Tough Assignment: Teaching Evolution To Fundamentalists

Ft. Wayne Journal Gazette ^ | 03 December 2004 | SHARON BEGLEY

[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.

[Ichneumon]

[So God might have created the world in six days, but in his creation he would have left dinosaur fossils that were already aged a great deal?]
God did create the world in six days.

Then why does the world give every indication that it took far, far longer to form?

I'm not a scientist,but if I were,I would probably look at the various methods used for dating.

For... what?

There is definately a way to reconcile it to the biblical account of creation.

So you've assumed your desired conclusion and then just sit back certain in your belief that there must be "definately [sic] a way" to support it, but no need to actually do so? How is that different from what we see liberals do all too often?

It just has not been done.

Because the evidence points to the contrary, actually.

As it stands now,it may never be.The antagonism is too great.

Is that the excuse you're going to go with for why your belief hasn't been supported by the evidence, and for why the evidence points to a different conclusion?

Isn't this what liberals do when they postulate a big conspiracy or something in order to "explain" why their beliefs about things aren't being confirmed on a daily basis?

Earlier you wrote:

The truth I accept is based on scripture.Any truth outside of that is a lie,conjecture or opinion unless supported by scripture.

But isn't your own belief about *which* "scripture" might be "the" scripture something that is "outside of that [scripture]"? After all, all scriptures, present and past, claim to be "the" (or at least "a") scripture. But the problem is that their self-proclamations are entirely circular, just like the letter from Hank.

In any case, because "scriptures" can be corrupted by man, or well-meaning scribings of ancient oral myths originating from simple storytelling (or deluded "revelations"), or self-serving missives by self-appointed "prophets" (as you probably believe about the Koran, for example), it seems to me that the only truly reliable source for information about the Universe is the Universe *itself* (including, of course, the Earth and what is in/on it).

So my own personal epistemology is closer to:

The truth I accept is based on reality. Any truth outside of that may just be a lie, conjecture, or opinion unless supported by reality.

"Evidence", of course, is just another word for "reality" -- it's what we have found by examining the real world. And the scientific method is, in a nutshell, just a collection of methods for doing reality-checks on ideas, by comparing them against the real world and seeing if they hold up when measured against reality.

[Ichneumon]

Apparently I missed it and still do.

His point is that although you say that you rely on "scripture", as if there is one, there are actually many competing "scriptures" claiming to have "the" truth -- by what process have you settled on just one, and how do you know it's the correct one (or that any of them are "the" truth)?

You are under the mistaken impression that I am concerned about being wrong or right.

No, that's not the impression I have of you.

I can assure you that I am not here to prove how intelligent I am or how much vast useless information I have acumulated.

Nor am I. I'm here to provide useful information, and to correct misinformation.

I am simply stating what I believe.

And I'm curious about your beliefs.

[Ichneumon]

It just doesn't make sense. The harder you look at it, the less sense it makes.

Odd -- the more I learn about it (i.e., the "harder I look at it"), the *more* sense it makes. How do you account for that?

Which parts of it have you "looked at" and found to not "make sense"?

[Ichneumon]

There is no good way to deny a thing for which science has accumulated massive amounts of evidence over more than a century.

But as a lot of folks make clear, there are an endless number of bad ways to deny it.

[Ichneumon]

Big Bang for instance had matter/energy moving at faster-than-light speeds for a while shortly after everything in the cosmos came into existance

No it doesn't.

Evolution is the same thing. It shows how finely tuned the entire universe is toward the existance of life, and has been from its inception.

Actually, it shows how life finely tunes itself to whatever conditions it's in.

That design speaks far more persuasively to me than some trivial reduction to 'God did it.'

I've never been too impressed with the, "I find it amazing, thus it must be God" argument.

Science needs more than slogans.

Is that *your* slogan?

Science has *far* more than slogans. Check out any decent research library and start wandering the aisles. Bring a map so you don't get lost, they're *HUGE*. And there's a lot more in them than "slogans".

[Ichneumon]

I think I just gave them.

You are mistaken. You made a few straw-man broadsides which showed that you actually know very little about evolution (and what you think you know is incorrect).

You stated your belief as, "That is why when [evolution is] challenged on the merits no rational argument is presented" -- but I'm afraid that making a few misrepresentations about evolution (or themodynamics) is hardly "challenging evolution on the merits".

Would you care to try again?

[Ichneumon]

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.)

