Viewpoint discrimination - Where are the ID proponents now?

“Imagine telling a very devout creationist that evolution is real, but it doesn’t endanger their faith,” said Richard Colling, a professor of biology at Olivet Nazarene University, affiliated with the Church of the Nazarene, in Bourbonnais, south of Chicago. “That’s exactly the journey many of our college students begin when they come into my biology class.” Toni Moran, 21, a senior biology major from Decatur, Ill., has taken that journey. “Personally, I think there’s such a divide among Christians that we’re forced to choose evolution or creationism. I think so many Christians are afraid that if they even look at the scientific evidence, they’ll lose their faith,” she said, noting that “‘evolution’ is a taboo word in my church and in my home.”

Saint Augustine (A.D. 354-430) in his work The Literal Meaning of Genesis (De Genesi ad litteram libri duodecim) provided excellent advice for all Christians who are faced with the task of interpreting Scripture in the light of scientific knowledge. This translation is by J. H. Taylor in Ancient Christian Writers, Newman Press, 1982, volume 41. Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he hold to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion. [1 Timothy 1.7]

Full story can be found at Baylor's website :-)

Am I supposed to feel sympathy for either side? Because I don't. Only the students lose here. The best I can hope for is that creationism and intelligent design become bitter rivals, something akin to the way Christians fought over whether wine and bread were literally Jesus' body. Then the rest of us can just get on with our lives.

Richard Colling is a heretic. How quaint.

But he is lucky to be living in the 21st century. A few centuries ago he might well have been burnt at the stake like Giordano Bruno was along with countless others. These days that is illegal. So far.

This is what the theocrats of the Xian Dominionist movement want to bring back. Oddly enough they controlled the US congress until 2006, own the president, and have almost half of the US supreme court. We may well be watching the fall of the American empire. Bet the Roman and British empires looked similar at their ends.

Full story can be found at Baylor’s website :-)

I was referencing the "more information" part in #206415

Richard Colling
RICHARD COLLING
http://www2.olivet.edu/academics/CAS/faculty_bios.php?id=14
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.
_________________________________

One slip-up in the creationist crowd and all that goodwill from above is gone.

This is what the theocrats of the Xian Dominionist movement want to bring back. Oddly enough they controlled the US congress until 2006, own the president, and have almost half of the US supreme court. We may well be watching the fall of the American empire. Bet the Roman and British empires looked similar at their ends.

heddle lying: The dominionist movement is a small (and growing ever smaller) movement

theocracywatch.org, Cornell univesity: The theocratic right seeks to establish dominion, or control over society in the name of God. D. James Kennedy, Pastor of Coral Ridge Ministries, calls on his followers to exercise "godly dominion ... over every aspect ... of human society." At a "Reclaiming America for Christ" conference in February, 2005, Kennedy said: Our job is to reclaim America for Christ, whatever the cost. As the vice regents of God, we are to exercise godly dominion and influence over our neighborhoods, our schools, our government, our literature and arts, our sports arenas, our entertainment media, our news media, our scientific endeavors -- in short, over every aspect and institution of human society. Twenty-five years ago dominionists targeted the Republican Party as the vehicle through which they could advance their agenda. At the same time, a small group of Republican strategists targeted fundamentalist, Pentecostal and charismatic churches to expand the base of the Republican Party. This web site is not about traditional Republicans or conservative Christians. It is about the manipulation of people of a certain faith for political power. It is about the rise of dominionists in the U.S. federal government. Today's hard right seeks total dominion. It's packing the courts and rigging the rules. The target is not the Democrats but democracy itself. more According to acclaimed journalist and television host Bill Moyers, True, people of faith have always tried to bring their interpretation of the Bible to bear on American laws and morals ... it's the American way, encouraged and protected by the First Amendment. But what is unique today is that the radical religious right has succeeded in taking over one of America's great political parties. The country is not yet a theocracy but the Republican Party is, and they are driving American politics, using God as a a battering ram on almost every issue: crime and punishment, foreign policy, health care, taxation, energy, regulation, social services and so on. more (To read the rest if the Home Page that was on this site before the 2006 midterm elections, click here.) Back from The Brink Before the midterm elections of 2006, dominionists controlled both houses of the U.S. Congress, the White House and four out of nine seats on the U.S. Supreme Court. They were one seat away from holding a solid majority on the Supreme Court. As of January 1, 2007, dominionists will not control the leadership of either house of Congress, and the President will no longer be able to so easily appoint dominionists to the federal courts. Five of the Republican Senators who were unseated on November 7 received whopping scores of 100% from the Family Research Council and Focus on the Family Voter Scorecards. Those Senators are: Conrad Burns (R-MT), George Allen (R-VA), Rick Santorum (R-PA), James Talent (R-MO), and Mike DeWine (R-OH). Rick Santorum was the number three ranking Republican in the party. Santorum and Allen both had Presidential ambitions. (FRC and FOF are the most politically influential of dominionist organizations.) For more discussion of the elections go to

Raven,

1) We really did walk on the moon, honest!
2) The US Government did not blow up the World Trade Center.
3) The holocaust really happened.
4) Reconstructionists are not poised to take over the government and institute Mosaic law.
5) Elvis is dead.

(singing) One of these things is not like the others...

