Faith-and-science controversy at Olivet Nazarene
Several bloggers and Pepperdine colleagues have drawn my attention to Sharon Begley’s online column, “Can God Love Darwin, Too?,” “preprinted” from next week’s Newsweek. It seems that the school administration has banned one its faculty members, biologist Richard Colling, from teaching an introductory biology class (which he’s taught since 1991) and has banned other faculty members from assigning Colling’s book Random Designer (Browning Press, 2004)—because Colling is a theistic evolutionist (emphasis on evolutionist). I feel for Colling and find the administration’s actions reprehensible. At the same time, I am glad that, at present at least, my Pepperdine colleagues need not fear similar treatment.
13 comments Christopher Heard | religion and science, teaching and learning
[...] story of Richard Colling (HT HIggaion) is another worrying development in the growth of “biblical” insanity. To summarise [...]
Nice blog, Chris. I’ll be seeing you often, and thanks much for the plug. Re the ONU controversy, a geology prof there has posted some very important clarifications on the ASA listserv. This person’s perspective is that the ONU president was trying to protect Colling by getting him out of the hornet’s nest. This does nothing to excuse the actions of the YECs who are creating the crisis, but it does suggest that the institution’s actions are not what they initially seemed.
Thanks for the pointer, Steve. Even with these clarifications, though, the ONU president’s actions still seem misguided to me, and it sounds like the president and/or the geology prof you mentioned may be engaging in a bit of wishful thinking in hoping “that things could change in the future if the situation were to become less volatile.” Isn’t it just a bit naïve to think that the YECs causing a ruckus—having achieved something of a victory against Colling and his book—will just go away … and not come back if Colling is returned to the general bio classroom? Isn’t that a little bit like capitulating to blackmail, even if it’s for the “target’s own good”?
Chris, you ask two questions. My answers: yes and yes. The episode is disturbing, and it’s emblematic of the mess we evangelicals have on our hands. (Correct me if I am out of line including you in that mob. I’m including myself for sure.) But I think we’d be unwise to demonize the president for his mistake, when the destruction was wrought by others, before he even made his move.
There is much more to this story. It follows very clear statements and strong assurances from the president that topics of evolution and creation/science and faith would be handled in an academic and scholarly fashion. This approach was adhered to until the fundamentalist voices became too strong, then a different president emerged. I asked him, “What about truth? Does the truth matter?” His answer was “Perception is what matters”
That is when I told him I would stand on truth and principle. The idea that the president was doing this to take pressure off me is silly. I was feeling no pressure: The students in my class were learning and growing both academically and spiritually, and we were getting along just fine.
The president has acknowledged that the actions were designed to appease outside critics of evolution who were putting pressure on him and were interfering with a fund-raising campaign. This follows a behind the scenes agenda last summer by two members of the board of trustees to terminate my tenure and contract. When I inquired the reason for their intended actions, the only explanation ever given was that “they are not confident in your Christian faith commitments” When asked to identify the specific nature of the concerns, the response was “We’re not going to say”
This is about inappropriate fundamentalist and administrative intervention in the classroom. All summer the president received numerous communications from biology faculty, outside organizations and concerned alumni to reverse his directives before the school began because of the damage to the university that would insue. He refused, instead developing the persona of the benevolent administrator who is trying to take Rick out of the pressure cooker. Here is the fact: Rick was not experiencing that pressure – the president was the one receiving the pressure and acquiesced to the outside political threats for funding by the fundamentalistand twhich raises the question: who was receiving the pressure? And who . So who were the actions designed to
Rick, thank you for providing your perspective from the center of it all. Unfortunately, it looks like your final paragraph got a little bit mangled … but the sense is clear: Cui bono?
[...] Olivet Nazarene University’s treatment of biology professor Richard Colling, which I previously mentioned (see also the Newsweek article that garnered attention, as well as posts by PZ [here, here, and [...]
If Dr. Colling wrote that post there…then how come he started talking about himself in the 1st person and ended his post in the 3rd person. Something tells me that that was not him, but someone who was impersonating him.
I don’t think anyone should be too upset about the book not being used in the Gen. Biology class. A book titled “Language of God” by Francis Collins is still being used, and evolution is still going to be taught this semester in ONU entry level Biology classes. In addition, one of the above posts recognizes that the book can no longer be assigned in any other classes, even ones that Dr. Colling doesn’t teach. To my knowledge this is a non-issue because no other professor at the university has ever assigned the book. As far as the book itself (which I have read), only the first half is scientific. The second half is all theology, so I can’t really see justification for using it in a science class in the first place, regardless of your views on evolution or creation.
[...] the flip side I’ve previously blogged about the outrageous treatment of Richard Colling by the Olivet Nazarene administration, and of Steve Bitterman by the administration of Southwestern [...]
One issue not addressed is academic freedom that all faculty should have in selecting books, texts, etc. Banning the use of the book in the classroom sends a clear message to faculty to be careful what they choose. If some pastor, board member, etc. gets wind of it there will be repercussions. Also, there are many faculty at ONU who would like to show support for Dr. Colling but fear losing rank or service promotions as there is no tenure. The issue has not been brought up at any faculty meeting by those in leadership. It will not be swept under the rug. Students on campus are discussing it. There is a facebook, “Students Support for Dr. Colling” with almost 450 members. Students want to talk about it but administrators are silent.
I don’t know if the previous post was really Rick, but if you want Rick’s response on it, look no further than his own website:
http://www.randomdesigner.com/ONU_Recent_Newsweek_Article.pdf
I do not deny Dr. Colling’s scientific skill and knowledge. What bothers me is the conclusions which are extrapolations of science. You would do no injustice to his book or science if every time you see the phrase “therefore this is an example of evolution” with the phrase “therefore this is an example of an intelligent design created by an Intelligent designer.” Evolution and Creation both use circumstantial evidence to support their logical extensions into expressions of faith.