Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Tough Assignment: Teaching Evolution To Fundamentalists
Ft. Wayne Journal Gazette ^ | 03 December 2004 | SHARON BEGLEY

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.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Miscellaneous; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: christianschools; christianstudents; colling; crevolist; darwin; evolution; heresy; intelligentdesign; nazarene; religionofevolution; richardcolling; scienceeducation
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 421-440441-460461-480 ... 1,081-1,093 next last
To: general_re

physics.


441 posted on 12/20/2004 11:01:57 AM PST by general_re ("What's plausible to you is unimportant." - D'man)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 437 | View Replies]

To: Cicero
As a Catholic, I don't feel obliged to believe that God created the universe 6,000 years ago. Geology and astrophysics and the evident age of many species make that idea hard to support. But frankly, the Theory of Evolution is full of holes. It's not a matter of religious belief in my case, it's a matter of bad science.

Amen to that. But if the fundies want to believe and teach their children the 6,000 year thing, let them. It's not going to hurt them. The atheists are the ones shoving their crap down everybody's throat and crying about religion being shoved down their throats when it is not happening. Punks!
442 posted on 12/20/2004 11:04:57 AM PST by broadsword (When Islam creeps into a human society, oppression, misogyny and terror come hard on its heels.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]


443 posted on 12/20/2004 11:07:02 AM PST by Michael_Michaelangelo (The best theory is not ipso facto a good theory.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 442 | View Replies]

To: Wallace T.
First, they make an "appeal to authority", that is to say that their belief must be true because the mainstream scientific community says so.

No, that is not a logical fallacy. A logical fallacy would be an appeal to inappropriate authority. We do not question the doctor's authority to speak about medical matters - similarly, it is entirely appropriate to cite scientists as authorities on science. If we were to cite inappropriate authorities on matters of medicine or science - such as a lawyer, pastor, or auto mechanic - then we would have committed a fallacy, but not until then.

This was, I feel compelled to point out, the second sentence in your novella, which does not seem to bode well for the quality of the remainder.

444 posted on 12/20/2004 11:09:19 AM PST by general_re ("What's plausible to you is unimportant." - D'man)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 438 | View Replies]

To: Havoc
Do some frickin' research.

Conservation of Angular Momentum

The angular momentum of an isolated system remains constant in both magnitude and direction. The angular momentum is defined as the product of the moment of inertia I and the angular velocity. The angular momentum is a vector quantity and the vector sum of the angular momenta of the parts of an isolated system is constant. This puts a strong constraint on the types of rotational motions which can occur in an isolated system. If one part of the system is given an angular momentum in a given direction, then some other part or parts of the system must simultaneously be given exactly the same angular momentum in the opposite direction. As far as we can tell, conservation of angular momentum is an absolute symmetry of nature. That is, we do not know of anything in nature that violates it.

Please note: The above does not say everything has to be spinning in the same direction. It says that any change in the rotation of an object within a system must be accompanied by a change in the rotation of another object in that system.

Your pissant version of the Conservation of Angular Momentum can be shot down simply by looking at some of the retrograde moons in the Solar System.

445 posted on 12/20/2004 11:09:38 AM PST by Junior (FABRICATI DIEM, PVNC)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 440 | View Replies]

To: Wallace T.

Are you saying "appeal to authority" is a fallacy?


446 posted on 12/20/2004 11:10:30 AM PST by js1138 (D*mn, I Missed!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 438 | View Replies]

To: Wallace T.

Why do you equate being black to being a creationist?


447 posted on 12/20/2004 11:11:01 AM PST by Doctor Stochastic (Vegetabilisch = chaotisch is der Charakter der Modernen. - Friedrich Schlegel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 438 | View Replies]

To: js1138
Which is a more reliable guide to truth: authority or evidence?

This isn't hard. Infering something does not make it true, at best it makes the inference a possibility. The mere notion of the possibility does not make it fact. Yet this is exactly what you are trying to pull - the bunch of you. Lee H. Oswald didn't act alone. The evidence is there to support it, so I infer it. That alone doesn't make it true. How you can't see that is beyond me save that God has truly blinded you so that you'll believe your own lies. You can't otherwise be that stupid.

448 posted on 12/20/2004 11:13:15 AM PST by Havoc (Reagan was right and so was McKinley. Down with free trade.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 439 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio
Geez, someone asks you for evidence of a 'soul' and you go ballistic. Guess you don't like being exposed as someone without support for your positions.

He also goes off on his "Stalin" and/or "Hitler" ties when he gets into a corner. Mostly he just goes off.

449 posted on 12/20/2004 11:13:37 AM PST by WildTurkey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 425 | View Replies]

To: balrog666
Proof posiive that bright men can make incredibly dumbass statements. Einstein has both feet planted firmly in the air on that statement. So tell us, dumbass, what you find wrong with it ...>>> sorry, was afk and missed your reply/question. Einstein simply made an assumption that certain things were of value without positing ANY basis for assigning value to them. Withhout a reference point, any statement that mankind "should" do this or that is an absurdity. Furthermore, it is impermissible to "cheat" and add some value like survival of the species. There is NO reason why survival of the human race (or the entire planet, for that matter) should take on moral significance. We are cosmic belches, burped up by a dead universe, going nowhere, with no ultimate differences when the last nebulae have burned out, as to whether we acted with kindness or cruelty. Everything is meaningless. That is why I sneer when some kid who has had philosophy 101 prates about the religious being "afraid to face the cold hard facts." Rather, it is the irreligious who is afraid to face the clear implications of his own worldview and continues to object as though life has meaning. The reason you will become incensed if I piss in your soup is not that you don't like the taste of urine. It is because you rightly perceive that as an assault on your dignity. However, " dignity " is an absurdity in a world without God. Einstein was no different than anyone else in that respect. Lots of bright people can't live consistently with their worldviews, especially if their worldview is in cosmic revolt against the Creator.
450 posted on 12/20/2004 11:13:40 AM PST by chronic_loser (Go to my blog: http://snarktown.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: Doctor Stochastic
Cast your lot as equivalent to the oppression of black people, et voila - you are also an oppressed minority who deserves political consideration. Seems kind of odd that creationists would borrow tactics from the gay marriage lobby, but there it is.
451 posted on 12/20/2004 11:14:54 AM PST by general_re ("What's plausible to you is unimportant." - D'man)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 447 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro

"Festival of the Conservation of Belligerent Ignorance"


452 posted on 12/20/2004 11:15:44 AM PST by longshadow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 429 | View Replies]

To: Junior
The angular momentum of an isolated system remains constant in both magnitude and direction.

This would include an insignificant speck of nothing spinning and exploding into everything.

It says that any change in the rotation of an object within a system must be accompanied by a change in the rotation of another object in that system.

So you can read but you've no idea what it actually says - essentially. Take up billiards.

453 posted on 12/20/2004 11:16:06 AM PST by Havoc (Reagan was right and so was McKinley. Down with free trade.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 445 | View Replies]

To: balrog666
Proof posiive that bright men can make incredibly dumbass statements. Einstein has both feet planted firmly in the air on that statement. So tell us, dumbass, what you find wrong with it ...>>> sorry, was afk and missed your reply/question. Einstein simply made an assumption that certain things were of value without positing ANY basis for assigning value to them. Withhout a reference point, any statement that mankind "should" do this or that is an absurdity. Furthermore, it is impermissible to "cheat" and add some value like survival of the species. There is NO reason why survival of the human race (or the entire planet, for that matter) should take on moral significance. We are cosmic belches, burped up by a dead universe, going nowhere, with no ultimate differences when the last nebulae have burned out, as to whether we acted with kindness or cruelty. Everything is meaningless. That is why I sneer when some kid who has had philosophy 101 prates about the religious being "afraid to face the cold hard facts." Rather, it is the irreligious who is afraid to face the clear implications of his own worldview and continues to object as though life has meaning. The reason you will become incensed if I piss in your soup is not that you don't like the taste of urine. It is because you rightly perceive that as an assault on your dignity. However, " dignity " is an absurdity in a world without God. Einstein was no different than anyone else in that respect. Lots of bright people can't live consistently with their worldviews, especially if their worldview is in cosmic revolt against the Creator.
454 posted on 12/20/2004 11:16:49 AM PST by chronic_loser (Go to my blog: http://snarktown.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
"It pains me to suggest that my religious brothers are telling falsehoods" - I feeeeel your pain

"denying science makes us [Conservative Christians] look stupid" - if it 'pains him to suggest' above, this must kill him...

"denying science" - Wonder what he thinks of those who deny God?

"People should not feel they have to deny reality in order to experience their faith" - It is like this guy is in my head. As a person of faith, I wake every morning, deny reality, and head out into this world.

A lot of denying going on...

PatrickHenry - I like this Richard Colling. He says what some of us have been saying around here for years.

He is like our (conservative, devout, fundy - I think they hit all the 'talking points') own little John McCain. He will keep saying it as long as people keep repeating it...
455 posted on 12/20/2004 11:17:36 AM PST by LearnsFromMistakes (Speechless...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: general_re

No creationist has criticized the idea that momentum conservation requires all planets to spin the same way. I assume that they thus support this idea.


456 posted on 12/20/2004 11:17:48 AM PST by Doctor Stochastic (Vegetabilisch = chaotisch is der Charakter der Modernen. - Friedrich Schlegel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 451 | View Replies]

To: Doctor Stochastic

Insofar as creationism is a core position held by fundamentalist and evangelical Christians, who represent about 20-25% of the American population, slurs upon the intelligence or learning ability of creationists is as bigoted as making an attack upon the intelligence or learning ability of African-Americans, who are about 12-13% of all Americans.


457 posted on 12/20/2004 11:18:38 AM PST by Wallace T.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 447 | View Replies]

To: general_re
Cast your lot as equivalent to the oppression of black people, et voila - you are also an oppressed minority who deserves political consideration. Seems kind of odd that creationists would borrow tactics from the gay marriage lobby, but there it is.

"Victimhood should be escaped, not celebrated." - Economist Thomas Sowell

458 posted on 12/20/2004 11:18:42 AM PST by longshadow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 451 | View Replies]

To: Havoc
This would include an insignificant speck of nothing spinning and exploding into everything.

Ah, the old, "I can't answer what you posted so I'm going to take it off on a tangent" strategy. We've run into this from creationists on a regular basis.

459 posted on 12/20/2004 11:19:49 AM PST by Junior (FABRICATI DIEM, PVNC)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 453 | View Replies]

To: Havoc
This isn't hard.

I'm glad to hear that. Maybe you will answer the question now.

I can make the question simpler. If your brother is arrested for murder and there are no other witnesses, which do you believe, fingerprints plus powder burns on your brother's hand plus a videotape, or your brother's testimony that he didn't do it?

460 posted on 12/20/2004 11:20:05 AM PST by js1138 (D*mn, I Missed!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 448 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 421-440441-460461-480 ... 1,081-1,093 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson