 posted on 12/19/2004 12:58:34 AM PST by ovrtaxt (Political correctness is the handmaiden of terrorism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ovrtaxt
Evolution is being rejected because of what people know about it, not because of what we don't know.

Hmmm... mind if I ask you some questions about the Theory of Evolution?

  1. How does the ToE say that the universe came into existence? Or is this a trick question?
  2. What is the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, and does it have anything to do with evolution?
  3. What is Punctuated Equilibrium? According to PE, how long does a "punctuation of the equilibrium" take? A single generation? Longer?
  4. Does the ToE say that a fish gave birth to a dog?
  5. According to the ToE, what's the most likely scenario for how a new species develops?

44 posted on 12/19/2004 1:47:56 AM PST by jennyp (Latest creation/evolution news: http://crevo.bestmessageboard.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin
I'd have more confidence in the people pushing evolution if they wouldn't make the implied claim that the theory of evolution is somehow as valid or demonstrable as the fact of gravity.

Why not? It is.

45 posted on 12/19/2004 2:12:49 AM PST by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: ovrtaxt
This article makes the assumption that creationists are just ignorant of the THEORY of evolution.

In my long experience, they are. They ridicule a "cartoon version" of evolution, not the real theory. I've had to correct literally *hundreds* of misconceptions that creationists on FR *alone* have had about evolution.

The fact is, the whole country has had this crammed down it's throat in public school for decades.

Then they need to do a better job, because most people don't really know how it works or what the evidence for it might be.

Evolution is being rejected because of what people know about it, not because of what we don't know.

Actually, in my experience evolution is being rejected because the creationists keep telling so many outrageous lies about it. See my profile page for a few hundred examples just from FR alone.

Let's try a test -- tell me why what you know about evolution that has caused *you* to reject it (presuming you have).

46 posted on 12/19/2004 3:40:17 AM PST by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: carlr
It has not, it was almost immediately accepted by the atheist/humanist community because it filled a needed gap in the explanation of life.

[...]

Evolution is the religion of those who would elevate man above God.

I see... And how does your little thesis deal with the fact that the majority of Americans who accept evolution are *Christians*?

47 posted on 12/19/2004 3:43:06 AM PST by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon
Let's try a test -- tell me why what you know about evolution that has caused *you* to reject it

That's good. Very good.

48 posted on 12/19/2004 3:53:46 AM PST by PatrickHenry (The List-O-Links for evolution threads is at my freeper homepage.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: carlr
Natural selection (Darwinism)has been thrown out because it requires more time than even the evolutionist time frame allows ie;to be correct the sun would be exhausted before the process would get us to where we are.This was supplanted by the "hopeful monster"theory to explain how evolution could make huge jumps in a short period of time.

ROFL! You've been reading too much creationist material, I see. Sorry, but "punctuated equilibrium" is neither a "hopeful monster" theory, nor did it "throw out" Darwinism. Darwin himself described punctuated equilibrium, you nut. Are you sure you know what in the hell you're talking about?

Here's part of a post I wrote in response to yet another FR creationist who didn't actually understand punctuated equilibrium as well as he thought he did:

Furthermore, if you're under the mistaken belief that Gould's disagreement with "Darwinian gradualism" is the same thing as a rejection of "Darwinian *evolution*", you're grossly mistaken. While Darwin did lean towards a belief that evolution would usually proceed slowly, that doesn't change the fact that even though we've learned in the past 144 years that evolution can proceed at varying rates (sometimes rapidly by geological standards, sometimes almost coming to a standstill), the processes driving the transformation are still those which Darwin laid out. In other words, "Darwinian evolution" is vindicated even though a presumption of "nothing but gradualism" is not. Gould writes:

"We believe that Huxley was right in his warning. The modern theory of evolution does not require gradual change. In fact, the operation of Darwinian processes should yield exactly what we see in the fossil record. It is gradualism that we must reject, not Darwinism."
- Stephen Jay Gould, The Panda's Thumb (1980), p. 182, emphasis added.
Or:
"It [punctuated equilibrium] represents no departure from Darwinian mechanisms."
-- Gould and Eldredge 1977, Section IV, "PE as the basis for a Theory of Macroevolution", page 139
So much for Gould "agreeing" with you and disagreeing with "Darwinian evolution", eh?

