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.
That is my understanding. If light can be slowed down that drastically, then one cannot state that the speed of light is necessarily constant or equal when coming from any given source compared to any other source. Between that and the red shift issue, that pretty much blows any confidence in results based on light time and leaves only Geometric projections which are of no confidence over infinite distances. The precision of the angles at base become a guess and thusly precision in general erodes.
What's keeping the spotted owl from moving say from the redwoods to the transplanted eucalypti groves next door and turning into kookaburras
What if your understanding is wrong? Have you read and understood the research papers, or are you relying on reports in the popular press?
Are you aware of the difference between the measured speed of light and the theoretical speed in a vacuum? Do you have any understanding of the conditions under which the measured speed is slowed, and can you relate this to interstellar distances?
Do you know anything at all about how interstellar distances have been measured? Do you believe everything depends on red shift?
Where are the "entire sects" of Christianity that believe that diseases are not caused by germs? As far as that goes, there are atheists who believe in mass murder to promote social justice, called Communists, and there were pagans who believed in mass murder in order to purify the Aryan race, called Nazis. Would you imply that atheists and pagans advocate genocide?
And if you don't intend to answer these questions, at least indicate why.
How old is the earth, and in what way is the scientific estimate "not scientific"?
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"?
What exactly is a species, and how is science wrong in defining species?
What is the biological barrier preventing variation from becoming speciation, and exactly how does this barrier function?
Does selection occur ever? Has it been observed? If so, where does the information come from that makes selection work?
How does the growth of a fertilized egg occur within the confines of the Second Law of Thermodynamics?
To quote Peggy Lee, is that all there is? To quote John Lennon, you then believe that there is no hell below us, and above us only sky?
>>Where are the "entire sects" of Christianity that believe that diseases are not caused by germs? <<
The following is a summary of the basic religious beliefs of Christian Science; it is based on an evaluation of the religious text of Christian Science, Science and Health With the Key to Scriptures (1971 edition) by Mary Baker Eddy, the founder of Christian Science:
The physical body is not real; it is merely a false idea, or image of the mind - an "error" of the mind.
The only true reality is "Divine Mind," God, Love. However, according to Christian Science, there is a false state of mind called "mortal mind;" this mortal mind or false consciousness then produces the false belief that the physical world and the physical body are real. There is no reality to physical things; they are merely false thought.
Disease, evil and death are opposite to good or God. Only God is real; therefore, disease, evil and death do not exist - except as false thoughts.
Sickness occurs only because false "mortal mind" believes in the existence of the physical body and that the physical body can become sick. Disease only occurs if we believe it can occur.
Sickness, as a false thought, will cease when a person realizes the thought was false: that there can be no disease because sickness is physical and there is no reality to the physical. The only reality is Spiritual, God; God being perfect can only create perfection; man cannot be sick because sickness is imperfection and God cannot create imperfection. Sickness is a false thought. By giving up the false thought and returning to divine mind, the false thought of mortal mind, i.e. sickness, vanishes.
Source: http://www.masskids.org/dbre/dbre_a3.html
Why do the eucalypti groves not "sense" a change in the air in Marin county? Don't they know they're going to bulldoze them all down? Now, if they begin to offer the spotted kookaburra owl a haven, they will get to live on, that's evolution, that'sa that thing where two species mutually benefit each other
I was responding to your assertion that "No faith" would deny a hot stove burns. This might be true, but there are faiths that deny physical evidence that most of us accept.
It was not what I think, but what is, that counts.
I made this statement in error. Actually, my concept of God is derived from the Bible. However, my concept of the physical universe is primarily derived from mu observation and my understanding and acceptance of conclusions of scientists, except where there occurs a contradiction, in which case I must choose divine revelation over human. I am in good company: Thomas Aquinas, for example.
I'd appreciate it if you would stop posting to me. You are asking questions that are completely off topic. If you want to ask these questions, please cite a reference from a science journal that indicates evolution predicts what you are asking about.
An utter nonsensical lie. Do you ever open your mouth to utter other than this kind of garbage?
I think you have major problems with geology, astronomy, physics, biology, ... Right?
An utter nonsensical lie. Do you ever open your mouth to utter other than this kind of garbage?
I think you have major problems with geology, astronomy, physics, biology, ... Right?
Welll, you demand that we answer your questions, but I did not realize we don't get to ask any ourselves. We are to be the dumbdumbs. Sorry
No. I was implying that being a YEC requires a significant arrogance, bigotry and willful ignornance of scientific query.
An I appresate youre seting me strate
Still that ignorant huh. Can you add? Subtract? I thought it was Creationists you guys said couldn't do simple math or sum such.
Still evading, I see.
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.