Inside Higher Ed, DC
12-10-07
Academic Freedom and Evolution
Opponents of evolution have of late been trying to frame their arguments as
being about academic freedom and free expression. As a result, the antievolution Discovery Institute is ecstatic over the recent discovery of e-mail
messages among professors at Iowa State University criticizing the views of a
pro-intelligent design professor whose tenure bid was denied. “Dr. Guillermo
Gonzalez and Academic Persecution” is the title of the institute’s Web page
about the case. (Iowa State says that the professor’s views on evolution were not
a decisive factor in his dismissal.)
The Christian Law Association, meanwhile, frames a lawsuit against the Woods
Hole Oceanographic Institution by a fired postdoc who does not believe in
evolution or want to do work related to evolution as a matter of his being
punished for his beliefs.
But the groups arguing for freedom of expression of evolution deniers have not
been heard agitating for the rights of Richard Colling. He’s a professor at Olivet
Nazarene University, in Illinois, who has been barred from teaching general
biology or having his book taught at the university that is his alma mater and the
place where he has taught for 27 years. A biologist who is very much a person of
faith, these punishments followed anger by some religious supporters of the
college over the publication of his book in which he argues that it is possible to
believe in God and still accept evolution.
“I thought I was doing the church a service,” Colling said in an interview. He
believes that religious colleges that frame science and faith as incompatible will
lose some of their best minds, and that his work has been devoted to helping
faithful students maintain their religious devotion while learning science as
science should be taught.
“You can’t check your intellect at the door of the church,” he said. Colling has
tenure and he hasn’t been fired or had his pay cut — which university officials
have told the American Association of University Professors means that Olivet
Nazarene can’t be accused of violating his academic freedom.
Actually, the AAUP tends to believe that having courses taken away (without due
process) and having your books banned generally is a violation of academic
freedom, and the association is currently investigating the case while pushing
(without success) for the sanctions against Colling to be lifted. The case is in
many ways notable because the AAUP gives religious colleges considerable
leeway in enforcing religious beliefs and is getting involved here only because of
evidence that the university is violating its own stated principles. At the same
time, the AAUP says that proponents of intelligent design are not necessarily
correctly citing the principles of academic freedom in some other prominent
cases attracting attention.
Colling’s career at Olivet Nazarene was successful until the publication in 2004 of
Random Designer, his attempt to offer a philosophy in which religious people can
study evolution with scientific seriousness, and scientists can embrace faith. The
central idea, in short, is that one can believe that God created the universe, and
in so doing created the systems that would evolve into everything that exists
today. Colling acknowledges that it is not possible to believe literally in the Bible’s
creation of the world in six days but argues that this need not diminish the moral
force of the Bible or belief in God.
As a biologist, Colling said that he thinks there is simply no argument that rebuts
evolution, and that the evidence is overwhelming. But in writing his book, he said
that he didn’t think of himself as remotely heretical. In fact, he said that one of the
things he admires about the Church of the Nazarene is that — provided one
believes in God — the faith embraces science.
Official church policy (confirmed by a spokeswoman for the university) states as
follows: “The Church of the Nazarene believes in the biblical account of creation
(’In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth ....’ Genesis 1:1). We
oppose any godless interpretation of the origin of the universe and of humankind.
However, the church accepts as valid all scientifically verifiable discoveries in
geology and other natural phenomena, for we firmly believe that God is the
Creator.”
Colling’s story (confirmed by AAUP officials who have been investigating the
case) is that trouble started last summer, as word about his views spread to
some conservative churches in the denomination, and word reached him that
some trustees wanted him fired. But President John C. Bowling came to his
defense, and nothing happened.
Bowling has also spoken out about how religion and science can be reconciled,
arguing that they can interact (although his analysis places more of an emphasis
on the primacy of faith). In an address to students last year, Bowling explored
these issues. “Christianity should not be viewed as adversarial to diligent
science. It is not. God created the natural order and the laws which govern it.