Furthermore, Gould has long been faulted for overstating Darwin's belief in gradualism. The following quote from Darwin's "On the Origin of Species" makes clear that he fully expected sudden events to appear in the fossil record, *and* that evolution would proceed at varying rates at different times:

"Widely ranging species vary most, and varieties are often at first local, -- both causes rendering the discovery of intermediate links less likely. Local varieties will not spread into other and distant regions until they are considerably modified and improved; and when they do spread, if discovered in a geological formation, they will appear as if suddenly created there, and will be simply classed as new species. Most formations have been intermittent in their accumulation; and their duration, I am inclined to believe, has been shorter than the average duration of specific forms. ... During the alternate periods of elevation and of stationary level the record will be blank. During these latter periods there will probably be more variability in the forms of life; during periods of subsidence, more extinction."

Charles Darwin, "On the Origin of Species", 1859

Or even more succinctly:
"But I must here remark that I do not suppose that the process ever goes on so regularly as is represented in the diagram, though in itself made somewhat irregular, nor that it goes on continuously; it is far more probable that each form remains for long periods unaltered, and then again undergoes modification.
Charles Darwin, "On the Origin of Species", 1859
In fact, it's obvious that Darwin himself foresaw at least the basics of punctuated equilibrium, if not the full scope of it.

...

There you go again, going off the deep end. As even the above quotes should make clear, Gould hardly "split completely with Darwinian evolutionists". And again, anyone who has actually bothered to read his works couldn't possibly make such a bone-headed mistake about his position.

You would be well advised to read All you need to know about Punctuated Equilibrium (almost): Common misconceptions concerning the hypothesis of Punctuated Equilibrium. Table of contents is as follows, you might find some of the points familiar:

Much confusion has surrounded the concept of Punctuated Equilibrium (PE) as proposed by Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould in 1972. This essay addresses a few of the erroneous views held by many creationists and even some evolutionary biologists concerning PE. There are several main points I wish to make:

1. There are two common uses of "gradualism," one of which is more traditional and correct, the other of which is equivalent to Eldredge and Gould's "phyletic gradualism."

2. Darwin was not a "phyletic gradualist," contrary to the claims of Eldredge and Gould.

3. PE is not anti-Darwinian; in fact, the scientific basis and conclusions of PE originated with Charles Darwin.

4. PE does not require any unique explanatory mechanism (e.g. macromutation or saltation).

5. Eldredge and Gould's PE is founded on positive evidence, and does not "explain away" negative evidence (e.g. a purported lack of transitional fossils).

Care to try again?
49 posted on 12/19/2004 3:56:40 AM PST by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
"I like this Richard Colling. He says what some of us have been saying around here for years."

LOL, I like what 'God' says. Nothing Christian in placing a theory above 'God', who says HE created everything. He also says there will be problems BIG TIME 'if' little old flesh man does not listen!

E's better hurry up cause that hour glass of "GOD's" time is nigh on to empty.
50 posted on 12/19/2004 4:01:37 AM PST by Just mythoughts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: carlr
The two laws of thermodynamics say that 1)new matter is not being created and 2)all matter is in a state of decay.

No they don't. Where did you "learn" this nonsense?

What this means is there is no scientific basis for a fish to grow claws,a reptile to grow hair or feathers.

No, what it means is that you don't understand thermodynamics.

The gene that causes these traits would have to have appeared out of nothing

No, it would appear out of prior genetic material, which is not "nothing". Try again.

Mutations when occurring are almost always regressive in nature and are not beneficial to the original species.

Please quantify "almost always" if you think you can.

They are also usually sterile

False, but don't let that stop you...

Evolution cannot nor has been demonstrated by any means what so ever.

Oh... Then what is this, or this, or this, to mention just a few out of the literally millions of confirmations of evolution and common descent?

That is no one has seen or found evidence of the vast numbers of "missing links" that natural selection or random beneficial mutation would require.

You mean other than these several hundred examples, out of the countless thousands which have been discovered?

Are you sure you know what in the hell you're talking about?

That is why when challenged on the merits no rational argument is presented only assumptions and presumptions that require as much or more faith in the unseen or unprovable as intelligent creation.

