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.
So I see you sent me some reading material - I'll take a look through it when I get a chance.
I think some missionaries used to "go native" but we can be sure no true Christian ever did.
It's exactly the same as yours - perhaps that should tell you something.
The laws of thermodynamics say no such thing. What they do say is that entropy is the natural state of the universe, and that randomness is the default in the absence of the addition of energy. Sunlight is a source of energy that helps in the assembly of more complex molecules all the time.
The problem is that Creation Science literature is usually little more than propaganda that takes liberties to prove its point. Most of the Creation Scientists don't have solid technical degrees. They only know enough about science to be dangerous.
This is not to say that there are not solid Creationist scientists; indeed, there are quite a few. Unfortunately, most of them are quietly doing their research and are not in the forefront of the Christian community.
And does your checkered coat have sharp lapels? That's how the devil drags you under, you know...
He would have an easier time force feeding pork to a well armed muslim then selling me on this theory.Yeah, I would to see a more palatable 'theory' too.
Mankind 'claims' to have discovered that matter is composed of (basically) protons, neutrons and electrons - none ever seen mind you - and that matter is actually comprised of 100 some odd 'elements' each of which is a different arrangemment of protons, neutrons and electrons (right!).
I say there are just five kinds of matter: earth, air, fire, animal and plant.
I read through the first one. Interesting stuff, things that deserve an answer. I don't find them convincing enough though....many could have other explanations (human tails etc.)
Most schools, even in Bible country, teach evolution and have for a long time.
Yet, polls show more people believe in immediate creation than even God-directed evolution.
and it showed me that the Earth was far older than the 5 or 6 thousand years the literalists would want us to believe. The sheer might of God was apparent in those rocksThis has got to be a mistake. It can't be this difficult, this dynamic, this involved, this intricate to understand.
But, then again, I'm still struggling with why he sent his son to die - for us and for our sins. It defies the meager amount of logic I have available/at my disposal to understand this.
BTW, can any of the strict creationists here explain the creation and timeline of the stars, and why, as we visit them (like Mars) we find out they aren't just twinkling little bits of foil lodged in some overhead sphere (like decorations on the celing of the Astrodome?).
1. I will take a moment to say number 1 is a trick question. Evolution has nothing to do with how life began, just how it changed in the evolutionist's mind.
2. Well, I have heard this one back and forth....some say it only applies to closed systems, some say it does not. Beat the hell out of me if this really has anything to do with evolution or not.
3. Only have a vague understanding of this theory...
4. obviously not.....this would be stupid. There is a common descent it the theory, but animals are still organized by different phyla and are ordered by laws to give birth to the correct species. It would be impossible for a fish to give birth to a dog.
5. not sure...how?
This stuff is just jibberjabber. It's laughable nonsense. The "DNA evidence" is a joke. It's like phrenology - some people had "scientic" jibberjabber to support that, too. The hoax is circling the drain...
It ... seems to me that evolution is like moving from version 9.0 to version 9.1 of a complicated piece of software. It definitely happens, and 9.0 definitely eventually dies out and is replaced by 9.1.Sounds like a reasonable, present-day analogy most non-hardware-aware techoids can grasp.But it doesn't say anything about where version 1.0 came from.
How about 'the maker' sharing building blocks (C++ inheritance from a base class via genes/genetics too) across species as well?
Now, add in a billion, two billion, xx billion years - what might you have in geographically isolated areas on the surface of the earth and her seas?
I am curious are you a Christian? If so why don't you believe in the literal translation of the bible?>>
I am a Christian and I do believe in the "literal" interpretration (not "translation") of the Bible.
I do not, however believe that God is a blast furnace ("God is a raging fire"). That would be silly. There is nothing in those first two chapters that demands we accept it as a chronology, much less a chronology of 6000 some years ago. There is NOTHING, absoulutely NOTHING in the first two chapeters of Genesis that require us to accept a "yom" as a 24 hour solar day.
You could share the DNA because we all were created by God, who started with some common DNA.
A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death.
-Albert Einstein>>
Proof posiive that bright men can make incredibly dumbass statements. Einstein has both feet planted firmly in the air on that statement.
So you admit evolution is closest possible lie to the truth. Yet you believe something extravagantly far from evolution, which you said "lies closest to the truth." So clearly, your beliefs are bigger, less-believable frauds than evolution, which is almost the truth.
Of course, how much DNA we share with primates would lend support to the evolutionist.
However, there is still enough difference it is hard for me to accept it has to mean we evolved. It could mean that God organized similar animals in such a way that animals in the same phyla....without evolving....shared the same DNA.
There are cases of transitional fossils being located for primates, but these could also just be species in the same phyla that died out; they are not not necessarily evolutionary ancestors of modern humans.
I try to keep an open mind. I am not a moron and won't sit back and close my mind to science. Heaven help us if Christians do that. But, I need something that shows there can't be other explanations. Transitional fossils etc. still could have other explanations.
"Einstein, stop telling God what to do" -- Niels Bohr.
Actually, you cannot "date" the book of Genesis at all with the chronologies. It is a common Hebrew trait, shown when you compare the chronologies in Matthew, Kings, and Chrionicles that when someone says A>B>C>D>E>F, with A being the patriarch and F being geneeration 6, it is just as common and also correct to say A>F. There may be HUGE gaps in the chronologies. the most laughable example of this is Jesus affirming that the Pharisees are all "sons of Abraham." No one that I know of tries to say something stupid about this, they just take it as a Hebraism, and AFFIRM THAT JESUS WAS NOT TRYING TO AFFIRM LINEAL RELATIONSHIPS, JUST LINEAL DESCENT. ICR people should do the same.
So tell us, dumbass, what you find wrong with it ...
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.