14 Responses to “The Olivet Controversy”

1. Bradford Says:
   June 1st, 2008 at 3:23 pm

   These people tend to get run over by both extremes of the discussion - branded as an enemy of the faith by Christian fundamentalists, and professionally discredited by the secular science community for suggesting that God might have a role in creation.

   The former group needs to focus on the person and his or her personal behavior for that is where biblical values are best expressed and recognized. The secular science community needs to de-link religion from science. It becomes linked when an expression of the view that God is an ultimate causal agent becomes a target for criticism by those using their scientific background as the source of their credibility on this matter.

Comment by Bradford — June 1, 2008 @ 3:23 pm

2. MikeGene Says:
   June 1st, 2008 at 6:52 pm

   This is especially troubling:

   In anticipation of the release of the book, I had many discussions with Olivet's president, Dr. John Bowling, describing the project and talking about the best ways to communicate the faith-affirming message of compatibility between science and faith. Actually, he was the second person to receive an early draft of the manuscript. He expressed his support and commitment to stand firm against the scientifically uninformed fundamentalist voices who might criticize or attack. He also spoke highly of Random Designer and my bridge-building efforts to other Nazarene University presidents. Never was there any indication of concern or disagreement with the message of the book or the goals of the project. This was as it should be since the Manual Statements of the Church of the Nazarene acknowledge evolution and all other verifiable science as fully compatible with Christian faith.

   But sadly, in the spring of 2006, when anti-evolution antagonists -especially some members of the university board of trustees - continued their unrelenting criticisms, a different Dr. Bowling began to emerge. He slowly, but inexorably, began to waiver in his support - ultimately culminating in a set of official damaging written directives against me, my teaching, and my book. His directive letter officially restricts me from teaching the general biology course and also officially censors Random Designer for use in any university course. This despite the fact that it was only used as one of several optional extra credit readings for those students who desired to learn more about integrating science and faith. No factual basis or deficiencies in my teaching or writing that would justify such extreme actions have ever been identified.

Comment by MikeGene — June 1, 2008 @ 6:52 pm

3. nullasalus Says:
   June 1st, 2008 at 7:01 pm

   This particular controversy is news to me, though I have to say: Considering what the aim of the book supposedly is, the title is awful. Simply awful.

   Still, always a bad situation. One I'll be reading up on now thanks to this letter, though.

Comment by nullasalus — June 1, 2008 @ 7:01 pm

4. Aagcobb Says:
   June 1st, 2008 at 11:03 pm

   Cudos for posting that letter, MikeGene.

Comment by Aagcobb — June 1, 2008 @ 11:03 pm

5. sdmartinca Says:
   June 2nd, 2008 at 8:30 am

   I've been following Richard's story for quite a while and he is currently participating in a guest-post series on my blog. Last September (when his story broke in the national media) I posted on it at: http://evanevodialogue.blogspo... and discussed the personal and professional percussions that Colling (and other Christians that support evolution) face at Christian institutions. I know many readers here (and at other ID sites) have commented in the past that ID proponents risk significant ramifications for speaking out in secular universities; well the shoe is really on the other foot in Christian institutions. I think in this dialogue (science / faith) there are so many divergent viewpoints that just about everyone is a minority. It is a good thing for all of us to remember and as Mike said in a previous comment, we need to "learn to disagree in a civilized manner".

Comment by sdmartinca — June 2, 2008 @ 8:30 am

6. Allen_MacNeill Says:
   June 2nd, 2008 at 9:51 am

   nullasalus wrote:

   "Considering what the aim of the book supposedly is, the title is awful."

   I completely disagree. Perhaps the greatest and most fascinating paradox about Darwinian evolutionary theory is that it harnesses stochastic processes (i.e. the sources of variation) to teleological processes (i.e. adaptations). That such a synthesis could be possible would have seemed incomprehensible to the founders of "natural theology" (such as Rev. William Paley). That such a synthesis is not only possible but is currently flourishing is a testimony to the explanatory power of Darwinian evolutionary theory.

   As I have pointed out many times, both here and in other venues, there is no underlying contradiction between the stochastic nature of the sources of variation and the evolution of adaptations by natural selection. ID supporters are fond of referring to William Dembski's concept of "complex specified information" as the "fourth law of thermodynamics". In reality, Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection should be credited as the most profound linkage between "random" and "directed" processes, as natural selection incorporates both.

