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.
nobody is insisting on taking a beliefe system away from scientists. It is a belief system, not science. Science belongs in science class - not belief systems. IE earth to you - anybody home?
You say that like it's a bad thing!
That looks strangely like the post I made in response to your post that the morals decline only started in the sixties.
Thanks for the info. I am much more inclined to take an idea seriously and look more deeply at links etc. when I get treated as someone with a mind, not a small-minded religious guy like some tend to do.
That's good, because they like Kwanza!. They like it a lot
Then what was up with your "God willing" statement earlier. Either God is willing to end the study of evolution or he is willing to let the status quo stand. Which is it?
OK, I give: what does it say?
When I was learning to write there was a higher standard than exhibited by your posts. Paragraphs were expected to elaborate on their lead sentence, not charge off in all directions. I have posted repeatedly on the parallels between evolutionary science and forensics. You have posted a great deal of verbiage without telling me exactly what the problem is with this analogy.
For your position to be correct, physics would have to be wrong about radiometric dating; astronomy would have to be wrong about the age and structure of the universe; geology would have to be wrong in almost every detail, biology would have to have made its last hundred years of advances based on a completely incorrect paradigm; and you would have to be smarter and more knowledgeable than the tens of thousands of scientists who have worked on the basic problems in their fields -- all without being able to write a coherent paragraph in the English language.
Merry Spookism!
Actually, my belief system fits nicely with the facts and evidence. What it doesn't fit with is your spin on them - that's an entirely different matter; but, you're not objective on the matter and will refuse to see it. That aside, I'm not the one begging people to accept the notion that my belief system is science - you are. None of you have proved it, nor have your colleagues in the profession. They have rather failed to and instead proved that it is a belief system by ignoring facts that contend against them, suppressing evidence that disproves them, etc. The argument isn't my belief system vs. yours. The argument is that your belief system isn't science and doesn't belong in the schools. I understand you'd like to make it about something else; but, it ain't gonna happen. And I'm not sorry.
An excellant example of how you manage to put a blind eye to the facts.
The problem with macroevolution and even perhaps the old universe is that the hypotheses of mainstream science spill over into metaphysics. The statement that the various species of life developed over a period of hundreds of millions of years through a series of evolutionary events, unguided by a superior intelligence is contradictory to the Biblical statement that in the beginning God created those species by fiat. Contradictions cannot exist. A person has four alternatives: to accept the hypotheses of mainstream science and reject the concept of a divine creator, to accept the claims of the Bible in spite of the evidence of the scientific mainstream, to try to synthesize or harmonize the two positions, or to come up with another hypothesis.
Does this article assume Christiam fundamentalist are opposed to hearing opposing views? So what if someone wants to present the theory of evolution, the big bang theory or whatever. Christians are not the ones so weak in their faith that they should oppose the study of what other people think.
Certainly at a Christian school the kids are going to get the teaching of creationism.
As I understand the debate going on in the teaching of evolution, it is those that believe in evolution that are intollerant of discussion of other beliefs.
That's what happens when you've had a lie without a single shred of evidence rammed down your throat by a bunch of godless heathens for over one hundred years.
Simple, I know what I look forward to on the other side is far better than the mess you guys have made here for us to have to put up with. I'd rather be there. But, as long as I have things to do here, I'll be here. That's up to God, not me.
Either God is willing to end the study of evolution or he is willing to let the status quo stand. Which is it?
Two words. Free will. You have a right to decide for yourself. You do not have the right to decide for others. That's the bottom line. It will end. But as always, it will be the responsibility of men to speak and for God to work through them. It's the way it's always been till God has gotten fed up with men altogether - which is what the end of time is all about. He came to give Justice and mercy the last time on the cross, next time he's coming for vengeance. But, since you don't believe in God, I'm sure that doesn't bother you. I would ask how long you can tread water; but, that was the last time he destroyed the world. This time will be different; but, just as effective. And there will be nowhere to hide - as last time.
Is he trying to sell it or simply presenting it. There is a very big difference. The former is preaching. The later is education about opposing view points of how the world was created.
No, that would be you. And to your detriment.
Have a Happy Mithra's Birthday yourself!
Well now you've hit on something
Plus if you can reduce the holders of those beliefs to someone that society can do without, well then you can make progress
I vote for option 4 - you should take up Hinduism.
Piling on placemarker.
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.