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.
Spooky!
There is a certain arrogance among those who claim that the intelligent design group or the creationist group are not scientists because they do not adhere to random, unguided evolution. It is the equivalent of traditionalist Catholics denying the validity of the Eastern Orthodox or Anglican priesthood or hierarchy because those churches do not acknowledge Papal supremacy. To some, it appears that whether one is a scientist or not is dependent on their metaphysical views, not their credentials.
What if I like steaks and hamburgers?
There's always Voodoo.
You could try to be specific about this by answering a few questions:
Well that's the beauty of Kwanza!. All the voo and all the doo, together in one package.
Scientists are free to believe in miracles, but not in their professional work. If a scientist encounters something unexplainable, the default scientific position is "I don't know how this happened."
And it is as evidenced by the widely incompatible dating information reported by the system. I have pointed to examples of this that I can cite information on. Or you can look at Hovind's productions, Brown's productions, etc and so on because they all address it. You'd probably say - oh no, they get it all wrong. Doesn't hold water but that's what I expect. They can point to countless examples of inaccuracy and outright bunk figures. It only takes a few to sink it - as it happens, there are more than a few examples. They're rampant and plentiful.
astronomy would have to be wrong about the age and structure of the universe
No big leap, The speed of light from my understanding has been slowed to 1mph in the lab recently. That pretty much destroys much of science's guessing about distance to stars. If you can't garauntee a constant speed or that nothing can effectively slow light speed, you've no practical way of measuring distance or much of anything else. Red shift is also under attack from within the community right now. It isn't as though science is some grand fortress that's never wrong - quite the opposite. They're more often wrong to the point it's newsworthy if they get something right.
geology would have to be wrong in almost every detail
No, I'd take serious issue with that. I have a friend here locally who is a geologist and he thinks you guys are nuts. He isn't a Christian; but, he thinks ya'll are nutso.
biology would have to have made its last hundred years of advances based on a completely incorrect paradigm
Again, false, biology doesn't depend on evolution for anything save perhaps for funding. One can explore the Gnome without any reference to evolution - not a problem. It can explore cures for disease and the like with only a knowledge of limits of diversity which are readily apparent from farming. No evolution involved in that. Just the nature of life in general.. it doesn't evolve. It diversifies within limits; but, it doesn't evolve. Matter of symantics to you; but, a clear distinction.
and you would have to be smarter and more knowledgeable than the tens of thousands of scientists
Not too hard. Galileo was, The wright brothers were, Ben Franklin was, Edison was, etc. Appeals to consensus opinion is fallacy and you know it. It's also quite easy to blow out of the water with endless examples - which tells me you're really reaching because I'm sure you know better.
I'm no fan of sticking pins in dolls and bringing down curses on my enemies. What say you - which door will you choose?
Evolution is not unguided or random. It is guided and determined by selection, which is what Darwin discovered.
The acceptance of evolution as a historical fact does not require a theory of how or why mutations occur. Darwin had no such theory. He did not even have elementary genetic theory. Change could come from any of a number of causes, but changes are nothing without selection, which is the shaping force.
Here's some more:
Species have a bad habit of going extinct. Why is this, if evolution is true? Why don't they just "evolve" into something that keeps them truckin'?
What's with that little "chaos theory?" Has that now been disproven? Thanks, Happy Kwanza!
Evolution is not a belief. Evolution is a scientific theory. So the debate you seek is meaningless.
I appreciate your detailed response. I do not post with the expectation of convincing the opposition. I post for the hundreds of non-posting lurkers. I think you have answered some of the detailed questions I posed in #565.
I particularly appreciate your self-evaluation. That is priceless.
True. In some cases, such as the origins of life and the universe, we reach the outer limits of science and enter the realm of metaphysics. We also may engage in conflicting theories about the nature of knowledge.
Perhaps you could cite some statement from a juried publication or college textbook that would support your interpretation of evolution theory.
I'm curious. Are all of your ancestors still alive?
Don't play symantics with the discussion here. So what if it is a theory, scientific or otherwise. Some people believe evolution is how the world was created. Others belived in intellegent design creationism.
How does that make the point I raised meaningless?
Many that believe in science and evolution are also believers in God. Many that believe in science and evolution enjoy discussion of beliefs.
However, Young earth creationists are completely intolerant of any evolution being discussed.
Do you imagine that evolution exibits a direction, or that it forsees changing conditions?
Leave us not omit the mantra, "Science is self-correcting," which is an admission of the speculative nature of "scientific" speculation and its resultant errors. Science is not self-correcting regarding the atomic number of elements and other such known quantities. It is only self-correcting in relation to unknown quantities, much as a little kid in the principle's office is self correcting when caught in a lie.
Kwappy Hanza!
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.