Former Evolutionists Out There???
SLDER
evolutionists out there?
I don't know if I've ever met a former evolutionist though, but here are my
questions for them if there are any out there (and I promise not to start a
flame war, at least not within this topic):
1. How much evolution had you studied before you became a creationist?
2. What specific fact was it that convinced you that evolution was wrong and
creationism was right?
3. Which came first, your conversion to Christianity or your conversion to
Creationism?
4. How did your friends and relatives react?
Bear in mind, this is not a question for creationists in general, but only
those who converted at a later time in their lives. I know that there are a
lot of "born again" Christians out there who became "saved" as adults. So
tell us about your conversion to Creationism/Fundamentalism, and everyone
else, don't shoot them down, just listen for once. It should be interesting
reading.
Alan Wright
You know, it's funny that there is actually quite a large contingent
of creationist authors who claim that they were previously believers
in evolution (and mainstream science, more generally), but at some
point saw the error in the scientific view. I don't know of any who
credibly identify the cause of their conversion, but I suspect most
or all of them had a predisposition toward science-denial and
finally found a role model or denial concept that they chose to
adopt as their own. Many had a falling out with the mainstream
of science (over e.g. unsupportable results) and simply picked
up on some anti-science bandwagon they could jump onto.
It is clear to me that it takes a pretty significant emotional
event to lead to someone adopting anti-scientific religious
views after achieving some education and proficiency in
doing science.
Alan
"SLDER" <sderamu...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:utjc7lf...@corp.supernews.com...
Louann Miller
<al...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>It is clear to me that it takes a pretty significant emotional
>event to lead to someone adopting anti-scientific religious
>views after achieving some education and proficiency in
>doing science.
One of the professional creationists, I forget which, was previously
one of Gould's grad students. I think he got his PhD too.
David Jensen
Louann Miller <loua...@yahoo.net> wrote in
<l4iktug43prbur3t6...@4ax.com>:
But he walked in with a religious prejudice (Unification Church) that he
chose not to shake.
Steve Schaffner
You're confusing Wells (Unification Church, PhD in developmental
biology, UC Berkeley) with Wise (some kind of
fundamentalist/evangelical, PhD in paleontology under Gould). Both
walked in with religious prejudices. They just walked into different
places, with different prejudices.
--
Steve Schaffner s...@genome.wi.mit.edu
Immediate assurance is an excellent sign of probable lack of
insight into the topic. Josiah Royce
Lane Lewis
"Alan Wright" <al...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:IhCdnT9EHfQ...@giganews.com...
>
> You know, it's funny that there is actually quite a large contingent
> of creationist authors who claim that they were previously believers
> in evolution (and mainstream science, more generally), but at some
> point saw the error in the scientific view. I don't know of any who
> credibly identify the cause of their conversion, but I suspect most
> or all of them had a predisposition toward science-denial and
> finally found a role model or denial concept that they chose to
> adopt as their own. Many had a falling out with the mainstream
> of science (over e.g. unsupportable results) and simply picked
> up on some anti-science bandwagon they could jump onto.
>
> It is clear to me that it takes a pretty significant emotional
> event to lead to someone adopting anti-scientific religious
> views after achieving some education and proficiency in
> doing science.
>
> Alan
>
It sounds so much better when their giving speeches if they can say Satan
once had a grip on them but they were able to break free. Theatrics can help
in lieu of any scientific evidence.
Lane
Richard Uhrich
<quote book review>
Faith, Form, and Time,
Kurt Wise
Broadman & Holman 2002.
Darwinian theories of the universe, although mostly rejected by
evangelical Christians, have still found their way into creation
theology.
A concept such as evolutionist creation has watered down much of the
Bible's teaching in order to reconcile with popular tenants of
science. The whole controversy swirls around the age of the universe.
Dr. Kurt Wise, an associate professor of science and director of the
Center for Origins Research and Education at Bryan College, shows from
solid biblical teachings and scientific confirmation why young
universe creation is correct. Beginning with God and His Word as the
standard, Wise demonstrates how the biblical witness teaches that the
age of the universe is not as old as Darwinian theory would contend.
He also demonstrates how all issues raised by evolutionists can be
answered not only by the Bible, but also by scientific data and
research, nailing shut macroevolution's coffin.
Believe it or not.
Dunk
</quote>
I found the description of Dr. Wise in "Trials of the Monkey"
interesting. He was a student of Gould, and seems an ingenuous
creationist!
