Tough Assignment: Teaching Evolution To Fundamentalists

Ft. Wayne Journal Gazette ^ | 03 December 2004 | SHARON BEGLEY

[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.

[js1138]

Asked and answered - for the last time.

I have been reasonably polite with you. I asked a series of questions and am unable to locate your answers. I have looked back several hundred posts without finding anything other than a generalised disdain for science.

I asked specific questions, not general ones.

[js1138]

There are multiple points of authority on this question, not the least of which is the Bible ...

What is your authority for citing the Bible as an authority? What would your authority have been if you lived in 300 A.D.?

[Fury]

Havoc writes:

"...You'll never own up to being wrong even if it's pointed out clearly that you are wrong."

I could not help but smile at this snippet by Havoc.

Havoc posted on a thread earlier in the year that:

"a theory is still an opinion"

Luckily, there was a correction to that statement by FReeper Ophiucus:

"Incorrect. A theory is "An entire body of knowledge associated with a particular area of study, including the basic postulates, predictions based on these postulates, observations and experimental data, and their interpretation. [Cal Poly Physics Colloquium, 9/23/99]Theories are well described, repeatedly observed, and verified statements. When they have repeatedly confirmed over a long period of time, the theory for all practical purposes is used as true or fact, (sometime referred to as superb theory such as quantum mechanics)."

"Theory does not imply uncertainty or opinion - not in science."

see - http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1037248/posts?page=70#70

I don't know if there was any owning up to the incorrect statement that "a theory is still an opinion". Oh well.

Concerning the "anklebiter" name Havoc throws around later in the thread, it's not the first time the term has been applied to posters. When you can't argue facts, logic and reasoning, some folks resort to name calling.

[general_re]

However, if naturalism, which assumes the non-existence or non-relevance of a higher being, is a procedural assumption for a given scientist, has that scientist not started out with a bias?

It's a methodology, not a philosophy. There is no declaration that the universe is an impersonal place, only that it should be treated as an impersonal place unless and until that assumption leads to some contradiction or otherwise proves inadequate. In large part, this is because ascribing material effects to non-material causes doesn't carry much explanatory power along with it. You can easily say "God did it", or "because that's how God wants it" about virtually any aspect of the natural world, but that doesn't really tell you anything you didn't already know. If the question is, for example, "Where does lightning come from?", and the answer is "God did it," well, you're done - your investigation is over, because there's no hook to investigate material causes for this material phenomenon, and hence you don't ever learn anything about the material world beyond the bare fact that it exists and that God is responsible for said existence.

Now, when I said much the same thing on another thread, someone pointed out that you could undertake to investigate how God did these things, and thereby come to investigate the material world. Of course, such an assumption of an external entity does not appear to me to be necessary, nor do I find it plausible that such an assumption would necessarily result in better science, but I think you can do that and still be an honest scientist.

It's a hell of a narrow road to walk, though, because science demands a certain amount of objectivity and intellectual honesty, which may or may not be conducive to maintaining your particular worldview. If you, as a scientist, set out to discover how God brought about the diversity of life on earth, and it begins to look to you like "evolution" is the answer to your question...well, at that point, it may be decision time for you - revise your worldview, or abandon science. Or maybe your worldview is such that evolution being the "how" isn't a problem in the first place - personally, I don't like to tell God what he can and can't do, but that's just me ;)

If some evidence exists that indicates that a higher intelligence is necessary to design life forms...

Here's the problem with all such hypotheticals in this area - nobody has yet managed to explain what the hypothetical evidence would look like. How do we know evidence of ID when we see it? How do we spot intelligent design - especially nonhuman intelligence - in biological structures?

It's one of those questions that looks easy enough to answer at first, but upon closer examination, it proves exceedingly difficult - intractably difficult, in my personal opinion. Maybe you'll have better luck, but the track record thus far is not promising.

[Junior]

Ring Species: Unusual Demonstrations of Speciation

[Junior]

Their findings are their conclusions. Neither Morris nor Hovind have ever done any actual research. Instead, both rely on data grazing on others' works trying to lift snippets out of context to support their conclusions.

[atlaw]

Havoc's Indignant Dismissal of What He believes to be the Theory of Evolution: "In at least the last 3000 years, no one has ever witnessed a chimp giving birth to a human being or anything similar. Argument sunk.. period."

My Question: "What does this have to do with the theory of evolution?"

Havoc's Answer: "Everything"

Oh dear. All that righteous indignation expended railing against a concept that is nothing more than a figment of your own imagination. I hope you realize that you are indulging in recreational wrath, swatting furiously at flies that are not there.

But perhaps you don't realize it. The phenomenon is curiously common amongst creationists. I suppose it could be a kind of self-induced delusion that, over time, becomes irremediable. It's as if you need a fight to justify your faith, and if you can't find a real one, you'll make do with an imaginary one. It's morbidly interesting to watch at first, but it gets old and kind of sad after awhile.

