"Did you see? I was in that thread with all those smarty-pants science guys, and they couldn't refute a single thing I said!"
"Yeah, all right. Just come along quietly now."
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.
Actually, Steven Hawking alone knows more about science than Jack Chick put together!
(With apologies to Walt Kelly...)
Yes, but you cannot fully explain how an engine was invented without discussing market forces. In other words, selection. No product as complex as an automobile is designed from first principles. Things get the way they are because unpredictable (not random, but nevertheless unpredictable) selective events occur.
It makes no difference to biological or product evolution how change occurs. Selection determines the ultimate direction of change, and selection is unpredictable.
The fundamental error of ID is in its assumption that complex systems can be designed from first principles, without an iterative process of production and selection.
Translation: "uh uh, I won't let you back *me* into a corner!"
I've made my point, none of you can come up with an intelligent rebuttal and none of you can refute what I have posted.
Like there's a *need* to refute obvious satire?
...ohmigod, wait, you were *SERIOUS*?
"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."
I still stand by that statement that E' never discuss the SOUL not "a certain point" the SOUL.
Specifically the soul, as described in Genesis when The Adam was created, called breath of life.
Actually my first question was when were the souls created, I further pointed to what Jeremiah was told and what we are told about Jacob and Esau.
Guess you might say I am getting bored retyping MY original question. You come along and want a specific description about what I mean with SOUL.
I have also plainly stated that I believe the Bible, however, I have also noted that man has had his fun in some places with the translating.
Furthermore I do not think so highly of myself that I can convince anyone there is a CREATOR, and He is who He says He is. I do not believe it is possible for man in the flesh to fully comprehend all of what we are told within the Bible.
The soul is described as the breath of life and the Adam was not living until that breath was breathed into him.
I really can't wait for your scathing response.
No need, it's perfectly valid.
and the inevitable conclusion that "If God played dice with the universe, He'd win.." I'll think about it
Okay, I'll bite... Why exactly would this be an "inevitable conclusion" of chaos theory?
I'd be glad to address it, if anyone actually *did* post something that "disproves evolution". So far, though, all I've seen are half-assed straw men attacks, or flat-out lies (which *have* been answered as well).
Why don't you step up to the plate and take a stab at being the first to actually post some?
Ot is yours just one of those "declare victory and then run for the exit" posts?
I don't understand what you are saying here.
"Your Honor, we rest our case."
Ja, doofenzee gaboofen.
LOL. When you talk to every biologist on God's earth, get back to me.
Is English not your first language?
Try reading his statement again until you understand it properly.
Or are you just playing dumb so that you have an cheap excuse to ridicule, as a substitute for dealing with his actual point (which refuted yours)? Additional support for this is provided by the fact that you did the same thing to *my* reply to you as well, presenting the same point.
Unable to deal with being disagreed with?
And you think the jury is on still out. Sure happy to hear you think you have solved the mystery of the universe.
LOL! :-)
Yeah. I suspect that they'll be petitioning to have it changed to suit their whims. Many of them seem to think that reality is dependent upon the desirability of beliefs.
"Yeah, all right. Just come along quietly now."
Great example! Thank you for the info.
The leap I am increasingly worried about is when people that think like you do start painting red crosses on peoples homes and businesses.
Context, son, context.
Do you know what Theosophy was?
To keep them from being bombed by the enemy?
No, to point them out to the enemy. But you knew that.
It's not son, it is nan.
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.