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.

[70times7]

It always seems to me that evolution is like moving from version 9.0 to version 9.1 of a complicated piece of software. It definitely happens, and 9.0 definitely eventually dies out and is replaced by 9.1. But it doesn't say anything about where version 1.0 came from.

Great anology - I love it when my software rewrites itself. My computer is reinventing itself and getting better all the time!

[Doctor Stochastic]

I may also point out that some people assume Night and Day isn't a result of Earth's axial rotation, rather the result of the beat beat beat of the tom-tom. Johnny Cash represents this view in "Hey, Porter!"

[Brit_Guy]

God gave me a brain and the power of reason. I wont dishonor Him by not using it. Call me a heathon all you want. I journey to the pearly gates with my head held high. Do you really believe that god created the dinosaurs at the same time he created man? God gave us our brains, and the ability to find science so that one day we may use this knowledge to discover all his wisdom, from the bottom of the oceans, to the top of the mountains, to fly higher than the birds, to walk on the moon, to cure diseases, to look back into time itself through the wonder of the stars, to test us with powers our ancestors would not even have been able to imagine. To deny the advancement of science is to deny man the gifts of God Himself.

"The Hebrew is quite explicit in it's meaning - leaving no room to interpret "The first day" as anything more than the very first 24 hour day. No wiggle room. If you decide to call God a liar, what you believe after that is irrelevant. You're just another anti-God heathen who has chosen a path to hell once you start blaspheming God and his word. Plain and simple. God created the animals - including dinosaurs as we've decided to call them recently - in six days. Furthermore, he created one of each of them seperately in Eden for Adam to name. That's in Genesis 2. So you can choose to believe God is a liar or that he is truthful in what he saw to it was put in his word. You will be responsible for blasphemy if you choose to call him a liar by believing evolution"

[Just mythoughts]

"Actually, at this point it would be considered a hypothesis."

You stated earlier it the soul was "considered a hypothesis".


"Never said I didn't like it. I may argue against your reasoning and point out where it is flawed, however. Now, without using Scripture, give us a repeatable test for the soul. You claimed you had one."

To argue for the sake of argument is vanity, now what you seem to have the need for is to point out the 'flawed' as another one of the E's favorite word 'ignorant'.

Yes I claim I have a test for 'soul' and I also claim where I got that test from. I also pointed out that it would be a waste of my time and yours to quote Scripture.

You do not believe Scripture, and that is your choice, so I freely choose not to give you 'joy' for this day in allowing you to mock, and ridicule Scripture.

You see knowing what I would put forth would cause only one reaction out of you, requires me not to provoke you to think thoughts that you would not otherwise think.

Please, to think that you could demand that one who seeks guidance and understanding from Scripture, could be ordered to ignore Scripture. My words are not the test, which apparently you are aware of which is why you demand I ignore Scripture.

[stremba]

Modern science does provide a way to reconcile a six day creation with all of the evidence of a universe that is 10-15 billion years old. You need some understanding of two modern theories, the big bang theory and general relativity. First of all, general relativity states that time is not an absolute quantity. It states that under certain conditions, I could very well say that it took me 15 seconds to type this sentence and someone else watching me could say it took 3 years for me to do so. Which one of us is right? This is where common sense fails us; GR states that BOTH observers are right. The problem is that time is not some absolute thing ticking away at the same rate everywhere. Time depends on the observer's frame of reference. One of the conditions that causes the rate of passage of time to vary from one reference frame to another is the strength of the gravitational field. Big bang theory states that in the earliest moments of the universe, the mass of the universe (actually present as an equivalent amount of energy, but irrelevant to this argument) was the same as it is now. However, the universe at this time was extremely small. With a large mass and a small size comes an enormous gravitational field, much higher than the gravitational field present on earth today. High gravitational fields slow down the rate of passage of time as observed by someone in a lower field reference frame. The practical upshot of all this is that if you were present in the early universe keeping track of time and you measured off six literal days and then compared your results somehow with an observer who measured the same amount of time as you did, you might very well find that the earthbound observer would say that your six days actually lasted 10-15 billion years! Again, who is correct? GR states that the answer is BOTH of you. Now who would be an observer recording events in the early universe that lasted six days? Why God, of course. So God is correct when He wrote in the Bible that the creation took six days, and modern science is also correct when scientific theories state that the universe is 10-15 billion years old. Given this argument, neither big bang theory nor evolution are inconsistent with Scripture. Both are just tools that God used to create the universe.

[Michael_Michaelangelo]

The Five Crises in Evolutionary Theory, by Dr. Ray Bohlin

Link

1. The unsubstantiation of a Darwinian mechanism of evolution

2. The total failure of origin of life studies to produce a workable model

3. The inability of evolutionary mechanism to explain the origin of complex adaptations

4. The bankruptcy of the blind watchmaker hypothesis

5. The biological evidence that the rule in nature is morphological stability over time and not constant change.

Raymond G. Bohlin is a graduate of the University of Illinois (B.S., zoology), North Texas State University (M.S., population genetics), and the University of Texas at Dallas (M.S., Ph.D., molecular biology)

===========================

No Speciation

Joseph Boxhorn, author of the talk-origins 'FAQ' on Speciation, makes a bold promise from the outset in his choice of title for his paper: 'Observed Instances of Speciation.' Any rational person visiting this site will naturally expect to find a list of cases where scientists, under controlled experimental conditions, have actually observed the process of speciation taking place.

However, anyone expecting to find such a list in Boxhorn's 'FAQ' is due for a major disappointment. It is true that Boxhorn does list a number of scientific observations, yet -- almost incredibly -- not a single one of these observations can be described as 'speciation' in the Darwinian sense, except by employing the kind of Double-Think used by officials at George Orwell's Ministry of Truth.

====================

Micro vs. Macro

Proponents of evolution often attempt to discredit creation by pointing to occurrences of microevolution, such as speciation, adaptation, etc. To the evolutionist, microevolution is vindication for their belief in the much larger macroevolution. Their belief is that if these microevolutionary changes have enough time to accumulate, then eventually this will lead to a macroevolutionary change. And therefore, in their way of thinking, if microevolution is a well established fact, macroevolution must logically be an established fact as well.

[Havoc]

Yep, lots of things have. The things surrounding morality as a major issue have gone into the toilet since the 60s. Evolution didn't get into the classroom til about then - between 59 and 63 if memory serves. At which point it all started going to hell in a handbasket. The Nazis were defeated in the 40s - by a generation not profaned by evolution. The soviet Union fell because of the conviction of a single man - Ronald Reagan. And he was fought at every turn by relativists who were sure we'd be slaughtered by the foul beastly commies if we didn't stop talking truthfully about them. You coulnd't call them evil, as a matter of fact, because what is evil when you grew up on evolution, situational ethics and moral relativism. Once you kicked God out of school, you kicked the ten commandments out too.
With that went the foundations of morality in this country.
premarital sex, babies out of wedlock, abortions, etc exploded from that point and have taken us to the abyss.

Lot's of things have happened. They didn't "just" happen. And the impact can't be just waved off. It is there and trackable in the data. And it's across the board, you name the illicit activity and you can track it's progression all the way back to the early 60s when this nation began teaching evolution in schools and kicked God out of the classroom. When your kid comes home with an STD, Aids or something of the like, you can sleep well at night knowing that the choices you make have a major impact on others.

[Just mythoughts]

L O L Excuse me what was the lie????

Your name is very appropriate....

[Havoc]

Oldest existing new testament documents all date to the first century AD. The oldest existing old testament documents I'd have to check. Been a while. What's the point?

[jude24]

The oldest existing old testament documents I'd have to check

Oldest I'm aware of are the Dead Sea Scrolls (ca. 60 CE). The Greek LXX predates them by about 100 yrs., but the oldest LXX copy we have is from ca. 200 CE. The oldest Hebrew manuscripts we had before the dead sea scrolls were from around 1000 CE.

[balrog666]

You've just defended Hitler and the Nazi attrocities. Without God, you can rationalize the worth of anything. With God, you have to accept the standards he sets or answer for it. That is why evolution exists. That alone.

Wrong again. And again. And again.

Just crawl back under your rock until you pass the third grade.

