Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Persecution of the Other Side

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

While it’s routine to hear of ID proponents being persecuted–and there are many more stories than the high profile cases mentioned here on UD–sometimes we may forget that the same may happen to Darwinists. I was reading Darwiniana today and this article by MSNBC caught my eye:

Just ask biologist Richard Colling. A professor at Olivet Nazarene University in Illinois and a lifelong member of the evangelical Church of the Nazarene, Colling wrote a 2004 book called “Random Designer” because—as he said in a letter to students and colleagues this year—”I want you to know the truth that God is bigger, far more profound and vastly more creative than you may have known.” Moreover, he said, God “cares enough about creation to harness even the forces of [Darwinian] randomness.”
….
Anger over his work had been building for two years. When classes resumed in late August, things finally came to a head. Colling is prohibited from teaching the general biology class, a version of which he had taught since 1991, and college president John Bowling has banned professors from assigning his book. At least one local Nazarene church called for Colling to be fired and threatened to withhold financial support from the college.

This seems to me a case of viewpoint discrimination and while many of us would obviously disagree with Colling’s stance as a theistic evolutionist from an intellectual perspective it’s even more obvious that we shouldn’t stand for such persecution no matter whose “side” they are on.

Here is what Colling had to say himself:

There is so much more to this story, but it is not a happy story – at least not yet. Nevertheless to date, I am trying to stay positive and continue to communicate a message of peace and harmony between science and faith/biology and the Bible. This was, and continues to be my heart. But alas, what I have learned is that many fundamentalist Christians do not consider theistic evolution Christians as brothers, but rather as enemies. The real and discouraging message emanating from our university at this time appears to be that a small minority, representing a fundamentalist creationist cohort from the midwestern region are upset that the president allows a biology professor (Colling) to teach evolution (even though there are only 2 lectures for the entire semester directly addressing the topic of evolution) – apparently because he has written a book that acknowledges evolution could be considered as a part of God’s creative plan. They seem convinced that evolution is false teaching and contrary to scripture.

However, the truth is that our denomination and university statements are fully accepting of verifiable scientific discoveries – including evolution. (It really is, (for the most part) an outstanding open-minded Christian denomination!) I teach all my biology courses with accuracy and integrity, and then encourage those students who come from the more conservative homes to keep an open mind. I try to help them explore ways in which these remarkable evolutionary mechanisms might actually be considered compatible (or at least not inconsistent with) with belief in God. This approach to teaching is shared by the other biology and geology faculty here as well. However, I am the only one who has published a highly visible book. Therefore, I have become the lightning rod, and according to the president, this is impacting his church relationships.

I love my students and they love me. These students (the next generation) want and deserve the real stuff. After 26 years of service, devotedly caring for my students and their intellectual and spiritual development, it is most discouraging that a few uninformed and scientifically challenged religious leaders at our school are able to hold such sway. There are precious principles at stake in this situation: principles of truth and integrity, education and scholarship, Christian values, and most of all personal and institutional fidelity to the university mission statement.

The truth is that there is no such thing as Christian Biology. Biology simply is what it is. If the fossil record describing evolution contained any gaps in the historical scientific narrative, more recent data derived from the digital DNA code of the human genome now removes any trace of doubt: Human beings are connected with all other life on the planet. Human chromosome #2 is a clear fusion product of two ape chromosomes; gene sequence and organization comparisons demonstrate connectedness; the shared locations of pseudogenes, endogenous retroviral insertion sequences, transposons, and genetic inversions within the chromosomes and between species (including humans and apes) all convey the same compelling scientific story: We are evolutionary creations! Continued denial of evolution is no longer a viable option for an informed Christian community if there is a desire to be credible voices in the culture.

