Former Creationists Out There?

SLDER

unread,

Nov 17, 2002, 10:10:35 AM11/17/02

to

I am interested in hearing from former creationists who changed their views
about creationism and became convinced of evolution.

What was it in the end that convinced you?

Did you completely abandon Christianity, or did you just switch over to a
more "mainline" church?

How has it affected your social life? Have your fundy friends and family
disowned you? Or do you keep it quiet?

TIA

--
SLDeR
sderamu...@charter.net

David Jensen

unread,

Nov 17, 2002, 10:44:47 AM11/17/02

to

On Sun, 17 Nov 2002 15:10:35 +0000 (UTC), in talk.origins
"SLDER" <sderamu...@charter.net> wrote in
<utfcpgq...@corp.supernews.com>:

>I am interested in hearing from former creationists who changed their views
>about creationism and became convinced of evolution.

I was taught creationism as a child.

>What was it in the end that convinced you?

Science.

>Did you completely abandon Christianity, or did you just switch over to a
>more "mainline" church?

Both, eventually. Creation-evolution was part of my move to ELCA from
Wisc. Synod Lutheran (WELS). Many things contributed to my decision not
to bother worshipping.

>How has it affected your social life?

Had I stayed conservative Lutheran, I would never have married who I
did.

>Have your fundy friends and family disowned you?

No.

> Or do you keep it quiet?

It's not central to our conversations (Two WELS pastors as
brothers-in-law).

JS

unread,

Nov 17, 2002, 11:47:30 AM11/17/02

to

"SLDER" <sderamu...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:utfcpgq...@corp.supernews.com...

> I am interested in hearing from former creationists who changed their
views
> about creationism and became convinced of evolution.
>
> What was it in the end that convinced you?

The fact that, when you consider the availiable evidence and with our
present understanding, evolution makes so much more sense than creationism.
It was a matter of intellectual integrity for me. For example the
universality of the genetic code. The fact that structurally we are all
variations on a theme. Obvious cases of microevolution which can easily be
extrapolated out to macroevolution. The age of the earth, etc. Oh, and the
lousy, dishonest stories professional creationists have invented to try to
explain it all.

> Did you completely abandon Christianity, or did you just switch over to a
> more "mainline" church?

My temple is all of nature (ducking my head). But, not being omniscient, I
am not atheist. Who knows, maybe the church will, by some strange turn of
fate, turn out to be right. But those who have made their choices based on
what they truly felt to be the right at the time and followed it I would
hope would be spared the Christian hell.

> How has it affected your social life? Have your fundy friends and family
> disowned you? Or do you keep it quiet?

There came a point when the contradictions were to obvious to ignore and the
answers were lacking. I realized that I would have to leave sooner or later
so I decided I might as well go sooner than remain shackled in what I felt
to be a lie. I wrote a letter to the headquarters of my former church
explaining my reasoning. The local congregation urged my brother and
family, also members of the church, to disassociate with me but 6 months
after my leaving they left as well.

-----------------

"To be, or not to be: that is the question:
Whether 't is nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,
Or to take arms against a sea of troubles,
And by opposing end them? To die: to sleep:
No more; and by a sleep to say we end
The heartache and the thousand natural shocks
That flesh is heir to,--'t is a consummation
Devoutly to be wish'd. To die, to sleep;
To sleep: perchance to dream: ay, there 's the rub:
For in that sleep of death what dreams may come,
When we have shuffled off this mortal coil,
Must give us pause: there 's the respect
That makes calamity of so long life;
For who would bear the whips and scorns of time,
The oppressor's wrong, the proud man's contumely,
The pangs of despised love, the law's delay,
The insolence of office and the spurns
That patient merit of the unworthy takes,
When he himself might his quietus make
With a bare bodkin? who would fardels 13 bear,
To grunt and sweat under a weary life,
But that the dread of something after death,
The undiscover'd country from whose bourn
No traveller returns, puzzles the will
And makes us rather bear those ills we have
Than fly to others that we know not of?
Thus conscience does make cowards of us all;
And thus the native hue of resolution
Is sicklied o'er with the pale cast of thought,
And enterprises of great pith and moment
With this regard their currents turn awry,
And lose the name of action - Soft you now!
The fair Ophelia! Nymph, in thy orisons
Be all my sins rememb'red."
-William Shakespeare "Hamlet"

Fross

unread,

Nov 17, 2002, 12:38:58 PM11/17/02

to

I was raised in a Baptist family, went to a Baptist public school and my
family went to church every Sunday morning, evening and Wed. evening. I was
taught creationism and they also taught me this weird twisted view of what
evolution was and how it was bad. I remember my Sunday school teacher
telling me that they disproved evolution in a lab by cutting the tails off
lab mice for multiple generations and their tails never got any shorter.
What's weird is my dad is a Biology teacher and was an archaeologist for
many years. When I finally got older and learned some science, I asked him
his views and sure enough he wasn't a creationist. He was a theistic
evolutionist. He said he just kept quiet about the issue and let my mom
handle it. I myself became a theistic evolutionist in Jr. High. It wasn't
any one thing that convinced me. It was the large amount of evidence that
convinced me. I eventually presented a lot of evidence to my creationist
mom and she is now a theistic evolutionist.
I didn't abandon Christianity until I was 23. It had absolutley nothing to
do with my scientific views. I just wanted to research the history behind
my faith. I was hoping to strengthen my faith by doing so, but it had the
opposite effect. I ended up discussing everything with my family and even
my Uncle who is a pastor. They tried to help me, but whenever I brought up
theological issues, or stuff I learned about the ancient middle eastern
cultures, they simply didn't want to hear it. My mother said straight up "I
don't want to question my faith, so I'd rather not discuss this". We all
get along great, but we don't discuss our reasons for faith or lack of
faith.
My social life has not been effected by my views on evolution. I do keep
quiet when I'm in the company of creationists and they start spouting off
some stuff they read on a website. I avoid those debates, because it would
require them understanding what evolution really states, and that takes up
too much time.

later

Fross

AC

unread,

Nov 17, 2002, 12:55:01 PM11/17/02

to

In article <utfcpgq...@corp.supernews.com>, SLDER wrote:
> I am interested in hearing from former creationists who changed their views
> about creationism and became convinced of evolution.

Here I am!

>
> What was it in the end that convinced you?

When I actually checked the references in the Creationist literature, and
discovered the distortions and outright lies. Let's just say that the JW
out-of-context quote of Dawkins was a pivotal moment.

>
> Did you completely abandon Christianity, or did you just switch over to a
> more "mainline" church?

I personally abandoned Christianity, and religion in general.

>
> How has it affected your social life? Have your fundy friends and family
> disowned you? Or do you keep it quiet?

Most of the JW members of my family have been pretty good. They know better
now that to try to proseletyze. A few won't talk to me, but I'm not all
that worried about it. They are the kookier ones anyways.

--
AC

Anointed-One.net

unread,

Nov 17, 2002, 1:03:34 PM11/17/02

to

"Obvious cases of microevolution which can easily be extrapolated out to
macroevolution."

I am amazed how many people actually use this excuse. Please give a
specific case about how horizontal variation/microevolution (which has much
basis in science) can be used to explain vertical
transformation/macroevolution (which has never been proven or observed
scientifically). Just because you feel comfortable easily extrapolating
doesn't mean it's true.

Jeff

___________________________ Anointed-One.net

"JS" <@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:FRPB9.19681$nQ4....@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...

R. Baldwin

unread,

Nov 17, 2002, 1:29:07 PM11/17/02

to

"SLDER" <sderamu...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:utfcpgq...@corp.supernews.com...

> I am interested in hearing from former creationists who changed
their views
> about creationism and became convinced of evolution.
>
> What was it in the end that convinced you?

I took an anthropology class in high school from an excellent teacher.
It included hands-on activities such as making stone tools. I realized
that the succession of stone tool technology alone was inconsistent
with the Genesis story. I also realized that the anti-evolution
arguments badly mischaracterized what scientists actually had to say.

>
> Did you completely abandon Christianity, or did you just switch over
to a
> more "mainline" church?

I switched to a mainline church, but not over this issue. Evolution
was not as big an issue for fundamentalists at the time. The switch
had more to do with a growing understanding that much of the
fundamentalist message was bigoted and hateful, and contradicted the
teachings of Jesus.

>
> How has it affected your social life? Have your fundy friends and
family
> disowned you? Or do you keep it quiet?

Some members of my family are fundamentalists. When they get going I
practically bite my tongue right off.

>
> TIA
>
> --
> SLDeR
> sderamu...@charter.net
>
>
>
>

Dunk

unread,

Nov 17, 2002, 2:03:03 PM11/17/02

to

On Sun, 17 Nov 2002 18:03:34 +0000 (UTC), "Anointed-One.net"
<em...@anointed-one.net> wrote:

>
>"Obvious cases of microevolution which can easily be extrapolated out to
>macroevolution."
>
>I am amazed how many people actually use this excuse. Please give a
>specific case about how horizontal variation/microevolution (which has much
>basis in science) can be used to explain vertical
>transformation/macroevolution (which has never been proven or observed
>scientifically). Just because you feel comfortable easily extrapolating
>doesn't mean it's true.
>
>
>Jeff

So, your position is that some is some but more isn't more?
How does this work with humans & chimps?
How does it work with cichlid fishes?
Dunk

>___________________________ Anointed-One.net

JS

unread,

Nov 17, 2002, 2:04:01 PM11/17/02

to

"Anointed-One.net" <em...@anointed-one.net> wrote in message
news:KYQB9.32723$Yb.7...@twister.austin.rr.com...

>
> "Obvious cases of microevolution which can easily be extrapolated out to
> macroevolution."
>
> I am amazed how many people actually use this excuse. Please give a
> specific case about how horizontal variation/microevolution (which has
much
> basis in science) can be used to explain vertical
> transformation/macroevolution (which has never been proven or observed
> scientifically). Just because you feel comfortable easily extrapolating
> doesn't mean it's true.

Microevolution is change within species, macroevolution is change at or
above the species level. Thus any genetic change which results in a new
species is macroevolution.

Take the polar bear, Ursus maritimus, for example. It's related to the
brown bear, Ursus arctos (two different species), but it has acquired
substantial differences which enable it to thrive in a frigid environment
that the brown bear could not (which is why you don't see brown bears
jumping between ice floes).
http://www.geocities.com/kenthovind/ron.html

More examples?
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

Lane Lewis

unread,

Nov 17, 2002, 2:05:35 PM11/17/02

to

"Anointed-One.net" <em...@anointed-one.net> wrote in message
news:KYQB9.32723$Yb.7...@twister.austin.rr.com...
>

> "Obvious cases of microevolution which can easily be extrapolated out to
> macroevolution."
>
> I am amazed how many people actually use this excuse. Please give a
> specific case about how horizontal variation/microevolution (which has
much
> basis in science) can be used to explain vertical
> transformation/macroevolution (which has never been proven or observed
> scientifically). Just because you feel comfortable easily extrapolating
> doesn't mean it's true.
>
>
> Jeff
>

There is no such thing as horizontal variation or vertical transformation,
there is only evolution. Animals evolve and there is not a known mechanism
that would prevent animals from evolving into new species one micro step at
a time. No one has to extrapolate anything as there are not two forms of
evolution only one.

