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.
Hmm. Must be something else as they started teaching evolution way before the "spike".
Interesting, I've never - ever - heard either of these moronic statements before. Would this be an attempt at humor posing as an argument - in place of any actual argument. I mean, as of yet, I have'nt seen anything from ya'll but general attacks and the same old bait and switch on speciation, etc. One would hope that if you were betting your eternal soul on something, it would be more convincing that the tripe you've presented.
You:
No, the data doesn't track that way. That's 5 years after the spike begins. Care to try something else?
Ah, but the moon-landing program began earlier. The corelation is precise!
This is just nuts. There's plenty of evidence for evolution and none against.
Christianity has no bicker with evidence.
Christianity is a big thing. Creationism is a little thing, and it has a religious horror of the truth.
It's the spin put on it by evolutionists that's at question.
I say the problem is on the creationist side, and here comes evidence for what I'm saying.
Ala "Lucy" - science is good at manufacturing what it can't observe and hiding what it would rather not have observed.
Appeal to falsehood. The truly contemptible thing about Holy Warrior lying is it's incorrigible; the same Holy Warrior idiots will be back with the same bad pennies over and over and over no matter how often their statements are disproven. There's something sad and pathetic about people who feel both entitled and compelled to repeatedly get caught lying in public about matters anyone can check out for himself.
Lucy is now one (the most famous) of several Australopithecus afarensis specimens. Several others are known. Nothing hinges solely on Lucy anymore. For that matter, the hominid series contains a lot more than A. afarensis. For all that, creationists go after Lucy because she was in Life magazine back in the sixties--a psywar target, an icon. It's all a simplistic dungeons and dragons game, or maybe C.O.N.T.R.O.L. versus K.A.O.S.
"Australopithecines, creationist arguments" from Talk Origins.
The "Lucy's Knee Joint" FAQ, A Case Study in Creationists' Willingness to Admit their Errors.
The difference is you believe the earth is 6000 years old.
Yep, I'm aware of the Galileo incident. I merely noted that Rome persecuted him for defying conventional wisdom to show that evolution is not the only bastardization of science that has infiltrated the church to do damage on the basis of lies.
Galileo was right and Rome was wrong. The rest is revisionism to make them look not so bad.
You need to check your history better. Go back and look at when evolution was required to be taught in the classroom. It tracks from that point onward. I know your used to just saying things for the sake of saying them; but, here we tend to require a little more than that.. lol
Too late - I've falsified the Big Bang theory. See, the blades on my lawnmower spin counterclockwise, whereas my toilet swirls clockwise. I'm sure the folks in Stockholm will be contacting me any day now with my flight and hotel information, but don't worry - I'll still remember all of you, the little people, once I'm famous for this...
Don't expect Havoc to defend the Roman Catholic Church. He hates the Roman Catholic Church and will gladly tell you why.
Par for the course.
No, the space program started earlier. And we were behind in the space race from day one. It doesn't bare on morality in any case; so, you may want to re-examin the pretext of your argument.
No, you specifically said that the Galileo incident was about the shape of the earth. In post 291 you said to Junior:
That ain't what science believed on the whole though, was it. In fact it was so pervasive that even the church accepted it. And when they took the position against Galileo, everyone got to wear egg - save for Galileo.You were responding to Junior's post 289, where he was talking only about the shape of the earth. And that was in response to your post 234, where you said: Might I remind you that the whole scientific community used to believe the earth to be flat.
Indeed, it was produced on a Hollywood soundstage using a script written by Arthur C. Clarke.
Accordging to some recent studies of gene distributions in Asians, Ghengis Khan may have set a record for passing on his genes. Somebody back around his time was getting a lot of it all over the place in East and Central Asia. G.K. is the likeliest suspect based upon historical accounts of his appetites, the size of his harem, his travels, etc. What was harmful to practically everyone else's line of descent was great for his own.
An irony-meter exploder from a Southack clone!
What year was that?
Right. The time progressions we can observe are all micro time anyway. Nobody challenges micro time. It is the HYPOTHESIS of macro time which needs to be questioned.
Appeal to truth you mean. The Lucy instance is documented fraud and not just to do with the knee joint. You can say what you like otherwise, it won't erase the fact of that fraud. Period. At the time of the find, the skull was smashed beyond recognition - did'nt stop anyone from making up how she looked intact and passing it on as a fraudulent transitional - just for starters. And it is supportive properly of the point I made. The appeal is to the truth of the fraud. Regardless of any other argument you wish to make.
Christianity is a big thing. Creationism is a little thing, and it has a religious horror of the truth.
Ad hominem
I say the problem is on the creationist side, and here comes evidence for what I'm saying.
addressed and rebuked. As the record stands, it looks as though this guy made the admission and everyone's been backtracking since. Not my problem. I and everyone else I have read has far more problems with Lucy than just the knee and I know of no one making the case on the knee alone, though I would agree it is brought up. The denial now is about as believable as the denials about other frauds. CYA seems to be a whole industry with ya'll. So, I'll leave it at that.
Yep, give or take. Your point is?
I think I stated before that it was not my intention to link the two and tried to clear that up. Did you read the earlier posts or are you just fishing for a stick to beat me with?
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.