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.
Fabricate the day miscreant!
What do you mean by that? Not clear.
"Conservation of Blue Flatulence" memorial placemarker
Its worth the trip as I hear they have good burgers over there.
Cool! Lets go. I love a good burger and would enjoy the company as well. :-)
Actually, I have lost track of who each of you is but slight correction needed to his post.
You are making some not-too-subtle accusations that the people who explain and defend the theory of evolution are...
No, I'm making those accusations against you. I don't stereotype everyone who believes in evolution to be of the same mindset. That is your way of looking at things. not mine. Certainly there are quite civil and reasonable people that that believe in evolution and are willing to discuss the issues surrounding it intellegently.
I believe you are. I believe the rest of us are seaching for the truth, sans inverted commas.
You can't read. You have it backwards.
It was resonded to.
Not if they use the word in the sense of "catabolism" or "involution", instead of "reverse evolution" ("de-evolution") which is the meaning being discussed here...
Can you assure us that your "acquaintances" are actually using it in *that* way?
(Try remembering to remove the italics tags next time It makes your very deep and profound posts even more difficult for us flapdoodles to read.)
My italics tags were done quite properly. So what are you babbling about here, and why did you have "difficulty" reading it? Oh, and you seem to have omitted a period in the above passage. You're also misusing the word "flapdoodle."
I myself know several who use the word...and quite frequently. In English.
[Name them and state the fields in which they allegedly have experience.]
I'll name them as soon as you give us your home address and social security number.
Yeah, I didn't think you could... And no attempt to establish their actual existence any other way, nor even address my question about their fields, I see...
If you're going to have imaginary friends, you need to learn better how to sidestep questions about them.
lol yeah. Like your famous atheist dude that recently decided the only way to go was ID. I love how fast they can lose their credibility by following the evidence wherever it leads.
"he only believe in a minimalist god" they say, trying, like Carville with the capture of Saddam, to say "It don't mean nuthin...."
the truth *is* out there. You only have to be truly scientific (e.g. intellectually honest) to find it.
Ah well, Lee Strobel was once a confirmed atheist/evolutionist too but he finally decided to interview a few people and actually have an honest debate. Too bad more atheists aren't interested in honest debate.
However, I will say that in at least one of the examples you cite, the isolation of populations is claimed to have occurred thousands of years ago. How do you know?
By analyzing and comparing their DNA. When appropriate fossils are available, those can be used as additional confirmation.
Isn't it possible that there were multiple species all along?
Again, common ancestry leaves clear signs in the DNA.
And why is it that we never hear of a beneficial mutation in humans that actually improves our performance?
Maybe you're not reading the right journals. Here are some examples:
Dean, M. et al., 1996. Genetic restriction of HIV-1 infection and progression to AIDS by a deletion allele of the CKR5 structural gene. Science 273: 1856-1862And my favorite:A mutation in humans which increases resistance to AIDS. Excerpt from abstract: "The CKR5 structural gene was mapped to human chromosome 3p21, and a 32-base pair deletion allele (CKR5Delta32) was identified that is present at a frequency of approximately0.10 in the Caucasian population of the United States. An examination of 1955 patients included among six well-characterized acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) cohort studies revealed that 17 deletion homozygotes occurred exclusively among 612 exposed HIV-1 antibody-negative individuals (2.8 percent) and not at all in 1343 HIV-1-infected individuals."Weisgraber KH, Rall Jr SC, Bersot TP, Mahley RW, Franceschini G, Sirtori CR, 1983. Apolipoprotein A-I Milano. Detection of normal A-I in affected subjects and evidence for a cysteine for arginine substitution in the variant A-I [PDF file]. J Biol Chem 258: 2508-2513.A mutation in humans which provides increased protection from arteriosclerosisheart attack, and stroke. Also see: Apolipoprotein AI Mutations and Information.