So what is the most distinctive characteristic that defines a genuine Christian? Jesus said it himself, and in a way, it seems so simple: “Love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind, soul, and strength –and your neighbor as yourself.” Thus the legalism of Christian fundamentalism, and the continued emphasis on the non-essentials of religious faith actually erode the primary and most crucial messages of the Christian faith – love, forgiveness, relationship and tolerance. Ironically, yet sadly, these people have been around for a long time: In Jesus’ day, they were called Pharisees, and Jesus called them “Blind Guides”.(Matt. 23:24) My friends, I think that science has so much to teach us about our world and how we should best live in peace and harmony in its increasingly crowded confines. We should wholeheartedly embrace that knowledge and its enormous potential. But I also believe that the Christian faith (and many others as well!) hold immense value for humanity – touching us in ways that elude the knowledge and understanding derived solely from science. Therefore, it seems to me that anyone who turns their back on either of these domains of life automatically misses half of the richness that life has to offer. Will honest good people labor side by side as brothers together to give both domains a chance to work their synergistic magic? I look forward to the day.

The interesting thing is Behe could be said to have much in common with Colling except they are in disagreement over the mechanism for “evolution” (universal or partial common descent).

Colling’s BIO

B.A., 1976, Olivet Nazarene University Ph.D., 1980, University of Kansas

Richard Colling graduated from Olivet in 1976 with a double major in chemistry and zoology. In his Ph.D. program in microbiology and immunology at the University of Kansas, he studied infections like strep throat, contributing to the understanding of how these types of bacterial infections trigger autoimmune diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis. This research earned him several honors, including the Cora Downs Award for excellence in graduate research and the prestigious Kansas university research dissertation fellowship.

He then accepted a post-doctoral fellowship in molecular oncology at Baylor College of Medicine, in Houston, Texas, where he studied unique protein markers found on human and animal cancer cells. These studies pave the way for more effective targeting of cancer cells with fewer side effects. As a consultant, he has developed sensitive analytical tests for Bayer Laboratories and also for identifying genetically engineered crops for Pioneer HiBred Biotechnology. He has also served as a consultant for Rhone-Polenc Rohrer Pharmaceuticals purifying human hemophilia factor to treat humans with hemophilia.

At Olivet, Dr. Colling teaches microbiology, immunology, molecular biology and a general biology course for non-majors. He served as the department chairman for 23 years until relinquishing the position to devote more attention to students and research. He was recognized as faculty member of the year in 2000.

He has also written a book, “Random Designer,” which establishes a permanent place for God in the intellectual discussions regarding science and faith. He is a frequent speaker at pastor conferences, colloquia and educational settings where he speaks to the realities and limitations of science as well as the supreme value of faith. He and his wife Sally served as leaders for an ONU student work and witness trip to the jungle of Guyana, South America in 2004.

Dr. Colling and his wife have four grown sons, and several grandchildren. He enjoys racquetball and the challenge and solitude of golf. He enjoys long walks and talks with Sally along the Kankakee River trails, talking about their children, ONU students, life, love and the goodness of God.

Also, Evolution News has their own take on the situation.

Although I should note that Colling apparently does not know exactly what Intelligent Design is, for he also wrote:

I noted some references to the Intelligent design movement. When the dover trial was ongoing, I wrote an OP Ed for the York Dispatch in which I tried to communicate the idea that a “God of the Gaps” or “Creationism through the Back Door” ploy in Dover would be counterproductive to the cause of Christian faith – making it appear that all Christians support these dead-end ideas.

Whether this is a misunderstanding based upon only having knowledge of a caricature of our position or a willful misrepresentation I don’t know. After all, if you only bother to read the writings of other Darwinists there is going to be much distortion. Of course, some Darwinists refer to any position outside of strict Darwinism as “creationism” even though that particular distortion has been covered ad nauseum. Colling has visited Panda’s Thumb so perhaps he may visit here so we discuss this with him.