Let's put your claim to the test, shall we? You "challenge evolution on the merits", and then you can see whether we respond with "rational arguments" or "assumptions...that require...faith in the unseen or unprovable". Go for it.

51 posted on 12/19/2004 4:09:58 AM PST by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Just mythoughts
E's better hurry up cause that hour glass of "GOD's" time is nigh on to empty.

Wow! Thanks for the warning. I was gonna go out and buy a couple of case of dog food for my dobies, but if time's that short, I guess I'll just spend the dough on some Viagra and go out with a flourish.

52 posted on 12/19/2004 4:11:53 AM PST by PatrickHenry (The List-O-Links for evolution threads is at my freeper homepage.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Cicero
"As a Catholic, I don't feel obliged to believe that God created the universe 6,000 years ago."

As a Christian, the Bible does not say WHEN God created the universe. In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. AND the earth became without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep.

Then follows a description of a massive clean up.

Peter describes THREE heaven and earth ages.

We are told in Ecclesiastes 1 :9 The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun.

10. Is there any thing whereof it may be said 'See this is new?' It hath been already of old time, which was before us.

11. There is no remembrance of former things; neither shall there be any remembrance of things that are to come with those that shall come after.

So what is it that flesh man is not allowed to remember???

Now Ezekiel 28, tells us all about the devil being created and he was created perfect, yet not one word in Genesis about the devil being created yet the devil was in the Garden of Eden.

When were the souls created.... note God said "Let US make man in OUR image, after OUR likeness.

Who is the US and the OUR????
53 posted on 12/19/2004 4:13:30 AM PST by Just mythoughts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
"Wow! Thanks for the warning. I was gonna go out and buy a couple of case of dog food for my dobies, but if time's that short, I guess I'll just spend the dough on some Viagra and go out with a flourish."


That is a great idea, cause you won't be needing your 'Viagra' after the FLESH returns to dust!
54 posted on 12/19/2004 4:15:33 AM PST by Just mythoughts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Bombardier
The Bible tells the "why" and science the "how."

You don't believe the Bible when it purports to tell the "how," then? "How" God directed Noah to build the ark, for example, or "how" Jesus was crucified, or how humanity came into sin?

55 posted on 12/19/2004 4:23:28 AM PST by Theo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Just mythoughts
Who is the US and the OUR?

I think "US" and "OUR" refer to the fellowship of the Trinity.

56 posted on 12/19/2004 4:33:58 AM PST by Theo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Theo

"I think "US" and "OUR" refer to the fellowship of the Trinity."

Why is Jeremiah told in 1:5 "Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations."

Jeremiah has a history before he was formed in the womb.

Also it is written in the OLD and the NEW that Jacob I loved and Esau I hated before they were born. That as well says there is a history before being born of woman in the flesh.

Hebrews 2:14 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of the flesh and blood, He also Himself likewise took part of the same; that through death He might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;

15 And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.

16 For verily He took not on Him the nature of angels; but He took on Him the seed of Abraham.

So again when were the souls created?


57 posted on 12/19/2004 4:48:34 AM PST by Just mythoughts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon

I'm not going too far into this argument, simply because crevo debates are not my 'hobby', so to speak.

But here's a big problem I have with it- no empirical evidence.

Never has it been demonstrated that an isolated population will mutate into a different species that can no longer breed with the larger population. Sure, organisms adapt and change behaviors and characteristics, but on a cellular level, the proliferation of species is not explained by mutation.

Even a demonstration of how this works with simple life forms would suffice. With all the gene splicing that's coming along, I would think that evolutionists could produce results in the lab that support their position.


58 posted on 12/19/2004 4:59:24 AM PST by ovrtaxt (Political correctness is the handmaiden of terrorism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Just mythoughts

False dichotomy. Most of the "Es" on this forum are God-fearing types. We simply don't subscribe to a literal interpretation of Genesis as it flies in the face of the physical evidence.


59 posted on 12/19/2004 5:09:33 AM PST by Junior (FABRICATI DIEM, PVNC)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
The fallacy in the title is that you can't teach fundamentalist, be they Christian or Moslem, any thing.

The rind surrounding their brains prevents entry of any knowledge from unapproved sources.
60 posted on 12/19/2004 5:10:01 AM PST by bert (Don't Panic.....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 1,081-1,093 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson