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.
I'm still working on the process, but I figure that since it's so good at blowing leaves, it must be good for lots of things.
That says something about the system and about our society - not about best case. Our system did not start out that way and wasn't intended to devolve to what it is now. And it serves as no excuse for what you pass off as fact. There's no excuse for it. When I took science in school, there was a far higher standard instilled by my prof. When I took logic, there was a far higher standard. If you're trying to tell me the standard has fallen that far in 10-15 years, you're really a pathetic bunch for allowing it. Cause ultimately, that is your credibility - absent that, you're nothing in your profession. Similar minds may back-pat you; but, that isn't credibility - that's ego stroking. If you don't know the difference, you should do something else. Contrary to the absurd accusations here, I've a genius plus level IQ and the ability to use it. That and a dollar will get a cup of coffee (or 4bucks at starbucks). Intellect is worthless if it isn't used properly. And people are useless if they think themselves smarter than the unwashed. For all you think you know, you don't seem to know the most important lessens. It is truly sad and sick.
It's great for separating the cat litter from the poop but I still have a problem getting the litter back into the litter pan.
Everything.
I-missed-the-last-320-messages-and-id-do-it-again PLACEMARKER.
Nobody in the Creationist camp would deny you your belief. But it ain't science. You want to argue it as a belief when the science is under attack and as science when the belief is under attack. It isn't science, it's a belief system. And as such, it has no place in the classroom. Period. I could care less about it otherwise. Without public funding, you guys would be sunk. And I'm going to help see to it that you're defunded and run out of the schools if it's the last thing I do on this earth.. which may be sooner than later; but, God willing, sooner.
So, up to now, God is fine with evolution in the schools?
Some evolutionists demonstrate a penchant for hyperbole.
The science community believes in Kwanza. It embraces Kwanza. Kwanza for everyone. It's a religion they can relate to, unlike spookism (qh)
I have told you a million times I do not engage in hyperbole.
Why would He be? Let's just treat you like you treat him. You don't exist - at best, I have to assume you're just random modem noise so from here on out, I'm treating you as such.
Because if he weren't, he would ban it from the schools.
Even with it they are losing ground. But, as you say, let us let get them off of welfare.
The evolution community believes evolution, they don't need Kwanza which is not a religion. They have their religious belief system defined in evolution. It will end up being run out most likely on that basis.. that it's a belief system, not science. And that's where it's headed now. Which is why science is in panic mode. Christians are off the defensive and 100% on the offensive now and building. They've had it and so has the public.
Welfare? I'll have you know the founder of Kwanza! was not on welfare! He was in prison
If you and your kind insist on taking Kwanza! away from the evolutionists and the scientific community, just what will they celebrate? "Winter" holidays? That would be paganism
I don't pretend to be an expert like some on these threads.
I am not a science major, but a history...
Interesting.
No he'd leave it to us to deal with just as he always has. He may hold the hand of judgement; but, he sent moses to speak for him. He sent the Apostles to speak for him, and he still sends believers to speak for him - backed up with divine action when it's his will. He sent Noah to warn the people and prepare and nobody listened. Pharaoh wouldn't listen, etc. Nor will you. And in the end, you'll be sorry for it and probably madder at God or the notion of him than you are now. Your folly; but, expected.
Ok. You have your belief system which, in no way, can you base on any facts. The scientific field has their system which advocates a search for facts. Obviously, there is a disconnect between you and science. Sorry.
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.