http://religion.beloblog.com/archives/2007/02/the_far_right_christian_fascis.html The far right "Christian fascists" From Religion News Service, here's a Q&A with Chris Hedges, author of American Fascists, a book about the radical Christian right. Hedges, who has a degree from the Harvard Divinity School, is a former war correspondent for The New York Times and The Dallas Morning News. The interview from Religion News Service follows: By RON CSILLAG Religion News Service TORONTO — A hard-core minority of evangelicals is actively working to create an American theocracy and to eliminate non-believers. Mainstream Christians — even some evangelicals — governments and the media stand by and watch in the name of tolerance. So says Chris Hedges, a former New York Times correspondent, who evinces some frightening scenes in his new book, “American Fascists.” A graduate of Harvard Divinity School, Hedges draws alarming parallels between 20th-century totalitarian movements — particularly in pre-World War II Europe — and the highly organized, well financed “Dominionist movement,” an influential theocratic sect within the large U.S. evangelical population. Hedges says Dominionists wait only for a fiscal, social or political crisis, or another terrorist terrorist strike on American soil, to establish an American theocracy — a Christian fascism — in which the Bible is the sole guiding principle. That day, he warns, could be sooner than many think. Q: You don't pull any punches with the word “fascist” in the title. Is it deliberate? A: Yes, and it wasn't an easy choice because fascism conjures historical images of Nazis and swastikas. But fascism as an ideology has generic qualities which ... I try to match with what I think are the fundamental tenets of the radical Christian right in the United States. The match was significant enough to warrant the word. Q: You do not indict 100 million Americans who consider themselves evangelicals. It's only a small part of this group that you discuss. A: It's a tiny part. We use the terms “evangelicals” and “fundamentalists,” but I think incorrectly. Traditional fundamentalists have always called on their followers to remove themselves from the contaminants of secular society and to shun involvement in political power. This is a new, radical mutation, a drive to seize political power and create a so-called Christian state. It's a mutation that makes this movement unlike any other religious movement we have seen in American history, and ultimately, the most dangerous mass movement we've seen in American history. Q: Can you explain the difference between Dominionism and traditional evangelicalism? A: Dominionism, or Christian Reconstructionism, is a movement ... which argues that Christians have been anointed by God to create the Christian state and ultimately, a global Christian empire. The Ten Commandments should be the basis for the legal system. The federal government should be disempowered, reduced to issues of homeland security, defense and property rights. Social welfare agencies, along with educational systems, should be turned over to these churches. Q: If it's such a small fringe group, why is it so dangerous? A: Well, let's name names: (Evangelical leaders) James Dobson, Pat Robertson, (“Left Behind” co-author) Tim LaHaye — they're very well funded, very well organized and they have taken over virtually all of Christian radio and broadcasting. They've taken over denominations, such as the Southern Baptist Convention. They have managed to make huge inroads into the legislative, executive and judicial branches of government. Q: What similarities do you see between this militant Christianity and militant Islam? A: Many. It's a binary view of the world — good and bad. Those who are not with them have no real legitimacy, either religious or political — they are agents of Satan (and) must be destroyed. A total hostility toward the role of women, a war on modernism, a cult of masculinity, the belief that apocalyptic and catastrophic violence can act to cleanse and purge the world and create a utopia of believers. Fundamentalist movements, regardless of the religious systems they come out of, are strikingly similar. Much of (their) work is to disempower the moderate center (and) make people afraid. Q: Are traditional evangelicals in danger of being drowned out by these Dominionists? A: They already are. Because the movement has learned to speak so well in traditional and comfortable vocabulary, they have huge numbers of people, both in and out of the faith, who don't understand the threat. Tens of millions of Americans see them as a traditional group that promotes family values. The most potent opposition to the movement will come out of the evangelical community — people who have remained loyal to core values of the Gospel and understand this manipulation and callousness, and strike back against it. Q: You say debate with this radical Christian right is “useless” because they don't want dialogue; you say they are “bent on our destruction.” How do we then engage them and move forward? A: The movement is built on the personal and economic despair of tens of millions of Americans. The American working class has been decimated. Fewer than 10 percent of jobs are in the manufacturing sector. Whole sections of the United States look the developing world. And that has thrust people into this despair. The only way to blunt this movement is to begin to develop systems where (the poor) are reincorporated into American society, given secure and decent jobs and certainly social benefits, and given hope. At its core, this is a theology of despair. It says that the highest event in human history is the destruction of the planet on which we live. And then there's a strange spiritual Darwinism: Believers will be raptured up into Heaven and the rest of us will get what we deserve. In that kind of theology, wars in the Middle East are a good thing, global warming doesn't matter, poverty is fine, especially since they've embraced this world of magic and miracles. People are poor because they're not right with Jesus. Q: If Dominionists exploit the poor, how are they so well funded? A: Corporate America loves them. You have huge companies (like) Wal-Mart and Sam's Club (which) have evangelical chaplains among their work forces just to bait their workers. There's also quite a vigorous and effective system of sucking in believers. If you ever watch these (television) shows, you have (text) at the bottom of the screen with an 800 number where you can call in and make your love offering. People are encouraged to send their rent checks and everything else because God will reward them a hundred, nay, a thousandfold. None of these movements can come to power unless there's a prolonged period of instability or a crisis. But that could very well come in the United States through an economic meltdown, a series of environmental disasters or another catastrophic terrorist attack. Then I think these people are really poised to reshape American society in ways we have not seen before.

Heddle wrote:

"But it is also true that those (like me) who argue that it is acceptable for Baylor to disassociate itself from whomever it pleases—and that academic freedom never means “do whatever floats your boat” should be affording the same privilege to Olivet."

Well, maybe. However the two situations are certainly not equivalent.

If Olivet is a private institution and accepts no government funds then supposedly they could attempt silence dissenting views with impuntiy. If they also made employees sign a loyalty statement or conform to a strict religious code as a requirement for empolyment, then perhaps advocating for evolution might be considered a violation of their code. If Colling was using the classroom to express his personal views instead of presenting real science, then of course the University might want to reasonaably prevent that. It is not clear to me if any of these things are true, but if they are, then perhaps the University might be somewhat justified in their stance.

However, trying to restrict the academic freedom of a distinguished scientist and faculty member can defiinately not be equated with pulling the plug on a fake lab with a fake grant doing fake research in order to undermine science by using the name of a reputable insititution to imply respectability. Especially if one of the people involved has already been effectively kicked out for reasons not having to do with his religious views. Tenured faculty have legal rights. Back door "post docs" claiming to do research in a nonexistent laboratory, not so much.

A hard-core minority of evangelicals is actively working to create an American theocracy and to eliminate non-believers.

Q: You do not indict 100 million Americans who consider themselves evangelicals. It’s only a small part of this group that you discuss. A: It’s a tiny part.

David Stanton,

Generally I view arguing “"he two situations are certainly not equivalent" as an argument from weakness.

To first order they are the same.

Those given responsibility to keep Baylor on its mission have, in my opinion, a right to say, even to a tenured professor, you can do that, but you cannot use Baylor's name.

Those given responsibility to keep Olivet on its mission have a right to say you cannot teach such views in our classrooms.