Lane

Dana Tweedy

unread,

Nov 17, 2002, 2:33:45 PM11/17/02

to

"Anointed-One.net" <em...@anointed-one.net> wrote in message
news:KYQB9.32723$Yb.7...@twister.austin.rr.com...
>

> "Obvious cases of microevolution which can easily be extrapolated out to
> macroevolution."
>
> I am amazed how many people actually use this excuse.

They use it because it's the truth.

> Please give a
> specific case about how horizontal variation/microevolution (which has
much
> basis in science) can be used to explain vertical
> transformation/macroevolution (which has never been proven or observed
> scientifically).

Where do you get the idea that evolution is "vertical"? Evolution is just
change, it's not progress, or improvement. Microevolution is little change,
Macroevolution is more change. The mechanism is entirely the same, the only
difference is number of generations.

Also, your assertion that macroevolution or "transformation" has never been
observed is a bit of a straw man. While it's true no one has seen, for
example a dog turn into a cat, that is not what evolutionary theory
predicts. There is ample evidence that over many generations populations
can, and do change in response to enviromental change. Selective breeding
has "transformed" wolves into chihuahuas (this is your "one example", do
dispute?) . If deliberate selection of vairations and mutations can make
that much of a change in only a few thousand years, why can't natural
selection acting on the same vairation and mutation make larger changes over
millions of years?

> Just because you feel comfortable easily extrapolating
> doesn't mean it's true.

Just because you have religious objections to evolution doesn't mean it's
not true.

Snipping away the post underneath.

DJT

D C

unread,

Nov 17, 2002, 3:02:14 PM11/17/02

to

----------
In article <7jeftu4sc87o43r0p...@4ax.com>, David Jensen
<da...@dajensen-family.com> wrote:

> On Sun, 17 Nov 2002 15:10:35 +0000 (UTC), in talk.origins
> "SLDER" <sderamu...@charter.net> wrote in
> <utfcpgq...@corp.supernews.com>:
>
>
>>I am interested in hearing from former creationists who changed their views
>>about creationism and became convinced of evolution.
>
> I was taught creationism as a child.
>
>>What was it in the end that convinced you?
>
> Science.
>

Ooooh, I bet they really miss you.

Eric Gill

unread,

Nov 17, 2002, 3:46:00 PM11/17/02

to

"Anointed-One.net" <em...@anointed-one.net> wrote in
news:KYQB9.32723$Yb.7...@twister.austin.rr.com:

>
> "Obvious cases of microevolution which can easily be extrapolated out
> to macroevolution."
>
> I am amazed how many people actually use this excuse. Please give a
> specific case about how horizontal variation/microevolution

Say, "Annointed-One."

I asked if you were able to present a coherent theory of ID - remember?
Don't you think you should at least respond before making similar requests
from other people?

<snip>

wf...@ptnospam.com

unread,

Nov 17, 2002, 4:59:11 PM11/17/02

to

On Sun, 17 Nov 2002 18:03:34 +0000 (UTC), "Anointed-One.net"
<em...@anointed-one.net> wrote:

>
>"Obvious cases of microevolution which can easily be extrapolated out to
>macroevolution."
>
>I am amazed how many people actually use this excuse. Please give a
>specific case about how horizontal variation/microevolution (which has much
>basis in science) can be used to explain vertical
>transformation/macroevolution (which has never been proven or observed
>scientifically). Just because you feel comfortable easily extrapolating
>doesn't mean it's true.
>

of course, creationists give no answers at all about anything. they
seem to think 'god did it' is science.

houdini would be proud of creationism. its gullibility masquerading as
magic.

wf...@ptnospam.com

unread,

Nov 17, 2002, 4:58:02 PM11/17/02

to

although i never was a creationist, i WAS a christian. i saw a 5 part
series by jerry falwell on creationism which demonstrated a large part
of christianity was, to put it mildly, regressive. thats when i left
christianity.

it had zip to do with evolution, and everything to do with
creationism. creationism is dishonest. i wonder if creationists know
that.

macaddicted

unread,

Nov 17, 2002, 5:14:23 PM11/17/02

to

SLDER <sderamu...@charter.net> wrote:

> I am interested in hearing from former creationists who changed their views
> about creationism and became convinced of evolution.
>

I never had much of a problem with evolution. My father, however, did.
We debated the issue through most of my teens.

> What was it in the end that convinced you?
>

In the end it was another source. He attended a religious conference (a
Charismatic conference) where he learned that the Church was not
opposed to evolution in principal. (There are still some issues for the
Church, but that is not important here.)

> Did you completely abandon Christianity, or did you just switch over to a
> more "mainline" church?
>

I don't think you can get more mainlie than Roman Catholic. He is still
a Eucharistic minister and has been a minister to a local youth
detention camp for over 20 years.

> How has it affected your social life? Have your fundy friends and family
> disowned you? Or do you keep it quiet?
>

Heck, I love to debate. I'll take on anyone on any issue of which I have
sufficient knowledge. (I tend to try to avoid foot-in-mouth disease)

> TIA
>

Your welcome
God bless

> --
> SLDeR
> sderamu...@charter.net

--
macaddicted
9 of the 10 voices in my head think that I am sane.

Anointed-One.net

unread,

Nov 17, 2002, 6:17:26 PM11/17/02

to

You want me to provide a natural, scientific answer for a supernatural
event? That's impossible.

Jeff

___________________________ Anointed-One.net

"Eric Gill" <eric...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Xns92C996EBCE695...@24.28.95.158...

Anointed-One.net

unread,

Nov 17, 2002, 6:20:44 PM11/17/02

to

Creationists will all be stupid for real when science comes up with at least
ONE generally accepted theory on the origin of life and not one second
before then.

Jeff

___________________________ Anointed-One.net

<wf...@ptnospam.com> wrote in message
news:3dd812d0...@news.ptdprolog.net...

Frank J

unread,

Nov 17, 2002, 6:22:00 PM11/17/02

to

"SLDER" <sderamu...@charter.net> wrote in message news:<utfcpgq...@corp.supernews.com>...

> I am interested in hearing from former creationists who changed their views
> about creationism and became convinced of evolution.
>
> What was it in the end that convinced you?

In part Catholic school, circa 1967. One example that I vaguely recall
was my 7th grade teacher, when discussing geologic time, put some
confusing qualifiers on it that made me start thinking critically. And
since I was not allowed to bear false witness, the rest was
(pre)history...
>
> Did you completely abandon Christianity, or did you just from over to a
> more "mainline" church?

unread,

Nov 17, 2002, 7:23:40 PM11/17/02

to

"Anointed-One.net" <em...@anointed-one.net> wrote in
news:EzVB9.25811$Kj1.7...@twister.austin.rr.com:

>
> You want me to provide a natural, scientific answer for a supernatural
> event? That's impossible.

If you want ID taught in science, or want to replace science with
your religion, then that is what you must do.

> "Eric Gill" <eric...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns92C996EBCE695...@24.28.95.158...
>> "Anointed-One.net" <em...@anointed-one.net> wrote in
>> news:KYQB9.32723$Yb.7...@twister.austin.rr.com:
>>
>> >
>> > "Obvious cases of microevolution which can easily be extrapolated
>> > out to macroevolution."
>> >
>> > I am amazed how many people actually use this excuse. Please give
>> > a specific case about how horizontal variation/microevolution
>>
>> Say, "Annointed-One."
>>
>> I asked if you were able to present a coherent theory of ID -
>> remember? Don't you think you should at least respond before making
>> similar requests from other people?
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>

--
Dick #1349
"Believe those who are seeking the truth; doubt those who find it."
Andre Gide, French author and critic (1869-1951).
Home Page: dickcr.iwarp.com
email: crav...@msn.net

unread,

Nov 17, 2002, 8:33:15 PM11/17/02

to

"Anointed-One.net" <em...@anointed-one.net> wrote in
news:EzVB9.25811$Kj1.7...@twister.austin.rr.com:

>
> You want me to provide a natural, scientific answer for a supernatural
> event?

ID is strictly supernatural and unscientific, then? Interesting. Why didn't
you simply say so?

Pklease, clarify, though. Essentially, you are saying Phillip Johnson and
the rest of the 'ID is an alternate theory' are lying?

> That's impossible.

Probably, since 'supernatural' seems to be an alias for 'imaginary'.

Tell me, why, exactly, something that allegedly interacts with the physical
cannot at least be shown to actually do so.

Dana Tweedy

unread,

Nov 17, 2002, 8:35:52 PM11/17/02

to

"Anointed-One.net" <em...@anointed-one.net> wrote in message

news:EzVB9.25811$Kj1.7...@twister.austin.rr.com...

>
> You want me to provide a natural, scientific answer for a supernatural
> event? That's impossible.

That's exactly the point. That's why science doesn't deal with the
supernatural. That's why Creationism is not science.

DJT

wf...@ptnospam.com

unread,

Nov 17, 2002, 8:42:48 PM11/17/02

to

On Sun, 17 Nov 2002 23:17:26 +0000 (UTC), "Anointed-One.net"
<em...@anointed-one.net> wrote:

>
>You want me to provide a natural, scientific answer for a supernatural
>event? That's impossible.
>
>

and thus he sums up creationism.

Bigdakine

unread,

Nov 17, 2002, 8:43:17 PM11/17/02

to

>Subject: Re: Former Creationists Out There?
>From: "Anointed-One.net" em...@anointed-one.net
>Date: 11/17/02 8:03 AM Hawaiian Standard Time
>Message-id: <KYQB9.32723$Yb.7...@twister.austin.rr.com>

>
>
>"Obvious cases of microevolution which can easily be extrapolated out to
>macroevolution."
>
>I am amazed how many people actually use this excuse. Please give a
>specific case about how horizontal variation/microevolution (which has much
>basis in science) can be used to explain vertical
>transformation/macroevolution (which has never been proven or observed
>scientifically). Just because you feel comfortable easily extrapolating
>doesn't mean it's true.

OK.