Boyden, Ann M., Junhao Mao, Joseph Belsky, Lyle Mitzner, Anita Farhi, Mary A. Mitnick, Dianqing Wu, Karl Insogna, and Richard P. Lifton, 2002. High Bone Density Due to a Mutation in LDL-Receptor–Related Protein 5 New England Journal of Medicine 346: 1513-1521, May 16, 2002.Here's part of an article about the mutation:A mutation in humans which results in extremely strong, dense bones. From the abstract: "Genetic analysis revealed linkage of the syndrome to chromosome 11q12–13 (odds of linkage, >1 million to 1), an interval that contains LRP5. Affected members of the kindred had a mutation in this gene, with valine substituted for glycine at codon 171 (LRP5V171)."
And here's a grab-bag of beneficial human mutations: Examples of Beneficial Mutations in Humans .By identifying a genetic mutation that causes extremely high bone density in people, Yale researchers have found a potential target for the prevention or treatment of osteoporosis, it was reported Thursday in the New England Journal of Medicine.
The finding was made when the senior investigators, Richard Lifton, M.D., chair of the Department of Genetics at Yale School of Medicine, and Karl Insogna, M.D., professor of internal medicine and director of the Yale Bone Center, identified a Connecticut family with bones so strong they rival a character in the recent movie, "Unbreakable." Osteoporosis is a loss of bony tissue that leads to fragile bones.
"If there are living counterparts to the character in ‘Unbreakable,’ who is in a terrible train wreck and walks away without a single broken bone, it’s members of this family," Lifton said. "They have extraordinarily dense bones and there is no history of fractures. You find this maybe once in a million people."
Lifton said those family members with the genetic mutation have no symptoms. They do have a strikingly deep and wide jaw and bony growth on the palate. They also report trouble staying afloat when swimming.
From everything I observe around me, if someone is born with a genetic aberration so severe that it precludes them from breeding with regular humans, first they would have to survive. Second, it would have to be beneficial to be considered evolutionary progress. Third, they would have to find a mate with exactly the same genetic mutation to generate a new population.
Uhh.. You've got a few misconceptions here.
First, evolution is not a matter of mutations that are "so severe that it precludes them from breeding with regular humans". Mutations which don't prevent interbreeding are evolution as well.
Second, evolution is not just "beneficial" mutations. It includes neutral mutations as well, and also the detrimental mutations which manage to get a foothold in a population. And "beneficial/neutral/detrimental" is not an absolute measure -- a given mutation can be any of the three depending on the particular context. For example, the sickle-cell allele is a net benefit in populations which are frequently exposed to malaria (heterozygous individuals are more resistant to malaria), but a net detriment in populations which are not (because homozygous individuals often die without modern medical attention).
But the biggest misconception is in this sentence: "they would have to find a mate with exactly the same genetic mutation to generate a new population."
No, they wouldn't. Speciation does not reach the point of precluding interbreeding between the "parent" and "daughter" populations via one "really big" mutation in a single individual which suddenly prevents it from mating with any of its cousins in the population as a whole.
Instead, it occurs via the accumulation (across generations) within a subpopulation of *many* mutations, none of which is by itself "big enough" to preclude interbreeding with the original population.
Let me show one example scenario (out of many) to show how it can work. Consider a population of species "X". At some point in time the population gets divided into two separated populations, perhaps by a forest fire in the middle of its range, or a few herds migrating to a distant food source, or whatever.
Because these populations are not actively interbreeding (even though they *could*), mutations which occur in one subpopulation (call it "X1") stay within population X1, and never make it into the gene pool of the other subpopulation, "X2". And likewise for mutations which occur in individuals in X2.
None of the mutations are large enough to prevent the first individual in which the mutation occurred from mating with any other member of its subpopulation. Most mutations *don't* result in such "instant infertility" issues. And the few that do would clearly cause the individual who gets it to be "sterile" (by definition), and it would die with that individual instead of being passed on. It be flushed immediately out of the gene pool.
And no, there's no problem with various mutations being passed around a population willy-nilly -- that's what alleles are all about. That's what alleles *are*.