--
--
Richard Uhrich
---
Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge. --
Charles Darwin
David Jensen
Steve Schaffner <s...@darwin.wi.mit.edu> wrote in
<ydlheed...@darwin.wi.mit.edu>:
>David Jensen <da...@dajensen-family.com> writes:
>
>> On Tue, 19 Nov 2002 14:14:35 +0000 (UTC), in talk.origins
>> Louann Miller <loua...@yahoo.net> wrote in
>> <l4iktug43prbur3t6...@4ax.com>:
>>
>>
>> >On Tue, 19 Nov 2002 03:53:39 +0000 (UTC), "Alan Wright"
>> ><al...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >>It is clear to me that it takes a pretty significant emotional
>> >>event to lead to someone adopting anti-scientific religious
>> >>views after achieving some education and proficiency in
>> >>doing science.
>> >
>> >One of the professional creationists, I forget which, was previously
>> >one of Gould's grad students. I think he got his PhD too.
>>
>> But he walked in with a religious prejudice (Unification Church) that he
>> chose not to shake.
>
>You're confusing Wells (Unification Church, PhD in developmental
>biology, UC Berkeley) with Wise (some kind of
>fundamentalist/evangelical, PhD in paleontology under Gould). Both
>walked in with religious prejudices. They just walked into different
>places, with different prejudices.
Sorry.
David Jensen
Richard Uhrich <uhr...@san.rr.com> wrote in
<3DDA6BD2...@san.rr.com>:
>I found the description of Dr. Wise in "Trials of the Monkey"
>interesting. He was a student of Gould, and seems an ingenuous
>creationist!
Wouldn't it be nicer if he were an ingenious creationist?
Richard Uhrich
There *ain't* no such thing! :-)
Average Joe
I've since put evolution away with the concepts of the first cause
argument, irreducible complexity, and the Copenhagen Interpretation of
quantum mechanics
not too long after I put away my beliefs in deity
I still consider myself a theist since I think the psychological
transcends the physical, and manifests it also
I don't think their is anything innately different abouth the psyche
of sentient life, a conscious is a conscious, a free will is a free
will, some of us are just presented with more immediate barriers in
effecting our wills, not that we can't transcend such barriers, we can
all aspire to and achieve the same virtues, so there is no divinity or
deity
as long as people construct altruistic benevolent concepts of deity,
at worst it results in a lack of action, at least they form moral
codes around such, so I prefer them over those who think we should
casually dispense with those constructions, without presenting an
equal or better moral code, and then there are those that suggest we
dispense with moral codes ...
--
My solution to the world's problems?
www.mysolution.ws
Average Joe - chat with me live on my site
Bjoern Feuerbacher
>
> I was raised a theistic evolutionist
I doubt it. Lots of your comments show otherwise.
> I've since put evolution away with the concepts of the first cause
> argument,
Which was refuted approx. 100 times now. Additionally, theistic
evolution and a first cause are not incompatible, hence simply saying:
"There has to be a first cause!" is no argument against theistic
evolution.
> irreducible complexity,
Which is no problem for naturalistic evolution, and even less a problem
for theistic evolution.
> and the Copenhagen Interpretation of
> quantum mechanics
AJ, you have shown again and again that you have no clue of QM. Do you
ever plan to answer my detailed rebuttals?
> not too long after I put away my beliefs in deity
Now you believe in a disembodied "free will". I don't see a big
difference to a god there.
> I still consider myself a theist
If you "put awayyour belief in deity", you are no longer a theist. This
makes no sense.
> since I think the psychological
> transcends the physical, and manifests it also
This has nothing to do with being a theist. A theist is someone who
believes that there is a god (or several). Not someone who believes that
"the psychological transcends and manifests the physical" (whatever that
means).
> I don't think their is anything innately different abouth the psyche
> of sentient life, a conscious is a conscious,
AJ, I can understand that you don't acknowledge and correct your errors
in biology, physics and logics. But what I can't understand is that you
even refuse to acknowledge and correct your spelling errors!!!
It's *consciousness*, not "conscious"!!!
> a free will is a free will,
And all evidence we have tells us that either free will doesn't exist or
at least can only exist based on a physical body. Therefore your
argument is rubbish.
[snip rest of ramble]
SLDER
Are you saying you are a Creationist? If so, then I'd just like to hear you
answer my questions:
1. How much evolution had you studied before you became a creationist?
2. What specific fact was it that convinced you that evolution was wrong and
creationism was right?
3. Which came first, your conversion to Christianity or your conversion to
Creationism?
4. How did your friends and relatives react?
"Average Joe" <avera...@mysolution.ws> wrote in message
news:knhmtuoa3hqbqahtl...@4ax.com...
Bjoern Feuerbacher
>
> OK, I am a little confused Joe, WADR.
>
> Are you saying you are a Creationist?
He is a moron with his own private nonsensical arguments.
Try looking at his website...
His opinion is something like "consciousness (free will) can exist
without a brain and created/creates the material world (by observing
it)"
> If so, then I'd just like to hear you
> answer my questions:
Don't be too optimistic - usually he doesn't answer questions.
> 1. How much evolution had you studied before you became a creationist?
I bet close to none.
> 2. What specific fact was it that convinced you that evolution was wrong and
> creationism was right?
His twisted world view.
> 3. Which came first, your conversion to Christianity or your conversion to
> Creationism?
He isn't a Christian, hence this question doesn't apply.
[snip rest]
Dana Tweedy
> OK, I am a little confused Joe, WADR.
That's Ok, Joe's a little confused himself.
Snip the rest
DJT
>
Rodjk
>
> I've since put evolution away with the concepts of the first cause
> argument, irreducible complexity, and the Copenhagen Interpretation of
> quantum mechanics
Why? What reasoning?
>
> not too long after I put away my beliefs in deity
>
> I still consider myself a theist since I think the psychological
> transcends the physical, and manifests it also
As usual, you have two sentences that contridict.
The following paragraphs make no sense that I can determine.
Rodjk #613
Average Joe
<feuerba...@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote:
>He isn't a Christian, hence this question doesn't apply.
let me make a statement here, I don't adhere to every philosophy put
forth in Judeo-Christian scripture, and certainly not every
interpretation on and extrapolation from such, and I am more than
willing to debate these issues
but I don't believe cultural icons present themselves out of thin air
Jesus had some VERY wise things to say, and his working class and
proletarian strife against exploitative establishment have some very
strong creedence in our mind, this many was a revolutionary leader
with a significant following even within his life that he was able to
stand up to an established government and challenge the status quo to
such an extent that this man's actions are known, talked about,
emulated and respected today
I think the lesiure class likes him better as some kind of abstract
deity so that we don't get the ideas that a valid leader can arise
from among us again
same with Sidharta Gautama (Buddha), same with just about any
philosophy enabling true morality, somehow it gets transformed into a
utopian idea that we should take somewhat casually
Average Joe
<twe...@cvn.net> wrote:
>That's Ok, Joe's a little confused himself.
when you can longer attack the logic of your opponent, you are left to
acquiesce, or attack him
Average Joe
wrote:
>Why? What reasoning?
as if you don't know what any of those suggest
Mark Nutter
> OK, someone made a good point that I should also ask if there are any former
> evolutionists out there?
>
> I don't know if I've ever met a former evolutionist though, but here are my
> questions for them if there are any out there (and I promise not to start a
> flame war, at least not within this topic):
Actually, as I converted *to* creationism during my early years, I can
answer this one too...
> 1. How much evolution had you studied before you became a creationist?
Standard (substandard?) high school curriculum.
> 2. What specific fact was it that convinced you that evolution was wrong and
> creationism was right?
Attended a creationism in Columbus OH hosted by the illustrious Drs.
Gish and Morris. Was amazed to discover how much "scientific"
evidence there was in favor of creationism, and how many evolutionists
frankly "admitted" (via carefully selected quotes) that evolution was
inadequate and was accepted only because evolutionists did not wish to
believe in God. Hey, I was young at the time, and very trusting of
evangelical leaders.
> 3. Which came first, your conversion to Christianity or your conversion to
> Creationism?
Definitely my conversion to Christianity.
> 4. How did your friends and relatives react?
I had one well-educated and scientifically-oriented aunt who was
dismayed, to say the least, and a couple cousins who were skeptical.
Most of the rest of the family were relatively ho-hum about it except
that they supported the idea in principle, being good conservative
Christian folk. Didn't care much for/about the actual science
involved, as long as it supported the idea that God was the supreme
creator.
> Bear in mind, this is not a question for creationists in general, but only
> those who converted at a later time in their lives.
I'm kind of cheating, since I'm no longer a creationist any more. But
at the time the big issues were respect for authority and family
approval. And ignorance, of course.
m
John
Because of the metric system?
John S.
-------
their -- of, or belonging to them
there -- in, or at a place
they're -- contraction of "they are"
Average Joe
wrote:
>Because of the metric system?
no, because of mark of the beast microchips
Bjoern Feuerbacher
>
> OK, I am a little confused Joe, WADR.
>
> Are you saying you are a Creationist? If so, then I'd just like to hear you
> answer my questions:
>
> 1. How much evolution had you studied before you became a creationist?
>
> 2. What specific fact was it that convinced you that evolution was wrong and
> creationism was right?
>
> 3. Which came first, your conversion to Christianity or your conversion to
> Creationism?
>
> 4. How did your friends and relatives react?
[snip]
SLDER, did you notice that AJ did answer some of the posts which shred
his post into bits (but snipped most of the contents, and ignored all
errors pointed out), but didn't answer your questions? I prophezied that
this will happen - that's his usual behaviour...
Average Joe
<feuerba...@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote:
>SLDER, did you notice that AJ did answer some of the posts which shred
>his post into bits (but snipped most of the contents, and ignored all
>errors pointed out), but didn't answer your questions? I prophezied that
>this will happen - that's his usual behaviour...
his questions go to motive, not logic, ad hominem
I'm not here to be judged, the most I plan to entertain is debate
sometimes I do reveal personal information, but when I feel like
sharing, not when some pagan isn't even coy about his intentions,
sorry, not worth my time, and certainly not going to get my validation
Bjoern Feuerbacher
>
> On Thu, 21 Nov 2002 08:51:39 +0000 (UTC), Bjoern Feuerbacher
> <feuerba...@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote:
>
> >SLDER, did you notice that AJ did answer some of the posts which shred
> >his post into bits (but snipped most of the contents, and ignored all
> >errors pointed out), but didn't answer your questions? I prophezied that
> >this will happen - that's his usual behaviour...
>
> his questions go to motive, not logic,
So what? This doesn't change the simple fact that you don't answer
questions. This is your usual behaviour.
I notice that you *still* haven't answered his question, although you
have time to respond to my post...
> ad hominem
Where? I only pointed out a fact.
> I'm not here to be judged,
Everytime you write or say something in the public, you will be
judged...
>the most I plan to entertain is debate
No, you don't debate. You post nonsense, don't answer most objections
and questions you get in responce, ignore all the errors pointed out,
and then come back again a few days or weeks later and post the same
nonsense again.
> sometimes I do reveal personal information, but when I feel like
> sharing,
Why didn't you say this to SLDER instead of simply ignoring his
questions?
> not when some pagan isn't even coy about his intentions,
How do you know that SLDER is a "pagan"?
> sorry, not worth my time, and certainly not going to get my validation
Thanks for showing again that you are an arrogant moron.
Epictetus
Bjoern Feuerbacher <feuerba...@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote:
> His opinion is something like "consciousness (free will) can exist
> without a brain and created/creates the material world (by observing
> it)"
Esse Est Percipi! :-)
Sounds suspiciously like Berekely's response to Locke. It's an
interesting argument, and a little amusing, that isn't obviously false
has the distinct advantage of being unfalsifiable. :-)
Ken
Bill Jefferys
>On Tue, 19 Nov 2002 03:53:39 +0000 (UTC), "Alan Wright"
><al...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>It is clear to me that it takes a pretty significant emotional
>>event to lead to someone adopting anti-scientific religious
>>views after achieving some education and proficiency in
>>doing science.
>
>One of the professional creationists, I forget which, was previously
>one of Gould's grad students. I think he got his PhD too.
Kurt Wise. Came to Harvard as a Creationist (YEC), left as a Creationist. No
former evolutionist here.
Gould was apparently bemused by the whole incident.
Bill
--
Bill Jefferys/Department of Astronomy/University of Texas/Austin, TX 78712
Email: replace 'warthog' with 'clyde' | Homepage: quasar.as.utexas.edu
I report spammers to frau...@psinet.com
Finger for PGP Key: F7 11 FB 82 C6 21 D8 95 2E BD F7 6E 99 89 E1 82
Unlawful to use this email address for unsolicited ads: USC Title 47 Sec 227
SLDER
"Mark Nutter" <manut...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:fddfde37.02112...@posting.google.com...