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.
There is also the case of old earth creationists, who generally believe in the Big Bang theory but reject the theory of macroevolution of life forms. Hugh Ross would be an advocate of such a position.
As for young earth creationists, it is a distortion to state that they disbelieve the entire base of scientific knowledge. Most have no problem with most of the observations and hypotheses of modern science. But in specific areas, such as macroevolution and the age of the universe, they reject the conclusions of mainstream science because it contradicts the propositions of Scripture: that the universe is of limited age and that the species of life were created by fiat. Granted, young earth creationists have a lot of explaining to do in the area of the physical sciences. However, the fact that they hold a certain body of statements founded in the Bible, to be truer than the theories and laws of scientists does not make them anti-science. Would we say that policemen are anti-gun just because they oppose the use of guns by criminals?
There is no just or reasonable cause to presume that one set of presuppositions are superior to another based on whether or not a particular theory is accepted or rejected.
Actually there are entire sects of Christianity with millions of followers that believe diseases are not caused by germs, at least not in any sense that would indicate prevention or treatement based on germ theory.
What precisely is a species?
No havoc did not respond in that fashion. Havoc rejected your premise and noted that Science is often Wrong.. which flew right past you because you'd rather not dwell on the obvious. How often have we turned on the news to find out that what caused cancer yesterday is good for us today and cancer causing again tomorrow. How many times have we heard the reports of some new recommendation to diet that is later shown to be hazerdous to our health. O-rings on the shuttle costing lives. Foam in another instant (oh gee, we didn't realize the impact of a bunch of foam impacting a wing at high speeds.. Doh. One by one I can tick down my arm a list a mile long of where science has been consistantly and at this point predictably wrong. We all stopped listening to science's latest opinion of what's good for us - cause bottom line is, they're more clueless than we are as everyday human beings - belief systems aside. I can further tick down another list as long as my arm of people who proved scientific theories who for all intents and purposes may as well have done so on another planet for all the naysaying and badmouthing they recieved at the hands of the scientific community. All that said, the conclusion is opposite of your premise. One need not be smarter than anyone else in the community. All they need is dedication to task and method - something the community has largely lost. Einstein would have been an insignificant grease spot were it not for escaping the Germans. He did what most thought impossible and left most of the community scratching their heads trying to figure out what he said. That level of intelligence isn't common. That's the fun of science to some extent - watching the naysayers gain in volume with their rebukes right up till their butts are handed to them by the guy too stupid to be as smart as all of them. You might need a few history classes for some perspective on things.
Why do they go extinct?
OOOh, ooh, I know! Money?
I followed up with a list of specific questions, to which havoc has not responded. Give it a go if you like, post #565.
You've got it. When he can't answer, I must then detail the volumes of everything written in the system since adam and yay or nay it one by one - an utter absurdity that he's well aware of. And basically a duck and run move relying on rhetoric rather than evidence or science. Begging the question in the largest possible way IMO. Tawdry, isn't it lol
Why not? What precisely is the problem?
Then your eyes are as bad as your responses. Post 568
Simple. Why don't they get a clue, after all, that's apparently what evolution (Evolution, what's it good for?...Elaine Bennis) is all about. Why doesn't the spotted owl evolve into an eagle or better yet, a flying monkey and get the heck out of the redwoods? Surely it must notice that the tree isn't there anymore
And you might read 568 where I answered, for the second or thrid time depending on perspective.
No big leap, The speed of light from my understanding has been slowed to 1mph in the lab recently. That pretty much destroys much of science's guessing about distance to stars.
:)
Ah, you liked that one did you. I'm sure somebody here is ouching pretty bad from it.. and probably cursing under their breath as no one has dared touch it till you did.
OK, try the questions in #631.
"Professor Collins accepts the miracle of the creation of physical laws. Creation of time and light are not much different. The miraculous nature of it all wears off when one is born into it."
JFK_Lib - Why would it wear off? Jadedness?
I'm sure Physicst and Radio Astronomer are quaking in their boots from the blow you have struck. Are you of the opinion that the speed of light has been modified in the laboratory?
Agreed. Nor do yours or anyone else's opinion, etc., affect God or the universe.
As for "equal time in the schools," that is your problem, not mine. Education should be handled entirely in the private sector. But I digress.
You also err when it can be inferred that you believe that macroevolution is physical, observable reality. Many persons have observed caterpillars metamorphizing into butterflies. No one has observed a land mammal evolving into a whale. There is evidence that would support such a theory in the fossil record and even in DNA analysis, but there are also some problems with the theory, as the intelligent design advocates have pointed out. Scientific consensus changes over the years. Newtonian physics was the standard until the late 19th Century; since that time, certain propositions of that school have been refuted and are no longer accepted. Additionally, no one entirely "understands" God or the universe: conservative Christian or otherwise. This means you as well.
The fact that I accept the propositions of the Bible, in their historical and grammatical context and in light of authorial intent, as the ultimate truth has no bearing on my concept of God or the physical universe. I am sorry if your presuppositions give you consternation, however.
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.