And due to selection, genetic drift, and other processes, many of the new mutations will "fix" in the population (i.e., become the *only* allele in the population at that gene locus, after having displaced its "competitor" alleles).
So over time, population X1 accumulates its own unique set of changed alleles, while X2 accumulates a *different* unique set of changed alleles. Each new allele was not enough to prevent interbreeding *within* the subpopulation it was in. And at the time that allele "fixed", it became a defining part of that subpopulation, and no longer a factor which might cause even small interbreeding difficulties in that population, because now *all* the individuals in that subpopulation have it.
However, eventually you'll find that individuals in X1 and X2 can no longer interbreed WITH INDIVIDUALS FROM THE *OTHER* subpopulation, because each subpopulation has accumulated *enough* small mutations that the total "genetic difference" between the two subpopulations *has* become too great to allow interbreeding with each *other*, even though they can still interbreed *among themselves*.
Remember, *populations* evolve, *individuals* don't. Evolution is change *across* generations.
So now I hope it's clear how one species can split into two, without ever having a point where a single individual was unable to successfully mate with others of its own kind. The key is that subpopulations drift apart from each *other* -- individuals don't drift away from their *own* subpopulation (at least not in big leaps; and when they do change they subsequently "bring along" their own subpopulations by passing their genes to subsequent generations).
If this is true -- and it is -- one would expect to find separate breeding populations in the world at large at different stages in this "drifting apart". And we do.
Dachshunds and Great Danes (as groups) have accumulated noticeable amounts of genetic differences between them (thus the big difference in their appearances and behaviors), and yet they are still genetically "close" enough to interbreed and produce fertile offspring which combine some of the genes of both ("mutts"). At least I *think* they can interbreed... Part of the "genetic difference" which can interfere with interbreeding is "mechanical" mismatches like the huge size difference between these two breeds, which might make mating or childbirth awkward at best, or even unsuccessful.
There are also groups which have accumulated a larger amount of genetic difference between them, which makes interbreeding possible but often unsuccessful (lower fertility rates, etc.) Examples include many cat hybrids, like lions bred with tigers. They *can* interbreed and produce fertile offspring, but quite often the result is instead lack of conception or infant mortality or infertile offspring.
Then there are groups which have accumulated even more genetic difference, and can mate and often produce offspring, but the offspring are invariably sterile. The donkey/horse hybrid, which produces sterile mules, is a classic example.
And finally there are groups which have accumulated so much genetic difference that mating between them has no chance of producing offspring, such as dogs versus cats, for example -- or humans versus lobsters, if you *really* want to get extreme...
And no, two groups don't have to be 100% unable to produce offspring at all even through forced matings, in order to be considered separate species. Reproductive *separation*, by whatever means, is enough. This can include but is not limited to reduced fertility, lack of mate recognition, separated prefered habitats, etc.
Once two subpopulations have ceased interbreeding (or even just curtailed it), for whatever reasons, they're on the road towards drifting apart genetically over time. They're no longer genetically "tied" to each other.
Just some logic that makes it a little far-fetched for me in practice.
I hope I have made a bit clearer how evolution -- as it *actually* works -- does not suffer from the logical difficulties that you originally thought it does.
Really? Where, exactly, do you imagine he asserted such a thing?
More transference.
More fantasies (or poor reading comprehension) on your part, actually.
I've heard about these riveting evo discussions which struggle to edify and elevate the forum.
...and you've added exactly *what* edifying information about evolutionary biology to this thread, and have "elevated" it how, precisely?
Recall, for example, when I made quite a few points in post #900 addressed to you, your best response was not to agree, not to form a rebuttal, not to add additional information -- not to "edify or elevate" the discussion in any way -- but instead you just just snottily made the puerile comment, "How very convenient of your personal thesaurus."
This is more typical of your posts than not. And if you actually spent any one whole post actually discussing the merits of an issue in evolutionary biology and providing evidence for your position, I must have missed it.
Begone, troll. You have nothing of value to teach us, except perhaps to serve as a bad example, and an object lesson in hypocrisy.
