Melding Evolution and Creationism

Very interesting – and the “random design” he describes is very compatible with my own beliefs:

Science Journal
by Sharon Begeley

Tough Assignment:
Teaching Evolution
To Fundamentalists
December 3, 2004; Page A15

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. Of course, if it gets too tough, there’s always fire jumping.

? You can e-mail me at sciencejournal@wsj.com.

I happen to agree with the professor. I do believe in God, however, the clues to a natural evolution process are all around as well. It doesn’t make much sense for people to believe that evolution is evil when we even see it in our current biology (ie. the mandibles of most humans are getting progressivly smaller with many asian females being currently born completely without their wisdom teeth). Should we act as if it isn’t happening? I ackowledge that the complexity of the design is ridiculously intricate. I remember dissecting a human body in gross anatomy and being astonished at how such small detail all flowed together that well. It, in my opinion, is too complex and intelligent to have happened by the chaos theory. That much couldn’t have gone wrong to create something that right…and then to do it over and over in every organism on the planet. Evolution seems to be as much of the design as the creation.

good article.

I’ve always thought similar. I think the big hang up people have with evolution and creationism is the idea that the earth was made in six days. While I believe this, I can explain why there is so much evicence leading to the contrary. It’s one simple fact that time was also created. And if time was created on the last day instead of the first then it could appear to us that the 6 days mentioned in the bible would appear to us as millions of years.

so that’s my theory.

There is no reason why you can’t believe in God and evolution at the same time. There’s nothing there that says He does not exist or that He did not create the entire universe. He may have set things up and let them go. Who knows? Incidentally, we are made (99%) out of 4 of the 6 most common elements in the universe (Hydrogen, carbon, nitrogen, oxygen. Helium and Neon round out the list) Anyway, here’s a list of vestigal organs we have. Like the remenant of a leg on a snake

VOMERONASAL ORGAN

A tiny pit on each side of the septum is lined with nonfunctioning chemoreceptors. They may be all that remains of a once extensive pheromone-detecting ability.

EXTRINSIC EAR MUSCLES

This trio of muscles most likely made it possible for prehominids to move their ears independently of their heads, as rabbits and dogs do. We still have them, which is why most people can learn to wiggle their ears.

WISDOM TEETH

Early humans had to chew a lot of plants to get enough calories to survive, making another row of molars helpful. Only about 5 percent of the population has a healthy set of these third molars.

NECK RIB

A set of cervical ribs?possibly leftovers from the age of reptiles?still appear in less than 1 percent of the population. They often cause nerve and artery problems.

THIRD EYELID

A common ancestor of birds and mammals may have had a membrane for protecting the eye and sweeping out debris. Humans retain only a tiny fold in the inner corner of the eye.

DARWIN?S POINT

A small folded point of skin toward the top of each ear is occasionally found in modern humans. It may be a remnant of a larger shape that helped focus distant sounds.

SUBCLAVIUS MUSCLE

This small muscle stretching under the shoulder from the first rib to the collarbone would be useful if humans still walked on all fours. Some people have one, some have none, and a few have two.

PALMARIS MUSCLE

This long, narrow muscle runs from the elbow to the wrist and is missing in 11 percent of modern humans. It may once have been important for hanging and climbing. Surgeons harvest it for reconstructive surgery.

MALE NIPPLES

Lactiferous ducts form well before testosterone causes sex differentiation in a fetus. Men have mammary tissue that can be stimulated to produce milk.

ERECTOR PILI

Bundles of smooth muscle fibers allow animals to puff up their fur for insulation or to intimidate others. Humans retain this ability (goose bumps are the indicator) but have obviously lost most of the fur.

APPENDIX

This narrow, muscular tube attached to the large intestine served as a special area to digest cellulose when the human diet consisted more of plant matter than animal protein. It also produces some white blood cells. Annually, more than 300,000 Americans have an appendectomy.

BODY HAIR

Brows help keep sweat from the eyes, and male facial hair may play a role in sexual selection, but apparently most of the hair left on the human body serves no function.

PLANTARIS MUSCLE

Often mistaken for a nerve by freshman medical students, the muscle was useful to other primates for grasping with their feet. It has disappeared altogether in 9 percent of the population.

THIRTEENTH RIB

Our closest cousins, chimpanzees and gorillas, have an extra set of ribs. Most of us have 12, but 8 percent of adults have the extras.

MALE UTERUS

A remnant of an undeveloped female reproductive organ hangs off the male prostate gland.

FIFTH TOE

Lesser apes use all their toes for grasping or clinging to branches. Humans need mainly the big toe for balance while walking upright.

FEMALE VAS DEFERENS

What might become sperm ducts in males become the epoophoron in females, a cluster of useless dead-end tubules near the ovaries.

PYRAMIDALIS MUSCLE

More than 20 percent of us lack this tiny, triangular pouchlike muscle that attaches to the pubic bone. It may be a relic from pouched marsupials.

COCCYX

These fused vertebrae are all that?s left of the tail that most mammals still use for balance and communication. Our hominid ancestors lost the need for a tail before they began walking upright.

I wrote a book in 1999 on this topic entitled “Creation or Evolution” A Scientific Review

The merging of creationism and evolution is an interesting concept, however it does present a major problem for those with Christian world views. Such a merging, essentially turns the story of Adam and Eve into a myth. Without a literal fall of mankind, Christians are without a way to reconcile the obvious of evil of this world with the omnipotence and loving nature of God.

Guys,
Don’t take the following comments personally, and this is not intended directly to anyone. Just hear my view as a Christian.

I’m not sure where all this scientific evidence is that Professor Colling is referring to, anyways, Evolution attempts to explain our beginnings. Tennants of this theory suggest everything began with a Big Bang. No explanation on what caused it, or how it happened. Somehow, nothing + nothing = something. That’s definitely not scientific. (I’m sure we all agree on this).

Also, according to Darwin, apparently one type of species evolved into another (natural selection). When have scientists ever reproduced this in a lab, or observed this in real life, ever? For something to be considered to have a basis in science, it should have some evidence. Ie. Gravity, we can demonstrate this, and see for ourselves. Does this professor have any proof of this. I have never heard of any successful lab trials, have you guys? To the best of my knowledge this has never happened. The examples given by Darwinist’s include the Finches in the Galapogos Islands. Apparently their beaks grew larger. That is a far cry from one species evolving into another. By the way, if you believe the Bible, you can read in Genesis that God created seperate species from the beginning, and did not have them evolve. Genesis 1 "the land produced vegetation, plants bearing seed according to their ‘kind’ (read - species) and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds…God created the great creatures of the sea and every living and moving thing according to their ‘kind’…Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds etc…

Let me also add, the six days it took God to create the earth, it is quite clear that in the Bible, each day that God created something, it had a morning and an evening (24hours). Plus, if we are to believe that scripture is consistent, then a day is a day. Otherwise, what does the fourth Commandment mean about keeping the Sabbath ‘Day’ holy?

Also, from what I have read on Evolution, apparently science supports Evolution through the Fossil evidence (remains of numerous extinct species supports evolution). Remember however, the key premise of Evolution is a ‘slow, gradual process over a long time’. If there are quick sudden changes, then the theory can not explain how new species are formed. Thus geologists should continue to find fossil evidence of transitional forms. The fact of the matter is, geologists continue to find new species that can not be traced to any other phyla (species). I will refrain from going into more detail, but needless to say, there is lots of information to cause one to seriously question evolution. Where is all this evidence that the Professor is referring to? I have read plenty of articles that really make me question how valid the ‘theory’ is.

I think that whole idea of introducing Intelligent design, as well as Evolution in science class is valid. School is about learning to think. Provide valid arguments for each, and let the kids think about it for themselves. But let’s be clear, the two theories are mutually exclusive. This may sound harsh, but if you believe in the God of the Bible, then it is clear that God did not use evolution as a means to creating the earth. If you believe that God did use evolution, then please tell me which verses in the Bible support evolution? Thanks.

Neil

[quote]Swift wrote:
The merging of creationism and evolution is an interesting concept, however it does present a major problem for those with Christian world views. Such a merging, essentially turns the story of Adam and Eve into a myth. Without a literal fall of mankind, Christians are without a way to reconcile the obvious of evil of this world with the omnipotence and loving nature of God.
[/quote]

This isn’t true. Just because you have seen pictures of Adam and Eve in story books and they look exactly like we do now does not mean that they actually looked that way a few million years ago. The problem is, many “christians” take the Bible, as well as many artistic renderings, a little too literally. The Bible is filled with analogies and poetry…which can lead many to getting the opposite intended purpose of the writing simply because of biased views and understanding.

Neil, I won’t even try to get into each individual point you made, but you have it backwards. The professor is not promoting belief in the big bang theory. He is combining the theory of EVOLUTION and creation. That means, yes, God created man…to evolve and get better as time passes.

Also, your understanding of time is also skewed if you think one reference in the bible written by one man stands for the exact same reference meant by another man. God is the Alpha and Omega. He has no beginning and no end. He is OUTSIDE of linear time. If time is a string, he is holding it. That means the concepts of time in the bible are our own understanding of his essence.
The Bible should NEVER be taken strictly word for word without any deeper understanding of the intended message. One day could have meant thousands of our years…it was one man’s interpretation of God’s message.

A few years ago I saw a religious physicist on television who was talking about this exact concept. He said that creation never stopped, and that evolution is nothing more the continuation of creation.

He also related everything in the bible, using some math in physics that apparently works to fit both creation and evolution. Something about each day being extremely long, but shrinking at a consistent rate until a day is equal to a day.

The thing that drew my attention was that he related the creation of various species with the bible, and they appeared in the same order as in the bible, including man being last. And at the mathematical rate as the physics related to the first 7 days said they should. (I never double checked this myself though.)

As far as evolution goes, sorry for anybody that seems to not understand this, but evolution has been shown to occur. One scientist took bacteria that could not live on a certain form of sugar, and he made that sugar the only form of food available. At first the bacteria would die, but then it would flourish, suddenly being able to consume that sugar. And this happened not once, but repeatedly. This actually had a profound effect on how people viewed evolution.

Now some complain that “Oh, that is microevolution, and cannot be compared to macro.” That is just wrong. Repeated micro will lead to macro eventually.

Just look at breeding. Breeding is nothing more then forced evolution. Otherwise palomino ponies would not exist.

Look at the dachshund. You think that is natural? That used to be a wolf. But people decided to make it into all of these various breeds of dog.

One final proof of evolution, why don’t all people look alike? If we all came from the same two people, then we should all look alike because we would all have the same DNA, but we don?t.

Evolution is nothing more then mutations, which have been measured. Humans have a constant rate of mutation. One of the reasons we breed with others is to prevent excessive mutations. Inbreeding will actually increase evolution.

http://images.t-nation.com/forum_images/./1/.1102157726863.ECTRO.JPG

This is the Wadomo tribe, which is also known as the Ostrich Footed People.

I know a geneticist who is very religious, but he likes to point out that a very substantial part of our DNA was actually picked up from viruses. Humans are about 20% virus.

Okay, since no new species are being created, and no species are evolving into new ones, how long until the Earth is barren of life? I mean, we kill off several species a year, so eventually, we’ll get down pretty low.

Toshindo,
Sorry, I’m not a science major, I probably miss used the term species. The word may be Phyla (classes). Thus there is a limited number of phyla, but there may continue to develop multiple sub-classes/species within that class. Someone with more of a biology background could confirm.

Prof X. I understand you’re point of view on the bible. There’s a case to be made on both sides. The bible does use poetry etc., but if you study it carefully, it is usually clear when this is being done, its a matter of understanding that particular chapter in it’s context. Many scholars can tell, because they understand the original hebrew language, and can understand the context. Regardless, I respect your opinion. You should investigate this futher.

Neil

[quote]neilbudge wrote:
You should investigate this futher.
[/quote]

…and you clearly should not. Men have spent their entire lifetimes investigating the Bible and not finished their inspection. Many have changed their views completely after believing one thing for decades. I don’t claim to understand every aspect of the bible and I will continue learning, but I do know enough to believe that there are deeper meanings within the text, regardless of specific poetic books. I grew up with these teachings. A “day” in the bible…in the context of creation…is not directly related to a 24 hour day and this aspect has been accepted by many theologians. I had a teacher who truly believed that Adam gave Eve an apple. It must have been an apple because she remembered it as such. Mind you, the fruit of the tree of Knowledge did not need to refer to literal fruit. Knowledge and understand can be related as “fruit” as well. For your “day” to be correct, Adam and Eve would have had to munch on a few oranges and apples…which would have provided ZERO understanding and shame.