(Irrelevant aside: I wonder if Colling is tenured—many Christian colleges do not have a tenure system. Also irrelevant: I personally think Olivet should let Colling teach his class, assuming he is a good teacher.)

You should either argue that both Baylor and Olivet are right, or they are both wrong. Any other position is inconsistent. It's an ACLU kind of thing. If you are going to take a positioned stand for those you like, then you have to take the same stand for those you detest, or get off the high ground.

heddle said: You should either argue that both Baylor and Olivet are right, or they are both wrong. Any other position is inconsistent. It’s an ACLU kind of thing. If you are going to take a positioned stand for those you like, then you have to take the same stand for those you detest, or get off the high ground.

Raven treat people with some respect or I will respect your choice to have your postings moved to the Bathroom wall.

I do believe that that is what the original post in this blog suggested that the DI should do.

Yes of course. The original post indeed suggested that the DI, which thinks Baylor is wrong, should also agree that Olivet is wrong. I am extending that. Those of us who think Baylor was right, or at least within its rights, should also agree that Olivet is right, or at least within its rights.

However, trying to restrict the academic freedom of a distinguished scientist and faculty member can defiinately not be equated with pulling the plug on a fake lab with a fake grant doing fake research in order to undermine science by using the name of a reputable insititution to imply respectability. Especially if one of the people involved has already been effectively kicked out for reasons not having to do with his religious views. Tenured faculty have legal rights. Back door “post docs” claiming to do research in a nonexistent laboratory, not so much.

Generally I view arguing ““he two situations are certainly not equivalent” as an argument from weakness.

So when can we expect a cry of outrage from the Discovery Institute, demanding that Colling will be allowed to teach his usual classes? Has Hell frozen over? Oh the irony…

Aware of its responsibility as the largest Baptist educational institution in the world and as a member of the international community of higher learning, Baylor promotes exemplary teaching, encourages innovative and original research, and supports professional excellence in various specialized disciplines. Advancing the frontiers of knowledge while cultivating a Christian world-view, Baylor holds fast to its original commitment-to build a university that is Pro Ecclesia, Pro Texana.

So when can we expect a cry of outrage from the Discovery Institute, demanding that Colling will be allowed to teach his usual classes?

Here is the "Statement of Faith" from the Olivet Nazarene website.
Nothing about the Bible being literally true.

"At Olivet, learning and faith go hand-in-hand. The University affirms that all truth is God’s truth, and therefore, cannot be segmented into secular and non-secular categories and departments.

Theologically, as a service of the Church of the Nazarene, the University emphasizes the theistic view of God and man as interpreted in the Wesleyan-Arminian tradition.
The University believes that:

1. there is one God—the Father, Son and Holy Spirit;
2. the Old Testament and the New Testament Scriptures, given by plenary inspiration, contain all truth necessary to faith and Christian living;
3. humans are born with a fallen nature and are, therefore, continually inclined to evil;
4. the finally impenitent are hopelessly and eternally lost;
5. the atonement through Jesus Christ is for the whole human race, and that whosoever repents and believes in the Lord Jesus Christ is justified and regenerated and saved from the dominion of sin;
6. believers are to be sanctified wholly, subsequent to regeneration, through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ;
7. the Holy Spirit bears witness to the new birth, and also to the entire sanctification of believers; and
8. our Lord will return, the dead will be raised and the final judgment will take place."

No doubt you know that Olivet Nazarene is a Christian school with deep historical evangelical roots. Colling had to know the tradition of the school when he signed on. If the teachings of any faculty are in direct contradiction to the confessional statement of the college, then the administration is within its rights to take action.

Meanwhile, this thread is about a seemingly fairly honorable guy who teaches and accepts mainstream biology, and is also religious, and chooses to impart his expertise to a religious university. He’s being hounded, on the grounds that even to accept mainstream biology is an affront to the Nazarene religion. No-one is denying the perfect right of a private institution to behave this way, either. We’re just commenting on how distasteful it is.

Crowther is a mealy-mouthed equivocating dishonest little worm.

ONU seems to be well within its rights to do what it is doing, and its critics are well within their rights to say that it stinks. As for the unfortunate Professor Colling, sad as his situation is, as the old saying goes, lie down with dogs, get up with fleas.

Heddle wrote:

Generally I view arguing “the two situations are certainly not equivalent” as an argument from weakness."

Respectfully, I view arguing that the two situations are equivalent is an argument that is not worthy of consideration.

"To first order they are the same."

I agree. Academic freedom is certainly the central issue in both cases here. That does not even imply that the situations are equivalent.

"Those given responsibility to keep Baylor on its mission have, in my opinion, a right to say, even to a tenured professor, you can do that, but you cannot use Baylor’s name.

Those given responsibility to keep Olivet on its mission have a right to say you cannot teach such views in our classrooms."

I agree. But again, saying that you cannot use the university name for promotion of religious views is definately not equivalent to saying that you cannot teach science in a science classroom.

Still, I need to clarify this. To me it doesn't seem like teaching evolution in Biology class violates the statement of faith for the university. Of course, if Collings knew that that was in fact the way in which the statement would be interpreted, then perhaps he is getting exactly what he asked for. Perhaps he is even getting exactly what he wanted. Then the question becomes whether this is legal for the university to do or not. To me, any institution that accepts public funds is not free to decide the rules. If the university uses public funds then this is definately illegal and Collings will have legal recourse. If the university is funded completely privately, then they are probably within their rights to demand compliance to religious doctrine from their faculty. That is something Collings should have considered before being hired to work there.

So when can we expect Crowther and the DI to start posting on the viewpoint discrimination of Colling?
Or is viewpoint discrimination ok if you can still find a job afterwards? What is the standard by which the DI measures the severity of viewpoint discrimination?

One comes to mind: Does it involve exposing the scientific vacuity of ID? If so, it must surely be viewpoint discrimination.

But apparently not when it comes to anything even remotely related to ID. These two situations are not equivalent and there is no “irony”. You’re scrapping for controversy where none exists.

Respectfully, I view arguing that the two situations are equivalent is an argument that is not worthy of consideration.

"Bet the Roman and British empires looked similar at their ends."