Comments
Janice, I apologize...I don't know how I missed that in my first reading of the article. Still, while I can understand removing the usage of the textbook (that's their choice) I don't see the need to remove Colling as a teacher of the course. Perhaps there's more to this story than what I've read. I don't like speculating so perhaps ON has elaborated on the reasons for their decision somewhere else.Patrick
September 25, 2007
September
09
Sep
25
25
2007
10:10 AM
10
10
10
AM
PDT
These students (the next generation) want and deserve the real stuff.
Then they should be taught that we do not have any data or evidence which can account for the physiological and anatomical differences observed between chimpls and humans. Heck there isn't any data or evidence that a population of singl;e-celled organisms can "evolve" into anything but single-celled organisms. And I believe that many christians would be upset when one tries to minimalize "God"'s role. Is there any difference between no "God" and a "God" who creates via culled genetic accidents?Joseph
September 25, 2007
September
09
Sep
25
25
2007
08:21 AM
8
08
21
AM
PDT
Jerry, you make an important point that cannot be ignored. How sweet it is to have the best of both worlds.StephenB
September 24, 2007
September
09
Sep
24
24
2007
11:09 PM
11
11
09
PM
PDT
StephenB , Don't leave out of the equation that Ken Miller makes probably between two to three hundred thousand dollars a year through sales of his textbooks. If he questioned Darwin, how long would he still have those textbook sales? It wouldn't be measured in nano seconds but sales would dwindle quickly. If Ken Miller wanted to give the appearance of an honest man, he would remove himself from the debate and just sell textbooks that had no questionable material on evolution but he thrusts himself into the heart of the debate with questionable comments and arguments. Does he believe what he says or does he know it will help with textbook sales?jerry
September 24, 2007
September
09
Sep
24
24
2007
09:54 PM
9
09
54
PM
PDT
I take back that last comment. I have no right to judge motives in that fashion.StephenB
September 24, 2007
September
09
Sep
24
24
2007
09:09 PM
9
09
09
PM
PDT
Carl Sachs: To me, "the family resemblance between de Chardin /Dobzhansky and Miller /Collins" (a nice metephor by the way) exists in name only. I submit that de Chardin, for example, proposes an "inside out" evolution in which the seed of evolution unfolds predictably according to a preordained principle designed by God. From this perspective, we can speak of purpose and design without any hesitation. That formula differs substantially from the "outside in" evolution proposed by Miller (Darwinism), in which the environment (outside) influences the purposeless process of the evolving species (inside). From that perspective, it makes no sense to refer to purpose or design. For my part, only the first example qualifies as theistic evolution. Some may want to make the second way work by inferring that God--how can I put this--set the mechanism of purposeless in motion on purpose. In my judgment, that is an irrational attempt to ingratiate one's self with both camps. Now I know that Miller, for example, claims that you can have your God and your Darwin simultaneously, but I don't see how you can have a purposeful God using a purposeless process. Here is what I think Miller is really doing: On the one hand, he court materialists by calling on the name of Darwin, on the other hand, he courts Christians, by calling on the name of God. How convenient it is to have it both ways. I notice, though, that when he enters into debate, he argues for Darwin's and militates against intelligent design. And yet, he calls himself a "devout Catholic." Never mind that the Catholic Church has ruled out Darwinism as a morally acceptable world vier. For my part, that is a Darwinist in theistic evolution clothing. There is a rather judgmental word for that, but I won't use it. Nevertheless, here are the letters in succession. H Y P O C R I T E.StephenB
September 24, 2007
September
09
Sep
24
24
2007
09:05 PM
9
09
05
PM
PDT
Patrick, The quote below is from the linked MSNBC article.
Yet with the new term, [college president John]Bowling banned "Random Designer" from all courses; it had been used in at least one history class, an advanced biology course and the general biology course.
Emphasis mine. If the book was assigned reading, or even just recommended reading, then obviously there's been some degree of proselytising for Colling's theology of evolution going on as part of the general biology course and not just teaching of the basics of evolutionary theory.Janice
September 24, 2007
September
09
Sep
24
24
2007
04:57 PM
4
04
57
PM
PDT
