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.
Personally, I'm inclined to believe that all random is apparently random.
Me too. Randomness constrained by rules is not entirely random.
When I was in college, our professor told us that Darwinian evoluation was a theory...
When I was in college I was told evolution was a fact. That's always bothered me. I think it is a theory. And coupled with the theory of natural selection they are the best theories to date that explain the physical evidence (the real facts). I've been inclined to regard the fact or theory argument about evolution as nothing more than an argument over the definition of the word. The 'fact' proponents are just collectively calling the physical evidence 'evolution'.
I could make an even better argument that evolutionists aren't true conservatives, since they have the whole hearted support of the MSM (see this article) and liberal academia.
Actually, that would be a pretty ridiculous argument. The MSM also wholeheartedly supports the eating of food and the breathing of air - I guess if you eat or breathe, you must not be a true conservative.
Postings on FR by creationists, websites run by creationsts, books and articles published by creationists continually misstate (lie for those in Rio Linda) what evolutionary theory says. Either creationists are just ignorant of evolution or they are lying. Many continually make these false statements even when their mistakes have been pointed out.
What do you think you mean by this? What is your definition of randomness? Why do you think that randomenss isn't subject to its own rules?
So, in other words, science is a liberal conspiracy.
If interpretation of Scripture flies in the face of the physical evidence, Scripture must be reinterpreted in light of that evidence.
Do you suppose this was the time Lucifer rebelled, and God destroyed the universe, and cleaned it up later? How do you unscramble an egg? Do you think God presented Lucifer with just such a dilemma?
What do you think you mean by this? What is your definition of randomness? Why do you think that randomenss isn't subject to its own rules?
But I do think that randomness can be subject to its own rules. When I said 'Randomness constrained by rules is not entirely random' I am referring to random in the sense that implies "that no matter what the cause of something, its nature is not only unknown but the consequences of its operation are also unknown." (from Wikopedia). This sense would tend to discredit the idea of a "random designer". However, randomness within a framework of rules is still random but doesn't invalidate the idea of a "random designer".
"Do you suppose this was the time Lucifer rebelled, and God destroyed the universe, and cleaned it up later?"
Based upon what we are told regarding Lucifer his rebellion and drawing a third of the 'stars', none of which was written as occurring since the creation of man in the flesh.
"How do you unscramble an egg? Do you think God presented Lucifer with just such a dilemma?"
Lucifer = Satan is the only entity named that has the ultimate death sentence - hell. There are some who left their habitation, not named who will be joining him. That is what this flesh age seems to be about, remove the memory of what took place and allow mankind to pass through this age to sort the wheat from the chaff.
What is your opinion of Genesis 6? Who were the "sons of God?"
Your argument in ridiculous. The friend of our enemy is not much of a friend.
I like these quotes:
"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." ~ Einstein
"I want to know how God created this world, I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts, the rest are details." ~ Einstein
"God does not play dice"~ Einstein's famous epithet on the "uncertainty principle".
Nice try, but evolution - like the global warming scare, is not science, but a fraud perpetrated on us by virtually the same cast of characters.
Just so. I feel exactly the same way when I look at exposed strata as when I look at photo images of the outer limits of the Universe. The earth, and the rest of the Universe, are unimaginably old. God is unimaginably awesome.
I think you would be more intellectually honest to say right out front that you don't really understand the theory of evolution, and don't intend to try, because you are satisfied with your "faith in creation", by which you mean a faith that Genesis is literally true, e.g., the Universe was created in seven days that were 24 hours long, approximately 6000 - 10000 years ago.
Just tell the truth. You don't know enough about evolution to refute it, and you have no motivation to try. Just give you that Old Time Religion, it's good enough for you.
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.