[jude24]

things surrounding morality as a major issue have gone into the toilet since the 60s. Evolution didn't get into the classroom til about then - between 59 and 63 if memory serves. At which point it all started going to hell in a handbasket.

This is a textbook logical fallacy - post hoc ergo propter hoc, that is, "after that, therefore because of that." Just because something happens after a previous event does not mean that the prior event caused it. The decline in American society can be traced to other factors just as easily.

(Incidentally, I would dispute your dates. Evolution was taught in schools in the 1920's too.)

[WildTurkey]

I'd have more confidence in the people pushing evolution if they wouldn't make the implied claim that the theory of evolution is somehow as valid or demonstrable as the fact of gravity.

And where, pray tell, did you see that! I have never seen it. Perhaps creationists would have more credibility if ...

[WildTurkey]

Uh, hello. The old testament went from Hebrew directly to every other language on the planet. If you have questions about the translation you read, the original language is still there to check. The original language belies the falsehoods propagated in a number of translations. If you know the history of the Bible, you'll know that the KJV is about the best, most accurate going. But you still have access to the original texts.

How do you know the are the original texts?

[Michael_Michaelangelo]

And where, pray tell, did you see that!

Happens here quite frequently, actually. I'll be sure to point it out to you next time I see it.

[Havoc]

Speciation is not development of another kind of animal. A dachsund is still a dog. A mut is a dog, a wolf and coyote are still dogs. That is not evolution, it is diversity within a kind or species. And no, diversity is not evolution. Nor does it qualified as observed change from one kind of animal to another. On Ring species, no, you can't observe two species and an intermediate form. You can observe multiple species and posit that one is an intermediate. And that is a long standing problem - intermediat or transitional forms are not just lacking - they're entirely absent. In absence of actual transitions, your bunch has resorted to pointing to fully formed non - transitionals and trying to pass them off as transitionals in hopes that we'd all buy it. It's like arguing that everything evolved from a single celled critter because everything has the same amino acids and uses dna.. If they all weren't made of the same stuff, we couldn't eat anything but ourselves. And textbooks all use languages, so I suppose we should assume that a couple hundred copies of Shogun got together and produced The Eiger sanction, which then evolved into a watchtower manual and so on. No, a moron understands that isn't the way it works. But because biological systems are involved and some people don't want to be constrained in their behaviors, we have to listen to similar tripe in explaining living systems. We reject it. And you have to produce actual transitions, not something you want to pass off as transitions because you find it convenient to label it as such and then shift burden to the other side to prove otherwise - also not scientific, much less proper logical argumentation.

You've offered nothing that is proof for anything propping up evolution. Variation within kinds of animals does happen; but, that doesn't prove your case, it rather proves ours, because there are limits that are well defined.

[stremba]

There is no scientific theory of souls. How would you measure souls? How would you detect their presence? If you can provide me with a "Soul-meter" then I will gladly do some experimental work and derive a theory of souls. Until then, souls will have to remain in the realm of theology and philosophy and stay out of science.

[RadioAstronomer]

There seems to be a prevaling thought among some that since the universe was crated out of "nothing", this violates the Law of Conservation of Energy.

However, it appears that the "positive" energy mass, light etc. are offset by a "negative" energy we know as gravity.

Here are three links that may help. The last one is a lecture and may be a bit much for a quick perusal.

http://www.astrosociety.org/pubs/mercury/31_02/nothing.html

http://superstringtheory.com/cosmo/cosmo21.html


http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/301/energy.pdf

[WildTurkey]

Happens here quite frequently, actually. I'll be sure to point it out to you next time I see it.

Really? Then how come, if it happens quite frequently, it hasn't happened on the two active LONG threads? The only time it appears is when the creationists bring it up as a false argument.

[Junior]

You stated earlier it the soul was "considered a hypothesis".

Because it cannot be a theory until it is tested.

You do not believe Scripture...

Beep. Circle takes the square. I do not believe in some peoples' interpretations of Scripture, however. I also do not consider Scripture to be a filter through which to perceive reality. The Almighty gave me a brain; I don't turn it off simply because of a few tens of thousands of words in some text.