Science and faith are not enemies,” he said. “But let’s go a step further. How do
we respond when we come to a point of apparent conflict between scripture and
science? I believe that at a point, Scripture takes pre-eminence. For example, the
miraculous activity of God, ultimately demonstrated in the incarnation (Jesus
becoming human), and the resurrection, can never be explained by science;
such events do not fit the laws of science. So if we subvert the faith to what can
be explained by the laws of science alone, we fall short of the Biblical view of
God and salvation.”
On the question of evolution, Bowling said this: “The Christian faith and some
understandings of evolution are not necessarily incompatible. However, I want to
be very clear in saying that not every articulation of evolution will do; not at all.
That is to say, evolution must be understood in certain ways to be compatible
with Christian faith. The Christian affirmation of God as Creator affirms God as
initially creating, but also continually sustaining, actively interacting, and
purposefully directing creation to its culmination. All things come from Him, exist
in Him, and move to Him. Evolution, if it is to be held by a Christian, must be
considered as a methodology of divine creation within that broader Biblical
context.”
This spring, according to Colling, he was called to Bowling’s office and told that
because of the controversy over his book, he could no longer teach the general
biology course, and that his book could not be taught in the biology department
at all. Colling said that he asked Bowling if there was anything in his book or
teaching that was inappropriate or un-Christian, and Colling cited nothing. (A
spokeswoman for the university said Friday that only Bowling was authorized to
talk about the case, and that he was unavailable.)
Colling said that the bans on what he can teach have hurt him deeply because
he feels that he was trying to help his church and its students. He stressed that
he has never told students what they must believe, but that he teaches “what the
science says,” which is that evolution is real. “I have an obligation. If we say we
value the principles of academic freedom and we say that all verifiable science is
fine, this is verifiable science that should be taught.”
Some students in the past have been troubled by evolution, Colling said,
because they fear that if they study science, they must leave their faith behind.
“My challenge has been to be a real human being to them and to assure them
that the biology does not need to threaten their faith.”
Jonathan Knight, who directs the academic freedom division of the AAUP, said
that in cases where religious colleges explicitly require faculty members to reject
evolution or other scientific beliefs, the association would not bring academic
freedom investigations.
“If a private, church-related institution says that to be a member of this faculty,
you must believe in the inerrancy of the biblical account of the origins of life, we
would scratch our heads on whether it’s going to be very productive in terms of
science education, but we wouldn’t say that they have violated academic
freedom,” Knight said. “They are entitled to set out the rules of the game, and
they have done so, and so be it.”
Plenty of colleges do just that. For example, the postdoc who was fired at Woods
Hole took a job at Liberty University, where the doctrinal statement, among other
things, requires the belief that “the universe was created in six historical days.”
Knight said that was entirely within Liberty University’s right to state and enforce,
as far as the AAUP is concerned.
But what of Woods Hole or other scientifically oriented institutions that may not
want to hire people or who may want to fire people who would teach against
evolution in the classroom or refuse to do laboratory work based on evolution?
The fears are not just theoretical — the lawsuits over such dismissals are very
real, and many academics fear that the “Academic Bill of Rights” or similar
measures backed by some conservatives would make it hard for them to keep
out people whose teachings might run counter to science.
Knight said he could not think of a case where the AAUP had been asked to
investigate the claims of anti-evolution professors.
AAUP documents have explicitly and implicitly affirmed the right of departments
to recognize evolution as something that is established fact. The association’s
recent statement on “Freedom in the Classroom” states that “it is not
indoctrination for professors of biology to require students to understand
principles of evolution; indeed, it would be a dereliction of professional
responsibility to fail to do so.”
And a 1986 AAUP document, “Some Observations on Ideology, Competence
and Faculty Selection,” says it is legitimate in some cases for departments to
intentionally exclude certain perspectives when doing hiring. “Not just any
currently debated approach to a subject has a degree of importance which
should guarantee it time in the classroom, and classroom time not being
unlimited, choices have to be made,” the statement says. “An institution of higher
learning should welcome those who offer to bring it new ideas; but there is not
evading the substantive question whether the new ideas a candidate offers to
bring it really are that — as opposed, perhaps, to mere passing fads or fancies.”
— Scott Jaschik