idnet, Not quite. In one version of TE intelligence is only involved in the formation of the rules governing the system but the result of these rules are claimed to not directly involve intelligence. So this version of TE invokes cosmological ID (which sees the "fingerprints of God" within fine-tuning) but not biological ID. That way, God isn't directly responsible for such things as malaria. Since we're on the subject: http://www.homestead.com/christthetao/articles/Behe_interview_transcript.pdf Behe discusses both science and theology with someone who is apparently a Christian theistic evolutionist. I definitely agree that there isn't a problem with God being the originator of such plagues as malaria. The point Behe was trying to elaborate on was that organisms can suffer from genetic entropy or "devolve". As in, malaria at one point may have served a useful purpose at one point but errors eventually led it to going out of control. After all, that's essentially what happens with cancer...normal "good" cells going bad. But even if that's not how malaria came to be and God directly intended malaria to be harmful then I don't see how that somehow contradicts Christian theology. Genesis starts with God cursing the Earth, which could have included the creation of viruses, malaria, etc. God sent pestilence against various peoples. Even in the NT God is striking people dead. So why do Christian theistic evolutionists find the idea of God creating malaria so objectionable? Then of course there's always the potential for Satan to be the originator of such plagues upon mankind. As for non-Christian TE's, with Islam Allah is responsible for everything good and bad. Mormons have people evolving into gods and even "God" is a creating being that can change so why not create malaria? I'm sure other religions are compatible.Patrick
September 24, 2007
September
09
Sep
24
24
2007
02:08 PM
2
02
08
PM
PDT
Patrick Theistic evolution always entails ID of some sort. If God is intelligent and if "design" includes to influence an outcome in any way. The problem is that ID claims to see the fingerprints of God where TE says God wiped the scene clean.idnet.com.au
September 24, 2007
September
09
Sep
24
24
2007
01:40 PM
1
01
40
PM
PDT
Janice, Then what has Colling done wrong? The "they" referred to is people outside of the ON administration. If the root of the problem is "evolution in general" the college should have responded as such: change the course requirements for their biology classes in general. As Colling stated, evolution is only a minor part of the biology class after all. Instead, they are persecuting a single professor for opinions made outside of the college and as far as I know evolution is still being taught the same way by other professors in the general biology classes. Now if Colling had previously been ordered to not make any reference to his book in his class and he disobeyed I could somewhat understand ON's actions. But that's speculation; if that's the case I haven't read anything like that. Magnan,
Since omnipotent really means omnipotent, by this reasoning theistic evolutionism could be seen as being compatible with ID.
I've always seen certain versions of theistic evolution as compatible with ID. If you take the stance that most or all of nature is predetermined then what appears random is in fact intelligently designed. Now Christians/Jews will disagree amongst themselves on this matter since that concept gets into the role of free will, predestination, etc. Islam on the other hand doesn't have that disagreement since it's written quite plainly that all events, good and bad, are caused by Allah. One stance I don't see as compatible with ID: God created the natural laws to allow for unguided evolution, waited to see what turned up, and then eventually stepped in to endow man with a spirit. If that's the case we should be able to point to the mechanism that allows for this, but we cannot.Patrick
September 24, 2007
September
09
Sep
24
24
2007
12:57 PM
12
12
57
PM
PDT
(25) You made an interesting and important point about design theory and theology, but I'm still skeptical. If the negative or positive ways are accepted as methods that lead to objective knowledge of God, then why should it matter whether or not God plays a role in our science? I mean, one might just say, if science is atheistic, then so much the worse for science. Now, there still might be reasons why one wants to have a theistic science. And one might prefer design theory over neo-Darwinism on strictly scientific grounds, as most design theorists indeed do. But these are separate issues, and there's no virtue in confusing them. (For one thing, confusing these issues makes it harder for ID to be taken seriously on non-religious grounds!) As for whether "theistic evolution means different things to different people," no doubt that's true. But there is still a family resemblance between de Chardin and Dobzhansky and Miller and Collins. And there's a fair amount of friendly disagreement among design theorists (e.g. whether ID excludes a common ancestry of humans and chimps) and among atheistic evolutionists (e.g. whether selection operates differently at different level of organization -- genes, organisms, species). Though that debate is of interest to theistic evolutionists as well, it still shows that none of these categories are unified or monolithic, so it's no surprise that theistic evolution isn't, either.Carl Sachs
September 24, 2007
September
09
Sep
24
24
2007
08:44 AM
8
08
44
AM
PDT
