9/29/2007

PLEASE SUPPORT RICHARD COLLING

Suppose you were a science teacher, at any level. Suppose you tried to teach the scientific consensus, but that you went out of your way to engage the concerns of creationists and propose means by which the believer's commitment to a literal reading of Genesis could be preserved, judgement suspended, with no intent to challenge religious authority. You even write a book that describes your attempts to reconcile the facts of biology with your faith, a book that attempts to create "a safe harbor where one can explore the wonders of creation revealed by science while still holding fast to faith."

Would that make you a 'raging moderate', or a milquetoast? Perhaps. But, in a strange sort of way, it makes you even more of a target! Consider the case of Richard Colling. As Newsweek reports, Colling, a professor of biology at Olivet Nazarene University, has been the object of a not-terribly Christ-like campaign of persecution stemming from conservative elements within the Church of the Nazarene. Sad! The NCSE summarizes the situation in this bulletin, but stops short of saying the obvious: those of us who care about science education, believers and non-believers alike, should make it our business to Support Richard Colling.

With that in mind, here is a template for a letter to ONU's President, John Bowling, protesting the state of affairs. Feel free to cut-and-paste this into an email, and then send it to the ONU President at the address given below. It should go without saying that any message sent to a university head should be calm, courteous but firm. We are not compelled to, nor should we allow ourselves to bash ONU or its leadership in order to show our support for Dr. Colling, who has himself written this plea to those who share his concerns.

"To: John Bowling, President, Olivet Nazarene University

Dear Sir:

As a science educator, I wish to protest in the strongest terms the university's decision to relieve Richard Colling of classroom duties and to ban the use of Dr. Collings' works in other courses offered by the university. This decision sends a chilling message: that academic freedom and the spirit of inquiry which is the soul of the scientific enterprise are not welcome at Olivet Nazarene University, to the point where sincere attempts by a believing Christian to engage the real world are deemed too 'controversial.'

I urge you, therefore, to reconsider the university's course of action. It may have provided leadership with a sense of having done something to defuse controversy, a form of short-term 'damage control.' In the long run, however, censuring legitimate scientific inquiry and punishing those who uphold the standards of the scientific community will significantly damage ONU's academic reputation.

Sincerely, (your signature)"

John Bowling's E-mail: jbowling@olivet.edu

(You can also, if inclined, reach Dr. Bowling by phone at 1-815-939-5221. Be nice.)

You can send Dr. Colling a message of personal support at: rcolling@olivet.edu

Stand up for science education! Support Richard Colling!

13 comments:

Starwind said...

Scott Hatfield:

Where does Colling state his profession of Christ as Lord and Savior? Or is his "Christian" status merely presumed because he teaches at Nazarene and the folks at Newsweek don't know the difference?

I'm amazed however that Colling would simultaneously write (see A Random Universe
By Richard G. Colling.
):

Here I describe another counterintuitive idea that is expanding my view of the world and God - random design, or the idea that God created the universe through random events.

In this light, random design is an equal-opportunity process, and God an equal-opportunity creator.

Random design, by contrast, lights up the entire sky with intelligence, ascribing the entire creative process - even the randomness - to a purposeful, coherent creator. In addition, random design is attractive because it recognizes science must be free, not subject to religious veto. Random design grants this freedom, refusing to redefine or compromise the integrity of science to meet religious standards.

People of faith can wholeheartedly embrace random design. Random design is ecumenical, offering a larger, more expansive vision of God - a God who fashions the laws of randomness for a divine purpose, to create and draw the created to the creator. Random design also strengthens and enhances the credibility of faith and spirituality because it enthusiastically embraces all verifiable physical and biological discoveries from science. The truth is that facts never negate faith, and genuine faith never attempts to negate facts.

Random design provides a comprehensive remedy to the science - faith public education controversy, granting each side in the discussion exactly what they claim to want and everything either group can reasonably expect: Science is free; God's place is secure.


and then lament regarding his books banning that:

no real case has been made to date that his views are inconsistent with those or the teachings of the Church of the Nazarene.

Colling seemingly does not have a clue what the bible teaches let alone what bible believers understand. The Official creed of Church of the Nazarene declares:
"We believe in the plenary inspiration of the Holy Scriptures, by which we understand the 66 books of the Old and New Testaments, given by divine inspiration, inerrantly revealing the will of God concerning us in all things necessary to our salvation, so that whatever is not contained therein is not to be enjoined as an article of faith. Lu 24:44-47; Joh 10:35; 1Co 15:3,4; 2Ti 3:15-17; 1Pe 1:10-12; 2Pe 1:20,21"

Now, a belief in God's "randomness" arguably is not salvific, but clearly Colling has carried his views of randomness into areas that put him in conflict with bible teaching, unless of course one writes most of it off as poetry, in which case I fail to understand why Colling would bother bridging the gap between poetry and science.