   Therefore, Random Designer, rather than being an oxymoron, is precisely what evolution by natural selection is, and I commend Dr. Colling for both his recognition of this simple fact, and his succinct statement of it in the title of his book.

Comment by Allen_MacNeill — June 2, 2008 @ 9:51 am

7. Todd Berkebile Says:
   June 2nd, 2008 at 3:04 pm

   Looks like the producers of Expelled made the wrong movie, but at least the tag line "No Intelligence Allowed" still fits.

Comment by Todd Berkebile — June 2, 2008 @ 3:04 pm

8. nullasalus Says:
   June 2nd, 2008 at 3:14 pm

   Allen MacNeill,

   Therefore, Random Designer, rather than being an oxymoron, is precisely what evolution by natural selection is, and I commend Dr. Colling for both his recognition of this simple fact, and his succinct statement of it in the title of his book.

   The full title is 'Random Designer: Creating from chaos to connect with the Creator.' From the product description.

   The Creator simply taps these apparently random physical processes to accomplish His higher goal the creation of human beings capable of consciously perceiving and acknowledging Him. With this new awareness, we, as his ultimate creation, are free to explore the limits of our physical and spiritual potential. For the first time, we can freely consider what it means to be made in the Creators image, to sense and acknowledge His presence and to experience a close meaningful relationship with Him.

   So, the randomness is apparent rather than real, and is tapped by a Creator to actualize us in His image. Glad to hear you endorse this message, MacNeill.

Comment by nullasalus — June 2, 2008 @ 3:14 pm

9. Salvador T. Cordova Says:
   June 2nd, 2008 at 8:11 pm

   But sadly, in the spring of 2006, when anti-evolution antagonists -especially some members of the university board of trustees - continued their unrelenting criticisms, a different Dr. Bowling began to emerge. He slowly, but inexorably, began to waiver in his support - ultimately culminating in a set of official damaging written directives against me, my teaching, and my book. His directive letter officially restricts me from teaching the general biology course and also officially censors Random Designer for use in any university course. This despite the fact that it was only used as one of several optional extra credit readings for those students who desired to learn more about integrating science and faith. No factual basis or deficiencies in my teaching or writing that would justify such extreme actions have ever been identified.~

   I agree this is troubling….it is an infringement of academic freedom….

   Science by creed is a bad idea, imho.

   I have personally discouraged my creationist associates from studying science at creationist institutions. I recommend they go to the best secular schools available where their ideas will be challenged….

   Even though I'm sympathetic to creation science, I've not been enamored with the idea of creationists enforcing their doctrines over empirical science….this is bad for science, and in the end, it is bad for the enterprise of creation science….

Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — June 2, 2008 @ 8:11 pm

10. Allen_MacNeill Says:
    June 2nd, 2008 at 9:37 pm

    Manifesto

    A poem is an organism!
    It is more than simply an expression
    Of an inner state of mind
    Or a statement
    Of a personal point of view.

    The world communicates with itself though poetry:
    Stones and the fragrant, humid soil
    Speak through the mouth of the poet;
    Trees gain voices
    Deep, powerful, patient as life;
    The silent, cold thoughts of fish
    And the warm, sharp voices of foxes
    Are translated in the mind of the poet
    And spoken back to the land.
    Are recycled through the hearts and minds of people
    Who are not yet deaf
    Or blind

    An organism is a poem!
    It is more than simply an expression
    Of its DNA
    Or a statement
    Of a particular ecological niche

    The Universe contemplates itself through organisms:
    Calcium, phosphorus, and long-chain carbon molecules
    Become sentient, become aware of themselves;
    Trees become songs
    Sung by the atmosphere to the music of sunlight;
    The constant, focused awareness of sharks
    And the tense, dancing touch of deer
    Are spun from the silent heart of matter
    And recycled back to the land,
    Are spoken through the ceaseless evolution of a world
    Which is no longer deaf
    Or blind

    - 31Mar81

Comment by Allen_MacNeill — June 2, 2008 @ 9:37 pm

11. Salvador T. Cordova Says:
    June 3rd, 2008 at 12:13 pm

    Some may wonder why someone like myself who is sympathetic to creation science would side with a theistic Darwinist on matters of academic freedom. Consider that this latest episode echoes some incidents at the ICR graduate school:

    Why I Left Yec

    This page is published with the full permission of a friend of mine, Steve Robertson who obtained his bachelor's degree from Christian Heritage College, the former educational arm of the Institute for Creation Research. Steve Robertson wrote a master's thesis which became an ICR Technical Monograph entitled, The Age of the Solar System: A Study of the Poynting-Robertson Effect and Extinction of Interplanetary Dust. This monograph was designed to show that the solar system was young because interstellar dust still remained. After school, Steve went to work as a geophysicist in the oil industry where he, like me, became intimately familiar with the geologic data that contradicted the young earth position. I have only seen Steve in person once in my life but we have communicated via phone often over the past 12 years and have become friends. Like me, Steve has anguished about the discrepancy between what he was taught and what he saw for years. This is because the ICR/young-earth approach makes a person feel that rejecting a young earth is equivalent to rejecting the efficacy of the blood of Jesus. Steve has graciously allowed me to quote from an old letter he sent me nearly 11 years ago in 1987.

    Steve Robertson wrote:

    "It is sad to say that I am one of those CHC/ICR graduates who has had a severe crisis of faith as a result of their ministry." Letter, Steve Robertson to Glenn Morton Dated Feb 22, 1987.

    "My greatest beef with ICR is their polarization of the creation/evolution issue. If you are not entirely in their camp, by their own declarations you are entirely out of the camp of those who accept the Bible as a completely true and literal account of God's interaction with time, space and matter. There is no leeway for any other interpretation of the Biblical text since Henry Morris studied it and figured out what it really means. Now that he as found out exactly what God meant, all observations must fit within his (Morris') explanation of Genesis because God would not lie. It is not at all illogical to throw out interpretations/explanations of observed natural phenomena (biological, geological, astronomical, or what have you) even though there is no sufficient or reasonable alternative offered from their group. Petrified sand dunes in Utah CANNOT be subaerial, even though they show a complete set of characteristics that match present day subaerial dunes and the evaporite deposits in the lows between them demand a subaerial environment of formation, because they HAD to have been deposited in the flood and God doesn't lie. Varves CANNOT be annual features because they HAD to have been deposited in one year and God doesn't lie. Your example of the meander through carbonate rock CANNOT have been produced by eroding solid carbonate because it HAD to happen subaqueously and within minutes, hours or a day at most since the Bible clearly says that all geological formations except the basement rock and a thin upper veneer were laid down during the year of the flood. God doesn't lie! In ICR's logic, to ignore or deny problematic natural observations is not to be deceitful. (A perfect example of this is John Morris' statement that he has never seen a geological fact that did not fit equally as well or better in the flood model than any other model.) At worst, in their view, it would be glossing over what remains to be explained properly, and WOULD be explained properly if more scientists did creationist research. The problem, from ICR's viewpoint, is the vast, hidden conspiracy to interpret the world around us in a way to discredit the Bible, not that any of the data from the world around us is contrary to their explanation of what the Bible means in Genesis. This inflexible, dogmatic, self-blinding position is my bone of contention regarding ICR. Until a person begins to understand where they [the scientists"“GRM] are coming from, and the rules of their game, he is incapable of realizing that he could question their dogma and still be a Bible believing Christian."

    He further wants to add:

    "I do not consider myself to have undergone a "severe crisis of faith" in the sense of struggling with whether to be a Christian or not. The struggle for me was to come to the point where I could accept that a Christian could disagree with Morris' interpretation and still believe in the literal truth of Genesis. For me, that crisis never wandered from within a Christian worldview. If it was a crisis, and I guess it would be fair to call it one, I look back now and believe it was a false one created by my naive acceptance of ICR's dogmatic presentation of their view as the only allowable Christian view. The result of this crisis was that I stopped actively participating in this debate and still consider myself to be mainly a passive bystander."

    Science by creed is a bad idea, even if the creeds may prove correct in the end. In mathematics, the process of arriving at the conclusion is as important as the conclusion itself. Due process counts for a lot, and science by creed is not due process….

Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — June 3, 2008 @ 12:13 pm

12. nullasalus Says:
    June 3rd, 2008 at 2:27 pm

    Allen,

    Your poem was bad, and you should feel bad!

    

Comment by nullasalus — June 3, 2008 @ 2:27 pm

13. Salvador T. Cordova Says:
    June 3rd, 2008 at 2:32 pm

    branded as an enemy of the faith by Christian fundamentalists

    This is distressing. Though I disagree with individuals like Francis Collins over evolution, I have never once regarded him as an enemy of the Christian faith. I am glad Christian organizations have rallied behind people like Francis Collins….

    But regarding fundamentalism and science, let me say as someone who is an evangelical and sympathetic to the creation hypothesis, that there are elements of the fundamentalist culture that are deeply disturbing, so much so that I am quite delighted to cast my lot in the far more free-thinking ID community where people like Berlinski are welcome members….

    What do I mean by deeply disturbing. In my years in school, I don't recall ever meeting a math, engineering, or science professor who said:

    my understanding of reality is infallible. If you question what I say, you are questioning God's truth. What I put forward is incapable of being wrong because it is based on God's word…..

    Could you possibly trust such a professor to teach you math, science, or engineering? I frankly would run as fast as I could from such an institution…..yet, that's not far from what happens in certain creationist circles and teaching institutions.

    It might be far better to state what one believes, and allow open dissent and discussions to be aired. That is what a University is for. Oddly enough, I learned that from a letter that Eugenie Scott sent me 3 years ago…..I posted it with her permission here.

    Finally, here are some good thoughts:

    Objectivity cannot be equated with mental blankness; rather, objectivity resides in recognizing your preferences and then subjecting them to especially harsh scrutiny "” and also in a willingness to revise or abandon your theories when the tests fail (as they usually do).

    "” Stephen Jay Gould

    and

    But the peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error. "¦

    We have now recognized the necessity to the mental well-being of mankind (on which all their other well-being depends) of freedom of opinion, and freedom of the expression of opinion, on four distinct grounds; which we will now briefly recapitulate.

    First, if any opinion is compelled to silence, that opinion may, for aught we can certainly know, be true. To deny this is to assume our own infallibility.

    Secondly, though the silenced opinion be an error, it may, and very commonly does, contain a portion of truth; and since the general or prevailing opinion on any subject is rarely or never the whole truth, it is only by the collision of adverse opinions that the remainder of the truth has any chance of being supplied.

    Thirdly, even if the received opinion be not only true, but the whole truth; unless it is suffered to be, and actually is, vigorously and earnestly contested, it will, by most of those who receive it, be held in the manner of a prejudice, with little comprehension or feeling of its rational grounds.

    And not only this, but fourthly, the meaning of the doctrine itself will be in danger of being lost, or enfeebled, and deprived of its vital effect on the character and conduct: the dogma becoming a mere formal profession, inefficacious for good, but encumbering the ground, and preventing the growth of any real and heartfelt conviction, from reason or personal experience.

    John Stuart Mill

    HT John Angus Campbell of the Discovery Institute for the Mill quote…

Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — June 3, 2008 @ 2:32 pm

14. Allen_MacNeill Says:
    June 3rd, 2008 at 3:06 pm

    Greetings, Sal:
    Thank you for the quotes. They exemplify the reasons why Will Provine and I always invite our intellectual opponents to make presentations in our evolution courses at Cornell, and why I invited Hannah Maxson to be a co-facilitator with me for our summer 2006 "Evolution and Design" seminar course at Cornell. In my opinion, adherence to dogma is death to intellectual inquiry, no matter what the dogma and no matter who is enforcing the adherence. Furthermore, enforcing adherence to a particular position in an intellectual debate is very clearly an admission of weakness by the side enforcing such adherence. It says clearly to any objective observer that the individuals requiring adherence to dogma do not trust the force of their own arguments nor the validity of their evidence to carry the day in an open and frank exchange of views.

    Furthermore, if one accedes to the adherence to dogma, one closes oneself to the possibility of change, and especially the possibility of learning something new. History is very clear on this point: any group that requires adherence to dogma eventually becomes so petrified in its position as to become a force for retrogression, rather than progress.

    As St. Augustine asserted, if there is ultimately only one truth, it cannot contradict itself. Our task is to seek that truth to the utmost of our ability, without fear of blame or hope of reward.

Comment by Allen_MacNeill — June 3, 2008 @ 3:06 pm

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.