[stremba]

You are exactly correct. Nobody here has ever claimed that there is conclusive proof of evolution. What the creationists want is for their ideas to be taught as science. If that's what you want, then come up with an alternative SCIENTIFIC theory which does better than evolution at explaining the observed data. For it to qualify, it must make predictions, and those predictions must be consistent with all known evidence. The predictions must be such that if it is found that the predictions aren't true, the theory will be modified or abandoned. It also should be able to explain why it is that the theory of evolution does such a good job of explaining known data even though the new theory is better.

[js1138]

If you, as a scientist, set out to discover how God brought about the diversity of life on earth, and it begins to look to you like "evolution" is the answer to your question...

That sounds awefully familiar. It sounds exactly like what happened between 1800 and 1860.

[stremba]

Actually, science must assume that a designer is not necessary to describe the world because there is no way to test for the presence of a designer. If there is a designer, then science will never be able to detect the presence of the designer. It just isn't in the realm of science to do so. That should not cause problems for creationists unless they believe that all truth must come from science. Since they are required to believe in God by faith alone, and science doesn't allow its findings to be based on faith, then logically creationists must not believe that all truth comes from science. I have no problem with teaching the idea that the universe is designed. I DO have a problem, however, with calling this idea science. It is not a scientific idea, and therefore should not be taught in a science class. Personally, I believe that a high school class dealing with the beliefs of all of the major world religions would be of immense value for students. (Much more so than most of the crap that's being taught in "social studies" classes today.) In such a class, teaching the idea of a designed universe certainly has its place.

[shuckmaster]

A very interesting article. Thank you!

[general_re]

Well, yes, but let's make sure the rest of the class has caught up ;)

[stremba]

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

You know, much of the problem with the whole debate about creationism vs. evolution comes from statements such as this. An accurate statement of the theory of evolution would be everything in italics above that comes BEFORE the comma. Everything after the comma is simply stuff that's added by the creationists to get themselves all into a snit. The theory of evolution nowhere says that there was no intervention from a superior intelligence. (Of course, nowhere does the theory say that there was such intervention.) The whole idea of guidance by a superior intelligence is outside of the scope of science. While it may very well be true that there was intelligent design behind evolution (and I do believe that is the case) science will never be able to detect this design. Consider that a limitation of science if you want to, but let's at least debate the same ideas and not some version with additions that don't belong there. I think that too often these debates get so heated because we are talking past each other and debating false versions of the arguments.

[PatrickHenry]

Creationism will have a difficult time establishing itself as a scientific alternative to evolution. Creationists may, here and there, bamboozle the idiot housewives who seem to predominate on school boards, but such "victories" are shabby indeed.

Evolution is supported not only by fossil evidence and a study of comparative anatomy, which was available to Darwin (showing hierarchical groupings), but also by several independent lines of evidence that turned up later, which could have -- but didn't -- give results that are inconsistent with the TOE:

* genetics (the inheritability of mutations),
* comparative biochemistry, including DNA (showing genetic relationships among species),
* geology (the age of the earth),
* plate techtonics (continental drift that coincides with fossil evidence),
* physics (radiometric dating of fossils and rock strata),
* astronomy (the age of the solar system and universe), and
* other supporting lines of evidence (tree rings, ice cores, ocean-floor cores, etc.).

Only one "teaching" is inconsistent with all these independent lines of evidence -- creationism.

[stremba]

And evolution has what exactly to do with the origins of life and the universe? It has no more to do with the origins of life and the universe than meteorology has to do with the origins of the atmosphere and the water vapor in it. Again, let's at least debate the same ideas.

[balrog666]

Just for information, vacuum pumps can't lift water more than thiry feet. So the word pump is irrelevant here, as it is in every large tree.

FYI: Pumps can push water up hundreds of feet if you place them at the bottom of the well instead of the top.

[stremba]

Some people believe evolution is how the world was created

Actually, nobody that I've ever met or talked to believes this. I've dealt with two types of people:

1. Those who believe that evolution is false.

2. Those who believe that evolution is a useful scientific theory backed by a great deal of evidence.

Now certainly those in category 1 would not agree with the statement that evolution is how the world was created. Those in category 2 (at least those I have dealt with) understand that the theory of evolution has absolutely nothing to do with the origin of the world, the universe, life or anything other than the origin of the diversity of life. Evolution is only applicable once there is a reproducing organism and explains how that one organism can reproduce and change over time to produce the diversity of life seen today.

[stremba]

I would think that most biological scientists would be very interested in finding scientific evidence for the existence of the soul. It would probably lead to immense fame, Nobel prizes, wealth, etc.

[FBD]

>"as to what PISSES ME OFF, and actually makes me question my metaphysical assumptions as to justice in the universe, consider for a moment that Auburn is not going to the Orange Bowl."<

-Ha! yes...Auburn got screwed...go Oklahoma!
oh...sorry; it's a religious thing! ;^D

>"The point I was snarkily making was that in conversations like these, there are empirical monists who wave around the collective opinions of the "scientific community" as if it were a talisman to ward off questions."<

-I was just pointing out that scientists aren't in agreement, I wasn't trying to use them to support any point of view.
But I understand what you are saying, THIS:
http://www.ditext.com/quine/quine.html

leads to this:

[js1138]

Yes, but they wouldn't be vacuum pumps, would they? Perhaps my terminology is defective.