Those web pages are not intended to be "convincing enough" all by themselves. They're just an overview of the several dozen independent lines of evidence by which evolution is confirmed.

Note that each section just gives a few quick examples, and then points the reader to links or citations by which the reader can delve deeper into each subject in order to look at the *massive* amount of specific evidence (and methods) by which evolution is repeatedly confirmed. The more you look into the gritty details of each kind of evidence, the more convincing is the "evolutionary connection".

Presenting even a single one of those topics in enough detail to be more "convincing enough" would cause most readers' eyes to glaze over, unfortunately.

Furthermore, any one of those lines of evidence could perhaps be explained some other way (by some variant of "Last Tuesdayism", if nothing else). But it's the fact that *all* the different lines of predictions from the theory of evolution bear such vast numbers of fruit that really indicates that evolution is clearly well on the right track.

Finally, one thing that gets overlooked a lot is that there's no sensible alternative for why the evidence overwhelmingly falls within the types one would expect to find if evolution is how modern life came about. Note how many of the lines of evidence in those pages are very specific in their predictions and how easily actual results could have fallen within a "non-evolutionary" pattern if evolution had not actually taken place. This leaves anti-evolutionists with a very uncomfortable question -- if God (or whatever/whoever) didn't generate Earthly life via evolution, then why the heck would he/it produce *only* the kinds of results that evolution would? Especially when a different process or designer would have so many other kinds of options available? The conclusion seems to be that either a) evolution actually was responsible for life, or b) whatever/whoever actually made life sure seems to be trying to "fake us out" by making it *look* like evolution did it...

[Doctor Stochastic]

The "DNA evidence" is a joke.

The Johnny Cochran version.

[Doctor Stochastic]

Knowledge of American Culture really has declined in the last few years, hasn't it?

[Ichneumon]

I agree with you. It takes much more faith to believe in evolution.

Actually, it doesn't take any faith at all. It takes knowledge, understanding, and evidence.

[Doctor Stochastic]

If you play at dice and hope to get rich,
Luck's rarely a lady, but mostly a bitch.

[Ichneumon]

You gotta admit, Chick's literary works are much better at taking the reader to a place far removed from reality. By comparison, Stan Lee's creations seem not only credible, but likely.

Mark Twain once said, "Of course truth is stranger than fiction. Fiction, after all, has to make sense."

[Ichneumon]

[E's better hurry up cause that hour glass of "GOD's" time is nigh on to empty.]

Wow! Thanks for the warning. I was gonna go out and buy a couple of case of dog food for my dobies, but if time's that short, I guess I'll just spend the dough on some Viagra and go out with a flourish.

In the appendix of James Randi's book, "The Mask of Nostrodamus", there's a *looong*, hilarious list of all the times and places that the end of the world was confidently and publicly predicted to be "real soon now" -- usually with specific dates predicted. The list of *hundreds* of "the end is night" predictions spanned over several thousand years. Needless to say, unless I missed something the world failed to end at the appointed times.

[Ichneumon]

When were the souls created.... note God said "Let US make man in OUR image, after OUR likeness. Who is the US and the OUR????

I'd say it's an example of the "royal we".

[GOPJ]

Thanks for the ping.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[grey_whiskers]

I'm not a scientist,but if I were,I would probably look at the various methods used for dating.

For... what?

Companionship, possibly leading to a committed, long-term relationship. Many scientists had problems with dating during their earlier days...

Oh...that dating. "Never mind" ;-)

[Doctor Stochastic]

Or even the "editorial we" or the "nurse's we."

[general_re]

OTOH, there was another crevo thread within the last week in which one of the posters stated that 'Hitler was a Creationist' and quoted Mein Kampf to demonstrate that Hitler believed in Intelligent Design.

You must try to keep in mind that there are certain pro forma elements to these threads, formalities that must be attended to before the chaos can properly begin - much like playing the National Anthem before a Cubs game, in fact. The Hitler-as-creationist bit is, by now, a stock refutation-by-analogy to the creationist argument that pops up quite regularly, that some prominent atheist/communist/cannibal/what-have-you also believed in evolution, hence evolution invariably leads to/causes/promotes atheism, communism, cannibalism, gay marriage, white pants after labor day, and failing to put the seat up prior to urination. Of course the Hitler-as-creationist story is absurd - that's the point - but I'll wager if you work backwards on that thread, you'll find the yin that preceded that yang somewhere ;)