Examine this series.
Please explain which links are missing and where there is an unwarranted
extrapolation.

http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/natsci/vertpaleo/fhc/firstCM.htm

THanx,

Stuart
Dr. Stuart A. Weinstein
Ewa Beach Institute of Tectonics
"To err is human, but to really foul things up
requires a creationist"

Bigdakine

unread,

Nov 17, 2002, 8:45:18 PM11/17/02

to

>Subject: Re: Former Creationists Out There?

>From: fn...@comcast.net (Frank J)
>Date: 11/17/02 1:28 PM Hawaiian Standard Time
>Message-id: <38c5d0dd.02111...@posting.google.com>

As used by creationists. However, professional biologists use the terms micro
and macro-evolution.

Bigdakine

unread,

Nov 17, 2002, 8:46:47 PM11/17/02

to

>Subject: Re: Former Creationists Out There?

>From: "Anointed-One.net" em...@anointed-one.net
>Date: 11/17/02 1:17 PM Hawaiian Standard Time
>Message-id: <EzVB9.25811$Kj1.7...@twister.austin.rr.com>

>
>
>You want me to provide a natural, scientific answer for a supernatural
>event? That's impossible.
>

So then you admit that ID should not be taught as science?

Bigdakine

unread,

Nov 17, 2002, 8:49:17 PM11/17/02

to

>Subject: Re: Former Creationists Out There?
>From: "Anointed-One.net" em...@anointed-one.net

>Date: 11/17/02 1:20 PM Hawaiian Standard Time
>Message-id: <vCVB9.25812$Kj1.7...@twister.austin.rr.com>

>
>
>Creationists will all be stupid for real when science comes up with at least
>ONE generally accepted theory on the origin of life and not one second
>before then.
>

They looked mighty stupid when geologists and astronomers confirmed the true
age of the universe and solar system. They looked real stupid when proto-humans
were found and the creationists claimed they were humans with rickets.

How much more stupid do they need to look? How much more stupid could they
possible look?

Are you a glutton for punishment?

David Jensen

unread,

Nov 17, 2002, 8:50:36 PM11/17/02

to

On Mon, 18 Nov 2002 01:33:15 +0000 (UTC), in talk.origins
Lee Oswald Ving <leeo...@yahoo.com> wrote in
<Xns92C9C79F9EEA9...@24.28.95.150>:

>"Anointed-One.net" <em...@anointed-one.net> wrote in
>news:EzVB9.25811$Kj1.7...@twister.austin.rr.com:
>
>>
>> You want me to provide a natural, scientific answer for a supernatural
>> event?
>
>ID is strictly supernatural and unscientific, then? Interesting. Why didn't
>you simply say so?
>
>Pklease, clarify, though. Essentially, you are saying Phillip Johnson and
>the rest of the 'ID is an alternate theory' are lying?

That would be accurate from my point of view. Johnson, in particular, is
not at all interested in science.

Alan Wright

unread,

Nov 17, 2002, 9:35:13 PM11/17/02

to

"Anointed-One.net" <em...@anointed-one.net> wrote in message

news:vCVB9.25812$Kj1.7...@twister.austin.rr.com...

>
> Creationists will all be stupid for real when science comes up with at
least
> ONE generally accepted theory on the origin of life and not one second
> before then.

God-of-the-gaps argument. Try again.

Alan

Dunk

unread,

Nov 17, 2002, 10:01:58 PM11/17/02

to

And have different ideas about what such a term ought to mean.
But they don't do silly things like argue that something doesn't
happen, based on shifting defing definitions.
For instance, one use of 'macroevolution' is to refer to macroscopic
changes [ aka character evolution, where the characters are things
that can be seen in fossils ] as opposed to genetic changes as such.
Of course you know that and the following too. I'm just saying it for
the record.

It is literally impossible to demonstrate macroevolution to a
creationist. This is because they use the term microevolution for
whatever evolution they admit to, even a drastic multiplication of
species since the flood.

Also note that speciation - a splitting of a lineage - invloves the
evolution of mating barriers. These can be of many types.
Two species of fruit flies that specialize on different fruits that
mature five weeks apart can be reproductively isolated just by virtue
of the fact that they mate at different times of the summer.

One could quibble over whether evolving reproductive isolation is an
'extropolation' of other changes.

Dunk

SLDER

unread,

Nov 17, 2002, 10:50:58 PM11/17/02

to

Well, I didn't imagine I'd get such a great and varied response. I was
never a creationist myself. I remember first hearing about creationists my
first year in college and couldn't imagine that such people actually existed
who could believe something that was so demonstrably false and went against
everything that our scientific understanding of the world taught us. I had
grown up in a rather mainline Episcopal church where evolution was never
questioned. I didn't even remember it being discussed at all at church. As
a kid I was, like all the other kids, fascinated by Dinosaurs and I knew
that they had lived millions of years ago and no man had ever seen one.

Twenty three years after discovering creationists, I am still fascinated by
them and what makes them think and how they rationalize what is, to me,
completely irrational. I've known many over the years and what always
strikes me as odd is that they are not necessarily uneducated country
bumpkins. A few that I knew in Law School were at the top of the class -
far ahead of me :- ). Heck, at my Brother in Law's recent med school
graduation I met the valedictorian and she too was a fundamentalist
creationist. I don't think you can get through those disciplines at the top
of your class and not be very intelligent. Yet at the same time, they seem
blind to anything that might challenge their fundamentalist beliefs. Which
is why I started this topic to see how and if people can change. My theory
is that most people don't stake their belief on reason or what is
scientifically demonstrated, but on what they grew up with and what their
family and social milieu tells them to believe in. It's hard to come out of
the closet as an evolutionist when your entire family is fundamentalist and
you and all of your friends and even business associates attend the local
Southern Baptist church where "evilution" is demonized every Sunday and
Wednesday nights to boot. It is much easier just to accept what's being
spoon fed rather than risk your own social and even economic destruction.
It's nice to know though that some people do reason their way out and that
my theory is not quite true.

I guess growing up and even into adulthood attending a church that didn't
mind reasoning and questioning adults (there's a great Episcopal poster
showing a crucified Jesus with the caption: "He died to take away your sins,
not your mind."), that it took a lot longer for me to realize that
Christianity too was not rational and contradicted much of what we know
about the history of the Mediterranean of that time period, and was likely
just another one of many Mystery Cults. I finally rejected Christianity
after being challenged by a fundamentalist to find out the real truth and go
one way or the other. I went the other after reading several good books,
including books by A. N. Wilson and Hyamm Maccoby, and later articles on the
internet at www.infidels.org. I've never gone completely atheistic, though
I like to call myself a free-thinker.

I usually keep my views to myself - except when I'm with other like minded
friends. I live in the fundamentalist south, and I'm somewhat afraid that
if my beliefs were known to a larger audience it might affect my business (I
have my own law practice). Lately though, I've started to let people know
more, and when pressed just tell people I'm a free thinker. I like to see
how fundamentalists react. Still, I keep my religious beliefs from my
parents who wouldn't approve (I just don't see the point in upsetting them),
and definitely from my very religious though not fundamentalist inlaws who
for some unknown reason, actually think highly of me. I would hate to ruin
my relationship with them.

SLDeR
sderamu...@charter.net

"SLDER" <sderamu...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:utfcpgq...@corp.supernews.com...
> I am interested in hearing from former creationists who changed their
views
> about creationism and became convinced of evolution.
>
> What was it in the end that convinced you?
>
> Did you completely abandon Christianity, or did you just switch over to a
> more "mainline" church?
>
> How has it affected your social life? Have your fundy friends and family
> disowned you? Or do you keep it quiet?
>

> TIA
>
> --
> SLDeR
> sderamu...@charter.net
>
>
>
>

Dunno

unread,

Nov 17, 2002, 10:50:40 PM11/17/02

to

On Sun, 17 Nov 2002, SLDER wrote:

>
>
> I am interested in hearing from former creationists who changed their views
> about creationism and became convinced of evolution.
>
> What was it in the end that convinced you?

Information. Something I wasn't exposed to until college.

>
> Did you completely abandon Christianity, or did you just switch over to a
> more "mainline" church?
>
> How has it affected your social life?

Not yet, but it will.

> Have your fundy friends and family
> disowned you?

Not yet, but they may.

> Or do you keep it quiet?
>

Still in the closet -- environment hostile to science
and knowledge. I'm here being educated for the upcoming
insurrection, that my life will change dramatically is
a foregone conclusion.

-

True adj. 1 (a) Stedfast, loyal. (b) Honest, just.
2 Qualifier for one's beliefs.

False adj. 1 Not genuine
2 (a) Intentionally untrue. (b) Intended to mislead.
3 Qualifier for others' beliefs.

C. Thompson

unread,

Nov 17, 2002, 11:58:04 PM11/17/02

to

wf...@ptnospam.com wrote:
>
> houdini would be proud of creationism. its gullibility masquerading as
> magic.

Let's give credit where its due. Harry Houdini spent a great deal of
time and money debunking so-called psychics, mystics, mind-readers, and
other charlatans.

Chris

David Jensen

unread,

Nov 18, 2002, 12:18:07 AM11/18/02

to

On Mon, 18 Nov 2002 04:58:04 +0000 (UTC), in talk.origins
"C. Thompson" <rockw...@erols.com> wrote in
<3DD876...@erols.com>:

Which, we are told, he wouldn't have bothered with if he hadn't had such
a mystic bent. It appears that he truly [believed|hoped] that such
things were possible and his debunking wasn't an intentional crusade.

Of course, that may have been his cover and he knew they were all cons
but used his own apparent credulousness to sucker the con men into
opening themselves up to his tests and debunking.

cheeny weeny

unread,

Nov 18, 2002, 6:50:16 AM11/18/02

to

"SLDER" <sderamu...@charter.net> wrote in message news:<utgpben...@corp.supernews.com>...

Reading this makes me realise how little I really understand America.
Having to hide such a moderate position sounds absolutely terrifying.

No wonder there is such strength of feeling on t.o.

Just how prevalent is this kind of thing ? Surely it does not affect
the main cities.

C.

<...>

Jeff Hilton

unread,

Nov 18, 2002, 7:57:03 AM11/18/02

to

<wf...@ptnospam.com> wrote in message
news:3dd8125d...@news.ptdprolog.net...

> On Sun, 17 Nov 2002 15:10:35 +0000 (UTC), "SLDER"
> <sderamu...@charter.net> wrote:
>
> >I am interested in hearing from former creationists who changed their
views
> >about creationism and became convinced of evolution.

Even more interesting(and telling) would be to ask to hear from
former
evolution proponents who have switched to creationism. If there are no
respondents then what can we conclude about the validity of creationism?
Assuming one's intelligence increases over time and that philosophies(on
human origin in this case) conform to the confines of one's intelligence
I'd say that having no respondents would be a bad(and accurate)
reflection on creationism's validity.

