Former Evolutionists who became Creation Scientists

Former Evolutionists who became Creation Scientists (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Theology] >> Science & Origins

Message

Consecrated2God -> Former Evolutionists who became Creation Scientists (8/9/2008 6:27:15 PM)
This is a spin-off of another thread. Glaudys said: quote: I think the creation science sites only appeal to people who 1) don't have much science background and therefore cannot see the weaknesses in the arguments and 2) are predisposed to trust them over mainstream scientific sources. I believe that there are many people who are Creationists who were not raised in Christian homes, and who do have a background in science. Here is an article with testimonies of Christian scientists who were once evolutionists. LINK

gluadys -> RE: Former Evolutionists who became Creation Scientists (8/9/2008 6:38:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Consecrated2God This is a spin-off of another thread. Glaudys said: quote: I think the creation science sites only appeal to people who 1) don't have much science background and therefore cannot see the weaknesses in the arguments and 2) are predisposed to trust them over mainstream scientific sources. I believe that there are many people who are Creationists who were not raised in Christian homes, and who do have a background in science. Here is an article with testimonies of Christian scientists who were once evolutionists. LINK This response also comes from the other thread. But I place it here for easy reference. ---gluadys Actually the fact they have testimonies is part of the problem. I am never too much impressed by these, first because most (not all--there are some notable exceptions) whatever their credentials in other fields do not have the requisite depth in biology and/or geology. One of the exceptions on the list is Gary Parker. Some others are Jonathan Wells and Kurt Wise. All of these have qualifications in biology but dispute evolution. I don't know if I have ever seen an argument in favour of a young earth from a qualified geologist. What all of these have in common is a prior commitment to creationism. Both Wise and Wells were creationists before they began their studies. Parker was converted to Christianity before committing to creationism. So what would really impress me is someone knowledgeable in biology or geology who is convinced of a young earth solely on the scientific evidence without an accompanying religious commitment. Someone like a Japanese Buddhist who, as a Buddhist and as a qualified geologist, but not as a Christian, argues for a young earth solely from evidence.

Consecrated2God -> RE: Former Evolutionists who became Creation Scientists (8/9/2008 6:45:45 PM)
quote: Actually the fact they have testimonies is part of the problem. I am never too much impressed by these, first because most (not all--there are some notable exceptions) whatever their credentials in other fields do not have the requisite depth in biology and/or geology. How much depth in biology or geology do you think a person needs to not fall into category 1: ((they) don't have much science background and therefore cannot see the weaknesses in the arguments)? quote: What all of these have in common is a prior commitment to creationism. Both Wise and Wells were creationists before they began their studies. Parker was converted to Christianity before committing to creationism. So you would only be impressed if someone was a creationist first, and then later became a Christian? Is that even possible? I think you have to believe in God before you can truly open your mind to believing that He created the world. An athiest cannot argue for a young earth based soley on evidence, because he doesn't believe in God. If he admits the earth is young, he has no explanation for how it came into being. The only theories out there that do not involve either God (or some other deity) or billions of years involve aliens or computer simulation games from other planets.

gluadys -> RE: Former Evolutionists who became Creation Scientists (8/9/2008 7:29:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Consecrated2God quote: Actually the fact they have testimonies is part of the problem. I am never too much impressed by these, first because most (not all--there are some notable exceptions) whatever their credentials in other fields do not have the requisite depth in biology and/or geology. How much depth in biology or geology do you think a person needs to not fall into category 1: ((they) don't have much science background and therefore cannot see the weaknesses in the arguments)? More than I have, to be sure. I can follow an argument, but when confronted by a claim that is new to me, I don't have the requisite information that counters it and I have to go to more knowledgeable sources. A good example of that is an incident Kenneth Miller recounts in Finding Darwin's God. Miller is a biologist. He knows evolution inside out. But one day he came across the creationist argument that the decay in the magnetic field rules out an old earth. Despite his PhD in biology, he had no answer for that claim. He found it though, by going down the hall and talking to his colleagues in the geology department. (The magnetic field fluctuates and even reverses polarity. It is like measuring the age of the earth by how far the tide has gone out.) There is a lot of such information readily available for those who want to find it though. quote: quote: What all of these have in common is a prior commitment to creationism. Both Wise and Wells were creationists before they began their studies. Parker was converted to Christianity before committing to creationism. So you would only be impressed if someone was a creationist first, and then later became a Christian? Is that even possible? I have never seen it, and that is why I don't believe claims that there is evidence for a young earth. Evidence is independent of belief. After all God made the same world for everyone, believer and non-believer alike. You don't have to convert someone to Christianity to convince them that rain is wet or helps crops to grow. They know that from their own experience of the world God made. If there really is evidence in favour of a young earth, it should be as clear to an atheist as to a Christian. quote: I think you have to believe in God before you can truly open your mind to believing that He created the world. Now that I agree with. That is why I refer to myself as an evolutionary creationist. I accept evolution because of the evidence. I believe by faith that God created the world. I don't believe God created the earth (or universe) only 6,000 years ago, because God's creation says otherwise. quote: An athiest cannot argue for a young earth based soley on evidence, because he doesn't believe in God. Did God make a different reality for atheists than for Christians? Or do we all live in God's creation? Does your belief make a difference in how a rock was formed? Does it change what you will see through a telescope or microscope? If an atheist cannot argue for a young earth based solely on evidence, then no one can. And no one should claim that such evidence exists. If you still want to believe in a young earth based solely on your understanding of scripture, that's not a problem.

Consecrated2God -> RE: Former Evolutionists who became Creation Scientists (8/9/2008 7:44:38 PM)
Try to imagine for a minute that you're an athiest, and you've just disovered some evidence that points to the fact that the earth is 6,000 years old. What would you do? How would you explain that the earth is 6,000 years old without saying that God created it?

drmark -> RE: Former Evolutionists who became Creation Scientists (8/9/2008 8:21:53 PM)
quote: Try to imagine for a minute that you're an athiest, and you've just disovered some evidence that points to the fact that the earth is 6,000 years old. What would you do? How would you explain that the earth is 6,000 years old without saying that God created it? That's easy - there is no interpretation of evidence that corresponds with the uniformitarian naturalistic presuppositions of atheists. Thus, they will never "discover some evidence" pointing to a 6000 year old universe/earth. Getting back on topic ([;)]), the AiG website has numerous "testimonies" of former evolutionists who now embrace YEC science. I personally was brainwashed for decades by my godless, secular undergraduate education in biology and anthropology until I realized that origins science is not observational science, despite what the gurus of scientism want us to believe.

EcclesFruitcake -> RE: Former Evolutionists who became Creation Scientists (8/9/2008 8:25:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Consecrated2God Try to imagine for a minute that you're an athiest, and you've just disovered some evidence that points to the fact that the earth is 6,000 years old. What would you do? How would you explain that the earth is 6,000 years old without saying that God created it? I would merely explain said evidence. I think it is the case that when you can quantify something, and state it in figures, you gain some knowledge; whereas when you can not objectively measure and enumerate something, your knowledge is then of a woeful kind. Besides, I have no preference to any particular age for the Earth. To wit, I acknowledge the mundane evidence.

gluadys -> RE: Former Evolutionists who became Creation Scientists (8/9/2008 10:33:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Consecrated2God Try to imagine for a minute that you're an athiest, and you've just disovered some evidence that points to the fact that the earth is 6,000 years old. What would you do? How would you explain that the earth is 6,000 years old without saying that God created it? It is hard to imagine being an atheist when I am not, but I would not expect an atheist to reach for a God explanation in any case. The type of evidence might simply lead him to file it away as an unexplained anomaly. OTOH, if it led to further discoveries of multiple lines of evidence all pointing to a young earth, I expect there would be a serious revision of scientific theories, especially in physics. How do you measure time? How do you account for the apparent distance of stars? What process produces 40,000 annual varves in just 6,000 years? There would be all sorts of questions to answer and I think an atheist would focus on those questions rather than reach for a God-answer. In short, if there is valid evidence for a young earth, I don't think it forces anyone to belief in creation any more than the evidence for an old earth does.

cow451 -> RE: Former Evolutionists who became Creation Scientists (8/9/2008 11:28:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Consecrated2God This is a spin-off of another thread. Glaudys said: quote: I think the creation science sites only appeal to people who 1) don't have much science background and therefore cannot see the weaknesses in the arguments and 2) are predisposed to trust them over mainstream scientific sources. I believe that there are many people who are Creationists who were not raised in Christian homes, and who do have a background in science. Here is an article with testimonies of Christian scientists who were once evolutionists. LINK Re: Dr. Wilder-Smith. The note referred to the "Creation model of Intelligent Design". First ID is not a total rejection of evolution. In fact, it does not exist without it. Second, ID does not take a position on the identity of the "designer(s). Either the writer is uninformed or Dr. Wilder-Smith is not being accurate.

essentialsaltes -> RE: Former Evolutionists who became Creation Scientists (8/10/2008 12:27:08 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Consecrated2God Try to imagine for a minute that you're an athiest, and you've just disovered some evidence that points to the fact that the earth is 6,000 years old. What would you do? How would you explain that the earth is 6,000 years old without saying that God created it? Atheism doesn't require a 4.5 billion year old earth, all it requires is a lack of belief in gods. Accepting atheism does not require any particular stance on the age of the universe. It appears that the universe did have an origin, and the mechanisms that attended that event are still imperfectly known. Making that origin 6000 years ago rather than 14 billion or 160 trillion years ago does not really change anything. Theists may plug gods into the equation, and they can do so 6000 years ago, or 14 billion years ago, or (as some Hindus do) 160 trillion years ago. Atheists refrain from plugging gods into that gap in our knowledge. In other words, if somehow evidence appeared that suggested that the Big Bang happened 6000 years ago, that would tell us nothing in particular about the existence of gods. Of course, the actual scientific evidence points to a universe that is billions of years old. This fact does not support atheism, or make the existence of gods any less likely.

swan42 -> RE: Former Evolutionists who became Creation Scientists (8/10/2008 4:42:05 AM)
quote: So you would only be impressed if someone was a creationist first, and then later became a Christian? Is that even possible? Very possible. Nearly every single other non-Christian religion in the world has a creation story. Followers of those religions are not Christian and yet are creationists, and may later become Christians.

Consecrated2God -> RE: Former Evolutionists who became Creation Scientists (8/10/2008 8:39:58 AM)
quote: Making that origin 6000 years ago rather than 14 billion or 160 trillion years ago does not really change anything. It doesn't change anything? So you think an athiest would actually start saying that the big bang happened 6,000 years ago and life evolved really really fast? [:D] He would be made the laughingstock of the scientific community. They have to have billions and billions of years to make anyone believe their theories. I don't think that's likely. I believe that the athiest would do one of the two things: Ignore the evidence, and pretend it said something it didn't, or re-think his unbelief in God.

drmark -> RE: Former Evolutionists who became Creation Scientists (8/10/2008 8:57:33 AM)
quote: and pretend it said something it didn't Exactly - it is interpretation of the evidence that leads to conclusions regarding the earth's age.

drj11 -> RE: Former Evolutionists who became Creation Scientists (8/10/2008 11:25:39 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Consecrated2God quote: Making that origin 6000 years ago rather than 14 billion or 160 trillion years ago does not really change anything. It doesn't change anything? So you think an athiest would actually start saying that the big bang happened 6,000 years ago and life evolved really really fast? [:D] He would be made the laughingstock of the scientific community. They have to have billions and billions of years to make anyone believe their theories. I don't think that's likely. If the atheist had empirical evidence supporting that viewpoint, yes they would actually say it. quote: I believe that the athiest would do one of the two things: Ignore the evidence, and pretend it said something it didn't, or re-think his unbelief in God. Or he would be busy dreaming of the fame, money, his place in the history books next to scientists like Darwin, and his acceptance speeches for the nobel prizes he will win.

essentialsaltes -> RE: Former Evolutionists who became Creation Scientists (8/10/2008 11:51:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Consecrated2God quote: Making that origin 6000 years ago rather than 14 billion or 160 trillion years ago does not really change anything. It doesn't change anything? So you think an athiest would actually start saying that the big bang happened 6,000 years ago and life evolved really really fast? He would be made the laughingstock of the scientific community. It's true that a 6000 year old earth conflicts with other things we know. But you supposed that an atheist scientist discovered evidence that pointed to a young earth. If the scientist was certain of his methods, and certain of his conclusions, and certain that a peer-review panel could not fault his methods or conclusions, then he should publish his work and submit it to the eyes of the scientific community. Science sometimes progresses when a scientist points out a seeming paradox or puzzle. quote: They have to have billions and billions of years to make anyone believe their theories. I don't think that's likely. You have to be careful about this 'they'. Who are they? Atheists? There are no atheist scientific theories. There are no Christian scientific theories. There are only scientific theories. Charles Lyell was a geologist who established that the earth is millions of years old, and he did so before Darwin wrote On the Origin of Species. Science did not push the idea of an old earth in order to promote evolution, since Darwinian evolution did not yet exist. To the contrary, Lyell was a bitter opponent of Lamarck's (earlier) theory of evolution. Similarly, Lord Kelvin happened to be a devout Christian, and he used the scientific theory of heat to determine that the earth was millions of years old, a few years after Darwin published his work. Kelvin was somewhat surprised by the result as it happened to conflict with his understanding of the Bible. Nevertheless, he published his data. If a scientist who happens to be Christian did not suppress scientific evidence of an old earth, I think it is not too much to suggest that a scientist who happens to be an atheist would not suppress scientific evidence of a young earth.

Consecrated2God -> RE: Former Evolutionists who became Creation Scientists (8/10/2008 1:31:18 PM)
quote: If the atheist had empirical evidence supporting that viewpoint, yes they would actually say it I seriously cannot see that happening. I don't think they would be able to honestly do that because there is no explanation for a young earth except that God created it, or (like a few people have said) that aliens from another planet did it, or like that one professor who thinks we're living in a giant computer simulation.

Consecrated2God -> RE: Former Evolutionists who became Creation Scientists (8/10/2008 1:33:55 PM)
Just out of curiosity, does anyone know if there's a list of creation scientists who became evolutionists?

drj11 -> RE: Former Evolutionists who became Creation Scientists (8/10/2008 2:03:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Consecrated2God quote: If the atheist had empirical evidence supporting that viewpoint, yes they would actually say it I seriously cannot see that happening. I don't think they would be able to honestly do that because there is no explanation for a young earth except that God created it, or (like a few people have said) that aliens from another planet did it, or like that one professor who thinks we're living in a giant computer simulation. What about the 6000 number is magical that makes it require God where a billions of years old planet doesnt?

Veritas -> RE: Former Evolutionists who became Creation Scientists (8/10/2008 2:16:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Consecrated2God quote: If the atheist had empirical evidence supporting that viewpoint, yes they would actually say it I seriously cannot see that happening. I don't think they would be able to honestly do that because there is no explanation for a young earth except that God created it, or (like a few people have said) that aliens from another planet did it, or like that one professor who thinks we're living in a giant computer simulation. I am an atheist. You are mistaken. My disbelief in God (or gods) is unrelated to the age of the earth or the age of the Universe. If there were evidence for a young earth/universe, it would have no effect on my disbelief in God. That said, it is hard for me to imagine what sort of evidence that would/could be. There are multiple lines of evidence from several fields that tell us the earth is much older than 10,000 years and the universe is even older. You only have to take the finite speed of light and simple geometry to determine that we can see events that happened much longer ago than 10,000 years. So, along with evidence for a young earth there would have to be some explanation of why so much evidence points to an very old earth/universe. You are projecting. -- It is not the atheists that ignore or dismiss evidence; it is the Young Earth Creationists that are forced to dismiss any and all evidence that conflicts with their pre-conceived notions of the age of the earth/universe. You are also ignoring the fact that many, if not most. Christians accept that a preponderance of the evidence points to an old earth/universe. You don't have to be an atheist to see where the evidence points.

gluadys -> RE: Former Evolutionists who became Creation Scientists (8/10/2008 3:24:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Consecrated2God Just out of curiosity, does anyone know if there's a list of creation scientists who became evolutionists? I don't know if there is a list, but I do know that some have. Glenn Morton is a well-known example. http://home.entouch.net/dmd/dmd.htm He used to be a writer for ICR. There are many others who rejected creation science as students i.e. they were not yet scientists when they changed their beliefs. E. O. Wilson would be an example in that category. Like many he also became an atheist. Francis Collins is an interesting case, as he rejected creationism and adopted atheism in high school, but was later re-converted to Christianity while continuing to accept evolution. His book The Language of God is an interesting read. I don't know for certain if either Bob Bakker (the well-known paleontologist and expert on dinosaurs) or Denis Lamoureux were originally creationists or not, but their Pentecostal affiliations would suggest that possibility. Certainly, both are now supporters of evolutionary theory. And both are still Christians in the Pentecostal tradition.

iluvatar -> RE: Former Evolutionists who became Creation Scientists (8/10/2008 7:11:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Consecrated2God quote: If the atheist had empirical evidence supporting that viewpoint, yes they would actually say it I seriously cannot see that happening. I don't think they would be able to honestly do that because there is no explanation for a young earth except that God created it Given the other information we know about the universe (which all points towards billions of years of history), yes, that certainly does seem to be the case. Because nothing we know about the universe points to such rapid formation of much of anything, it certainly would seem miraculous to find out that the universe is only 6000 years old. But we're talking about a hypothetical situation - what would happen IF we actually found evidence that DID point to a young earth (especially if we found a lot of it). If the evidence pointed in that directions, why would atheists treat a 6000 year history any differently than a 13 billion year history? If the evidence pointed that way, there could/would still be a naturalistic explanation for everything - actually, it's precisely BECAUSE there's evidence for it (in our hypothetical world) that atheists could still deny God's hand in creation. -Dan.

Consecrated2God -> RE: Former Evolutionists who became Creation Scientists (8/11/2008 8:32:53 AM)
quote: What about the 6000 number is magical that makes it require God where a billions of years old planet doesnt? The whole reason for the billions for years theory is because it takes time--lots of it--to evolve something from nothing. If you put the start date at 6000 years ago, humans appear in history, complete, at that time. So the theory of evolution would be out. I think they would probably say that humans evolved on another planet and then took a spaceship here or something, though. [;)]

iluvatar -> RE: Former Evolutionists who became Creation Scientists (8/11/2008 9:13:29 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Consecrated2God quote: What about the 6000 number is magical that makes it require God where a billions of years old planet doesnt? The whole reason for the billions for years theory is because it takes time--lots of it--to evolve something from nothing. If you put the start date at 6000 years ago, humans appear in history, complete, at that time. So the theory of evolution would be out. As others have pointed out, that isn't where the billions of years figure came from. Those ages came from geology and astronomy. It's a credit to science that one scientific discipline (biology) came up with a theory (evolution) that was consistent with figures provided by other disciplines. If biologists had started requiring billions of years, while geologists and astronomers had kept finding evidence of a recent creation, there would have been a lot of finger pointing and at least one side would have been eventually thrown out. quote: I think they would probably say that humans evolved on another planet and then took a spaceship here or something, though. [;)] I don't doubt it. -Dan.

Consecrated2God -> RE: Former Evolutionists who became Creation Scientists (8/11/2008 9:25:55 AM)
Here's an article about where the idea of billions of years came from. LINK

iluvatar -> RE: Former Evolutionists who became Creation Scientists (8/11/2008 9:41:19 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Consecrated2God Here's an article about where the idea of billions of years came from. LINK That's the link from the other thread. Try this one -Dan.

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI