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.
Beg your pardon, Christian Science is a cultic spinnoff of Christianity and can ONLY be associated with Christianity because THEY chose to incorporate the word into their identity (thus in name only). They are not a part of Christianity proper.
Uh, I think you just stated that the are anti-science.
Do you have a question about something related to evolution?
You asked about redoods. I am unaware of any problem related to redwoods and evolution. I said s and you did not follow up.
You asked about extinction and I asked why this is a problem. I simply don't understand why extinction is a problem. The concept of evolution was formed in an era of science that was, for the first time, documenting extinction as a fact. It is built into all the assumptions about evolution. What exactly is the problem.
Species do not change for any particular purpose, nor do they change in anticipation of need. These concepts have never had anything to do with evolution.
Isn't is sad? The author and comedian Jean Shepherd once said that if there is one certainty, it is that in 4000 years, no one will know who you are, even if "you" are someone famous like George W. Bush, Nicole Kidman, Warren Buffett, or Tiger Woods. I hope and believe, that in the final sense, Shepherd was wrong.
The lack of response doesn't really show that, of course. It shows something else.
When you're concerned about whipping up on the Evil, Dumb Enemy, you don't correct a guy on your own side just for being wrong. When truth is a side issue--it's not on your side anyway--and winning a point is the whole deal, that's how you play.
Well, I just simply don't understand why it isn't a problem. If evolution is true, nothing should go extinct, it should adapt and change, especially the fittest, which you would think sabertooth tigers, for one, would be
LOL.
I'm not following you at all. The discussion, at least as I raised it, is that both should be taught. Heck, throw in the big bang theory if you want. But, teach about them. Don't say one or the other is correct. Just leave it up to the kids to decide.
The point being, why is one excluded over the other. As far as I am concerned, it is as much a stretch of faith to accept evolution as it is to accept creation. Call if science or whatever if you want. To me, though, it sounds like you are fooling yourself when you do. Evolution does not explain how the world got here.
Have you paid attention to anything I've said? Species do not change in anticipation of need. Never have. Never will.
How does it get water to the top?
Embryological evidence is still considered in biology as a clue to evolutionary history. It's part of a growing area of study called evolutionary developmental biology ("evo-devo"). You seem to have spun all that out of existence. Good trick!
Placemarker.
I see. They just die off as Nature intended all along
lol
Capillary action.
Each tree has a tree fairy at the top, who sucks the water all the way up. Every now and then they come down to the forest floor and take a break. Sometimes, when you're walking alone in the woods, you can get lucky.
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.