Jeff Hilton

unread,

Nov 18, 2002, 7:57:06 AM11/18/02

to

Jeff Hilton

unread,

Nov 18, 2002, 8:07:15 AM11/18/02

to

"SLDER" <sderamu...@charter.net> wrote in message

news:utfcpgq...@corp.supernews.com...

> I am interested in hearing from former creationists who changed their
views
> about creationism and became convinced of evolution.

> "SLDER" <sderamu...@charter.net> wrote in message

> news:utfcpgq...@corp.supernews.com...

C. Thompson

unread,

Nov 18, 2002, 12:16:51 PM11/18/02

to

My understanding (which may very well be faulty, since it was word-of-mouth)
was that he was desperate to communicate with his deceased relatives, in
order to find out if there was an afterlife.

Chris

Lane Lewis

unread,

Nov 18, 2002, 12:30:42 PM11/18/02

to

"Anointed-One.net" <em...@anointed-one.net> wrote in message

news:EzVB9.25811$Kj1.7...@twister.austin.rr.com...

>
> You want me to provide a natural, scientific answer for a supernatural

> event? That's impossible.
>
>
> Jeff
>
> ___________________________ Anointed-One.net
>

I want to see you get that toothpaste back into the tube.

Lane

David Jensen

unread,

Nov 18, 2002, 12:43:29 PM11/18/02

to

On Mon, 18 Nov 2002 17:16:51 +0000 (UTC), in talk.origins
"C. Thompson" <rockw...@hotmail.com> wrote in
<arb3ln$mmr$1...@pat.cis.cuny.edu>:

That's what I understand, too. I only offer the alternative, because his
desperate desire to communicate would be an excellent cover for him to
debunk the con men.

Frank J

unread,

Nov 18, 2002, 6:50:40 PM11/18/02

unread,

Nov 19, 2002, 9:18:12 AM11/19/02

to

"Jeff Hilton" <hilt...@bellsouth.net> wrote in
news:4u5C9.23418$dr6....@news.bellsouth.net:

There are any number of creationists who come in here and claim that
they used to be atheists/evolutionists. However, it rapidly becomes
clear that they are lying through their teeth. They demonstrate no
understanding of either atheism or evolution. They are simply
more examples of the honesty of creationists.

--
Dick #1349
"Believe those who are seeking the truth; doubt those who find it."
Andre Gide, French author and critic (1869-1951).
Home Page: dickcr.iwarp.com
email: crav...@msn.net

Termite of Temptation

unread,

Nov 19, 2002, 12:14:00 PM11/19/02

to

myth_el...@yahoo.co.uk (cheeny weeny) wrote in message news:<1125c8af.02111...@posting.google.com>...

I never claimed it does. You obviously completely missed what I was
trying to say. The fact is the we can measure with a reasonable degree
of accuracy rates of mutation over a SHORT period of time, then we can
multiply by the total amount of time available, to obtain a total
amount of mutation (clearly the actualy result will be more
complicated, since mutation rates can change).

My example was meant to challenge you argument, above, that

>>> Just because you feel comfortable easily extrapolating
>>> doesn't mean it's true.

The kind of extrapolation we use in examining evolution is no
different, in a logical sense, than the extrapolation example I gave
above.

Oh and by the way... "distance = velocity x time" is applied maths. As
in, maths used in a scientific context.

Duncan

Lane Lewis

unread,

Nov 19, 2002, 12:43:29 PM11/19/02

to

"Termite of Temptation" <womanl...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:fb648d5e.0211...@posting.google.com...

> "Anointed-One.net" <em...@anointed-one.net> wrote in message
news:<KYQB9.32723$Yb.7...@twister.austin.rr.com>...
> > "Obvious cases of microevolution which can easily be extrapolated out to
> > macroevolution."
> >
> > I am amazed how many people actually use this excuse. Please give a
> > specific case about how horizontal variation/microevolution (which has
much
> > basis in science) can be used to explain vertical
> > transformation/macroevolution (which has never been proven or observed
> > scientifically). Just because you feel comfortable easily extrapolating
> > doesn't mean it's true.
>
> It's the same extrapolation that allows us to deduce that adding
> together small numbers makes a larger number, or that driving a car at
> 60mph for an hour will probably make you travel 60 miles. There's no
> voodoo difference between micro and macro evolution - microevolution
> is a small amount of change and macroevolution is a large amount of
> change. And I think you'll agree that lots of small changes make a big
> change.
>

> thanks for listening
> Duncan
>

I don't think we have to extrapolate in this instant since speciation has
been observed, we do however extrapolate from the fossil record much of how
evolution works which creationist claim is bad science, however
extrapolation based on _evidence_ is one of the ways science works to form
hypothesis and theories.

Lane

TomS

unread,

Nov 19, 2002, 1:29:17 PM11/19/02

to

"On Tue, 19 Nov 2002 17:43:29 +0000 (UTC), in article
<xSuC9.335616$S8.65...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>, "Lane stated..."

But speciation ... for the creationists ... is not "enough" to count
as *macro*evolution (or "vertical" evolution). Some would argue that
even the appearance of a new genus is acceptable, and that a biological
*family* marks the barrier to macro-evolution. (By the way, the cross
between wheat and rye has produced a new genus, Triticale.) Of course,
it is extremely difficult to give a definition of "genus", other than
something like "a convenient group of species"; or of "family", other
than "a convenient group of genera".

Moreover, even the *loss* of a major function or organ might be
acceptable to creationists, or an *extinction* of a major group of
organisms.

And we don't so much *extra*polate from the fossil record, as we
note that major changes have taken place. It might be *intra*polation.

Tom S.

Rodjk

unread,

Nov 19, 2002, 1:51:43 PM11/19/02

to

fn...@comcast.net (Frank J) wrote in message news:<38c5d0dd.02111...@posting.google.com>...

> "JS" <@verizon.net> wrote in message news:<DRRB9.20171$nQ4....@nwrddc01.gnilink.net>...

> > "Anointed-One.net" <em...@anointed-one.net> wrote in message
> > news:KYQB9.32723$Yb.7...@twister.austin.rr.com...
> > >
> > > "Obvious cases of microevolution which can easily be extrapolated out to
> > > macroevolution."
> > >
> > > I am amazed how many people actually use this excuse. Please give a
> > > specific case about how horizontal variation/microevolution (which has
> much
> > > basis in science) can be used to explain vertical
> > > transformation/macroevolution (which has never been proven or observed
> > > scientifically). Just because you feel comfortable easily extrapolating
> > > doesn't mean it's true.
> >

> > Microevolution is change within species, macroevolution is change at or
> > above the species level. Thus any genetic change which results in a new
> > species is macroevolution.
> >
> If you choose to define it that way. As you probably know,
> anti-evolutionists don't agree among themselves where macro begins and
> micro leaves off. That alone suggests that the micro/macro dichotomy
> is a false one.

To them, the split is at the next level up from where their audience
is aware of a change taking place :-)
That, of course, will change depending how aware their next audience
is of science.

Rodjk #613

Rodjk

unread,

Nov 19, 2002, 1:56:41 PM11/19/02

to

"SLDER" <sderamu...@charter.net> wrote in message news:<utfcpgq...@corp.supernews.com>...
> I am interested in hearing from former creationists who changed their views
> about creationism and became convinced of evolution.
>

> What was it in the end that convinced you?

I was raised catholic. I was not taught much about evolution/creation
in school directly (I went to a Catholic school).
But I loved to read and I loved science. The more I read the Greek and
Roman myths the more they sounded like christian stories. I read the
bible and it did not seem that impressive. I was struck by
contridictions and the wanton cruelty of god.
By the time I was in high school, I considered myself to be christian,
but just a follower of god/jesus. In college, I took bio and geology,
which pretty much finished off whatever belief I had remaining.

>
> Did you completely abandon Christianity, or did you just switch over to a
> more "mainline" church?

The switch was slow, took several years.

>
> How has it affected your social life?

Not much, other than recently. It is a big problem for my inlaws.

>Have your fundy friends and family
> disowned you? Or do you keep it quiet?

I do not bring up religion unless I am asked, for the most part.
A few people have been shocked, and even more shocked to find out that
I know the bible better than they do.

Rodjk #613
>
> TIA

rich hammett

unread,

Nov 19, 2002, 2:47:25 PM11/19/02

to

SLDER sanoi, niin käheällä äänellä etten alussa tajunnut sitä:

> I am interested in hearing from former creationists who changed their views
> about creationism and became convinced of evolution.

> What was it in the end that convinced you?

Science. I was always evidence-based, but was never much interested
in "soft science" like biology. My last biology course was in 8th
grade (around age 13 for you furriners), I made it through high
school and 15 years of university without another biology course.

So I never had to give it much thought. I of course believed in an
old universe and old earth, since I studied the physics a bit, and
those are also definitely beliefs of my church (Church of Jesus
Christ of Latter-day Saints). Evolution (or the lack thereof) is
not directly addressed in Mormon doctrine, and although there is much
folk doctrine against it, education is very important to Mormons, and
BYU, for instance, has a decent paleontology department, and several
past mormon leaders have publicly accepted evolution.

But the books I was reading were the ones written by a few, prominent
Mormon YECs. You know, some of the John Birch crowd. And they were
fairly effective in several arguments, like the one where they
proved that the current population of the earth _could_ have been
brought about in a few thousand years of an exponential population
expansion. I thought "There! That shows those evilutionists!
Imagine! Trying to say that populations don't expand!"

When I started grad school in engineering, I had some free time, and
read a couple of books about evolution...I don't even remember what
they were. By then end of the first book, I was convinced that the
YECs were either stupid, liars, or both.

> Did you completely abandon Christianity, or did you just switch over to a
> more "mainline" church?

Well, as I said, my church doesn't take a position against organic
evolution. But my examination of the, urm, misstatements of those
leaders who DID oppose evolution made me re-examine a lot of things.

> How has it affected your social life? Have your fundy friends and family

> disowned you? Or do you keep it quiet?

My circle of friends at church was freethinking enough to accept me,
even when they disagreed. I've moved a couple of times since then,
though, and haven't made new friends at church in several years.

my family...I just keep quiet around them. My politics (my
current .sig is a quote from the band Rush about the dangers
of jingoism. My brother doesn't like it.) are so foreign to
them that I'm amazed I grew up in the same state, sometimes.

rich

> TIA

> --
> SLDeR
> sderamu...@charter.net

--
-to reply, it's hot not warm
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
\ Rich Hammett http://home.hiwaay.net/~rhammett
\ ..basketball [is] the paramount
/ synthesis in sport of intelligence, precision, courage,
\ audacity, anticipation, artifice, teamwork, elegance,
/ and grace. --Carl Sagan

cheeny weeny

unread,

Nov 19, 2002, 3:19:57 PM11/19/02

to

David Jensen <da...@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message news:<6ihktu4aiqa8qf10n...@4ax.com>...