I wasn't around at the Fall of Rome, but the British Empire 'fell' around 1947 (Indian independence). History is oddly silent on the influence of crazy religious extremists. History is rather more eloquent on the debilitating effects of the two world wars...

“Bet the Roman and British empires looked similar at their ends.” I wasn’t around at the Fall of Rome, but the British Empire ‘fell’ around 1947 (Indian independence). History is oddly silent on the influence of crazy religious extremists. History is rather more eloquent on the debilitating effects of the two world wars…

I wasn’t around at the Fall of Rome, but the British Empire ‘fell’ around 1947 (Indian independence). History is oddly silent on the influence of crazy religious extremists. History is rather more eloquent on the debilitating effects of the two world wars…

Hi Raven,

"the war in Iraq is putting huge strains on our country."

Actually, though the war is a pointless tragedy, ruining or ending the lives of thousands of Americans and countless Iraqis, its virtually invisible here in the US. Thats a big reason why the anti-war movement is so listless. Most Americans are unaffected by the war, unlike in the Vietnam War when the draft threatened the lives of millions of unwilling young people. The war is putting a huge strain on the Army, which will be forced to draw down troops next spring simply because its run out of warm bodies to send. The most beneficial side affect of the war is that its put a huge strain on the GOP and its theocrats, who already lost control of the Congress last year, and seem likely to lose even more seats and hopefully the White House next year. Shame it took the pointless deaths of so many people to turn back the tide of idiocy here at home.

I think I can answer most of the questions posed here if anyone is still interested in this two day old news.
Thanks for your interest and support.
Rick Colling

I think I can answer most of the questions posed here if anyone is still interested in this two day old news.

How much do you want to hear? I don't want to intrude on a board upon which I have never before posted. If you like, I will tell a short version, then respond to questions. How is that?

well, it's Pim's thread, but I'd love to hear whatever you are willing to share myself.

do you feel yourself to be in physical danger at this point?

Consider yourself my guest. I am the poster of the original blog entry (PvM). You are welcome to share as much or as little you consider to be appropriate.

To others, please extend your courtesy to Dr Colling as he is my guest. I have no problems with asking him questions, I am just asking for everyone to engage in a polite conversation.

I will post later today.

"In a culture and society increasingly driven by advances in science and technology, it is a sad day in the life of a Christian university when new understanding and insights into God's creation revealed by biology and genetics are viewed as a threat to faith. Students deserve better. Those who continue set biology at odds with the Bible do a terrible disservice to both."

"People should not feel they have to deny reality in order to experience their faith," he says.

Perhaps we can promote Dr. Colling's comments as a guest post, rather just comments on a two day old thread.

A. Lurker

Thank you friends for your interest, analysis, and support. Sorry for the long post. I did not intend this when I began. The words just kept coming. I posted a version of this on a related site.
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 Biology
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.
All best to you,
Rick Colling

Thank you friends for your interest, analysis, and support. Sorry for the long post. I did not intend this when I began. The words just kept coming. I posted a version of this on a related site.
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 Biology
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.
All best to you,
Rick Colling

Therefore, I have become the lightning rod, and according to the president, this is impacting his church social relationships.

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.

Thanks for the kind words. Am I posting in the appropriate manner? Right place etc?

I have never felt physically threatened, except for a few days when the book first came out in Dec. 2004. Our building maintenance supervisor was a bit more cautious about who he would direct to my office if a stranger came into the building.

Actually, the feedback I have received in the past few days has been overwhelmingly positive and supportive. Only one hate mail this morning. I thanked her for taking the time to communicate her views to me.

The students and alums who know me are really beginning to mobilize. I heard that the president's office is receiving many very upset phone calls and emails from people supporting me and my work. Remember, I have been here for 26 years loving and caring and investing my life in the lives of my students. Calculate ~25 major graduating each year for 26 years. This translates into a large number of alumni who know that these accusations of eroding the faith of students with my book or teaching is a complete fundamentalist fabrication.

I am hopeful that we are beginning to turn a corner.

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. Nothing could be further from the truth. I know very few Christian biologists in higher education who support either. But in the churches,now that is a different matter.

Actually, the feedback I have received in the past few days has been overwhelmingly positive and supportive. Only one hate mail this morning. I thanked her for taking the time to communicate her views to me.

The students and alums who know me are really beginning to mobilize. I heard that the president’s office is receiving many very upset phone calls and emails from people supporting me and my work.

But in the churches,now that is a different matter.

Dr. Colling,

Thank you so much for taking the time to inform us of the situation. It would seem that the university will have to reconsider it's position on this issue.

Feel free to correct me if I am wrong, but it is my understanding that you have always taught evolution in your biology courses and that your fellow biologists have also done so as well. If this is indeed the case, then it would seem that you are most likely correct in your view that your problems stem mainly from your public visibility. If that is the case, then it would seem that the university cannot claim that you have violated their statement of faith. They certainly cannot demonstrate a consistent enforcement of that code. It would seem to me then that this is a clear case of discrimination and that you would most likely have legal recourse if you so choose. That would of course depend on what punative measures the university was planning on taking. If you have a tenure system, I am sure that that will help a great deal.

In any event, I am heartened to hear that you have received such strong support. I for one applaud your courageous stand and your uncompromising defense of science. I am sure that your students also appreciate how much you obviously care about them and that you put your concern for their intellectual growth above your own personal security. You have provided an example of integrity that others would do well to emulate. I am sure that you will find many supporters here at PT. Good luck.

Dr. Colling: But alas, what I have learned is that many fundamentalist Christians do not consider theistic evolution Christians as brothers, but rather as enemies.

This will be something worthy to keep tabs on, I think. I'm very curious to see how this all turns out, given that I rather feel that people like Colling will be far better equipped to deal with the real issues within the religious than trying to "frame" the issue within the scientific community instead.

I have not violated any faith statements or compromised myself in any way professionally. If the people who do not like me want me terminated, they will have to manufacture something. But given the events of the past two years or so, I do not know who can be trusted to speak the truth and actually stand firm on their word. So consequently, I fully subscribe to the scriptural directive to be "wary as a serpent, and harmless as a dove" With emphasis on the wary part these days!