“I was a young man with uninformed ideas. I threw out queries, suggestions, wondering all the time over everything; and to my astonishment the ideas took like wildfire. People made a religion of them.” --Charles Darwin Indeed it takes more faith, and years of forced brainwashing, to believe in the religion of Darwinism than it does to believe in Intelligent Design. Why should a religious school allow the teaching of another religion on their campus?bornagain77
September 24, 2007
September
09
Sep
24
24
2007
06:28 AM
6
06
28
AM
PDT
I don't think it's fair to say ID proponents recognize only science as a source for objective knowledge. Many would argue, I suspect, that philosophy or Theology can provide legitimate knowledge of a kind than cannot be aquired through empirical verification. Negative (apophatic) knowledge about God can be useful insofar as it encourages humility and liberates one from the delusion that he sufficiently appreciates the unsurpassing beauty of God. Positive (kataphatic) knowledge about God can be useful insofar as it provides an analogical (scaled down) conception of Divine attributes which humans can interpret as a guide to moral virtue. With regard to theistic evolution, how does one argue on behalf of what one has not defined with precision. I don't think theistic evolution is nearly as well formulated as intelligent design and materialistic Darwinism. It seems to mean different things to different people.StephenB
September 23, 2007
September
09
Sep
23
23
2007
09:40 PM
9
09
40
PM
PDT
(22) One way, it seems to me, of seeing how theistic evolution could get off the ground as a coherent metaphysics, is to think about whether objective knowledge is confined to scientific methods -- that is, if only scientific methods can generate objective knowledge. If the answer to that question is "no," then there's room for objective knowledge -- such as knowledge of the existence and nature of God -- which does not require validation through scientific methods (e.g. quantification, experiment, etc.). Put otherwise, if the answer is "no," then the absence of a concept of God from a scientific world-picture doesn't, by itself, show that the concept of God is without objective validity. (I'm not happy about putting things in quite this way, because there is something amiss about a concept of God -- in some sense, God is the name for what cannot be contained or grasped within concepts or language. But those who don't share my inclination for apophatic theology probably won't agree!) On the other hand, if one begins with the assumption that only scientific methods can result in objective knowledge, then one must be either an atheist of some sort or an ID proponent of some sort. I mention this because the debate is often construed as one between atheists/materialists and design theorists, with theistic evolutionists getting short shrift from both sides. But this construal of the debate blinds us to the fact that both sides are proceeding on the basis of a shared assumption -- the assumption that only science can know. Whereas I think it helpful to bear in mind that this assumption is unexamined and could be -- and I think it is! -- highly contestible.Carl Sachs
September 23, 2007
September
09
Sep
23
23
2007
07:46 PM
7
07
46
PM
PDT
Patrick, I did not assert that Collings "was embedding an outline ... of the points he made in his book" into his lectures. However, I'd be surprised if he had never made even a passing supportive reference to the ideas contained in his book during any of his lectures. I was referring to this sentence above: "They seem convinced that evolution is false teaching ..." His opinion is that it's true. Hence his opinion is disputed.Janice
September 23, 2007
September
09
Sep
23
23
2007
04:17 PM
4
04
17
PM
PDT
Theistic evolutionists like Colling seem to be either forcing themselves to maintain a huge cognitive dissonance (one system with God and the other with no God), or believe that God being omnipotent has somehow influenced innumerable random events combined with NS to result in the present natural order including Man. The latter belief inherently includes that the influence of God is totally undetectable as differing from purely natural events. ID has shown the extreme improbability of the observed natural world of living organisms having arisen through a process driven by truly random changes. But theistic evolutionism is contending that an intelligent Designer, being omnipotent, created the universe in such a way that somehow natural law and random change produced the present living world as an intended result. Since omnipotent really means omnipotent, by this reasoning theistic evolutionism could be seen as being compatible with ID.magnan
September 23, 2007
September
09
Sep
23
23
2007
02:20 PM
2
02
20
PM
PDT
It boils down to this; Collings wants to teach his disputed opinion as though it is true whereas Marks wants to investigate in order to discover what is the truth. The two cases aren’t comparable.
I've seen no indication that Colling was embedding an outline (remember, this is only 2 lectures per semester we're talking about) of the points he made in his book into the class he was teaching. Could you point out where you read this?Patrick