True.

> So, what, other than variation, time,
> isolation and natural selection, would cause macroevolution?

I can't think of anything but ...

The above is a terrible analogy. You can prove 1+1 = 2. It is a matter
of definition that an object travelling at 60 mph will cover 60 miles.

Evolution is a scientific theory. It needs to be diprovable.

I know your trying to lure me into another "Is evolution bad science
debate" ! but I'm still recovering from the last one with you and that
Friesen fellow ;-)

C.

David Jensen

unread,

Nov 19, 2002, 3:39:09 PM11/19/02

to

On Tue, 19 Nov 2002 20:19:57 +0000 (UTC), in talk.origins

myth_el...@yahoo.co.uk (cheeny weeny) wrote in
<1125c8af.02111...@posting.google.com>:

>David Jensen <da...@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message news:<6ihktu4aiqa8qf10n...@4ax.com>...
>> On Tue, 19 Nov 2002 08:52:23 +0000 (UTC), in talk.origins
>> myth_el...@yahoo.co.uk (cheeny weeny) wrote in
>> <1125c8af.02111...@posting.google.com>:

>> >*Complete and utter rubbish*

>> >
>> >Maths does not equal science.
>>
>> Maths are a tool of science.
>
>True.
>
>> So, what, other than variation, time,
>> isolation and natural selection, would cause macroevolution?
>
>I can't think of anything but ...
>
>The above is a terrible analogy. You can prove 1+1 = 2. It is a matter
>of definition that an object travelling at 60 mph will cover 60 miles.
>
>Evolution is a scientific theory. It needs to be diprovable.

Evolution is disprovable. All science is. Just because something is
disprovable does not mean that it is provable.

>I know your trying to lure me into another "Is evolution bad science
>debate" ! but I'm still recovering from the last one with you and that
>Friesen fellow ;-)

Good. We're here to help eliminate any myths that you are mistakenly
confused by.

JS

unread,

Nov 19, 2002, 8:04:42 PM11/19/02

to

"Judy Rickley" <JU...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:29922-3DD...@storefull-2258.public.lawson.webtv.net...

Thanks for the comments. I've no doubt that evolution is correct. What I
was expressing was that one tiny pin point of superstitious fear that I
suspect most people have. The "who knows, stranger things have happened"
factor. Perhaps it's the sad baggage of an open mind or a fundamentalist
upbringing.

catshark

unread,

Nov 19, 2002, 8:13:21 PM11/19/02

to

On Mon, 18 Nov 2002 11:50:16 +0000 (UTC), myth_el...@yahoo.co.uk
(cheeny weeny) wrote:

>"SLDER" <sderamu...@charter.net> wrote in message news:<utgpben...@corp.supernews.com>...

[snip SLDeR's story]

>Reading this makes me realise how little I really understand America.
>Having to hide such a moderate position sounds absolutely terrifying.
>
>No wonder there is such strength of feeling on t.o.
>
>Just how prevalent is this kind of thing ? Surely it does not affect
>the main cities.

In the large northern and west coast cities (New York, Boston,
Chicago, Los Angeles, San Francisco) conservative, evangelical
Christians are a significant political minority but without much
cultural clout. In large parts of the south, they are a political and
cultural majority, though the large cities, such as Atlanta, are
somewhat immune. A somewhat funny (and rather scary) example was in
todays NY Times:

http://makeashorterlink.com/?L21351182 (needs registration)

November 19, 2002
Judge's Biblical Monument Is Ruled Unconstitutional
By Jeffrey Gettleman

MONTGOMERY, Ala., Nov. 18 - Roy Moore may be the chief justice of the
Alabama Supreme Court, but around here most people just call him the
Ten Commandments judge.

And the 5,280-pound monument of the holy tablets he wheeled into his
courthouse early one morning last year, without the knowledge of his
colleagues, is simply known as "Roy's rock."

Almost instantly the chunk of granite became a beacon, a shinning
light across the South, drawing fundamentalist Christians to
Montgomery by the busload. Many dropped to their knees in front of the
monument and prayed.

Civil liberties groups accused Justice Moore of turning a courthouse
into a church. But his popularity only grew. Not long ago, Justice
Moore was a little-known county judge with a homemade plaque of the
Ten Commandments tacked to his courtroom wall. Now he was an Alabama
folk hero.

But today a federal judge issued his own commandment: Thou shalt
remove thy monument . . .

In Alabama, there is no underestimating the popularity of religion -
and defiance. While fundamentalists in Kansas lost their battle for
creationism, and supporters of organized school prayer were defeated
in Texas, evangelical Christians still set the agenda here. This is
the state, after all, where high school science books have stickers on
them saying evolution is just a theory.

Justice Moore tapped right into this, becoming a figurehead in the
movement pushing for more religion in public life. The 55-year-old
judge, a former ranch hand and kickboxer, does radio shows, helps
raise money for evangelical groups and travels roads near and far in
his old blue Cadillac, promoting his unique blend of church and state
. . .

Justice Moore's lawyer said the federal courts were "confused." He
vowed to appeal today's ruling.

Justice Moore had repeatedly said he would never remove the monument,
a four-foot-high cube that rises from the lobby floor. It was one of
his campaign pledges two years ago to bring the Ten Commandments to
the State Supreme Court.

He has also rejected requests from outside groups to display other
monuments in the courthouse. By state law, it is his decision. In the
chief justice's pocket are the courthouse keys. An alliance of black
organizations asked to put up a plaque of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther
King Jr.'s "I Have a Dream" speech. Justice Moore said no. Ditto for
the atheist group that wanted to display a statue of an atom.

The roots of the case go back to 1992, when Justice Moore was
appointed as a judge in Etowah County, in northwestern Alabama. One of
his first acts was to hang a homemade rosewood plaque of the Ten
Commandments in his courtroom.

Three years later, the A.C.L.U. sued. The first judge ordered Judge
Moore to take it down. Judge Moore refused. Then Gov. Fob James Jr.
vowed to send in the National Guard to protect Judge Moore's plaque.
Judge Moore became a cause célèbre, sending his name recognition into
a realm that few other judges this side of Lance Ito ever enjoy.
He emerged a contender for chief justice of the State Supreme Court
and won easily in November 2000.

The next August, early one morning, he sneaked the cube monument, paid
for by an evangelical group, into the court building. He did not tell
any of the eight other justices . . .

Justice Moore argued that the monument did not establish a state
religion but merely acknowledged the role God had played throughout
the history of American law.

"I feel very strongly that the monument represents the moral
foundation of law, which is greatly needed in our country today," he
said.

After mulling over his decision for a month, Judge Thompson issued a
93-page opinion today, saying Justice Moore had violated the
separation between church and state . . .

He gave Justice Moore 30 days to get the monument out of the
courthouse.

Christian groups in Alabama said they were not giving up.
"We anticipate wide-ranging resistance to the removal of this
monument," the president of the Christian Coalition of Alabama, John
Giles, said . . .

---------------
J. Pieret
---------------

There has been only one Christian.
They caught him and crucified him -- early.

-- Mark Twain --

June

unread,

Nov 20, 2002, 3:27:49 AM11/20/02

to

SLDER <sderamu...@charter.net> wrote:

> I am interested in hearing from former creationists who changed their views
> about creationism and became convinced of evolution.
>
> What was it in the end that convinced you?

I was raised in a Southern Baptist church, but in Southern California in
the 50s and 60s. So it was a very conservative church in a much more
liberal (relatively, it was in conservative Orange County) social
matrix. I had always loved science/learning and especially dinosaurs. I
was also very committed to my church. When I was around 12 to 13, I
started asking questions about the contradictions between what I read in
the Bible (I had started at Gen 1:1 and was working my way through the
whole thing!); what was preached at my church; and what I was learning
in school and personal studies, about science especially. My parents
sent me to our preacher to counsel me. Over the period of about a year,
our preacher became very frustrated with me because I wouldn't just take
his word for what was true or not (He was of the "Dinosaur fossils
aren't real; they are fakes either because scientists are lying and/or
because the Devil created them to test our faith" school.) He eventually
stopped the counseling sessions with the cautionary words (more or less
yelled at me) that if I kept questioning, I would be damned to Hell.

>
> Did you completely abandon Christianity, or did you just switch over to a
> more "mainline" church?

After the counseling ceased, I slowly stopped going to that church over
the next 4 years (my parents didn't try to _force_ me to attend, but
there was familial disapproval and pressure) and began looking into
other denominations. None really grabbed me and I was a teenager with
other fish to fry. It was also the 60s & 70s and there was much more
than Christianity that suddenly opened up for exploration. I dabbled in
some Hinduism, Buddhism, mother natureism, being a hippie/dippie, etc. I
was also a biology major in college while I lasted and was getting a
fair grounding in science and something approaching logical thinking.

Eventually, though, I took a really hard atheistic stand. Some of the
reason for that was the initial 'counseling' I got from that Southern
Baptist preacher. I was told then that to believe in the 'supernatural'
I had to cease to use my brain. I couldn't do that. That early lesson
stuck and I was always more skeptical of blind faith after that.

I've now 'mellowed' to agnostic atheist which I define as "I can't know
whether or not there is a god, but I really doubt it, and I live my life
as though there isn't one."

>
> How has it affected your social life? Have your fundy friends and family
> disowned you? Or do you keep it quiet?

Didn't really affect my social life, since I was so young when I pulled
away from that particular craziness. It definitely affected my family
life. To the day she died, my mother was convinced that I would go to
hell. Although that never affected her love for me, it hurt her deeply
to think that I was 'lost'. Most of my relatives hold the same views as
she did, but they don't discuss it with me because it's all been said
and shouted and screamed out years ago. No use beating a dead horse. But
they do puraaayyyyy for me! The family hasn't disowned me, but there are
definite topics of conversation that are avoided. (It helps that 99.9%
of them are in Texas and I'm still in California ;)

--
My 2¢ B-}
June

Termite of Temptation

unread,

Nov 20, 2002, 9:40:23 AM11/20/02

to

myth_el...@yahoo.co.uk (cheeny weeny) wrote in message news:<1125c8af.02111...@posting.google.com>...

The relevance is that you can measure the speed over a short distance,
then extrapolate for the entire journey... in evolution you can
measure the rate of mutation over short time (in the "microevolution"
time scale), then extrapolate to the "macroevolution" time scale.
Calling them two different things does not introduce a qualitative
difference.

Duncan

cheeny weeny

unread,

Nov 20, 2002, 10:05:49 AM11/20/02

to

catshark <cats...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<fqnltu0jlohtu9ui1...@4ax.com>...

