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.
Such as? Be specific, and cite your sources.
and hiding what it would rather not have observed.
Such as? Be specific, and cite your sources.
Yes, I think someone said that already.
That's not what he said, please work on your reading comprehension.
God apparently designed the universe to make you guys look like morons.
Ooookay...
Cause planets spin in both directions in violation of the law of Conservation...
Please state this alleged "law of Conservation" for us, then "explain" why you think that "planets spinning in both directions" must somehow violate it. This should be... amusing.
LOL. But, you go ahead, bein smarter must have an advantage somewhere that we missed.
Oh, it does, it does...
That's a fool's view of learning, one that would have the rest of us still believing the world to be flat.
That's what he said. And essentially the same thing you just said.
No, it isn't. His statement is quite to the point, and explains in a nutshell your error with regard to the laws of thermodynamics.
The earth isn't a closed system per se; but, the universe is. And the Earth lives in that universe.
None of which invalidates his point or rescues your mistakes with respect to what the laws of thermodynamics do or do not allow.
The sun is destructive to everything it presents itself to with one exception - chlorophyl.
ROFL!! Where exactly do you learn all your "science"? I suspect you've been reading *way* too many creationist sources and far too few scientific ones. That wasn't a rhetorical question -- please tell us where you learn this stuff, since it misinforms you at almost every turn.
No, the Sun is not "destructive to everything it presents itself to with one exception - chlorophyl". It is, for example, the constructive force behind the formation and movement of rivers and freshwater lakes. And as was pointed out to you in the very post you're attempting to respond to, it also causes the organized weather pattern known as a hurricane, which is far more ordered than what preceded it. The Sun also is what causes ordered salt deposits to form from disorganized salt water, clouds to form, weather patterns to organize, etc. etc. And that's not even to mention the indirect processes powered by the Sun.
And finally, nothing in your assertion helps your claim about what the laws of thermodynamics actually say.
So to ask a question I unfortunately find myself asking of almost all creationists, are you sure you know what in the hell you're talking about?
So, your own example destroys your premise.
No it doesn't.
You can introduce energy into any system you want, that doesn't mean the system is capable of making use of said energy.
Please rigorously define "capable of making use of" as you're using in this context. Also let's see you attempt to tie this recent rambling into some sort of relevance to the laws of thermodynamics.
Wherever it can't make use of said energy, said energy is destructive to the system - not beneficial.
Please define "destructive" and "beneficial" as you are using them in a thermodynamic context. We'll wait.
Thus the law itself.
You're still grossly misunderstanding what "the law" of thermodynamics actually says and does not say. Your notions of "destructive and beneficial" have nothing to do with thermodynamics.
Your exception to the rule requires another exception to the rule to be relevant in minor circumstances.
*His* "exception to the rule"? Oookay... Please quote where you believe he cited any "exception to the rule".
If a man dies on the operating table and is brain dead at 90, you can introduce all the energy to his system you want, the brain is dead and the body will continue decaying.
Actually, an appropriately intricate application of energy would indeed restore him to life. It's just that current medical science doesn't have that level of finesse. But you're talking "even in theory", and you're wrong on that point.
The end of that is disorder as the body breaks down.
Not if you freeze him in liquid nitrogen. Oops, there goes your "law".
You can keep the circulatory system and resperatory system going; but, without the brain to tell every other system what to do, you're just spinning your wheels. It's like putting a car with a dead engine up on blocks and spinning the wheels to convince someone that the car is still good. Not without an engine it ain't.
That's nice. And this has *what* to do with the laws of thermodynamics, please? The real ones, I mean -- not your cartoon versions of them.
Introduce all the energy to that car you want, it ain't goin anywhere unless you can replace the engine.
How much money would you like to wager on that claim?
In the case of the human body - that's impossible.
And again, this has *what* to do with the laws of thermodynamics? Oh, right, nothing.
"Nonetheless, your failure to discover such discussions is hardly support for your insulting claim that evolutionists "are completely obsessed with their flesh"."
Cry me a river.
"6. A form of "self" which allegedly persists after death of the body. "
Talk about insulting claim "allegedly persists".
Matthew 10:28 And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear HIM Which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.
You're a better man than most, DEJ, dead or alive.
Um, what? It's about dating methods, not evolution.
That's *not* what the Big Bang scenario says. Where *do* you get this stuff?
Has a good schizophrenic sound to it.
Well, you've got *that* right...
Ack! Right you are. Sorry about that.
Cry me a river.
Hey, if you're not bothered by your non sequiturs, neither am I.
["6. A form of "self" which allegedly persists after death of the body. "]
Talk about insulting claim "allegedly persists".
Why exactly do you find this insulting? And that was in no way a "claim", it was part of a question.
And are you going to answer the question, or are you going to evade it so that you can have a cheap excuse to later claim that no one has still addressed your issue that I'm trying to address for you?
You wrote, "I have yet to read one offering by an self identified E describing the E's theory of the soul." I'm trying to do exactly that, but in order to answer the question you've actually asked, instead of some similar but different question, you need to clarify more precisely what you have in mind when you say "soul".
Now would you care to do that, or are you just going to play games and get offended about my word choice?
What if. What if your understanding is wrong. We can ask that question all day.