There is either nothing to bridge, or he is being disingenuous with one side or the other.

Colling also writes:

"It simply provides a credible way to embrace the empirical realities of the modern scientific world while also affirming traditional faith claims regarding the existence of a creator.

As has been often noted, even Satan and his demons affirm the existence of a Creator, so Colling isn't doing himself any favors. It is that ignorance of biblical teaching that makes me suspect he may know randomness, but he doesn't know the bible or its believers.

Should bible-believing churches pay him to teach his unbiblical, albeit scientific, viewpoints?

Stand up for science education! Support Richard Colling!

Given your support of Colling against the abridgment of his academic freedom and pursuit of science wherever the facts lead him, will you likewise now write a supportive post for Dr. Robert Marks whose Evolutionary Informatics Lab at Baylor was shut down for having placed limits on the scope of Darwinism and offered scientific support for Intelligent Design?

Is science to be taught, or just random darwinism? Do private contributors have any voice in the curricula they fund?

peak_bagger said...

Starwind,

I take exception to your depiction of Colling. You have no idea of what kind of spiritual relationship he has with God and to question his Christian status is judgmental and unwarranted. Apparently, if a Christian scientist does not fit your narrow view and litmus test of what constitutes a Bible believer, their status as a Christian is suspect.

The Church of the Nazarene does not reject evolution, only a “godless interpretation” of evolution. As you quote in your comment, the phrase “inerrantly revealing the will of God concerning us in all things necessary to our salvation” was adopted in 1928 by the Nazarenes to avoid the very strand of fundamentalism that currently seeks to coerce Nazarene institutions into expunging evolutionary theory. I recommend a reading of Stan Ingersol’s Strange Bedfellows: The Nazarenes and Fundamentalism for more insight on this. On pg. 12, he writes:

Like the Church of England’s corresponding article on Scripture, which John Wesley and early British Methodists had been weaned on, and the corresponding article in American Methodism, with which Bresee, Reynolds, and other key Nazarene leaders were familiar, the revised Nazarene article on Scripture in 1928 emphasized the church’s confession that Scripture is a reliable and trustworthy witness to salvation, while avoiding fundamentalism’s more extreme emphasis. Wiley had succeeded in preventing the urge to tinker from allowing it to drift over into the Princeton notion of the total inerrancy of scripture, with its attendant problems.

Ingersol also clarifies that early Nazarene theologians were open-minded to cosmic and geological evolution. If the fundamentalist element within the Nazarene church disagrees with biological evolution – fine. But they are wrong to claim that all Nazarenes, including university professors, should hold to a literal interpretation of Genesis. Instead, they should demonstrate grace and give others within the church the freedom that is allowed by Nazarene theology.

If some Nazarenes want to send to their children to a university that inculcates a close-minded and narrow view of scripture and science, there are plenty of non-Nazarene schools to choose from. As a physics professor at a Christian university, my charge is help college students learn to think and decide for themselves, to form a personal faith rather than an assumed faith, and to see science as a valid way of knowing how the universe works.

As far as I know, no professor at these Nazarene schools is asking students to give up their faith. In fact, the overwhelming majority of students I’ve worked with develop a deeper appreciation for God’s creativity and power after studying and accepting the evidence for evolution. Other students reject evolution after studying it and that’s fine. As least they are given the chance to decide for themselves.

Starwind, you write, “There is either nothing to bridge, or he is being disingenuous with one side or the other.” I profess Christ as Savior and accept the validity of evolution. Is it not possible for a person to have a vibrant faith in the God of the Bible and still accept evolution? I reject the dichotomy you espouse.

Starwind said...

peak_bagger:

You have no idea of what kind of spiritual relationship he has with God and to question his Christian status is judgmental and unwarranted.

No, actually I don't. And so I asked, didn't I. In his "about" page which Scott linked, he doesn't declare his faith at all. Nor in his articel that I linked. Any one can appropriate a label, wittingly or not. Labels are not probative.

Apparently, if a Christian scientist does not fit your narrow view and litmus test of what constitutes a Bible believer, their status as a Christian is suspect.

Well actually if a "Christian" anything does not fit the narrow view and litmus test of what the Bible says constitutes a follower of Christ, their status is suspect, yes. Get over it.

As you quote in your comment, the phrase “inerrantly revealing the will of God concerning us in all things necessary to our salvation” was adopted in 1928 by the Nazarenes to avoid the very strand of fundamentalism that currently seeks to coerce Nazarene institutions into expunging evolutionary theory.

You not surprisingly glossed over the part you didn't like: "plenary inspiration of the Holy Scriptures", which involves more than just what is salvific.

The Church of the Nazarene does not reject evolution, only a “godless interpretation” of evolution.

I don't reject evoution per se either, I (as do many Nazarenes apparantly) just reject the godless aspects of a Random Designer - an oxymoron if ever there was one. God is not random and does not use "random" design. "Random" is a euphemism for the human inability to forecast outcomes for lack of knowledge or data. Above the quantum level there are no inherently strictly random processes. Just lack of knowledge, data, and monitoring of all the causes and effects. God is not so constrained.

Is it not possible for a person to have a vibrant faith in the God of the Bible and still accept evolution? I reject the dichotomy you espouse.

A false dichotmy. It is not possible for a person to have a biblical faith in the God of the Bible and also accept that same God's plan involves random design. And lets not even start-up with what "evolution" means. Like "fundamentalism" it means whatever its advocates want it to include or exclude, depending on their argument du jour.

I profess Christ as Savior and accept the validity of evolution.

But does Christ accept the validity of a Random Designer? It is God (Christ) Himself who declares to know the end from the beginning, to know each of us from before the foundations of the world, to have known us in the womb and even to number the hairs on our heads. That is not a God who utilizes random. That is a God of sovereign precision. What appears random to us is not random to God. To imply that God is a random designer bespeaks an ignorance of the Bible and of randomness.

It is that "godless", i.e. random, interpretation of God's design I reject, as do apparently many Biblical Nazarenes. That perhaps was the last straw for many who were funding and tolerating Colling.

Colling can teach his theories anywhere there is an audience willing to pay him. He is no different than anyone else.

Richard said...

starwind --


Well actually if a "Christian" anything does not fit the narrow view and litmus test of what the Bible says constitutes a follower of Christ, their status is suspect, yes. Get over it.


Hey Starwind -- I get the feeling you are the only qualified "follower of Christ" that you know of.

Scott Hatfield . . . said...

Starwind: In my original post, there is a link to a PDF file in which Dr. Colling responds to the furor that surrounds him. You can read that here.

You asked: "Do private contributors have any voice in the curricula they fund?" Well, gee. Of course they do, and my post does not question the right of Nazarenes or other sects which sponsor colleges to dictate their curriculum or require loyalty oaths, etc. The template that I provided is, I think, respectful of the university and it's leadership's right to make such choices. It simply doubts that their present course is the right course, and provides a reason why that is the case.

As far as Dr. Marks' lab at Baylor, I don't know enough about his research to actually comment. I do know this: Baylor's faculty and administration had come to regard Bill Dembski as a black mark on their school's reputation, and they were eager to disassociate themselves from Dembski's attempts to secure an academic sinecure at a major university. If Dr. Marks was in any way affiliated with Dembski, well...you get my drift....

I don't know what you mean by 'random Darwinism.' Or (perhaps), I do know, but I reject this usage as a description of what it is I do, and I'm at pains to explain why.

Look: I'm an evolutionary biologist. My thought is Darwinian---heavily influenced by the ideas associated with Charles Darwin. How could it be otherwise, given the history of my discipline? That's a far cry from slavishly adhering to Darwin's ideas as dogma, which is what the brief 'Darwinist' implies to the average Uh-Mare-Uh-Kin!

Further, what is this 'random' of which you speak? Darwinian natural selection includes both random and non-random elements, as I'm sure you know. To stick the word 'random' alone in front of it is a rhetorical flourish that is not justified by the actual science. The casual reader is going to see the gloss 'random Darwinism' and conclude that someone like me accepts a belief system wherein everything is the product of random forces.

And that's false, on two levels, as I just explained.

Starwind said...

Scott Hatfield:

In my original post, there is a link to a PDF file in which Dr. Colling responds to the furor that surrounds him. You can read that here.

Thank you. I had not read that, an oversight on my part. I'll grant therein Colling is more forthright in his Christian profession (perhaps it's his audience), something I find curiously obscure on his "about the author" page and book promos. He seems to be trying to come across as ecumenical and inoffensive, but merely claiming "God exists" and refering to "people of faith" just plays out as lukewarm.

The template that I provided is, I think, respectful of the university and it's leadership's right to make such choices. It simply doubts that their present course is the right course, and provides a reason why that is the case.

I wasn't questioning your respect for their rights. I was questioning the seeming kneejerk reaction to support as bonafide science anything that purports to advance Darwinian evolution while dismissing the concerns of the Christian contributors to ONU that it has become questionable science as well as questionable Christian teaching. They are called to steward their resources and distance themselves from questionable doctrines. That would seem to have reached a tipping point for many of ONU's contributors with respect to Colling's assertions of a "Random Designer".

If Dr. Marks was in any way affiliated with Dembski, well...you get my drift....

Oh I get your drift. Guilt by association. Yet if Colling associates himself with an unconventional theory of a "Random Designer", Colling is deemed above the fray because.... well, why? Why can Dr. Colling advocate a random designer but Dr. Mark (out of association with Dembski) can't advocate an intelligent designer? The criteria is no longer strictly science (and "randomness" in evolution, let alone design, is fringe science at best). Do you truly not see the unscientific hypocrisy in that distinction, or do you just think no one else sees it? Do you seriously think the ONU contributors don't see some hypocrisy in Colling's position? Do you not understand how angering it is to pay someone for their hypocrisy?

Both ONU and Baylor need to return to pure science as the criteria by which their science curricula are established. Unconventional ideas ought to be explored, pro and con, but not become the basis for the textbook underlying several classes. Theory needs to remain as theory and not become dogma, simply because "its the best theory we have".

Further, what is this 'random' of which you speak?

That would be the Colling's self-authored uses of:

"Random Designer", "Random Universe"

"A Christian biology professor uses randomness to unite evolution and creation."

"no discussion of randomness is complete without including evolution"

"It has been said that the highest intelligence always involves a bit of mystery and paradox. This is why random design is a perfect fit: The destructive laws of randomness are the very same laws that fuel creation! Science clearly demonstrates that randomness plays pivotal roles in bringing about physical and biological order in our world."

To stick the word 'random' alone in front of it is a rhetorical flourish that is not justified by the actual science.

While Colling never stuck the word 'random' in front of Darwinism, he clearly intends that creation is significantly, if not entirely, random. And as you note yourself "I'm an evolutionary biologist. My thought is Darwinian---heavily influenced by the ideas associated with Charles Darwin. How could it be otherwise, given the history of my discipline? That's a far cry from slavishly adhering to Darwin's ideas as dogma, which is what the brief 'Darwinist' implies to the average Uh-Mare-Uh-Kin!" the average Christian knows full well the line between evolution and darwinism is thin, grey, and often crossed over in the name of dogma.

If evolutionary biologists don't care to be tarred with Darwin's brush then they had best take greater pains to honestly enumerate the failings and distinctions of both and rely less on dismissive appeals to authority with "its the best theory we have". Now you may think that you honestly enumerate the failings of evolutionary biology, but look back over our past discussions and consider what it took to drag out of you agreement of TENS failure to account for many details (and lest anyone quote-mine you, they ought to read that entire post and thread in context). Look also at the shifting understanding of 'junk DNA'. The average Uh-Mare-Uh-Kin won't go to the lengths I will. Evolutionary biologists need to step up and be more forthcoming about the state of their craft.

The casual reader is going to see the gloss 'random Darwinism' and conclude that someone like me accepts a belief system wherein everything is the product of random forces.

Just like the casual ONU contributor sees "Random Designer" and becomes understandably incensed at where their money is going, namely teaching a belief system wherein everything is the product of random forces.

Take a look at the hypocrisy.

I'll reiterate my earlier point: There is either nothing to bridge, or Colling is being disingenuous with one side or the other. He either has to recognize the scientific and theological problems with his theory of "Random Designer" or equivocate on his biblical beliefs. He can't have it both ways. There is no basis on which to argue science and scripture are reconciled by a "Random Designer". Any thoughtful Scientist or Christian sees that and Colling (as both) ought to as well.

Scott Hatfield . . . said...

Just like the casual ONU contributor sees "Random Designer" and becomes understandably incensed at where their money is going, namely teaching a belief system wherein everything is the product of random forces.

I haven't read the book, but the fact that the word 'Designer' appears, capitalized, should suggest to even a casual reader that Collings does not believe everything is the product of random forces---or, at the very least, that one should read the book throughly before launching an intellectual jihad against its author, a long-standing Nazarene and department chair at ONU.

He either has to recognize the scientific and theological problems with his theory of "Random Designer" or equivocate on his biblical beliefs. He can't have it both ways. There is no basis on which to argue science and scripture are reconciled by a "Random Designer".

Again, I can't comment, haven't read the book. How do we know that Collings doesn't address those problems, however?

If evolutionary biologists don't care to be tarred with Darwin's brush then they had best take greater pains to honestly enumerate the failings and distinctions of both and rely less on dismissive appeals to authority with "its the best theory we have". Now you may think that you honestly enumerate the failings of evolutionary biology, but look back over our past discussions and consider what it took to drag out of you agreement of TENS failure to account for many details (and lest anyone quote-mine you, they ought to read that entire post and thread in context).

Point taken, and I agree with the first part. But let me note that
you took the time to present original scholarship, rather than recycle the same old talking points of a Kent Hovind or a Duane Gish, and you demonstrated intellectual integrity that most creationists routinely fail to show. I'm not going to have the same kind of conversation with you as with the latter, and I had to be sure that you were legit before I did, precisely because I don't want to be quote-mined or otherwise used by one of that ilk.

In other words, the playing field is not level, nor should it be. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and the vast preponderance of evidence is not consonant with the naive versions of creationism.

peak_bagger said...

No need to gloss over “plenary inspiration” – look at the context:

We believe in the plenary inspiration of the Holy Scriptures, by which we understand the 66 books of the Old and New Testaments, given by divine inspiration, inerrantly revealing the will of God concerning us in all things necessary to our salvation, so that whatever is not contained therein is not to be enjoined as an article of faith.

Article 4, pg. 31, 2005-09 Manual, Church of the Nazarene

“Random” is a red flag to Christians because it appears to take God out of the equation and no doubt, this is what gets Colling into trouble. I agree with your statement, “What appears random to us is not random to God.” I suggest it is possible that God can create through the mechanism of genetic mutation which is apparently random to us. I can’t state with absolute certainty whether God manipulates genetic changes from behind the curtain or lets nature unfold on its own from the natural physical laws He put in place. Either way, God is the ultimate cause behind both and remains Creator. This appears to be Colling’s theme as he writes on page 17 in his book, “a Master Designer devised the natural laws of life and uses evolution to accomplish His purposes.”

Starwind said...

Scott Hatfield:

I haven't read the book, but the fact that the word 'Designer' appears, capitalized, should suggest to even a casual reader that Collings does not believe everything is the product of random forces---

In fact he does not. That is half the problem. He implies God designed and uses random processes and events. The other half is Colling's equating unpredicibility (and he is silent on unmeasurability) to genuine randomness. There are two problems:
1) Randomness is unplanned, unpredictable outcome.
2) God foreknows everything and is omnipotent.

A genuine random process whose outcome is unplanned and unpredictable being used by God to "evolve" genetic variation might satisfy evolution science's premise of random mutations. But a foreknowing, all powerfull God who relies upon unknowable, unpredcitable random outcomes to establish creation is an oxymoron. While God can foreknow the outcome of a genuine chance encounter, requiring the exact right combination of genuine chance outcomes to bring about all creation exceeds the time available to exhaust those outcomes. God, being eternal, has the time to wait and watch them, but our universe didn't exist that long and God said He created, not that He gambled. And what is the point of a foreknowing all-powerful God who lies about having created and instead waits on chance to do its thing? What is the difference between a universe based purely on chance that God just watches versus a universe without God? The Psalmist writes the heavens declare His glory and righteousness. Paul said God's invisible attributes are seen in creation. How does a random creation give evidence of anything other than chance, let alone God? The theological problems are insurmountable.

But "random" is a euphemism for what science doesn't understand and/or can't measure. In reality all processes are understood to be deterministic - they follow predicable "laws" even though we don't know what are all the "laws" nor can we always measure their behavior. We could predict the "random walk" of a molecule in brownian motion if we could actually measure all the forces; we know the mechanics of molecular collisions, probabilities of valence electron clouds, energy states etc... we just can't measure/monitor all of them at once in a beaker of boiling water - as an example. Arguably, God might have set in motion, at quantum or molecular levels, events that lead to God-determined outcomes, i.e. creation. Likewise God "designed" and imposed the physical laws by which the universe functions, but those laws aren't random either. So a God which designed a predictable 'clockwork' of the universe (even if it's superstring clockwork) and controls the collisions of atoms, molecules and by logical extension the fertilization (or lateral gene transfer) of organisms doesn't satisfy evolution sciences' presumption of random mutations.

A God who relies upon genuine random processes is theologically insurmountable, whereas a God which underlies the actual "psuedo-random" processes is evolutionarily insurmountable. No one is satiated by a "random designer".

I've not read Colling's book either. I'm basing my remarks on what Colling himself wrote to promote the book (A Random Universe By Richard G. Colling.) wherein he makes the statements elaborating on his concept of God as random designer of a random universe which I've already excerpted among numerous others. I took them at face value.

I'm not going to have the same kind of conversation with you as with the latter, and I had to be sure that you were legit before I did, precisely because I don't want to be quote-mined or otherwise used by one of that ilk.

I sincerely appreciate the exception you've made in my case. I was unaware. I would hope that even when someone hasn't 'earned' the acknowledgment that you would regardless be as forthcoming about any theories weaknesses as you advocate its strengths.

We all run the risk of being quote mined. It happens a lot with internet "discussions". Arguably, I've been quotemining Colling, though it wasn't my intent to misrepresent his views but to excerpt them. I prefer to construct my arguments and statements in such as way as to make quote mining egregious evidence of intellectual bankruptcy, so when it happens it is obvious to any honest onlooker.

We are called to be wise as serpents and gentle as doves.

I think my argument is reasonably complete, if unpersuasive. Why don't you take the last word on this.

Scott Hatfield . . . said...

But a foreknowing, all powerfull God who relies upon unknowable, unpredcitable random outcomes to establish creation is an oxymoron.

Don't have time right now to respond to your post with as complete a response as it deserves, but I note that a foreknowing, all-powerful God who also truly values human freedom also seems contradictory.

Just as I trust that God is not a manipulative monster, and that I am truly free to respond to him (or not), so I take on faith the notion that God can somehow effect his will generally throughout the natural world without contradicting His own Nature.

Isn't it possible that the problem here is not with our humble (and humbling) attempts to explore nature, but with our arrogant desire to impose our limited understanding upon nature? For the record, I can admit that partisans on all sides are guilty of the latter.

Starwind said...

Scott Hatfield:

but I note that a foreknowing, all-powerful God who also truly values human freedom also seems contradictory.

Lest you waste your time, on this thread: http://www.haloscan.com/comments/voxday/4737053804491300186/#1885542 I asserted:

Foreknow or foreknowledge means simply to know (have information, awareness) beforehand. It does not mean to pre-ordain or pre-destine or pre-determine, or foreordain, etc. Foreknowledge only means to have knowledge beforehand. Foreknowledge does not mean to determine or cause.

God can remain sovereign and we can have free will because he rarely imposes His sovereign control over us, nor does he tell us what to do, much to our chagrin in spite of our pleas. God delegates authority to us for our individual choices along with commensurate responsibility (see post http://www.haloscan.com/comments/voxday/4737053804491300186/#1885165)

FWIW... (otherwise will await your answer)

Scott Hatfield . . . said...

Sorry didn't respond previously. Truly overwhelmed in personal life at this moment, as you can tell from paucity of posts. Anyway, I don't disagree with what you're saying, but that in no way contradicts my original point, which reduces to the trivial claim that God can do what God wants. Why God's action seems at odds with our understanding of the Bible is the question, I suppose, and I lean toward the view that this is largely a function of our human limitations, rather than something fundamentally wrong with the scientific enterprise. But that's just me. Hurriedly...SH

JohnTracy said...

You both need to READ Dr. Colling's book. In the 2nd part especially Rick talks very poignantly about his faith and how he believes God uses science to REACH out to man. God stands on His Own, He also allows for man's FREE WILL to accept a relationship with HIM. God wants us to freely choose to believe, that is why He doesn't hit us over the head using either theology or science. Salvation is through FAITH, and it starts with Faith in GOD. Rick is showing that in his book, but you must READ the BOOK before you have a right to critique it.
There is more going on than simply Rick's book, there is a SELFISHNESS among certain power-mongers to use Rick's message of science AND faith to make Dr. Bowling appear a weak and inept president of the university. THAT SELFISHNESS is also known as the Sin Nature!
Alumni and students need to write to their representatives on the board of trustees to express support for DR Bowling as well as for Dr. Colling.
AND PRAY for ONU.