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.
Havoc mentioned earlier that you can explore the Gnome. Gnomes start the water up from the roots. Then the Angels take over. Tree fairies only work at NeverLand when Michael Jackson is there.
What does this question mean? What is a spontaneous eruption of different species? Could you cite a source that speaks English?
Do sharks sh*t in the woods?
I not only got the magic number, but I coined a new word, "redoods". A prize for the best daffynition.
Here's a tribute to you, js. You never resorted to boorishness
Hey, I'm with you 100%. Unfortunately, the way we might wish for things to be someday is not how things are now, and hence we have the problem of teaching today's children now, not forty years down the road when the conservative revolution is complete. Therefore, I suggest we teach science in science class, as it is defined by scientists, and not by lawyers, political activists, or pastors.
You also err when it can be inferred that you believe that macroevolution is physical, observable reality.
Oh, no. But let us continue.
Many persons have observed caterpillars metamorphizing into butterflies. No one has observed a land mammal evolving into a whale.
No one - no non-participant, anyway - observed OJ murdering his ex-wife. No one observed Pacific tribes carving the Easter Island statues. No one observed the collision of the North American and Pacific plates to cause the rise of the Rocky Mountains. No one observed glaciers covering what is now modern-day Chicago. And yet we know all of those things happened, because we piece together the available evidence and find the best explanation that fits that evidence. So it is with evolution. Again, I point out that if you limit yourself to believing things that are directly observable, you're not going to believe very much - you can't see your house when you're not home, so what right do you have in believeing that it is there when you're not? None whatsoever, by the standard of evidence you're setting up, and yet I doubt you seriously consider the proposition that it winks out of existence when you're not around to keep an eye on it.
...there are also some problems with the theory, as the intelligent design advocates have pointed out.
No. Of the few proposed, none of them - not one - has yet withstood serious scrutiny by scientists.
Scientific consensus changes over the years. Newtonian physics was the standard until the late 19th Century; since that time, certain propositions of that school have been refuted and are no longer accepted.
Really? Which ones?
You must drop this apparent notion that scietific theories are either absolutely right or absolutely wrong. Theories are approximations, and some approximations are better than others. Newton's physics was, in fact, an excellent approximation - so good, in fact, that the same equations he derived, with slight relativistic corrections, are still used 400 years later to fly space probes around the solar system.
Was it a perfect approximation? It turns out that it was not - Einstein discovered certain unusual conditions that were governed by a different set of laws, but this does not mean F=ma suddenly stopped working sometime in the 1920's. And so the synthesis of Newtonian physics with the additional elements that Einstein discovered makes up a large portion of what we now consider physics. At no point was Newton "wrong" - he was merely incomplete. As is the theory of evolution, of course. Is our understanding complete? No. But the bulk of the theory, the guts of it, has withstood 150 years of serious scrutiny, much as Newton's physics has - and like Newton, "incomplete" does not mean "wrong".
The fact that I accept the propositions of the Bible, in their historical and grammatical context and in light of authorial intent, as the ultimate truth has no bearing on my concept of God or the physical universe.
Apparently it does - evolution is real, whether your worldview allows you to see it or not. Sorry.
I think I'll quit for the evening, while I'm still ahead.
"Kwazy Kwanzaa" may of course be sung to the tune of "Happy Birthday."
I will as well. I was just pulling yourleg.You took it well
Is he trying to sell it or simply presenting it.
After checking past posts I realized that THEY were trying to sell. More precisely,they were more interested in demonstrating their knowledge and in attempting to have a little fun,than attempting to understand a opposing belief,view or position.
Better yet, try a working version of the link here. ;-)
Ask a frog in hot water. If it could speak, it would probably say it had no idea the presence of heat had so much to do with its condition. Heat being the natural state of things, cold being the "miracle" with no scientific basis in reality.
"Jadedness" brings moral baggage, IMO, but maybe that's the right word.
I just ruined another keyboard on account of you.....
;-)
make that two keyboards....
You make my point. It is all religion. And again I say and noone replies, if you are going to teach one, then teach them all. Why the exclusion in favor of the exclusive presentation of evolution?
Still waiting for the reply...tap...tap...tap...
I dunno, Fester.
Daily I am reminded of my own frailty, the vastness of the universe and its ancientness.
I cannot stop thinking that God is truly beyond my mental grasp if He has created so much over so long a time all to be brought to fruition 2000 years ago.
I look forward to being in His Presence one day.
How can I lose sight of that?
How can I find that dull and boring?
I think that those who find faith dull and Gods creation lackluster need to get back out and engage life in all its beauty and dread.
It is the safety of modern life that dulls the mind so that we cannot sense anymore what surrounds us; God's Living Presence.
But still it is there.
no, it doesn't "piss me off", that you and I *believe* differently. How 'bout you? ;^D
Nice information. But that tells us what happens. It does not tell us how it happens.
In other words, you can't answer the question so you are reply with a cute little answer that makes you look stupid. Sorry, I don't mean that as an insult. But it really is a stupid reply.
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.