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.
The line Junior uses (which I shamelessly snatched and carried onto another thread) probably has no basis in proper Latin grammar...but can make someone like me, who can figure out the intent, smile.
And that may be, at bottom, the real intent.
O CIVILE ERGO FORTIBUS ES EN ERO
O NOBILE DEUS NOBUS ES DEUS TRUX
SI VATES INEM CAUSEN DUX
See what I mean?
Like I said, we all owe a debt of gratitude.
I don't buy it, but he's more qualified than me, so I'll let it go with little argument.
He may deal with the specifics of the stories elsewhere, but there are biblical stories told that his "God-guided evolution" has to dovetail into at some point.
I don't see how he can pull it off.
For example, pull a rational dovetailing of stories that puts australopithecus into the fall in Eden.
Research the 'gap theory'. It says there's an indeterminate amount of time between Gen.1:1 and 1:2. There are theological reasons for this, stemming from the use of the Hebrew word for 'darkness' in v.2. Very interesting and compelling theory.
I save vs. Ignorance at +3. Do I roll for every YEC post, or just once for the entire thread?
(tips hat)
"The earth BECAME without form and void" = some kind of catastrophe.
(1) earth created (2) became with form and void (3) God does some recreating (Let there be light....etc.)
OK, so I'm a little late to the thread....what are you all arguing about here?
In a "closed" universe, there may be room for supernatural beings, but not for a Creator God in which theists believe.
http://xxx.lanl.gov/PS_cache/physics/pdf/0412/0412134.pdf
Good description of what can be learned by measuring angles and times only. (Not converted to symbolic link so as to warn people that it's a .pdf file.)
Incredibly, Strobel's discussion of this "rebuttal evidence" does not even include a summary of that evidence. Not only did Strobel fail to interview a single member of the Jesus Seminar, Strobel neglected to quote or even summarize the Jesus Seminar's arguments for their position.That's the fingerprint of religious horror. The person attacking a statement can't even repeat what is being waved away. That's why the "critics" of evolution on these threads cannot correctly recapitulate the mainstream science version of much of anything.
I'm not endorsing whatever the Jesus Seminar is or was. I don't even know what they said. Strobel apparently attacked them in his book without ever saying what they said. Amazing!
Fundamentalists largely have problems in my experience with just the very basics of theological thought.
For example, some of the greatest arguments for religion ever done were done by St Thomas Aquinas.
He argued the 5 proofs of God's existence... and he spoke in them that effectively change and evolution are defacto proof of God's existence.. Now he did not speak of biological evolution as he wrote long before Darwin lived. However change, regardless of what it is, is at its core observable evidence of God's existence.
Evolution and Theology are not in conflict, never have been, even the Vatican has agreed that Evolution is not in conflict with religion. It is disheartening that both the religious and the pegan refuse to accept this.
Thanks for your response. I understand what you are trying to convey. However, it seems that what you are describing would result in a loose definition of species (matter of fact, you used the word 'subpopulations'). X1 and X2 wouldn't be that much different from another, would they? It seems to me that it would take the success of a 'cataclysmic' mutation, if you will, to make the two so distinct as to be noticeably different. Going from a pool of chemicals and information to "us" would require it (many 'cataclysmic' mutations). You would also need a *lot* of time for each 'jump'. Based upon the DNA evidence, some of the "transitions" occurred in a very short amount of time. Not over vast amounts of time as Darwin believed.
One more question. How do we know they can't interbreed unless we artificially inseminate them and see what happens? (there's a fun job...NOT). They may just be picky, or it could be a passe' thing to do at that point in time/history.
For example, pull a rational dovetailing of stories that puts australopithecus into the fall in Eden.
A number of us on the forum are engaged in a rather fascinating research project on the subject of complexity, randomness and biological information. There was a brief discussion on this thread beginning at post 116. But the bulk of the conversation is ongoing on this thread from about post 267 forward.
In sum, the notion that biological life arose by happenstance is being discredited by scientists and mathematicians. The discovery that complex systems – such as eyeness – evolved across many phyla concurrently is strong evidence that evolution was directed – the metaphysical naturalists and scientific materialists might suggest it was directed by immutable control genes in a common ancestor whereas Christians and Jews might say it is evidence of God’s voice in Creation. Either way, it is not "random".
The first link above is about the famous Oxford professor who was atheist for about a half century but has now decided that God is because there is no material explanation for the origin of life and rise of complexity in biological systems. He evidently came to this conclusion after a conference he attended with Gerald Schroeder, a Jewish Physicist. Perhaps he was influenced by Schroeder’s views on the subject:
Has anyone played that game lately? I wanna see more cool pictures!
Alas, no takers. Offer's still open, though ;)
Calling Hovind an idiot would be far too generous.
Veteran of a Thousand Crevo Wars
(with apologies to Blue Oyster Cult)
You see me now, a veteran
Of a thousand crevo wars.
I've been posting on these threads so long
Where the wind of ignorance roars
I've tackled ID proponents
And battled YEC.
I've ripped into catastrophism
Until there was nothing left to see.
[Refrain]
Please bring the creos on
I'll never need a break from it
Don't like it you can leave
We've been living in the flames
We've been revving up our brains
Oh, please, please bring those creos on.
Sometimes I get so weary
Repeating stuff to you
You call me a bloody commie
And blame me for Nazis too
But the war's still going on dude
And there's no end in sight
And I can't say if we're ever
I can't say if we're ever gonna end this fight
[Refrain]
(stands on chair, holding lighter aloft)
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.