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.
Then you really do support teaching that the Hopi and Moslem and Celtic versions of Creation are equally valid to that of the Jews and Babylonians?
Havoc: 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.
Ummm.… Let us start with the reader knowing at least something about the electromagnetic spectrum.
Light is slowed down in different mediums such as glass or water. The ratio of the speed of light in a vacuum versus the speed in the medium such as water is called the index of refraction. This is why you see a pencil "bend" when you place it half way into a glass of water. As light crosses over from one medium to another, not only does its speed change, but its wavelength as well. Note: the frequency remains unchanged. Thusly, the index of refraction can be stated in terms of wavelength as well. Snell's Law describes this phenomenon. (You can Google Snell' Law if you want to follow the math).
What is even more interesting (I know I am being really simple here so for all you physics lurkers out there, please do not have an apoplexy) is that different frequencies travel at different velocities in a medium. This is why a prism splits the different frequencies of a white light into a rainbow due to the index of refraction of each color (frequency).
Ok, now that we got thru that, when physicist and astronomers talk about the speed of light, they are usually talking about light speed in a vacuum. In fact, it is now an invariant. In other words, its speed in a vacuum never changes. This invariant speed is 299,792.458 km/sec. This enables us to use the speed of light over time as a distance measurement more commonly known as the light year. BTW, astronomers prefer to use Parsecs instead of light years when describing distances
I see you still have not read my link. LOL! Here it is again. :-)
Note (as per your earlier posting) that SN1987A is still a long long way away, regardless of the speed of light.
Indeed. :-) It's a wee bit further than my local bus route.
Hmmm... Nobel time? hehehe
Am I wrong in thinking that the public knows less and less about evolution and science every year?
That's no excuse for ditching your friends. And no, you're not wrong ;)
I concur. A scientist is, by definition, one who is learned in science, especially natural science. Merriam Webster's OnLine Directory gives this definition of science: "a: knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method b : such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena." What are "general laws" or "general truths"? Macroevolution is neither. It is a theory supported by much evidence, not supported by other evidence. Being a scientist is not the same as being, say, a Catholic priest. Denying the existence of the Trinity will result in a priest being forbidden from holding any teaching or liturgical duty at the least by authority of the local bishop. Who has the authority to "defrock" a scientist who disagrees with random, unguided evolution, be he a intelligent design advocate or a creationist? Who died and appointed the evolutionists as the arbiters?
Those trained in science should teach science. However, belief in macroevolution is no determinant as to whether a teacher is a scientist or not.
The theory of evolution is not as provable as the example you cite regarding the South Pacific islanders carving the Easter Island statues. As far as that goes, there are those who believe that non-Polynesians were involved in the creation of the statues. Nor is it as provable as the theory of plate tectonics and the possible collision of continents. With regard to that issue, Immanuel Velikovsky, an atheist, believed in catastrophism, not gradual development, as responsible for continental shifts. While the theories that Polynesians carved the statues and that the collision of the continental plates caused the Rockies to form may be more supportable than the alternatives offered, the alternate theories have some valid points as well. Macroevolution may be a hypothesis supported by much evidence, but there are valid points made by the intelligent design and creationist scientists.
Belief in supernatural revelation, specifically the propositions of the Bible, is not a denial of the physical realities of the universe. It is a presupposition, as much as is the naturalism of mainstream science. Both naturalism and conservative Christian beliefs are filters by which one can interpret observable facts.
Such as?
However, belief in macroevolution is no determinant as to whether a teacher is a scientist or not.
Teachers are not generally scientists to begin with. That being said, I have no particular desire to require teachers to believe anything. However, I do not think it is unreasonable to require science teachers to teach science, whether they happen to believe it or not. Insofar as the theory of evolution is properly a field of scientific study, so it belongs in the science classroom.
You're correct. The public knows less and less about most things every year.
I'm capable or setting my own side of the debate and my position. I don't need you to present it for me, taking it to some unreasonable extreme. This is a sophomoric - and fallacious - debating tactic. It would not score you points in a debate class and I am quite certain those on here are more than capable of seeing through it.
Back to our discussion, just what do you find so hard to understand? I am for fully presenting the issue on the origins of life. Now, if I can presume what your position is, you seem to be saying that only one view - the one you happen to agree with - is the only one that is legitimate and should be presented, this on the based on your belief that science only supports your view and none other. Is this correct?
And can I ask you, have you ever researched to see if any credentialed scientist disagrees with you, that based on their learning and study they have come to the conclusion life was created by a god?
That would be an interesting pursuit of additional knowledge on this subject, don't you think? Heck, we could modify our lesson plan to not only talk about evolution, creationism (Hopi, Moslem, Celtic), we could even draw into the debate those scientists that agree with one position or another.
You presume a great deal about people you have never met. You make too many assumptions. I find this funny since you seem to arguing for learning based on concrete facts. Just where does your learning begin and end?
There is only one scientific view. Others are religious and do not belong in science classes.
One may always question the sufficiency of the evidence, but the point is that we do not always have eyewitness testimony available to us - in fact, we usually don't have it available to us. Nevertheless, that does not prevent us from applying reason to the circumstantial evidence that does exist. Whether that evidence and reasoning is sufficient is for us to decide individually - heck, OJ found 12 folks who decided that the circumstantial evidence and reasoning in his case wasn't good enough. Whether their decision, or yours, is reasonable to others may be another matter, but nobody can make you believe something you don't want to believe.
Belief in supernatural revelation, specifically the propositions of the Bible, is not a denial of the physical realities of the universe. It is a presupposition, as much as is the naturalism of mainstream science.
Of course, but only one of those presuppositions is a part of science, and hence the other has no place in science class. Somewhere else in the curriculum, perhaps, but the scientific method is predicated on a procedural assumption of naturalism - it does not claim that the natural world is all that exists, merely that the natural world is all that science is equipped to deal with.
Muslim extremists and Communists insulted Christians as well. Their insults later led to genocide, both in Sudan recently and in the Soviet Union and China some years ago. The pattern is familiar: you demonize your opponents when out of power. Then when you gain power, you slowly turn up the pressure on your opponents. Denial of civil liberties is followed by economic restrictions. Confiscation of property and physical harassment follow. Finally, the opponents are relegated to concentration camps and often slow death.
Bigoted statements from anyone must be taken seriously. There is enough blood on the hands of atheists, Muslims, Christians, pagans, etc., against their opponents through history to warrant this concern.
Devolution. (I think there is something to that.)
As for attack on science, the "learned" social science types are just as anti-evolution as the creationists are (as you've pointed out before--all of it a post-modern deconstructionism) and they use exactly the same arguments that the IDers use. As you know, their motivation is derived from behaviorism. They abhor the idea of genetic contributions to human behavior or society. Remarkably, there are quite a number of biologists among this group.
It's a good article, but IMHO, far too hasty in generalization to merit qualification as decent science. Educated? yes,..proved verity,..not shown, IMHO.
For example, the hasty generalizations regarding the 'time machine' rather than expressing that model in exponential mathematics and identifying the expressions with intended meanings, following the logic step by step until checking the verifiability (if even possible) of such systemic use of functionals, the author simply lists a litany of arguments and counterarguments which might very well appear to be confirmed by exponentials, when the transforms themselves might actually beg the question of the ancient dates ascribed to the events from their arguments,..a circular reasoning fallacy might very well exist in these dating methods.
BTW, thanks for the link,..it is a well prepared anthology of rudimentary argumentation on evolution.
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.