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.
Can you give me an example? I'm learning while I lurk!
Here's one of the more striking examples, although there are many more mundane cases as well:
Technical papers:
Ring species as bridges between microevolution and speciation (the Greenish Warbler material starts about halfway in)
...and your point might be...?
How very convenient of your personal thesaurus.
I have no "personal thesaurus". What exactly are you incoherently trying to say here?
Tell that to democrats.
I repeat the question.
Jack Chick knows more astronomy, cosomology, physics, chemistry, and biology than all you fancy scientists combined!
A comic placemarker.
Tonight, being the darkest, longest night of the year, is the best night to go and see all the "Christmas" lights in your city. I think the tradition of Christmas lights has really caught on in America because it's symbolic of Man's rational minds building a world where December 21st doesn't have to be the darkest, dreariest, most miserable day of the year.
(It seems even more appropriate to celebrate the lightbulb up here in the Pacific NW, where the sun will set at 4:20 in the afternoon!)
After doing the tour of the lights, hubby & I will top off the evening at Krispy Kreme, which is symbolic of... um, well, I'm not sure about that part. :-)
He sprung from the same gnostic, anti-God, theosophical, socialistic materialism which birthed many 19th century "thinkers."
When studying history as well as science, it's important to see the timeline and context clearly.
The money behind Darwin created Darwin, et al.
All mathematics is based upon mutually-agreed upon "givens" which cannot stand up to intense scrutiny without a handshake and a wink. It works to get airplanes in the air and it works to create aspirin to get rid of a headache.
But the deeper questions confound mathmematics and science just like they do the bushman in Africa and the first-grader in Peoria. They answer those questions with more numbers...endless numbers in endless mazes. And still they're only guessing; still they can't cure cancer or stop Africa from being destroyed or keep the earthquakes at bay or explain why Angelina Jolie represents UNICEF.
"Could I get that in English?"
NO
"And the astute reader will note the large difference between the current version, wherein JMT asserts that "all he said" was that we are "obsessed with the flesh", and the original, "they are completely obsessed with their flesh". "
Either statement "obsessed with the flesh" or they are completely obsessed with their flesh". Pick either one.
Paranoid much?
No. Nice attempt.
"That's nice and all, but it fails to answer the question I posed. You wanted to see an evolutionist address a certain point you were interested in, and I'm trying to answer it, but I need clarification on what specifically you're asking about.
Once again, are you going to provide the clarification, or are you going to admit that you don't really want an answer after all? If the latter, are you going to stop complaining that "The E crowd never addresses this either they are completely obsessed with their flesh", since it's becoming apparent that you run away from honest attempts *to* address it?"
Here we go again, before I was insulting and now you question my honesty.
Why would I choose to discuss with you anything when you do the very things you accuse me of doing.
Is that your final answer or are you just nuts?
You waitin' for theme music or something?
"I would think that most biological scientists would be very interested in finding scientific evidence for the existence of the soul. It would probably lead to immense fame, Nobel prizes, wealth, etc."
LOL, By the way I have a relative in search of "immense fame," (not sure about the "Nobel prizes"), "wealth, etc.", we do not discuss the existence of the soul as he believes you live and you die. Belief in the existence of the soul would require him to live life with accountability to the Creator and life would not be as much fun. He calls that a crutch.
His pet name is the professional welfare beggar.
No.
"Festival of the Trolls who had too much Eggnog" placemarker
BWAHAHAA! (in tears)!
The Nobel committee might want to have that toilet bronzed for posterity.
Hardly seems sporting, really...
Because I'm still trying to discuss something of substance with you. Let me know if you are, or if you're just here for the banter and to slur people as "completely obsessed" and so on.
You earlier stated that you had never seen an evolutionist address a certain point. Now I'm beginning to see why -- when they try, you start questioning their motives, their mental state, and your own willingness to have a discussion.
Now, one more time -- do you want to discuss that point you raised, or are you just jacking me around?
If you don't agree with my rants.....ad hominem!
I love a good conspiracy theory as much as the next guy, but this one isn't very good.
All mathematics is based upon mutually-agreed upon "givens" which cannot stand up to intense scrutiny without a handshake and a wink.
...and you've been smoking *what* today? That's the most bizarre description of "premise" I've ever seen. And, of course, it's quite incorrect.
It works to get airplanes in the air and it works to create aspirin to get rid of a headache.
...thus indicating that it's based on more than just "mutual agreement" that "cannot stand up to intense scrutiny"... It stands up to reality -- the most intense form of scrutiny there is.
But the deeper questions confound mathmematics and science just like they do the bushman in Africa and the first-grader in Peoria.
"Just like"? Hardly. Is English your first language?
They answer those questions with more numbers...endless numbers in endless mazes.
Apparently not...
And still they're only guessing; still they can't cure cancer
Sure they can -- just not every single time. You don't read much, do you?
This thread is a veritable clinic on snake-handling. yeesh!
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.