September 23, 2007
September
09
Sep
23
23
2007
11:16 AM
11
11
16
AM
PDT
Suppose someone at the Ayn Rand Institute started writing that God exist and objectivism is hooey and that person was fired. Would there be a controversy? Baylor's problems involve hypocrisy i.e. we are committed to open inquirey (unless we disagree with it.) I suspect Olivet Nazarene University does not claim this.tribune7
September 23, 2007
September
09
Sep
23
23
2007
06:42 AM
6
06
42
AM
PDT
Freedom of speech is not absolute and freedom of inquiry is not the same as freedom of speech. Dr Dembski wrote, here that
Baylor President John Lilley ... won’t let the Evolutionary Informatics Lab back on campus.
So it appears that Dr Marks is being denied freedom of inquiry. Evolutionary informatics is not "approved research" at Baylor University so if he wants to continue with that he has to do it on his own time. He is also not allowed to use the university server to report on the results of his research. Collings, on the other hand, is being denied freedom to teach something that he thinks is true but that his superiors regard as untrue. Collings says his students, "deserve the real stuff". His superiors would, I'm sure, agree that students deserve the "real stuff" but obviously think that Collings' "real stuff" is not real at all. Collings thinks he has good particular evidences to support what he believes. His superiors disagree because his beliefs are inconsistent with the plain (not necessarily literal) meaning of what both he and they are supposed to regard as the Word of God. So there is a big difference between the two cases. Marks is not allowed to research in university time or publicise research findings on university servers. Collings is not allowed to teach "the next generation" things that his superiors believe to be lies. What Baylor University has done to Dr Marks is, I believe, indefensible. Whether what Olivet Nazarene University has done to Dr Collings is defensible or not depends on whether Collings is right or wrong in his beliefs. That he holds those beliefs sincerely is beside the point. Apparently David Irving sincerely believes there was no holocaust and no one is cutting him any slack. Hate speech laws deny all sorts of people who have sincerely held opinions the right to disseminate them. Once upon a time people observed that infectious diseases such as cholera and plague broke out in places where there was a stink of dirty, standing water. That observation, and the observers' confusion of correlation with causation, led them to the sincere belief that these infectious diseases were caused by miasmas, or bad air. Further investigation proved that they were wrong. In the same way Collings confuses correlation, of a sort, with causation. He thinks, among other things, that because human beings and certain higher apes share a certain amount of DNA then, therefore, human beings and apes share a common ancestor. He ignores the fact that human beings share a lot of DNA with creatures that no one suggests are evolutionarily closely related to us. Maybe he is in love with the idea of domains working synergistic magic in something like the way writers can fall in love with words they have written and find it incredibly hard to cut them out even if the cutting will improve the piece. Who knows? It boils down to this; Collings wants to teach his disputed opinion as though it is true whereas Marks wants to investigate in order to discover what is the truth. The two cases aren't comparable.Janice
September 23, 2007
September
09
Sep
23
23
2007
03:22 AM
3
03
22
AM
PDT
Persecuted??? I thought it was natural selection.Robo
September 23, 2007
September
09
Sep
23
23
2007
02:30 AM
2
02
30
AM
PDT
Darwinism the RELIGION For those who might have missed my messages in another thread: https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/toronto-journalists-further-correspondence-with-the-darwin-fans/#comment-138124 https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/toronto-journalists-further-correspondence-with-the-darwin-fans/#comment-138205MatthewTan
September 22, 2007
September
09
Sep
22
22
2007
11:25 PM
11
11
25
PM
PDT
hmmm, ot? Well, it appears Dilbert "comic" writer is "for free speech" in comparitave forms... careful... language warning for the faint of heart. http://dilbertblog.typepad.com/the_dilbert_blog/2007/09/a-feeling-im-be.html on topic... Christian Universities must be careful if what they're trying to do is shape young minds for Christ along specific lines. I think the Baylor/Nazarene cases are apples/oranges, and both could've been handled better. It is one thing to allow differing opinions. It is yet another to allow in forces which undercut authority. I am not aware that Yeshua as a teacher allowed it in his day. So, why should modern day Christians? Now, the art of debate is entirely different and he willingly took it on in public places for all to see. But he didn't allow an atheist to teach about Genesis, did he? The reason that Baylor, Notre Dame, Harvard, Yale, etc., experience the modern day problems is because they follow the modern day world. The foundation stone is layed, but one must have both feet upon it. Not one in sand, one on rock.Michaels7