**Thanks for the long post**

Very intersting (I'll check the link later).

C.

Andrew Maizels

unread,

Nov 20, 2002, 10:32:18 AM11/20/02

to

cheeny weeny wrote:

[snip long post]

> **Thanks for the long post**
>
> Very intersting (I'll check the link later).

Was it entirely necessary to quote the whole thing?

Andrew.
--
Google fthagn! Google fthagn! Ia Google! Ia! Ia!

cheeny weeny

unread,

Nov 20, 2002, 10:36:21 AM11/20/02

to

David Jensen <da...@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message news:<jm8ltuobfrll4l9of...@4ax.com>...

> On Tue, 19 Nov 2002 20:19:57 +0000 (UTC), in talk.origins
> myth_el...@yahoo.co.uk (cheeny weeny) wrote in
> <1125c8af.02111...@posting.google.com>:
>
>
> >David Jensen <da...@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message news:<6ihktu4aiqa8qf10n...@4ax.com>...
> >> On Tue, 19 Nov 2002 08:52:23 +0000 (UTC), in talk.origins
> >> myth_el...@yahoo.co.uk (cheeny weeny) wrote in
> >> <1125c8af.02111...@posting.google.com>:
>
> >> >*Complete and utter rubbish*
> >> >
> >> >Maths does not equal science.
> >>
> >> Maths are a tool of science.
> >
> >True.
> >
> >> So, what, other than variation, time,
> >> isolation and natural selection, would cause macroevolution?
> >
> >I can't think of anything but ...
> >
> >The above is a terrible analogy. You can prove 1+1 = 2. It is a matter
> >of definition that an object travelling at 60 mph will cover 60 miles.
> >
> >Evolution is a scientific theory. It needs to be diprovable.
>
> Evolution is disprovable. All science is. Just because something is
> disprovable does not mean that it is provable.

I think your'e missing my point. I AM NOT CRITISING EVOLUTION (here)
just the other guy's analogy. Surely *you* would not consider it a
good argument ?

> >I know your trying to lure me into another "Is evolution bad science
> >debate" ! but I'm still recovering from the last one with you and that
> >Friesen fellow ;-)
>
> Good. We're here to help eliminate any myths that you are mistakenly
> confused by.

It's a lot more fun and a lot more difficult on the other side. Get an
alias and give it a go (or are you me ?).

C.

Don't let the facts get in the way of a good argument.

cheeny weeny

unread,

Nov 20, 2002, 11:00:33 AM11/20/02

to

womanl...@hotmail.com (Termite of Temptation) wrote in message news:<fb648d5e.02111...@posting.google.com>...

> myth_el...@yahoo.co.uk (cheeny weeny) wrote in message news:<1125c8af.02111...@posting.google.com>...
> > womanl...@hotmail.com (Termite of Temptation) wrote in message news:<fb648d5e.0211...@posting.google.com>...
> > > "Anointed-One.net" <em...@anointed-one.net> wrote in message news:<KYQB9.32723$Yb.7...@twister.austin.rr.com>...
> > > > "Obvious cases of microevolution which can easily be extrapolated out to
> > > > macroevolution."
> > > >
> > > > I am amazed how many people actually use this excuse. Please give a
> > > > specific case about how horizontal variation/microevolution (which has much
> > > > basis in science) can be used to explain vertical
> > > > transformation/macroevolution (which has never been proven or observed
> > > > scientifically). Just because you feel comfortable easily extrapolating
> > > > doesn't mean it's true.
> > >
> > > It's the same extrapolation that allows us to deduce that adding
> > > together small numbers makes a larger number, or that driving a car at
> > > 60mph for an hour will probably make you travel 60 miles. There's no
> > > voodoo difference between micro and macro evolution - microevolution
> > > is a small amount of change and macroevolution is a large amount of
> > > change. And I think you'll agree that lots of small changes make a big
> > > change.
> >
> > *Complete and utter rubbish*
> >
> > Maths does not equal science.

You forgot to say snip.

> I never claimed it does. You obviously completely missed what I was
> trying to say. The fact is the we can measure with a reasonable degree
> of accuracy rates of mutation over a SHORT period of time, then we can
> multiply by the total amount of time available, to obtain a total
> amount of mutation (clearly the actualy result will be more
> complicated, since mutation rates can change).

!

> My example was meant to challenge you argument, above, that
>
> >>> Just because you feel comfortable easily extrapolating
> >>> doesn't mean it's true.

It was not my argument. But I think you have demonstrated prefectly to
that poster just why you do 'feel comfortable easily extrapolating'.

> The kind of extrapolation we use in examining evolution is no
> different, in a logical sense, than the extrapolation example I gave
> above.

> Oh and by the way... "distance = velocity x time" is applied maths. As
> in, maths used in a scientific context.

So what.

> Duncan

C.

I preferred your other deBUNCAN :-|

Kermit

unread,

Nov 20, 2002, 12:31:14 PM11/20/02

to

"SLDER" <sderamu...@charter.net> wrote in message news:<utfcpgq...@corp.supernews.com>...

> I am interested in hearing from former creationists who changed their views
> about creationism and became convinced of evolution.
>
> What was it in the end that convinced you?

I was raised in a household that was dominated by Grandpa, a Southern
Baptist preacher. You might say I was *born* a creationist.

HOwever, by the time I was ten or so, Grandpa made it clear that one
could not be a fundamentalist ("bible-believer") *and* friendly to
science. So, naturally, I chose science :)

I was discrete about it, though.

>
> Did you completely abandon Christianity, or did you just switch over to a
> more "mainline" church?

I didn't really disavow Christianity until I was 13. I toyed for years
with Buddhism, but since you can't make a mirror by polishing a brick,
and I am as thick as a brick, I didn't see the point. I call myself an
atheist now. I've always understood that one need not give up
Christianity to think logically. It's just that logical thinking lead
me to that conclusion.

>
> How has it affected your social life?

None of my friend seem to be Pentecostals.

> Have your fundy friends and family disowned you?

Pretty much.

> Or do you keep it quiet?

I don't bring it up unless a really stupid law is being passed, or
someone stands between me and the sun when I'm reading & asks "Are you
saved?". I'm pretty softhearted, and don't see any reason to walk up
to people and tell them: "By the way, when you die, you're dead
forever. And you'll never see you loved ones again."

>
> TIA

Melmoth

unread,

Nov 20, 2002, 12:44:55 PM11/20/02

to

"SLDER" <sderamu...@charter.net> wrote in message news:<utfcpgq...@corp.supernews.com>...
> I am interested in hearing from former creationists who changed their views
> about creationism and became convinced of evolution.

I think I qualify. I was raised in a sect which is
"non-denominational" but often called Plymouth Brethren. Among other
things, I was fed a steady diet of creationist and creation science
literature. My uncle is a noted Noah's Ark researcher. I was
interested in science and nature, so at first this pseudo-science
intrigued me.

> What was it in the end that convinced you?

When I was in high school I started reading real science and that
pretty much did it. For anyone with an inquisitive mind, the
half-supported and half-logical postulates of creation science just
don't hold up.

> Did you completely abandon Christianity, or did you just switch over to a
> more "mainline" church?

I came very close to abandoning my faith entirely since a lot of it
was propped up by this nonsense but, in the end I found that
Christianity itself was not what I was turned off by, but a certain
type of Christianity which placed an undue influence on the acceptance
of several tenets (the literal interpretation of scripture, young
earth creationism, etc.) which I could no longer legitimately lay
claim to. I eventually found the Episcopal church very acceptable to
me, with it's liberal traditions and emphasis on reason. I don't
believe that there is any conflict between Christian faith and
science, as science has as its single goal knowledge of the truth.
Neither Christ, nor Christians, nor adherents of any other religion
have anything to fear from truth. I'll quit preaching now.

> How has it affected your social life? Have your fundy friends and family
> disowned you? Or do you keep it quiet?

My social life was not directly affected by this change in my beliefs,
but I found that, my politics moved to center of where they were
previously putting me firmly in the Libertarian camp. My family life
is another story. My mother, despite a good education, is firmly
grounded in the belief that evolution is a deception of Satan, etc.
We've had some genuine rows about these matters, mostly when I was a
great deal younger and of which I am not proud. These days I try to
poke any holes in her occasional tirade about the fossils or c-decay
or whatever gently. I do not, as a matter of principle, attempt to
push my beliefs on my family, but I'm not reserved about expressing my
views if asked either. I find it more comfortable to be "out" as an
evolutionist and liberal Christian than to "keep it quiet" or to give
lip-service to any number of ideas I find illogical, unsupportable,
unchristian, or simply silly.

Gary

catshark

unread,

Nov 20, 2002, 1:06:07 PM11/20/02

to

On Wed, 20 Nov 2002 15:32:18 +0000 (UTC), Andrew Maizels
<am...@pixymisa.com> wrote:

>cheeny weeny wrote:
>
>[snip long post]
>
>> **Thanks for the long post**
>>
>> Very intersting (I'll check the link later).
>
>Was it entirely necessary to quote the whole thing?

It was trimmed to the parts relevant to the attitude of American
consevative Christians. And many people refuse to register for the NY
Times site. Otherwise, I would not have quoted as much. Sorry if it
inconvenienced you.

>
>Andrew.

---------------
J. Pieret
---------------

Cogito sum, ergo sum, cogito.

- Robert Carroll -

Mark Isaak

unread,

Nov 20, 2002, 2:18:36 PM11/20/02

to

On Sun, 17 Nov 2002 15:10:35 +0000 (UTC), "SLDER"
<sderamu...@charter.net> wrote:

>I am interested in hearing from former creationists who changed their views
>about creationism and became convinced of evolution.
>

>What was it in the end that convinced you?
>

>Did you completely abandon Christianity, or did you just switch over to a
>more "mainline" church?
>

>How has it affected your social life? Have your fundy friends and family
>disowned you? Or do you keep it quiet?
>

>TIA

Is it possible to nominate an entire thread for Post of the Month? If
so, I do so. The responses to these questions deserve to be archived.
The similarities and differences among the different accounts are
quite interesting. (I think the responses to the responses could be
left out, though.)

--
Mark Isaak at...@earthlink.net
Don't read everything you belive.

Edward T. Babinski

unread,

Nov 20, 2002, 4:17:39 PM11/20/02

to

"SLDER" <sderamu...@charter.net> wrote in message news:<utfcpgq...@corp.supernews.com>...

> I am interested in hearing from former creationists who changed their views
> about creationism and became convinced of evolution.

ED: That would include me (Edward T. Babinski)

> What was it in the end that convinced you?

ED: My belief in young-earth creationism died the death of a thousand
qualifications. It didn't change overnight. I kept having to stretch
it to accommodate more and more info that didn't fit with young-earth
creationism until my belief in young-earth creationism and especially
"Flood geology," snapped.

> Did you completely abandon Christianity, or did you just switch over to a
> more "mainline" church?

ED: I tried moderate evangelicalism and liberalism for a while, but
eventually could no longer honestly call myself a Christian.

> How has it affected your social life?

ED: I still have one evangelical friend from my "in the fold" time.
But my transition period was made after college, most of my friends
had moved away, and I had moved too, to South Carolina. So the
transition was mostly personal, not socially unstabilizing.

> Have your fundy friends and family
> disowned you?

ED: As I say, they have moved away.

> Or do you keep it quiet?

ED: I broadcast it in my web pages and in one book.
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ed_babinski/index.shtml
I also had some articles posted on whale transitional forms and
human/chimp chromosomal similarities at the talk.origins website. But
they were posted by someone else for me, so you would have to do a
google search for my name to find them.

> TIA

VBM

unread,

Nov 20, 2002, 4:45:48 PM11/20/02

to

BTW, did they announce the winner for October?

"Mark Isaak" <at...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net> wrote in message
news:o2ontus35o4ml22oe...@4ax.com...

Andrew Maizels

unread,

Nov 20, 2002, 7:02:58 PM11/20/02

to

catshark wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Nov 2002 15:32:18 +0000 (UTC), Andrew Maizels
> <am...@pixymisa.com> wrote:
>
>
>>cheeny weeny wrote:
>>
>>[snip long post]
>>
>>
>>>**Thanks for the long post**
>>>
>>>Very intersting (I'll check the link later).
>>
>>Was it entirely necessary to quote the whole thing?
>
>
> It was trimmed to the parts relevant to the attitude of American
> consevative Christians. And many people refuse to register for the NY
> Times site. Otherwise, I would not have quoted as much. Sorry if it
> inconvenienced you.

Sorry, I'm not referring to you, but to cheeny weeny, who quoted your
whole post and then added two lines.

I find this group interesting, but a lot of the time a post will have
pages and pages of untouched quotes followed by a one or two line response.

Well, at least they're not top-posting :)

Dylan Nicholson

unread,

Nov 20, 2002, 8:30:33 PM11/20/02

to

Mark Isaak <at...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net> wrote in message news:<o2ontus35o4ml22oe...@4ax.com>...

It would be interesting to present to the IRC and similar institutions
the apparent evidence that attemping to promote extreme fundamentalist
Christian doctrine via transparent dishonesty and blatant ignorance of
fact does virtually nothing to create converts, and quite obviously
backfires very readily in pushing people away from religion. Which is
not to say we should be supporting them - I'm sure there are far more
effective and productive ways of doing the same thing :)

Dylan

catshark

unread,

Nov 20, 2002, 8:56:34 PM11/20/02

to

On Thu, 21 Nov 2002 00:02:58 +0000 (UTC), Andrew Maizels
<am...@pixymisa.com> wrote:

>catshark wrote:
>> On Wed, 20 Nov 2002 15:32:18 +0000 (UTC), Andrew Maizels
>> <am...@pixymisa.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>cheeny weeny wrote:
>>>
>>>[snip long post]
>>>
>>>
>>>>**Thanks for the long post**
>>>>
>>>>Very intersting (I'll check the link later).
>>>
>>>Was it entirely necessary to quote the whole thing?
>>
>>
>> It was trimmed to the parts relevant to the attitude of American
>> consevative Christians. And many people refuse to register for the NY
>> Times site. Otherwise, I would not have quoted as much. Sorry if it
>> inconvenienced you.
>
>Sorry, I'm not referring to you, but to cheeny weeny, who quoted your
>whole post and then added two lines.

Ah, I should have realized.

>
>I find this group interesting, but a lot of the time a post will have
>pages and pages of untouched quotes followed by a one or two line response.

At least sometimes, it's necessary to keep context to leave large
chunks. But the two line response at the bottom of a 150 line post
left in place is a common problem here.

>
>Well, at least they're not top-posting :)

Hang around a while.

---------------
J. Pieret
---------------

"Top posting":

A pernicious and antisocial practice
not deemed to rise to the level of a capital offense
in *most* of the Western Industrial nations . . .

Harlequin

unread,

Nov 20, 2002, 10:33:52 PM11/20/02

to

"VBM" <v.mca...@ejgd.com> wrote in
news:EuTC9.720$OZ4....@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net:

> BTW, did they announce the winner for October?

You are the winner:
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/oct02.html

Johnny, could you tell our contestant what he has won...

--
Anti-spam: replace "usenet" with "harlequin2"

Vote for The Talk.Origins Archive at
http://www.coolsiteoftheday.com/csotm.html

cheeny weeny

unread,

Nov 21, 2002, 4:26:14 AM11/21/02

to

Andrew Maizels <am...@pixymisa.com> wrote in message news:<3ddc237d$1...@kodachi.mu.nu>...

> catshark wrote:
> > On Wed, 20 Nov 2002 15:32:18 +0000 (UTC), Andrew Maizels
> > <am...@pixymisa.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>cheeny weeny wrote:
> >>
> >>[snip long post]
> >>
> >>
> >>>**Thanks for the long post**
> >>>
> >>>Very intersting (I'll check the link later).
> >>
> >>Was it entirely necessary to quote the whole thing?
> >
> >
> > It was trimmed to the parts relevant to the attitude of American
> > consevative Christians. And many people refuse to register for the NY
> > Times site. Otherwise, I would not have quoted as much. Sorry if it
> > inconvenienced you.
>
> Sorry, I'm not referring to you, but to cheeny weeny, who quoted your
> whole post and then added two lines.

Thought it would be rude to snip all that effort.

> I find this group interesting, but a lot of the time a post will have
> pages and pages of untouched quotes followed by a one or two line response.

I'm afraid I did not really know what to say !

<...>

C.

Andrew Maizels

unread,

Nov 21, 2002, 6:15:00 AM11/21/02

to

cheeny weeny wrote:

[re excessive quoting]

> Thought it would be rude to snip all that effort.

Well, that's nice and all, but this is a newsgroup, and people can see
the previous post if they need to.

It's not always easy to decide how much context to leave in, but please
give it a go.

> I'm afraid I did not really know what to say !

Your "Thanks for the long post, very intersting" is polite and perfectly
acceptable. Just snip the stuff that's not needed to make sense of your
reply, and we're all happy!

Well, I note that there are some who get stroppy if you dare to snip a
single word of their deathless prose when you reply. But most of them
I've got killfiled, anyway.

VBM

unread,

Nov 21, 2002, 2:06:31 PM11/21/02

to

"Harlequin" <use...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:Xns92CCDC9484051u...@68.12.19.6...

> "VBM" <v.mca...@ejgd.com> wrote in
> news:EuTC9.720$OZ4....@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net:
>
> > BTW, did they announce the winner for October?
>
>
> You are the winner:
> http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/oct02.html
>
> Johnny, could you tell our contestant what he has won...

No, no, I don't want to know! :0)

(I bet it is one of the Darwin "fish with legs" things for my car).

Dirk Murcray

unread,

Nov 21, 2002, 3:36:47 PM11/21/02

to

"SLDER" <sderamu...@charter.net> wrote in message news:<utfcpgq...@corp.supernews.com>...

> I am interested in hearing from former creationists who changed their views
> about creationism and became convinced of evolution.

I suppose I was one. I attended a private Baptist Jr high and high
school, and was thoroughly indocrinated with Biblical literalism and
anti-evolutionism. I never really accepted any of it, however I did
come away from it somewhat skeptical of evolution. Not surprising,
since everything I had been taught about it was incorrect (for
instance that evolution proceeds by hybridism, that it proposes that
individual organisms mutate into new species, and the portrayal of
Darwinian competition as a winner-take-all contest between species
etc.)

>
> What was it in the end that convinced you?

A commitment to self-improvement that began with a critical
re-examination of my worldview and led to a college education and a
career change from an oilfield worker to an archaeologist and faunal
analyst. Even before college however, I took notice of the local
geologic formations as I made my daily rounds in the oil field, and
realized that a young earth was simply not a possibility. It led me
to check out an old historical geology text from the public library
and read it. Even though it was badly outdated, it made evident to me
the basic facts of earth's natural history.

>
> Did you completely abandon Christianity, or did you just switch over to a
> more "mainline" church?

No, I abandoned not attending church for a complete rejection of
religion.

>
> How has it affected your social life? Have your fundy friends and family
> disowned you? Or do you keep it quiet?

Shortly after high school I went my own way, and have not had any
contact with the fundies from my past for nearly 30 years. Other than
turning down an invitation to a reunion anyway.

So that's my story for what its worth.

Dirk
>
> TIA

catshark

unread,

Nov 21, 2002, 9:26:21 PM11/21/02

to

On Thu, 21 Nov 2002 19:06:31 +0000 (UTC), "VBM" <v.mca...@ejgd.com>
wrote:

(Speaking of which, someone, doubtless in the service of some version
of god, ripped off the one on my wife's car in the last day or so. )

Actually, your prize is the peerless opportunity and great honor to
stand a round of drinks down at the Panda's Thumb (or more should you
make the mistake of having too much money on your person). Now this
may seem similar to the punishments meted out by the t.o. cabal but it
is not. In the punishment mode the cabal members do not apologize
when they erp on your shoes.

---------------
J. Pieret
---------------

If nothing else, at least now I've
learned how to spell "blithering"!

SLDER

unread,

Nov 21, 2002, 11:00:39 PM11/21/02

to

I'm deeply flattered Mark.

SLDER

"Mark Isaak" <at...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net> wrote in message
news:o2ontus35o4ml22oe...@4ax.com...

SLDER

unread,

Nov 21, 2002, 11:13:45 PM11/21/02

to

"Edward T. Babinski" <leon...@email.msn.com> wrote in message
news:7ae2068.02112...@posting.google.com...

> "SLDER" <sderamu...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:<utfcpgq...@corp.supernews.com>...
> > I am interested in hearing from former creationists who changed their
views
> > about creationism and became convinced of evolution.
>
> ED: That would include me (Edward T. Babinski)
>
> > What was it in the end that convinced you?
>
> ED: My belief in young-earth creationism died the death of a thousand
> qualifications. It didn't change overnight. I kept having to stretch
> it to accommodate more and more info that didn't fit with young-earth
> creationism until my belief in young-earth creationism and especially
> "Flood geology," snapped.
>
> > Did you completely abandon Christianity, or did you just switch over to
a
> > more "mainline" church?
>
> ED: I tried moderate evangelicalism and liberalism for a while, but
> eventually could no longer honestly call myself a Christian.

