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.
There are tons of mutations floating around all the time. Some may be slightly harmful. Many are neutral. Some will be helpful. Only the immediately harmful are immediately weeded out. You don't have to be a genius to realize this.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I'm still waiting for the ' immediately harmful ' tyrants and despots of the world, 'to be weeded out' by evolution.
Depending upon the nurse, there may be ample reason for her to refer to herself in the plural.
Congratulations! This is only the 200th time in six years that a creationist has published the out-of-context quote salad. Do a Google search of Creationist Quote Mining. You'd be amazed at what you find.
No, wrong, the subject is the end times and the attitudes of people in that time. It is not the "beginning".
Now this is not Noah's flood as Peter has just spoken about Noah's flood in the previous chapter.
No, this is noah's flood in verse 6. What was talked about in 5 was the creation. You're flatly mistating the record after quoting it. You think this behavior is passable? It's a lie - being boldly and blatently told by yourself about the very thing you're displaying. Have you an ounce of shame at all?!
We are going to have a real environmental CLEAN-up!
Yes, we are going to have a cleanup cause God is ticked and coming back to judge people for what they're doing if they aren't right with Him. He will be judging the people of the first earth and destroying the first earth. Willing ignorance as Peter discusses, will be no excuse.
"People should not feel they have to deny reality in order to experience their faith"
Excellent article and I agree on so many points. Richard Colling is the man! There is something very wrong if one is having to make all sorts of mental contortions to keep ones theology from being crushed under the weight of science and common sense. My personal opinion is it is best to carry around as little theological baggage as possible - find the essence of your faith and focus on that. I think the best way is a rational scientific view of the outer world and a deep inner life based on contemplation and prayer. These days we find ministers that reject science as the devil's deceptions and yet don't bother with prayer - these people have forsaken knowledge of both the material and spiritual worlds.
I have never observed as mich rigor given to verifying the exponential formulas used to justify any ancient dating of material as I have observed 'evolutionists' devote themselves to creating evolutionary trails.
The dating method is simply a convenient method of ignoring the weaknesses inherant in 'evolution' by asserting something is billions or trillions of years old.
This lack of concern by evolutionary theorists doesn't give me any good grounds to find their premises override Scripture.
On the contrary, the lackidasical method implied by appealing to a very broadly expressed exponential,..and then emphatically holding on to figures of billions and trillions, merely manifests how ignorant arrogance matures despite the amount of academic study any soul devotes themselves to absorbing information.
I state this not as supporting 'creationism', but as one who simply assumed 'evolution' as being accepted fact. The more I have studied the issue, the less I've found 'evolutionary' proponents to render a 'scientific' viewpoint in favor of simple arrogance and opposition to anything or any idea which might be holy.
Opinions are not evidence - nor are beliefs. There is no date stamp on the solar system requiring it to be older than scripture claims it is. 6000 years give or take a few. The fossil record shows only one thing - a bunch of stuff that used to be alive, died and was rapidly buried in such a way as to produce said fossils. Clams don't die with their shells shut, yet they're everywhere like that in the fossil record, telling us whatever hit them, hit them hard and suddenly.
Beyond that, there are multiple dating systems that do not verify anything any more than they give any kind of accurate basis to judge a date on anything to begin with. When dating methods place skin on a beast 30k years apart from bone, that isn't substantiating anything, much less arguing for accuracy of the system.
Of course, what you are saying is there is no physical evidence that we can produce that you will accept, regardless of its provenence
There is no physical evidence that disputes Scripture. Christians have not one single argument against any valid physical evidence that you can produce. And Valid means - non fraudulent (ie, Lucy among piles of others). Christian scripture has not one beef with valid evidences or with science for that matter. The beef is with evolution. Evolution isn't science - it's a belief system which is substantially a religion in and of itself. You project your beliefs on the evidence and want to call that science. Therein is the problem. And that is where the problem will remain until it is removed from the schools.
Cool.. I did not know that. Like I said, this isn't my thing, economics and politics are. You see, everything I know about evolution I learned in government school and college. A surface review certainly seems to support your position in most of these cases.
However, I will say that in at least one of the examples you cite, the isolation of populations is claimed to have occurred thousands of years ago. How do you know? Isn't it possible that there were multiple species all along?
And why is it that we never hear of a beneficial mutation in humans that actually improves our performance? From everything I observe around me, if someone is born with a genetic aberration so severe that it precludes them from breeding with regular humans, first they would have to survive. Second, it would have to be beneficial to be considered evolutionary progress. Third, they would have to find a mate with exactly the same genetic mutation to generate a new population.
Just some logic that makes it a little far-fetched for me in practice.
Oh, you say that; but, you're contentions are unsupported by the scriptures. Jeremiah is talking about the destruction coming; so I don't know what point you thought you were making there. Revelation is quite plain that the earth shall be destroyed and re-created. Genisis isn't talking about Re-creation. It is discussing the beginning of creation - ie the beginning of all things. You don't create something that is already there. Jeremiah knew this and thusly remarked that the earth would once again become void and without form. The liberties you are taking are the liberties of someone who knows just enough to be ignorant.
Free will gives us all choices. But our choices are the things that will be judged by God - not our guilt.. our choices. God gives you a set of conditions to get to heaven and a set to get to hell. If you like no rules and anything goes, that's what hell is all about. The absence of God and the absence of any controlling authority. Imagine eternity trying to survive the likes of Hitler and Stalin. God will look at your choices and determine by judgement, where you decided you want to spend eternity.. In heaven where there is justice, mercy and love.. or in hell, where there is injustice, no mercy, hatred, lust and deceit. It's your choice and always has been. God just determines what you chose by how you comported yourself while you had the chance. If you choose Christ as your savior and follow that line, you go to heaven. If not, you get to spend eternity pulling daggers out of your back as a slave to the most ruthless and powerful - while being burned that is. fun fun fun.