Well the theory of the Big Bang isn’t nothing + nothing = something. It is something = something, everything in the universe was compressed into a single point which was spontaneously exploded, essentially. I don’t really believe the Big Bang theory, but I don’t know high level physics, so that’s just a gut feeling.

You also say yourself evolution is supposed to be a slow and gradual change, but you still ask if scientists have reproduced evolution. Studies have shown that Nepalese people have a greater lung capacity and efficiency, which is necessary in such a high altitude. Also, Kenyans do have some genetic trait which separates them from the rest of the world for long distance running, a trait which is in the general population, not just the elite athletes.

This idea of random creationism is new to me. I have heard of Intelligent Design, and that is really no different from normal creationism. Seems to me the problem is the Bible, like all major religious texts, states a specific creation story. With enough interpretation, you can say the Bible makes a lot of claims, like you can say the Virgin Mary appeared in a grilled cheese sandwich.

I think religionS should be taught in school. It such a large part of life, it breeds ignorance not to. But I think all the major religions should be taught, Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism. The first three are pretty similar, and tenets of the last two overlap as well. I think one of the largest problems in the world is ignorance, so let’s get educated.

[quote]veruvius wrote:

This idea of random creationism is new to me. I have heard of Intelligent Design, and that is really no different from normal creationism. Seems to me the problem is the Bible, like all major religious texts, states a specific creation story. With enough interpretation, you can say the Bible makes a lot of claims, like you can say the Virgin Mary appeared in a grilled cheese sandwich.[/quote]

You lost me here. With that one comment, you compared ancient texts and a belief in a higher power to an Elvis sighting. That woman who got rich off of that grilled cheese sandwich doesn’t even truly believe that was the virgin Mary. Please don’t attempt to connect bullshit with the average intelligence of a religious person. There are fools in every aspect of life. If you actually had a point, how about doing a slightly better job of pointing out what it was.

okay,
Prof X, why not teach the kids three theories, Intelligent Design, Random Design and Evolution. Do you see any issue with that? Present the arguments for all three, and let the kids think about it. It’s alot better then the current offerings.

Neil

[quote]Professor X wrote:
veruvius wrote:

You lost me here. With that one comment, you compared ancient texts and a belief in a higher power to an Elvis sighting. That woman who got rich off of that grilled cheese sandwich doesn’t even truly believe that was the virgin Mary. Please don’t attempt to connect bullshit with the average intelligence of a religious person. There are fools in every aspect of life. If you actually had a point, how about doing a slightly better job of pointing out what it was.[/quote]

That last part was a joke, dude. I keep forgetting that sarcasm is lost on the internet. The point is, correct me if I’m wrong, anything that’s not strictly orthodox involves some interpretation (I know orthodox practices do too, but they are more literal). It certainly takes interpretation to mesh creationism and evolution. How far does interpreting go?

[quote]neilbudge wrote:
okay,
Prof X, why not teach the kids three theories, Intelligent Design, Random Design and Evolution. Do you see any issue with that? Present the arguments for all three, and let the kids think about it. It’s alot better then the current offerings.

Neil[/quote]

No, I don’t see an issue with that and intelligent teachers were already presenting information in ways such as “some people believe this while others believe that”. My mother is a teacher and very religious. She, however, would never push her beliefs onto the students in her class in a professional environment. Hell, I went to a catholic church and a Buddhist temple out of sheer curiosity in high school. Only foolish instructors would try to make everyone in their class believe exactly as they choose to.

[quote]neilbudge wrote:
…Intelligent design… Evolution… let’s be clear, the two theories are mutually exclusive. [/quote]

neil,

This seems to me to be absolutely true.
What does it mean to say that God intelligently designed man ‘through’ evolution?
Evolution is a series of accidents determined by natural necessity and not at all influenced by any will. If God tampered with the series of accidents that produced man, then God created man by intelligent design as surely as if He had created him tout entiere. If God did not at all interfere with the course of natural accidents that produced man, but merely observed them outside of time, then He cannot be said to have ‘caused’ human beings except in the sense in which He can be said to be the ‘cause’ of all things in existence (assuming He exists).