I don't know if this will get better or worse in the short term, but based upon the lack of responsiveness from the president, I think probably much worse before better. Depending on a few pivotal events over the next week or so, it may be resolved, or get much worse. The general board of trustee meeting is in early October, and I can't imagine this not being a subject of discussion.

As far as sharing these thoughts with you folks, I am just a pretty open guy. I have read some of your posts in the past, and many of you make excellent points regarding science education, intelligent(??)design, creationism and such. And I appreciate your accepting spirit.

Take care. I am way behind in many things, and next week could be even busier.

There were two follow-up articles in our local newspaper (the Kankakee Daily Journal) this week with a number of reader comments on the situation. IT is pretty clear that those who actually know me or have had me for class are quite supportive.

I will probably not get back here until at least Monday.
Much to do...

Rick

they will have to manufacture something.

Where? Here are the ID proponents:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/persecution-of-the-other-side/

Go all the way back to the beginning. Then, as today, the forces of nature, the "laws of nature" are absolute, and do not change. Water and electricity always take the path of least resistance, naturally.

The laws of nature create mountains, fissures, wind erosion, etc. All naturally made creations that we see have been made through the action of the laws of nature. These laws are absolute.

For change to occur something must act upon it: Gravity, wind, water, centrifical force, chemical reactions, even nuclear reactions.

Matter can be neither created nor destroyed. Matter can be converted into gas, solid, liquid, plasma or energy. We are all very familiar with the forces of nature, they have acted upon us since we have been.

When something is "created" that goes against the grain of "natural law", I would hypothesize that a different type of "work" must go into that creation for the creation to come into existence. What type of work must this be, that can defy the natural laws of nature? - Intelligent Design.

This is not to say that a "creator" must be constantly watching over our every move. Only that "life" came into existence against the natural laws, nature's "work" definitely needed an "Intelligent Design".

At the very least, a "free will".

Genesis quote: "God did not want man to eat from the tree of knowledge between good and evil, because then "he will eat from the tree of life, and live forever, like us."

Come on guys, something extra came into play somewhere along the line. You know it, we all know it - we just plead for clarity. Your "scientific" claims are scandelously inept.

Do you do it on purpose or are all of you really that blinded.

Go all the way back to the beginning. Then, as today, the forces of nature, the "laws of nature" are absolute, and do not change. Water and electricity always take the path of least resistance, naturally.

The laws of nature create mountains, fissures, wind erosion, etc. All naturally made creations that we see have been made through the action of the laws of nature. These laws are absolute.

For change to occur something must act upon it: Gravity, wind, water, centrifical force, chemical reactions, even nuclear reactions.

Matter can be neither created nor destroyed. Matter can be converted into gas, solid, liquid, plasma or energy. We are all very familiar with the forces of nature, they have acted upon us since we have been.

When something is "created" that goes against the grain of "natural law", I would hypothesize that a different type of "work" must go into that creation for the creation to come into existence. What type of work must this be, that can defy the natural laws of nature? - Intelligent Design.

This is not to say that a "creator" must be constantly watching over our every move. Only that "life" came into existence against the natural laws, nature's "work" definitely needed an "Intelligent Design".

At the very least, a "free will".

Genesis quote: "God did not want man to eat from the tree of knowledge between good and evil, because then "he will eat from the tree of life, and live forever, like us."

Come on guys, something extra came into play somewhere along the line. You know it, we all know it - we just plead for clarity. Your "scientific" claims are scandelously inept.

Do you do it on purpose or are all of you really that blinded.

What type of work must this be, that can defy the natural laws of nature? - Intelligent Design.

Gene DuPont said: When something is "created" that goes against the grain of "natural law", I would hypothesize that a different type of "work" must go into that creation for the creation to come into existence. What type of work must this be, that can defy the natural laws of nature? - Intelligent Design.

And there you have it folks. This rant ended with the typical evos projectile vomiting. Let's see Altair, your babeling went like what again ? You acuse IDers of the " I don't know how it was all done, therefore there must have been some Designer involved " defense and claim it to be dishonesty ? And that differs from the evos propaganda in what way ? " Gosh, we really don't have all the answers in the fossil record, geez we really do have too many holes in our theory. Damn, we always tell IDers that evolution happens way too slow to visualize B.S. You don't see evolution, you see it's affects. Like we can't see the Designer, we can only study what was designed, right Altair ?
And your fellow in-breds always come back with the same old slime, spoken so well over the last 50 years. SHAZAM, here we go, monster mutations, that fixes the holes in our fairy tale. No wait, still too bogus, I know, what about Co-Evolution, now there's what we need to PROVE our position. Wait, that didn't stand up either, I know, I've got it now, right out of the propaganda script, here is, low and behold, Stevie Wonder's PE theory. Now THAT explains everything. NOW we can sleep easy, knowing that all of our bogus positions have since been justified and printed in all the school textbooks for every juvenile to enjoy. " Dishonesty Altair ? No, it's called evos idiot's logic on parade.

Joseph, you may not be too familiar with the design inference so let me explain

The design inference is based on the concept that what remains when we have eliminated known processes of regularity and/or chance should be called 'design'. As such it is immediately self evident that 'design' includes 'we don't know' as a category and indeed, as Dembski explains, inferring 'design' need not mean that an intelligent designer is involved since this is an inductive step. In fact, as several scientists have pointed out, natural selection cannot even be excluded as an intelligent designer according to ID's arguments.

Since ID is based on an argument from ignorance, and since it refuses to limit its designer, it is doomed to remain scientifically vacuous

Simple really

In Christ

I don't have the privelege of being a Yank, and can scarcely understand what this page is all about, but I take the liberty of making a few points. 1) I wonder, if Richard Colling had taught Evolution merely as an unrolling of life, the mechanisms of which are not yet clear, would he have encountered these difficulties? 2) Science always has had, and always will have, and does have now, gaps in its understanding. This shouldn't need to be said. If people put their own fillings in the gaps, hey presto, dissention, strife, trouble for science. If people on the other hand either tactfully admit that the gaps exist, or leave the gaps to a rational Higher Power by way of explanation - no problem. Technology bye and bye closes the gap - and it always does so, rationally. 3) I have said that science has gaps, now. Yes, there is a yawning chasm, right here. It's with an 150yr old origins idea, which for some reason unbeknowns to me, has been latched onto and championed as the proof absolute, when a juvenile can see it does not properly account for the geologic record (there are species in the geologic record - lots of clear, definable species) - nor for the world around us (which also has species) - and which has no mechanism compatible with the laws of physics. Kelvin queried it on this point before it got up much headway, and his objections stand. Sure, a hot spot in the universe, such as a volcano, can locally reverse the trend towards disorder, and produce lovely complex structures such as crystalline minerals. Enough heat and pressure can even get us a diamond. And a diamond is about the most complex 'organic molecule' that blind heat and pressure can get up. Well, don't blame me. Ask a chemical engineer. They have calorie tables or kilojoule tables that tell us what can and cannot be achieved. I didn't invent enthalpy and entropy measurements. Go and ask Lord Kelvin - he went into this, and showed it can't be done -- UNLESS SOME HITHERTO UNKNOWN FACTOR COMES INTO PLAY. That factor will be rational, it will obey the laws of physics - and, yes, we now have a fair idea of what it might be.
So was Mr Colling asked to leave because he thought that scientists actually know the mechanism of speciation, when no-one yet fully understands, even, DNA? Do some people actually take this non-issue, seriously?

Looks like Nick the Nazi has yet again gleaned this trail of any ID propositions. Typical, classic, evos in-bred response tactic.

So, then, Mr Alden, please explain to us why no Intelligent Design proponent has ever taken the time to spit out exactly how Intelligent Design "theory" will benefit Science and Mankind.

Better yet, please explain why Ben Stein never took so much as 9 seconds to explain what Intelligent Design is about and how its proponents would benefit "Big Science" were they allowed to do whatever it was they were doing for Intelligent Design.

Or, should I just assume that you have absolutely nothing to say besides getting your jollies off of accusing people of being Nazis?

So was Mr Colling asked to leave because he thought that scientists actually know the mechanism of speciation, when no-one yet fully understands, even, DNA?

StanTON,

ID theory has already benefited society in a multitude of ways. It's called scientific research. Thousands of individuals, with PhDs in Microbiology, Physics, Genetics, Botany, you name it, have contributed with tons of beneficial material. One's curiosity to discover the Designer's roadmaps, leads to their investigative efforts. And, it's growing exponentially. Sorry StanTON. I know how this fuels your evos in-bred paranoia.

And as for your pyscho-babble toward Ben Stein ? You've already proven my point.

Joseph Alden said: StanTON, ID theory has already benefited society in a multitude of ways. It's called scientific research.

Thousands of individuals, with PhDs in Microbiology, Physics, Genetics, Botany, you name it, have contributed with tons of beneficial material. One's curiosity to discover the Designer's roadmaps, leads to their investigative efforts. And, it's growing exponentially. Sorry StanTON. I know how this fuels your evos in-bred paranoia.

And as for your pyscho-babble toward Ben Stein ? You've already proven my point.

Stanton: maybe he thinks you're fat.

Maybe he thinks that's funny.

Maybe he's eight years old.

StanTON,

Typical, boring, evos rant, with the predictable, paranoid link to the Discovery Institute, as always.

You might want to crawl out from under your rock more often. DI is not the ONLY game in town. You and your fellow in-breds could only hope. The movement is growing, each and every day, across the entire globe. Sorry, but true.

Scientific research continues to gain momentum, proving the validity of Intelligent Design.

If I submitted to your demand for the 3 ID Botanists, would this entire website come crashing down and your propaganda machine stop in it's tracks ? Not quite. Therefore, your request is bogus.

As for an ID proponent who specializes in placoderms ? Well it's your lucky day, because that would be myself. What would you like to discuss ? Maybe Gavin Young's bogus claim last year, that they provide fossil evidence for the evolution of eyesight ? The human eye is one of my specialties. Bring it on !

As for my psycho spelling slip-up ? Sorry dude. I once found nearly 10 grammatical errors in one of Lenny the Fraud's posts. His whining response was to ignore the spelling and stick to the issues ! As for you, my good StanTON, you might want to take the advice of the dear Lenny. Your response went something like " I'm going to given into temptation ....? " Hardly proper English my child.

Regarding the paranoia claim ? That's self evident. All the fuss on this site, one article after another, in fear of the Ben Stein B-grade movie ? My, my. I've never seen so many cowards, all grouped together, in one location. Then, again, you are the evos in-breds. I should suspect no less.

Joseph Alden said: Scientific research continues to gain momentum, proving the validity of Intelligent Design.

If I submitted to your demand for the 3 ID Botanists, would this entire website come crashing down and your propaganda machine stop in it's tracks ? Not quite. Therefore, your request is bogus.

As for an ID proponent who specializes in placoderms ? Well it's your lucky day, because that would be myself. What would you like to discuss ? Maybe Gavin Young's bogus claim last year, that they provide fossil evidence for the evolution of eyesight ? The human eye is one of my specialties. Bring it on !

As for my psycho spelling slip-up ? Sorry dude. I once found nearly 10 grammatical errors in one of Lenny the Fraud's posts. His whining response was to ignore the spelling and stick to the issues !

As for you, my good StanTON, you might want to take the advice of the dear Lenny. Your response went something like " I'm going to given into temptation ....? " Hardly proper English my child.

Regarding the paranoia claim ? That's self evident. All the fuss on this site, one article after another, in fear of the Ben Stein B-grade movie ? My, my. I've never seen so many cowards, all grouped together, in one location. Then, again, you are the evos in-breds. I should suspect no less.

Joseph Alden, your comment can be found on the Bathroom wall

Would it be possible to ask the Admin to delete the rest of Joseph Alden's comments? It is painfully obvious that he is a troll.

I wasn't the one who tried to defend Ben Stein by claiming that "evos" were inbred paranoiacs, and I was not the one who, filled with hubris, claimed that Intelligent Design encompasses all of science, without so much a single shred of evidence to bolster this boast.

Joseph Alden, people who give higher powers credit for their scientific accomplishements are not creationists. That just makes them, at a bare minimum, theists. To be a creationist, one must believe that at some point(s) along the evolutionary path to all modern life some higher power got physically involved in the process, from creating individual traits like bacterial flagellums, to poofing into existence complete species.

Stanton's challenge, and mine as well, is to reference ant science that arose from that most dubious assumption.

Joseph Alden said: Would it be possible to ask the Admin to delete all of Stanton’s comments ? Remember, for the record, it was he who started in with the entire personal attack mode, claiming I was spreading bullcrap on this website and that I am mentally ill. OR, is this evos double standard # 7,568 ? ?

typical evos projectile vomiting ... babeling ... the evos propaganda ... your fellow in-breds ... right out of the propaganda script ... evos idiot’s logic on parade.

LOL "ant science" should read "any science", although ant science would be as good as any. We could use some more entymology around here.

Science Avenger said: Selected tidbits from Joseph's initial post here:

typical evos projectile vomiting ... babeling ... the evos propaganda ... your fellow in-breds ... right out of the propaganda script ... evos idiot’s logic on parade.

When you see things like this, it makes it that much more understandable how some Christians in the US can claim they are the persecuted ones. Joseph, your every bile-ridden diatribe reeks of redneck ignorance, so I'd watch that in-bred projection if I were you.

LOL ”ant science” should read ”any science”, although ant science would be as good as any. We could use some more entymology around here.

Science Avenger said: We could use some more entymology around here.

Dr Gavin Young's research is about what the eyes were like in an extinct clade of gnathostome vertebrates. Given as how humans are also gnathostome vertebrates, understanding what eyes were like in a primitive group of gnathostomes would help with furthering the understanding of vertebrate eyes in general. The onus is on you, Mr Alden, to explain why Dr Young's research in studying fossilized placoderm eyes is "bogus," something that you have not bothered to do.

You do not sound like an expert in placoderms, you sound like a hypocritical troll who is too concerned with spreading bullcrap around to disguise the fact that he has nothing to say beyond nonsense and insults.

Furthermore, why do you insist on capitalizing the last three letters of my name? Doing that lends an added air of childish inanity to your posts.

Joseph Alden said: Still waiting StanTON. Waiting for PvM to re-submit my post. Won't happen you say? Didn't think so. I've known all along he was a Nazi wanna be. And I see how my response has been deleted off the board as well. How convenient. Answer the simple question I presented. What about Young's bogus research of placoderms, and their relevance to human eye evolution? You won't respond, because you cannot defend junk science. Right StanTON ? What are you evos in-breds afraid of ? I'm just one individual IDer, against all of you. Can we say COWARDS ?

So, then, can you quote the part of Dr Young's report where he stated that he "proved transitional evolution from an extinct specie[sic] of placoderms to the human eye"? According to the current research, the closest living relatives of placoderms are sharks and other cartilaginous fish, not humans.

If you were actually a placoderm expert, you would know that the placoderm eyeball was ossified in life, whereas shark eyeballs are not ossified. And that "species" is both plural and singular. "Specie" is a Latin term for unminted money. This mistake, alone, proves that you know nothing about Biology, let alone placoderms.

I'm not paranoid that you insist on capitalizing the last three letters of my name: you look like an idiot for doing so.

Furthermore, I would reject the contributions to modern medicine made by "Creation scientists" except for one little problem: "Creation scientists" have made absolutely no contributions to modern medicine.

On the other hand, I doubt that you're going to quote the part of Dr Young’s report where he stated that he ”proved transitional evolution from an extinct specie[sic] of placoderms to the human eye," as the last time I asked you to back up your obnoxious boast, you spewed hot air in order to hide the fact that you were bullshitting.

And it's the same reason why I'm not bothering to ask what sort of contributions "Creation scientists" have made to modern medicine.

Sorry for the delay Stanton, but I've been ROFLMAO.

You fell for the oldest, YEC-Fundy trick in the book. Specie ? You continue proving my point, with your paranoid obsessions. What was Stanton's earlier post, with the incorrect grammar included? " I'm to given into temptation" ?

Also, be careful with your incorrect use, for the proper context of Species. It has multiple meanings, one being a reference to the Eucharist elements within the Roman Catholic Church. Try not to make that mistake again. Sir Joseph already used the correct term, SPECIES, from an earlier post, within it's correct context. Sorry, but you goofed again.

As for Young's bogus research ? First you said no problem, since both are gnathostome vertebrates. Now you're saying their nearest living relatives are sharks, not humans. So which is it, dear Stanton ? Or are you always a walking contradiction ?

Young's claims included the following :

" It is transitional in that it's the only example among all living jawed species & all extinct jawed vertebrates, where we have the combination of jaws & a primitive eye muscle arrangement. The eyeball was connected to the brain case with cartilage, as in modern sharks, and a primitive eye muscle arrangement as in living jaw-less fish. What this research shows is that 400 million years ago there was already a complex eye that existed, and one that was an intermediate form. This means that we're able to add one more piece to the puzzle, of how the " human " eye came to be."

Sorry Stanton, looks like you've been served, again.

However, Young's claims are junk science, since he himself freely admits that, One: Complex eyes ALREADY existed, and Two: extinct species don't lend themselves well to genetic code transformation, all the way to human eye development.

Regarding your statement that NO Creation based scientist ever made one single contribution, to modern medicine ?
Easy. The late, great, Louis Pasteur, a devout Christian.
And spare us the lame Talk Origins spoof, that he really believed in evolution.
J.H. Tiner has since correctly pointed out, that Pasteur rejected evolution, on scientific grounds. Strike three Stanton.

I rest my case. Where are all the ID proponents ? We're alive & doing quite well, thank you. And, I always enjoy watching evos admit to being strong advocates, for science fiction.

Sorry for the delay Stanton, but I've been ROFLMAO.

You fell for the oldest, YEC-Fundy trick in the book. Specie ? You continue proving my point, with your paranoid obsessions. What was Stanton's earlier post, with the incorrect grammar included? " I'm to given into temptation" ?

Also, be careful with your incorrect use, for the proper context of Species. It has multiple meanings, one being a reference to the Eucharist elements within the Roman Catholic Church. Try not to make that mistake again. Sir Joseph already used the correct term, SPECIES, from an earlier post, within it's correct context. Sorry, but you goofed again.

As for Young's bogus research ? First you said no problem, since both are gnathostome vertebrates. Now you're saying their nearest living relatives are sharks, not humans. So which is it, dear Stanton ? Or are you always a walking contradiction ?

Young's claims included the following :

" It is transitional in that it's the only example among all living jawed species & all extinct jawed vertebrates, where we have the combination of jaws & a primitive eye muscle arrangement. The eyeball was connected to the brain case with cartilage, as in modern sharks, and a primitive eye muscle arrangement as in living jaw-less fish. What this research shows is that 400 million years ago there was already a complex eye that existed, and one that was an intermediate form. This means that we're able to add one more piece to the puzzle, of how the " human " eye came to be."

Sorry Stanton, looks like you've been served, again.

However, Young's claims are junk science, since he himself freely admits that, One: Complex eyes ALREADY existed, and Two: extinct species don't lend themselves well to genetic code transformation, all the way to human eye development.

Regarding your statement that NO Creation based scientist ever made one single contribution, to modern medicine ?
Easy. The late, great, Louis Pasteur, a devout Christian.
And spare us the lame Talk Origins spoof, that he really believed in evolution.
J.H. Tiner has since correctly pointed out, that Pasteur rejected evolution, on scientific grounds. Strike three Stanton.

I rest my case. Where are all the ID proponents ? We're alive & doing quite well, thank you. And, I always enjoy watching evos admit to being strong advocates, for science fiction.

Science Avenger said: LOL "ant science" should read "any science", although ant science would be as good as any. We could use some more entymology around here.

Dictionary.com: Obsolete. specie; coin.

Joseph Alden said: As for Young's bogus research ? First you said no problem, since both are gnathostome vertebrates. Now you're saying their nearest living relatives are sharks, not humans. So which is it, dear Stanton ? Or are you always a walking contradiction ?

Young's claims included the following : " It is transitional in that it's the only example among all living jawed species & all extinct jawed vertebrates, where we have the combination of jaws & a primitive eye muscle arrangement. The eyeball was connected to the brain case with cartilage, as in modern sharks, and a primitive eye muscle arrangement as in living jaw-less fish. What this research shows is that 400 million years ago there was already a complex eye that existed, and one that was an intermediate form. This means that we're able to add one more piece to the puzzle, of how the " human " eye came to be." Sorry Stanton, looks like you've been served, again.

However, Young's claims are junk science, since he himself freely admits that, One: Complex eyes ALREADY existed, and Two: extinct species don't lend themselves well to genetic code transformation, all the way to human eye development.

Regarding your statement that NO Creation based scientist ever made one single contribution, to modern medicine ? Easy. The late, great, Louis Pasteur, a devout Christian. And spare us the lame Talk Origins spoof, that he really believed in evolution. J.H. Tiner has since correctly pointed out, that Pasteur rejected evolution, on scientific grounds. Strike three Stanton.

"Virulence appears in a new light which cannot but be alarming to humanity; unless nature, in her evolution down the ages (an evolution which, as we now know, has been going on for millions, nay, hundreds of millions of years), has finally exhausted all the possibilities of producing virulent or contagious diseases -- which does not seem very likely."

I rest my case. Where are all the ID proponents ? We're alive & doing quite well, thank you. And, I always enjoy watching evos admit to being strong advocates, for science fiction.

Stanton. I must say, you make this too easy. However, I admire your diligence. You get an E for effort.

First, to address the placoderm research by Gavin Young. You asked me in an earlier post to cite the reference to quote Young's claim of human eye development being transitional. You said I was BS-ing and spewing hot air. And yet, I did provide the information. Now you say, " oh of course, I knew it all along." Why then the request ? What you are missing in this entire discussion is Young's claim of PROOF, that human eyes developed from placoderms. Yet, here's the problem. COMPLEX EYES ALREADY EXISTED, as Young pointed out. What relevance is there to an intermediate eye, somehow being transitional in humans ? There is none. Once again, it's called junk science.

Next, you continue asking what contributions have Creation based scientists made to the field of medicine. You then do a marvelous cut and paste job, right off the Talk Origins website, about how Pasteur supposedly accepted evolution, etc. Nice work. You did just what I expected. Marvelous. Let's take a closer look. The para-quote, about evolution going on for millions of years, blah, blah, blah, ... was not from Pasteur. It was never part of the original research quotation. The correct quote is from an 1881 article, co-authored by Pasteur, Chamberland and Roux. He never said what is listed in quotations. Never. Talk Origins " claims " he accepted evolution, BUT, and you forgot to share this with your fellow comrades, they also say he was skeptical of darwin's theory and most likely did not accept natural selection as it's cause. Hmmmm.

More contradictions to your slant ? No problemo. Louis Pasteur made numerous references throughout his life to a Supreme Being. One of his most famous quotes is " The more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator." This, from the man whom everyone credits as the Father of Microbiology. Hardly a pure-blood convert to Lord Charles and his fallacies of natural selection.

Now. On to the men of medicine. For brevity, I'll give you five. If you need twenty five, just let me know.

1.) Dr. E.T. Agard - expert on medical physics.
2.) Dr. David DeWitt - major researcher in the study of Alzheimers disease.
3.) Dr. Felix K. Ahulu - world expert on sickle-cell anemia.
4.) Dr. Geoff Barnard - immunology research specialist and holder of 5 medical science patents.
5.) Dr. Richard Lumsden - world renowned expert in parasitology.

All have been labeled as Creation-Based Scientists. All have contributed to the field of modern medicine.

Sorry Stanton. It would appear you no longer have any credibility.
On 5-4-08, at 11:47 PM, in a post above, you said Creation-based scientists have made absolutely no contributions to modern medicine.

Ummm, .... you might want to apologize to your fellow evos. You just made the entire movement look like a collective bunch of fools.

I will await your response, as always.
Adios.

Sheez and onions Stanton. You let some ID - troll back you in a corner ?

Actually Joey the troll is somewhat correct, in that trilobites had fairly complex eyes long before placoderms.

FYI: When I tried to go directly to pandasthumb.org, I got this error:

Content Encoding Error

The page you are trying to view cannot be shown because it uses an invalid or unsupported form of compression.

The page you are trying to view cannot be shown because it uses an invalid or unsupported form of compression.

* Please contact the website owners to inform them of this problem.