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.
God also does not hide ancient primitive life forms in geological strata in order to test our faith, and He does not allow the Devil to hide ancient primitive life forms in geological strata in order to fool us.
If you have faith in God, you should have faith that God created the Universe that we actually observe, that the earth is at least 4 billion years old, and the rest of the Universe over 10 billion years old, and that humans have walked the face of the earth for hundreds of thousands of years, and our ancestors were making fires and using tools over a million years ago.
That is your *belief*...and it's not provable, either way.
Plenty of scientists *believe* differantly:
http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/index.html
Do you *believe* in "global warming?" A lot of scientists do *believe*...and *some* don't *believe*. Interesting, don't you think?
That is a also a religious question. See this article below, if you don't think scientists get into "beliefs" (not neccessarily religious)
They were not sons of 'man and woman', those that left their estate i.e., habitation.
Noah was elected/selected because his family had not married into this group. Our Heavenly Father said he repented for making man in the flesh as a result of this.
I have no idea what global warming brings to the discussion of evolution and God.
Why bring it up?
However, not only does God appear to play with dice, the dice have no numbers on them. (Big Jule acts similarly.) This often rocks the boat.
guess you didn't get the correlation.
Scientists have beliefs, as well. Some believe this, some believe that...You believe the earth is X amount of years old, and there are scientists who would disagree with you.
-beliefs affect so called findings of fact.
the global warming theory is a prime example.
Nice try, but evolution - unlike the global warming scare, is became part of science, before virtually he same cast of characters (the MSM, "progressive" government control, environmentl activism) existed.
Actually, by his reasoning, anyone who accepts math is not a 'true conservative' because a number of college math professors are liberals.
Evolution fulfills the criteria of being science (it jibes with the evidence and is falsifiable). Why do you think it isn't science, other than your personal opinion. Please note that tens of thousands of biologists and chemists, living and dead, have accepted the scientific validity of evolution. Since these are guys actually working in the field who have seen the evidence first hand and put it to the test, what do you think you know that they do not? Put your forth your best argument that evolution is not science. Odds are it's been posted and refuted dozens of times before, but, please, be our guest.
The creationists prove every day on these threads that they are profoundly, abysmally ignorant of the theory of evolution. OK, maybe they aren't "just" ignorant of it. Maybe they are in religious horror of it.
Did it ever occur to you that most all "creationists" were at one time "evolutionists" to some degree or another? That they have some knowledge and understanding of what it is you are talking about but have rejected it for the truth.
Some of the frustration of Christians is trying to have discourse with a "evolutionist" that has not bothered to delve into the creation aspect of it.
Maybe they are in evolutionary horror of it.
I do not take evolutionists to creationists or creationists to evolutionists into account.them, to me are fencesitters that try to marry creation and evolution. "doubleminded men,unstable in all their ways".
It is almost impossible to get anything factually correct out of a creationist concerning evolution. This can only be explained by the operation of irrational religious horror.
They have had a most unaccountable amnesia if this is true, having progressed from knowing something about it to knowing nothing about it. I consider this to be extremely unlikely.
I file such protests alongside of the disclaimer a militant liberal of my acquaintance used to warm up with about how Main-Street conservative his values really are. When he got to his real politics, he was just this side of Stalin.
That they have some knowledge and understanding of what it is you are talking about but have rejected it for the truth.
Nobody who thinks Java Man is a gibbon (and announces its scientific name as Pithecanthecus erectus), or Stephen Jay Gould authored a "hopeful monster" theory, or believes in 2004 or later that there are (God help us!) "no transitional forms" has the tiniest semblance of a clue. OK, there's ignorance and militant ignorance, but it's still ignorance.
Some of the frustration of Christians is trying to have discourse with a "evolutionist" that has not bothered to delve into the creation aspect of it. Maybe they are in evolutionary horror of it.
There isn't much to learn in creationism, but such literature as it has is quite familiar to the science defenders on these threads. The situation is not symmetrical at all. You're having a fun game switching the labels before parroting the arguments, the usual creationist echolalia, but it only shows the usual disregard for the truth.
I've read and debunked I don't know how many articles by Gish, Morris, Sarfati, Behe, Dembski, Meyer, etc. When I do so, I always read the article and for at least some time afterward can correctly characterize what it said. A creationist, if he skims a mainstream science article at all, will go through and count the occurrences of "maybe," "probably," "could have," etc. Ten minutes later he knows nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing of its contents.
I don't mean he should have called it Pithecanthropus erectus, either.
Interesting article.
It isn't very fair and balanced though....the writer almost has an orgasm about this guy.
That said, I do think evolution should be taught. I may not be convinced of it, but to leave people ignorant of such a unifying concept of biology would be doing a great disservice to students.
And if the Earth is only 6,000 years old, I am Barbara Streisand.
The idea that someone was once a genuinely knowledgeable evolutionist, and then somehow switched to creationism, is about as likely as someone who was once a deeply committed Christian bible scholar, who then gives it up and converts to voodoo. It just doesn't happen.
Stratification of the rocks does not prove evolution, just that the Earth is old, which any idiot should be able to figure out.
The Bible gives a very specific timeline of why animals came to be, and does not allow for any possible gaps in creation that could allow evolution to occur.
Therefore, I just don't understand why people say you can make evolution and Scripture compatible. I don't think you can.
One is either right or wrong.
If Scripture is wrong, Christianity and Judaism are shams based on books with untruths. And I don't believe that.
But frankly, the Theory of Evolution is full of holes.Yeah, I can't believe I share so much DNA with every other creature on earth either!
DNA and genetics must also be on a par with 'the Theory of Evolution ' - it's mostly theory, nothing concrete ...
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.