And judging from your post, you'll also spend all day going on about how "we can ask that question all day", rather than actually answer any of the six specific questions he put to you...
You'll never own up to being wrong even if it's pointed out clearly that you are wrong.
Where has he been "clearly" wrong?
And you will continue to say we're all wrong because everyone on the planet that disagrees with your conclusions is just too stupid to understand something only you seem to have the intelligence to understand.
He never said that. He has said that you're wrong because your statements are contrary to fact, and fly in the face of the evidence.
The only thing that really shows is your haughtiness.
And *you're* never haughty, no...
Try selling that to the public - You're stupid so shut up..
He never said that.
you can't and they wouldn't put up with it. In fact, they've already gotten a sense of that and have been insensed by it as much as the rest of us here.
You seem... quite defensive about questions concerning your knowledge on this subject.
Please offended, you cried about insults and all I said was that E' are obsessed with the flesh.
All you seek to do is to lay a snare, want to know what I believe, start with Genesis, as written in the original before man started playing word games and telling little children the fruit eaten came from an apple tree.
Where exactly does it say that?
Afterward, only 3% of landmass was liveable, roughly which is the way it remains today.
Say what? Please provide a citation for this amazing claim.
I find nothing in the story that isn't supportable in the fossil record.
Uhh... For just a small starter list of problems, see Problems With A Global Flood, especially parts 6-10... Also The Geologic Column and its Implications for the Flood and The Vapor Canopy Hypothesis Holds No Water.
Oxygen levels were likely higher which is spoken to in samples of atmosphere captured in air bubbles in amber - showing upward of 35% oxygen.
Tens of millions of years ago...
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;
Absolutely none of that is in any way contradictory to evolution. What cartoon version of evolution are you using which leads you to erroneously think it is?
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.
So... Is it really your contention that all canids are actually the same species?
Cats cannot breed with dogs and are thusly a different species and always have been since they were created.
And cats are the same species? Were they all the same when they were created, and then diversified into today's cat family, or what?
Cheetahs have features of both the cat family, and the dog family. What then are they?
What about the basal carnivores in the fossil record -- which "species kind" do *they* belong to?
How about "kinds" where variety A can interbreed with B, and B can interbreed with C, but A cannot interbreed with C? Is that one "species" or two?
Which primates are the same "species" and which are different ones?
Some of the "horse kind" can interbreed and produce fertile offspring, and others can't, which ones are actually the same "species" and which aren't?
Not difficult to understand.
*cough* Only when one is hugely unaware of the biological complexities one finds in the real world...
[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.
...which is no real answer at all. Namedropping some terms from biology does not an answer make.
The system has multiple redundant backup systems to maintain integrity within a body
Non sequitur, that hardly answers the question.
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.
ROFL!!!! Maybe *you* don't, but countless numbers of biologists have. Please name your source for your amazing claim...
The barrier you seek you've already found and known about for some time.
No, actually, he hasn't, and neither have biologists. If you could actually identify such a "barrier", you'd have a very good shot at winning the Nobel Prize. Go for it.
Now, please name the source you relied upon for your amazing claim.
[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.
You sort of "forgot" to answer the second half of the question.
[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.
So you admit that increasing complexity is not actually "outlawed" by the laws of thermodynamics, when "the system has the capacity to put energy to use". Thanks for admitting that, since it demonstrates exactly what's wrong with the creationist claim that evolution somehow violates those laws. Evolution, being a byproduct of the processes of life, achieves increasing complexity via the same metabolic processes ("the capacity to put energy to use") which life uses.
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.
There is no such "law", sorry. Please name the source from which you "learned" such an amazing claim.
It fulfills the expectation of the law by resorting to disorder ie dying at the end of a hopefully productive life.
Yawn. This still has nothing to do with thermodynamics. And to burst your "it's the law" bubble, I'll point out that unicellular organisms are immortal (unless they go extinct entirely). They don't "resort to disorder and die" through senescence.
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.
Please define "use" and "useless" as you are using them in this context.
Absent that, the energy is destructive, not constructive.
Ditto for "destructive" and "constructive" -- is a river cutting a canyon "destructive" because it's eroding rock, or "constructive" because it's making a fancy canyon? Is this a "useless" or a "useful" application of energy added to the system?
And what exactly is supposed to be the relevance of this to the actual laws of thermodynamics (the real ones, I mean, not your made-up versions)?
...and who exactly do you assert *make* such a claim?
I have *never* seen anyone, here or in the scientific community, claim that the ID/creationist group are "not scientists because they do not adhere to random, unguided evolution". No, instead the claim is made that they are not engaging in actual science because their *methods* are flawed.
No, that would be you. And to your detriment.
Ah, yes:
"I know you are, but what am I?!?" -- Pee Wee Herman
That's what happens when you've had a lie without a single shred of evidence rammed down your throat by a bunch of godless heathens for over one hundred years.
It's amazing how often it's hard to tell whether a post is a sincere statement of a creationist's opinion, or a really over-the-top spoof of the stereotyped fundamentalist...
Please let me know which one your post is, so that I can respond appropriately.
its-bad-enough-were-up-at-2am-on-the-west-coast-we-could-be-up-at-5am-on-the-east-coast PLACEMARKER.
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.