"As a Catholic, I don't feel obliged to believe that God created the universe 6,000 years ago."
"As a Christian, I do feel obliged. And for some fairly obvious reasons. This is the differnece between Christianity and those who model themselves after it - including many protestant sects."
I have a problem with a literal interpretiation of the bible given the number of translations its been through. Anyone who has ever done translation knows what gets lost from one version to the next. What version are you on?
I for one am certain that the universe existed more than 6000 years ago. A trip to the natural history museum to see the bones of gods wonderous creatures before he got to us convinces me.
"If not, you get to spend eternity pulling daggers out of your back as a slave to the most ruthless and powerful - while being burned that is. fun fun fun."
I really have to laugh now, cause this is NOT scriptural. What kind of God do you worship that would require us in heaven or on this earth watching and listening for eternity to those pulling daggers our of their back as a slave to the most ruthless and powerful while being burned.
I like the word the translators selected "SOTTISH" fits your description.
Actually, at this point it would be considered a hypothesis. Once we find a way to test the hypothesis and have it confirmed it might be elevated to the status of a theory. Do you have a method for testing for the soul?
Uh, hello. The old testament went from Hebrew directly to every other language on the planet. If you have questions about the translation you read, the original language is still there to check. The original language belies the falsehoods propagated in a number of translations. If you know the history of the Bible, you'll know that the KJV is about the best, most accurate going. But you still have access to the original texts. So, I'm not sure what you are arguing or what you think you are arguing. The Hebrew is quite explicit in it's meaning - leaving no room to interpret "The first day" as anything more than the very first 24 hour day. No wiggle room. If you decide to call God a liar, what you believe after that is irrelevant. You're just another anti-God heathen who has chosen a path to hell once you start blaspheming God and his word. Plain and simple. God created the animals - including dinosaurs as we've decided to call them recently - in six days. Furthermore, he created one of each of them seperately in Eden for Adam to name. That's in Genesis 2. So you can choose to believe God is a liar or that he is truthful in what he saw to it was put in his word. You will be responsible for blasphemy if you choose to call him a liar by believing evolution just as adam and eve were held responsible for believing satan over God in eden. You can blow sunshine at God while calling him a liar and seem to find no issue in that. So, I have a hard time believing you're christian if that is your claim. Just be careful not to teach that stuff to anyone else.. bad enough being judged for blaspheming God.. I wouldn't want to see you judged a false teacher as well - really nasty stuff in store for them.. This ain't a game.
"Actually, at this point it would be considered a hypothesis. Once we find a way to test the hypothesis and have it confirmed it might be elevated to the status of a theory. Do you have a method for testing for the soul?"
Your are not going to like it but YES!
"Uh, hello. The old testament went from Hebrew directly to every other language on the planet. If you have questions about the translation you read, the original language is still there to check."
You cannot prove your theory based upon the original Hebrew and I would dare say there are a few posting know very well this to be true, but some things have been hidden since the beginning.
You have read Paul's writing now haven't you?
Whoa, hold it spanky. God requires you to choose between the two and then holds you to your choice. You have options - the choice is YOURS. God cannot remove from you your right to decide for yourself. He set the conditions and gave you a choice. To do anything but precisely what he said he would violates his nature and your rights. He will do neither. So if you go to hell, you paddle your own boat spanky. Don't try to torture it into some nasty thing that God is forcing you into. If you don't like it, you can play the ad-hominem game and console yourself all you wish. Hell will be the absence of God - just as you seem to be seeking here. In absence of God and his morality, the ten commandments do not apply - neither do any of the natural law we recognize today which was drawn from it. All the evil man is capable of will be present in hell. Justice and mercy are in Heaven. It's your choice. If you want the evil ways of men - go to hell - literally. Evil includes murder, lying, deceit, slavery, genocide, etc and so on. You get the picture. It's not a fun place. And he warns in advance that he will be throwing hell into a pit of fire. If knowing that, you make the choice to go there, it was your choice, not God's. So, don't handwring to me. Scripture gives you all the conditions and the warnings. What you do and where you go is according to your free will. You would violate mine by shoving evolution down my throat and reviling me for rejecting it. God let's you condemn yourself. He's far more just than either of us on that one.
Some things had been hidden since the beginning, yes, I know Paul's writings well. You might bother getting familiar with what he's talking about - it isn't the creation. As for your remarks re the Hebrew manuscripts, I'm quite comfortable in stating that what I stated is not a theory - it is a matter of fact. Language is specific. Words mean things. What you are hoping to do is beg the notion that a hebrew word can be tortured into meaning something given certain conditions. The language determines that, not you. And the language as it is used determined that at the time it was written. Day means a 24 hour standard day. And there is no precident for treating it otherwise. If there were, you could have saved us the hot air and presented it. You can't. And I know why you can't.
Now if you have read God hardened Pharaoh's heart and took from him his first born son, where was Pharaoh's 'free' choice.
You really want to claim that Pharaoh made the wrong choice and thus he will burn forever, sorry won't fly.
You think that Esau who while still in the womb it was said that Jacob I love and Esau I hated and that Esau made the wrong choice has been given the jumping and screaming upon a never ending hell fire sentence. Won't fly.
God Himself said that for their own protection some are blinded. God also says He sends strong delusions to those who choose to believe a lie. Where is their free choice.
Many are called but few are chosen.
You are in for a big disappointment when you discover your looked for joy and glee to watch all those you have decided that are going to burn forever do not.
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.