And who might that be?
the truth *is* out there. You only have to be truly scientific (e.g. intellectually honest) to find it.
Okay, I'll bite -- what is the truth, and what's your evidence for it?
Ah well, Lee Strobel was once a confirmed atheist/evolutionist too but he finally decided to interview a few people and actually have an honest debate.
All well and good, but I'm not too impressed with Strobel's arguments or evidence. I'd write a review listing some of my problems with his material, but since someone else has beat me to it, I'll link his.
Too bad more atheists aren't interested in honest debate.
Why do you presume they're not? Because they're not convinced by your position?
See post 955, where young Generally made the following comment...
"See, that has nothing to do with the theory - it doesn't refute it, invalidate it, or even really comment on it. I realize that personal slanders and ad hominem attacks are pretty much the order of the day back there in the Religion forum, but you're out of the gutter now - try to elevate your discourse just a bit."
As I said, I've heard about the caterwalling that went on in the evo threads, and you have not disappointed.
May God bless you all richly and as quickly as possible.
Try reading "The Aryan Christ" by Richard Noll about Carl Jung. Noll might even be, gasp, an evolutionist. But his book shines an intelligent light on the 19th century's rehashing of centuries old occultic beliefs.
I guess that proves the chaosity of the chaos theory.
ERRRNNTT!! Sorry, you're not allowed to "move the goalposts" in the middle of the game.
Let's set the Wayback Machine to your post #1004, shall we? You wrote:
And yet it was you [general_re] who pouted that "ad hominem attacks" were being flung at you. More transference.I have highlighted the key words in red. You accused general_re of "pouting" that someone had flung ad hominem attacks AT GENERAL_RE. Thus my raised eyebrows, and my question to you in my post #1033:
Really? Where, exactly, do you imagine he asserted such a thing?And now you offer, as "support" for your claim that general_re had "pouted" about ad hominems directed at *him*, his post #955:
"See, that has nothing to do with the theory - it doesn't refute it, invalidate it, or even really comment on it. I realize that personal slanders and ad hominem attacks are pretty much the order of the day back there in the Religion forum, but you're out of the gutter now - try to elevate your discourse just a bit."Nowhere in that post does he assert that the ad hominems were directed at *him*. Nor does he appear to be "pouting" in any way -- on the contrary, he is expressing impatience at your cheap sophistry. And even a schoolchild could determine (by reading for context the post #947 of yours to which he was responding), that general_re was clearly referring to your ad hominems against *WALLACE* et al.
So I must again repeat the question -- is English really your first language? Because you seem so poor at comprehending it.
As I said, I've heard about the caterwalling that went on in the evo threads,
...and wanted to add to it, obviously...
and you have not disappointed.
Why thank you. Unfortunately, you have disappointed quit a bit.
10000001111! Woohoo!!!
You evolutionist guys have a real problem. Your teaching methods, as I have been exposed to them in the past, suck! What you say certainly makes sense, and while I do understand that mutations occur all the time, I was unclear on the possibilities that you outlined. On the surface, it seems plausible, but I will withhold judgment personally, because there are others more capable than myself to challenge it.
The 'good' news, ovrtaxt says sarcastically, is that true Christianity is being taught about as effectively in America, if "christian" television is any indication. haha
Thanks for the info, really. I still believe exactly what the Bible says, because Jesus has never lied to me yet, and I speak with Him all the time.
But assuming that your info is also true, and they can coexist with no contradiction, it doesn't challenge my faith in the least. God never said that species don't mutate. If that's how He set it up, cool.
Science is a wonderful thing, truly understood, and scientists owe a debt of gratitude to Christianity for injecting intellectual honesty into a largely superstitious and fearful religious worldview 2000 years ago-- the religious control freaks in the dark ages notwithstanding.
By the same token, Christianity owes a debt of gratitude to science, because without guys like Copernicus and Galileo, where would we get guys like Tyndale and Luther? Or Columbus? Same spirit of challenging the artificial order of man in the name of God.
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.