Your story reminds me of Dan Barker's transition from fundamentalist
preacher to atheist. He has an interesting book (exact Title escapes me,
but I think it's: From Preacher to Atheist), where he details his slow
conversion from Fundamentalist to more liberal Christianity, to deism, to
agnosticism and finally atheism. His break was pretty traumatic, but
finally he couldn't live the lie anymore and stopped singing and preaching.
A few months later he wrote a letter to all of his colleagues, family and
friends and it sent everyone into a complete shock. His wife wouldn't
follow him and he ended up getting a divorce. His parents were furious with
him and distraught, but then turned around and became freethinkers
themselves. His colleagues kept trying to reconvert him to the dark side to
no avail.

I believe that there are other ex-preachers turned atheists out there. I am
sure there stories are just as interesting. I have heard of an atheist who
is still in the pulpit of a fundamentalist church - undercover of course.
He apparently told a friend of mine that he still hoped that he could just
lead the flock a little bit away from fundamentalism and convince them to
think for themselves instead of letting the Bible do the thinking for them
he will have achieved something. Actually, I'd like to see him renounce his
religion in the pulpit - it would make an interesting sermon.

SLDER

Lane Lewis

unread,

Nov 22, 2002, 2:13:00 AM11/22/02

to

"SLDER" <sderamu...@charter.net> wrote in message

news:utrberr...@corp.supernews.com...

> I'm deeply flattered Mark.
>
> SLDER
>
>

Well try to keep your head the right size because I think it should become a
permanent page with your questions at the beginning and the best of the
answers following.

Lane

Aron-Ra

unread,

Nov 22, 2002, 5:06:31 AM11/22/02

to

Mark Isaak wrote:

I heartily agree. But I think it should include the one substantive reply
to the sister-thread about former evolutionists out there, which is
telling all on its own.

Aron-Ra

David Wise

unread,

Nov 22, 2002, 10:45:32 AM11/22/02

to

"SLDER" <sderamu...@charter.net> wrote in message news:<utrc7c7...@corp.supernews.com>...

I think that book's name is "Losing Faith in Faith". Anyway, you
should be able to find it through the Freedom From Religion
organization that he has worked with.

I heard his story when Atheists United in Los Angeles aired his
presentation on the radio (no longer on the air, I think). As he told
it, his former church pressured his wife to divorce him after they
failed to reconvert him (so much for being pro-family and
pro-marriage).
Dan also used to write Christian songs and has written some
freethought ones. I've only heard "You Just Can't Win with Original
Sin" and the only line from it I remember is something like: "Any god
who would condemn me would surely condemn you too."

> I believe that there are other ex-preachers turned atheists out there. I am
> sure there stories are just as interesting. I have heard of an atheist who
> is still in the pulpit of a fundamentalist church - undercover of course.
> He apparently told a friend of mine that he still hoped that he could just
> lead the flock a little bit away from fundamentalism and convince them to
> think for themselves instead of letting the Bible do the thinking for them
> he will have achieved something. Actually, I'd like to see him renounce his
> religion in the pulpit - it would make an interesting sermon.
>
> SLDER

Til Farrel [spelling?] is another one. United Church of Christ? He
had been a preacher and a missionary.

Similarly, a friend at church used to be a fundamentalist and is now
an atheist and "thorough humanist". He told me that as a
fundamentalist he had to ignore more and more things in everyday life
that contradicted his beliefs until he just couldn't keep lying to
himself. Now, an old friend keeps sending him creationist material
and he can't belief how ridiculous those claims are.

One thing I keep finding is that there are a lot of opponents to
creation science who used to be young-earth creationists themselves.
E.g., Glenn Morton, Todd Greene, Glen Kuban, and many more who work
mainly in discussion fora.

VBM

unread,

Nov 22, 2002, 2:08:32 PM11/22/02

to

"catshark" <cats...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:j95rtu407f9u9i38p...@4ax.com...

That's a relief. I shall make sure to always hand my wallet off to a friend
before entering the Panda's Thumb on the off-chance that I am recognized by
a cabal member.

Noelie S. Alito

unread,

Nov 22, 2002, 2:38:55 PM11/22/02

to

"catshark" <cats...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:j95rtu407f9u9i38p...@4ax.com...

...and what about the 1 month's bathroom-cleaning duty at the PT?

(That's why I make sure I never get PotM, of course.)

Noelie
--
"It's *Doctor* Evil. I didn't spend six years in Evil Medical
School to be called 'mister,' thankyouverymuch."

Floyd

unread,

Nov 22, 2002, 4:20:36 PM11/22/02

to

"Anointed-One.net" <em...@anointed-one.net> wrote in message news:<EzVB9.25811$Kj1.7...@twister.austin.rr.com>...
> You want me to provide a natural, scientific answer for a supernatural
> event? That's impossible.
>

Q.E.D. Now please forward your conclusions to the Discovery Institute. Thank you.
-Floyd

Floyd

unread,

Nov 22, 2002, 4:44:17 PM11/22/02

to

"JS" <@verizon.net> wrote in message news:<8kBC9.13419$br6....@nwrddc03.gnilink.net>...
> "Judy Rickley" <JU...@webtv.net> wrote in message
> news:29922-3DD...@storefull-2258.public.lawson.webtv.net...
> > JS, it is super-doubtful that the church will turn out to be right about
> > evolution being false and birds are going to turn out not to have been
> > dinosaur-descended. Our feathered friends even have the DNA for
> > toothbuds. And we are discovering more and more that dinosaurs we once
> > thought had scales were in fact feathered!
>
> Thanks for the comments. I've no doubt that evolution is correct. What I
> was expressing was that one tiny pin point of superstitious fear that I
> suspect most people have. The "who knows, stranger things have happened"
> factor. Perhaps it's the sad baggage of an open mind or a fundamentalist
> upbringing.

If evolution did not happen, then all the God-created evidence for it
is false. Now, if I found out that my thesis advisor had forged
evidence, I'd switch to another thesis advisor, in order to avoid
being damned by association. If God told me that He had forged all
the evidence for evolution, I'd switch Gods. I wouldn't dare risk
treating my immortal soul with less care than I treat my dissertation!
(Take *that,* Pascal!)
-Floyd

Pete

unread,

Nov 22, 2002, 5:01:33 PM11/22/02

to

"SLDER" <sderamu...@charter.net> wrote in message news:<utfcpgq...@corp.supernews.com>...
> I am interested in hearing from former creationists who changed their views
> about creationism and became convinced of evolution.
>

> What was it in the end that convinced you?

> Did you completely abandon Christianity, or did you just switch over to a
> more "mainline" church?

I've never been a creationist, but creationism is one major part that
let me to abandon Christianity. If people are such hypocrites that
they deliberately lie for their faith, which after all states that
'thou shalt not bear false witness against they neighbour', then I
have to question such a faith. After reading Thomas Paine, "The Age of
Reason", I realized that the bible is full of lies and contradictions
as well, and that was the end of it for me. Of course, I've never been
a staunch believer and always thought of the bible as being full of
metaphors. Taking it literally seems like insanity to me (Are you
going to stone your children if they don't behave ?).

>
> How has it affected your social life? Have your fundy friends and family
> disowned you? Or do you keep it quiet?
>

It hasn't made any difference. I discuss it when I feel comfortable
and I'm sure I'm not offending somebody personally, but otherwise it's
my personal business.

K-Man

unread,

Nov 22, 2002, 7:33:34 PM11/22/02

to

In article <utfcpgq...@corp.supernews.com>,
"SLDER" <sderamu...@charter.net> wrote:

> I am interested in hearing from former creationists who changed their views
> about creationism and became convinced of evolution.
>
> What was it in the end that convinced you?

Short answer: the preponderance of the evidence.

Long answer: I went to a conservative Christian school--Pensacola
Christian--K-5 through 8th Grade, so all I was taught was YEC. Being a
science buff since I was knee-high to a grashopper, I did, and continue
to do, a lot of reading on science. I can't really pinpoint the day I
abandonded YEC. It was a gradual process as the evidence accumulated.
The first belief to go was believe in a young earth/universe. The
acknowledgement that evolution was a proven fact came a few years later.
I think I was lying in bed one night, drifting off to sleep, when
everything came together and I "got it", so to speak, and saw how all
the evidence fit together to prove the fact of evolution.

> Did you completely abandon Christianity, or did you just switch over to a
> more "mainline" church?

Still a Christian, and I still attend a fairly conservative Southern
Baptist church.

> How has it affected your social life? Have your fundy friends and family
> disowned you? Or do you keep it quiet?

It hasn't really affected my social life that I've seen. I'm quite used
to being the most liberal person among conservatives (at church) and the
most conservative person among liberals (at my university). :-) My
pastor and I have discussed the subject at length, and we just agree to
disagree on the subject. We get along just fine. I'll discuss the
subject every now and then with friends and acquaintances at church, and
the dicussions are always civil and friendly, but nobody usually winds
up changing their mind.

Ken

K-Man

unread,

Nov 22, 2002, 7:35:44 PM11/22/02

to

In article <3dd8125d...@news.ptdprolog.net>, wf...@ptnospam.com
wrote:

> it had zip to do with evolution, and everything to do with
> creationism. creationism is dishonest. i wonder if creationists know
> that.

My experience says that the rank and file creationist doesn't. They're
completly sincere. Creationist leaders, however, are an entirely
different kettle of fish. I used to give Morris, Gish, Dembski, Johnson,
Ham, et. al. the benefit of the doubt and assume they were just
ignorant. There's simply too much evidence, however, that they're
intentionally dishonest.

Ken

Harlequin

unread,

Nov 22, 2002, 9:28:25 PM11/22/02

to

catshark <cats...@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:j95rtu407f9u9i38p...@4ax.com:

> On Thu, 21 Nov 2002 19:06:31 +0000 (UTC), "VBM" <v.mca...@ejgd.com>
> wrote:
>>"Harlequin" <use...@cox.net> wrote in message
>>news:Xns92CCDC9484051u...@68.12.19.6...

[snip]

>>> You are the winner:
>>> http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/oct02.html
>>>
>>> Johnny, could you tell our contestant what he has won...
>>
>>No, no, I don't want to know! :0)
>>
>>(I bet it is one of the Darwin "fish with legs" things for my car).
>
> (Speaking of which, someone, doubtless in the service of some version
> of god, ripped off the one on my wife's car in the last day or so. )

Thou shalt not steal...unless of course they are evilutionists.

It is amazing how the Decalogue is evolving. :-(

SLDER

unread,

Nov 22, 2002, 10:48:21 PM11/22/02

to

Thanks for the corrections, David.

SLDeR

"David Wise" <dwi...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:ad30b67a.02112...@posting.google.com...