Tough Assignment: Teaching Evolution To Fundamentalists

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.

How old is the earth, and in what way is the scientific estimate "not scientific"?

Asked and answered a number of times on this thread.

Where did the water for the global flood come from and where did it go, and how are the scientific calculations on this subject "not scientific"?

The historic event as related in the Bible states that there was a Canopy above the atmosphere - possibly ice but water at the very least in one form or another as it references the waters above the heavens and the heavens are the sky or atmosphere. The Bible also tells of a cache' of water stored beneath the crust which broke open. After the flood, scripture says the see floor sunk in places and mountains were raised up. Afterward, only 3% of landmass was liveable, roughly which is the way it remains today. I find nothing in the story that isn't supportable in the fossil record.

With a canopy, ultraviolet light would be filtered. Oxygen levels were likely higher which is spoken to in samples of atmosphere captured in air bubbles in amber - showing upward of 35% oxygen. As far as I know, evolution can't account for this. Things are supposed to be getting better, not worse - which begs the question of why one finds such things as 60 foot cat tails (the plant) in the fossil record. They cannot and do not get that big on their own now; but, interestingly, saturating plants with an oxygen rich environment of 32%+ oxygen makes plants grow really big. It is also found that the affects of this on humans increases response of the body's defenses. Canopies are not unknown to the other planets, and I'd imagine if Mars follows suit with Earth, the place to find water there is below the crust. A way to test it here is to test water supplies beneath mountains for their saline level and compare it to modern oceanic levels. It's been done and the saline content is much higher under mountains and in underground stores found elsewhere - which should be no surprise to you if you have bothered to listen to any of your major opponents.

What exactly is a species, and how is science wrong in defining species?

Did science care what anyone else thought about this when they defined them originally. No. The reason you ask is to try and make a case that while Science's notion of it is flawed, nobody else has tried redefining it which isn't true. It is rejected on the basis that every creationist has a different answer. Which isn't entirely true. But to answer it directly, a species is a group of animals that under normal circumstances can interbreed. Example - dogs would include anything from Siberian Huskies to coyotes, wolves etc. Science has different defined species for different types of dogs if I'm not mistaken, yet they are all dogs and can interbreed. Cats cannot breed with dogs and are thusly a different species and always have been since they were created. Not difficult to understand. We just draw the boundaries in obvious places.

What is the biological barrier preventing variation from becoming speciation, and exactly how does this barrier function?

It's generally called DNA and RNA and the full system which governs cell reproduction. The system has multiple redundant backup systems to maintain integrity within a body and while mutations may exist within a creature, you don't observe individual mutations being passed on generationally to effect the population as a whole in any manner, to say nothing of a beneficial one. The barrier you seek you've already found and known about for some time. It's just inconvenient to dwell upon.

Does selection occur ever? Has it been observed? If so, where does the information come from that makes selection work?

Sure selection occurs. That's life - period. And absent morality, selection takes on some pretty grim forms. That doesn't do anything for your theory; so, I'm not real sure why you bother asking it when you know it doesn't.

How does the growth of a fertilized egg occur within the confines of the Second Law of Thermodynamics?

The system has the capacity to put energy to use for the purposes of building itself up within the defined limits provided by DNA/RNA. Beyond that, it is fully subject to the law in that it proceeds toward an end - devolving and decaying over time till it's dust. It fulfills the expectation of the law by resorting to disorder ie dying at the end of a hopefully productive life. And I would again note that adding energy to a system is useless unless that system expects that energy and can put it to use. Absent that, the energy is destructive, not constructive.

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.