September 22, 2007
September
09
Sep
22
22
2007
10:38 PM
10
10
38
PM
PDT
Reed. I think you over dramatize my words. If you look at my words by definition of them alone without adding your own conviction or emotion, you'll see I am, I think, quite accurate in my word choice. My post was to exemplify that though he may be teaching heresy, I will still love him, as will others. I have Jewish friends that feel my beliefs are downright heretical, and yet they still love me, invite me to synagogue and to celebrate Yom Kippur with them. It is not just our duty, but it ought to be our heart to love one another, but that does not mean we water down reality. Let's call a spade a spade. I fear you are pandering to the very political correctness I mentioned.Gods iPod
September 22, 2007
September
09
Sep
22
22
2007
10:38 PM
10
10
38
PM
PDT
I just read that Columbia University's dean has said he would have invited Adolf Hitler to come speak at the school. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GxmEGsOkEVc Can we take this to mean that Columbia might allow Dembski, Behe, or other ID theorists to give a talk and be challenged by students and faculty?russ
September 22, 2007
September
09
Sep
22
22
2007
08:28 PM
8
08
28
PM
PDT
That said, what do you do? You can’t very well command the prof to stop believing his opinion. You can certainly require, however, that he make clear in his communications with students and others that his view is not that of the Church.
But when you employ a growing number of professors who reject the view of the church/college, eventually the character of the school changes---at least in the Protestant world. I took a course from a liberal Southern California seminary. When the school stopped requiring a "statement of faith" from its faculty members, the character of the institution began to gradually change and it eventually lost most of its Christian orthodoxy.russ
September 22, 2007
September
09
Sep
22
22
2007
07:16 PM
7
07
16
PM
PDT
I have not yet worked my way through the glut of correspondence received on the Colling issue, and I won't blog on it until I do. One distinction I think worth making is between what a prof at a denominational college may express as an opinion and what he may teach as consistent with the beliefs of the founders and sustainers of the college. Consider a Catholic university, for example. (I don't mean a university "in the Catholic tradition", I mean an actual Catholic university.) Let us suppose that, in his ruminations and deliberations, a tenured professor forms the opinion that reincarnation is a plausible idea. Now, the Catholic Catechism is quite clear on that point: "There is no reincarnation after death." So, as far as the Catechism is concerned, the prof is wrong. And as far as the Church is concerned, there is no choice to be made between the Catechism and his opinion. That said, what do you do? You can't very well command the prof to stop believing his opinion. You can certainly require, however, that he make clear in his communications with students and others that his view is not that of the Church. I wonder whether the Nazarene problem is this: The college (1) did not clarify the point at which a view on evolution would fall outside any reasonable understanding of the church's teachings, and (2) did not have a clear idea what to do if that happened.O'Leary
September 22, 2007
September
09
Sep
22
22
2007
05:18 PM
5
05
18
PM
PDT
idnet.com.au It is when we say there must be “all random processes” or “all intelligent action” that we leave the evidence behind. I firmly believe that existing evidence compels that the truth will be found in a combination of the two different view points.bornagain77
September 22, 2007
September
09
Sep
22
22
2007
03:55 PM
3
03
55
PM
PDT
My apologies also to Richard Colling, I did not mean to get your last name wrong.bornagain77
September 22, 2007
September
09
Sep
22
22
2007
03:21 PM
3
03
21
PM
PDT
I listened to Colling give a talk. It seems to me that his ideas are largely philosophical. They are about the nature of God, not only about what happens in biology. His musings remind me of the people who say that "God is no Engineer" or alternatively that "God does not throw dice". Some cannot cope with a God who doesn't have enough feelings to satisfy their ideal, Einstein seems not to be able to cope with a God who does not appear to tightly control every outcome. The contrast between ID and "random design" and even YEC should rest on evidence, not mere philosophical preference. Colling's interpretations of some aspects of biology seem quite helpful. It is when we say there must be "all random processes" or "all intelligent action" that we leave the evidence behind.idnet.com.au
September 22, 2007
September
09
Sep
22
22
2007
03:16 PM
3
03
16
PM
PDT
Excuse me, obviously I meant Colling.StephenB
September 22, 2007
September
09
Sep
22
22
2007
02:57 PM
2
02
57
PM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply