Challenge to Creationists!

This has been done before, but I thought I would let the new Creationists take a shot at it. In another forum, a YEC was asserting that many who reject evolution do so purely on scientific grounds, without any religious objections. I think this is simply not true, but I am willing to be proven wrong. So, here is the challenge:

Find at least 10 people who have gone "on record" (meaning you can link to a statement by them, or cite book or magazine article), who have studied, but rejected, evolution but who do NOT believe that evolution contradicts or challenges their religious beliefs.

Now, there are two aspects of evolution, so it will be important to clarify which they reject. There is evolution in the sense that the current diversity of species descended from earlier common ancestors, over a very long time. Then there is evolution in the sense of the Theory of Evolution, which is the theory which explains how this historical development occurred. For example, Behe and Denton (two ID guys) reject evolution as a purely naturalistic process, but accept common descent, etc.

Also, no quote mining allowed. It will not do to just post a quote from a scientist or anyone else for that matter, which seems to argue against evolution when taken out of context. Instead, it must be someone who has truly rejected the idea of it, not just expressed doubts about one aspect or another.

My thought is this. If evolution was really a "theory in crisis", one that just did not have that much scientific evidence, or one that was not sound in its theories, there WOULD BE A LOT of people who reject it, even when they had no religious basis for doing so.

__________________
In matters that are obscure and far beyond our vision, even in such as we may find treated in Holy Scripture, different Interpretations are sometimes possible without prejudice to the faith we have received. - St. Augustine, in his analysis of Genesis.

*chirp!*


*chirp!*



*chirp!*


*silence*

Come on now. If evolution is not a well-supported, sound scientific explanation, as so many Creationists would have us believe, then there would be at least 1 or 2 percent of the non-religious population would reject it. It would never get the 99.98% acceptance among scientists in the relevant fields that it has. There would be dissenters and rejecters all over the place.

__________________
In matters that are obscure and far beyond our vision, even in such as we may find treated in Holy Scripture, different Interpretations are sometimes possible without prejudice to the faith we have received. - St. Augustine, in his analysis of Genesis.

This challenge will never be met.

__________________
Creationism has not made a single contribution to agriculture, medicine, conservation, forestry, pathology, or any other applied area of biology. Creationism has yielded no classifications, no biogeographies, no underlying mechanisms, no unifying concepts with which to study organisms or life. - Botanical Society of America's Statement on Evolution

Originally Posted by jwu

*chirp!*


*chirp!*



*chirp!*


*silence*

Wait! I hear something...false alarm, it was just the buzzards circling...

Shhhh....

__________________
"A belief which leaves no place for doubt is not a belief; it is a superstition." - Jose Bergamin

"You can't trust an honest man." --- Anonymous

"He does not believe who does not live according to his belief." -- Thomas Fuller

"The fact that the author thinks slowly is not serious, but the fact that he publishes faster than he thinks is inexcusable." -- Wolfgang Pauli

"He hath shewed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth the LORD require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?" -- Micah 6:8

"It is because we believe absurdities that we are able to commit atrocities." -- Voltaire

"This isn't right. This isn't even wrong." -- Wolfgang Pauli

"Je ne suis pas marxiste." -- Karl Marx

"Faith is believing what you know ain't so."-- Mark Twain

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." -- Albert Einstein

Biological or physical scientists?

Biological Scientists

Physical Scientists

Darwinism or Medelian genetics?

A Scientific Desent from Darwinism

Historical or contemporary?

__________________

Mark, you seem to have forgotten the part about showing that these folks don't also believe that evolution contradicts or challenges a religous belief they hold.

As long as someone believes that evolution is contrary to a religious belief they hold, we have no way of knowing whether decision is based on that religous objection, or primarily on scientific grounds.

__________________
In matters that are obscure and far beyond our vision, even in such as we may find treated in Holy Scripture, different Interpretations are sometimes possible without prejudice to the faith we have received. - St. Augustine, in his analysis of Genesis.

Did you ever hear of the wedge strategy and wedge document?
http://www.evowiki.org/index.php/Wedge_document

Clearly discovery institute people do believe that evolution contradicts their relgious beliefs so they don't meet Vance's challenge.

FB

__________________
A little Learning is a dang'rous Thing;
Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian Spring:
There shallow Draughts intoxicate the Brain,
And drinking largely sobers us again.

Alexander Pope

For one thing the way evolution is defined everyone is an evolutionist. For another thing there are 400 scientists that simply descent from Darwinism linked and listed who have denied any religious motivation for their position. The question is kind of like a lawyer asking you if you still beat your wife. If you say no then you just admitted you have, if you answer yes then you admitt you beat your wife. Why not ask what scientists have serious questions about mainstream evolutionary theory. What is more you seem intent on lumping every aspect of evolution into a take it or leave it proposition. It is far to large a body of thought for that and I have yet to find anyone who seriously denies evolution when defined as 'the change in gene frequencies in populations over time'. Some how that means, in turn' you must accept the single common ancestor model, which is absurd. Evolutionists do the same thing with the definition of science and its nothing but a bait and switch.

__________________