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.
"precident" ok whatever you say.
Are you telling me Pharaoh didn't have the choice all those times he said no. Yes, he did have the choice in all cases. God did harden his heart every time he chose against God's will. Are you arguing that if you shoot bullets at me I should show confidence in you by not wearing armor or shooting back? Do you think much about these things or what they mean? Or are you just looking for something you can use on it's face as an excuse regardless of what it actually means?
Why wouldn't I like it? What's your test?
Hell, it could have been created last Thursday with the appearance of age. However, if it appears to be 4.5 billion years old but that is simply a trick played by God to test our faith, that doesn't speak well of the Almighty.
Dozens of lines of evidence point to an ancient age for the Solar System and the Earth -- and all of them pretty much agree on that age. You simply pooh-pooh this as "opinions" and "beliefs."
WHATTTTTT?
Exodus 4:21 And the LORD said unto Moses, "when thou goest to return into Egypt, see that thou do all those wonders before Pharaoh, which I have put in thine hand: BUT I will harden his heart, that he shall not let the People go.
Pharaoh's heart was hardened before Moses ever spoke to him.
HELLO.
Most of your post revolves around that last sentence.
I was talking about lay people in general, and those without much interest in science in particular.
I just *knew* I should've left my last sentence in before posting. You know, the one I took out and you didn't see, about Aristotle and De Caelo concerning how it took some time to get the understanding and theory of gravity right.
The comment about evolution vs. atomic theory is good; but I see two other differences to the uneducated mind.
1) Everyone associates atomic theory (in some hazy way) with the atomic bomb, and that leads (through E=mc**2) to Einstein. So it's OK, everyone knows Einstein was the smartest person who ever lived.
2) Atomic theory, relativity are presented as far too difficult for the average person (Barbie says: "Math class is tough!")--so they know they have to take the scientists' word for it. Evolution is so poorly presented--oh, Dinosaurs, Jurassic Park, I get it...that the average person thinks they get it, but they really don't.
Part of it is the lag time between the leading edge and the popularization of ideas--think of (in yet another area) the aversion in the popular press to "dietary fats" like butter, when the truth is that the problem is transfats in supposedly healthier products like margarine, and excess consumption of refined carbohydrates (Chocolate Frosted Sugar Bombs with 8 essential vitamins, orange juice, and a glass of milk are "part of this complete breakfast". Yah sure.) Oh well, back to Road Runner cartoons (Road running standing in mid-air, unconcerned, while the falling coyote holds up a sign "That defies the law of gravity." The road runner holds up a sign replying "Sure--but I never studied law.") Cheers!
You aren't going to lie to these folks in my presence and get by with it. It has nothing to do with "whatever I say". It has to do with what the Hebrew says. You got caught trying to lie to these folks and were called on it flatly. Period. Act like an adult. Ya'll tend to get wounded and clam up when you've been had. You just can't admit when you're wrong. How sad.
I'd "Rather" say that egocentric liberals spin in both directions in violation of conservatism!
"Why wouldn't I like it? What's your test?"
You have not liked anything I have put forth prior, I have no expectation to change that.
I am not gifted to put in my own words the "test" and quoting scripture would be a waste of my time and yours.
If you mean scripture that states a literal 6000-year-old universe, then you are wrong. SN1987A gives direct evidence for a universe far older. (Just one tiny example among many)
Problem, it doesn't appear to be 4.5 billion.. any more than it appeared to be any other age over 6000 years that has been in vogue during the last however many years. What was the estimate before the 4.5 billion, and the one before that, and before that, etc. You guys don't consider information that excludes older dates and that is where you lie to yourselves. God hasn't been involved in tricking you at all. I'm sure he spun the planets in all directions and galaxies, etc just to trick you into saying a big bang did it - knowing the law of Conservation of Angular momentum refutes it. But, see, when ya'll started down the road to calling God a liar, ya'll didn't really know that law, did ya. In fact, most of the laws that we work with now, evolutionists were either ignorant of or didn't consider when proposing things that violated them.
In short, if anyone is tricking anyone here, it is you evolutionists doing it to yourselves.
Dozens of lines of evidence point to an ancient age for the Solar System and the Earth -- and all of them pretty much agree on that age. You simply pooh-pooh this as "opinions" and "beliefs."
No, dozens of lines of evidence do no such thing and one need not simply pooh-pooh it. If you make an assertion, it is up to you to prove that assertion, show it to be falsifiable and reconcile issues in contention - that would be presenting and explaining anything that would limit the age substantially - such as, oh, particles that have a half life in the fractions of a second leaving halos of decay in bedrock. Pretty well sinks any theory that it was formed over millions of years if bedrock solidified so quickly that it captured decay on a halflife that short. Must be God tricking us again, huh.
Like I've said over and again, it ain't the evidence that stands in contention.. it's the spin you put on it. You grab what you want and deny or suppress what doesn't support you. When you're found out, ad-hominem. Wouldn't it be easier on you just to admit to the truth.. no, 'spect not. Afterall, you're defending your lifestyle with it and you just can't constrain yourself to live a moral life, much less a Godly one, right. I keep forgetting that's what this is all actually about. But, I'm sure you'll do your best Billy Clinton for us "I have family values".. Hitler did too, shall we dance..
And thus we come to a parting of the philosophical ways between science and religion...
ENTER OVERSIMPLIFIED STEREOTYPE 1:
Science can't measure it, so it is not 'falsifiable'. From there, well, we can't have supernatural entities mucking up our experiments (except Maxwell's demon :-0) !!), so let's assume they don't exist (at least for the purpose of the theories).
Pretty soon we have theories that handle things pretty well, so who needs these supernatural leftovers to explain things?
There, have I cheesed off both sides pretty well now? :-)
Good link. It would be a good idea if drivers were to understand that their automobiles are subject to the laws of physics. (Some police bureaucrats have proposed using an "electronic beam" to shut off the engine of a speeding car.)
Cheap shots aside, how well do you *know* God to be sure it is a trick to test our faith? How do you know what God's attitude actually IS towards these items?
(If you can question 'how can religious adherents affirm that THEIR VERSION of the Bible (i.e. I haven't seen any Muslims arguing from the Koran here) is TRUE', then your assertion about God's motivations is subject to the same challenge...)
Did you read it? This was before the last of the plagues. Hardening the heart means turning off God's council to the man- his conscience. This is an ongoing thing in the exchange that happens as a matter of course. The verse you cite is NOT before moses ever spoke to him and is apparent in the passage plainly. It ocurrs when - BEFORE THE LAST CURSE on the land. You seem to have a knack for lying about what the scripture says. You also fail to point out that while turning the volume down on his conscience, he provided Moses with proofs to present to the Pharaoh so that Pharaoh could believe and consent. Of Pharaoh's own will he resisted to the end. Conscience and will are not the same thing.
ROFL. That's good. I like it.
I'm not passing judgement on you - nor do you seem to have any clue what judgement is. I am accusing you of lying, which I know is galling to anyone actually lying, so I'll take your protest for what it is, "who me.."
You have caught me in no lie, I freely choose not to discuss what you are not learned about.
Translation: You caught me fibbing and now that I've raised a stink, I gotta dodge the subject and refuse to defend my ground cause Justmythoughts doesn't really know what he's talking about and likely got his talking points off a website.
But, technology rendering radar guns to be as reliable as dating methods.., will it also shoot a beam to shut off the engines of speeding trees? I mean if we can date saplings at 20,000 years old, I guess we should be able to stop a tree that's moving in excess of 55mph according to a radar gun. Calibration or no. ROFL
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.