Will an atheist creationist please stand up?

Pete Harcoff · #1 20th February 2003, 02:12 PM

Are there any examples of scientists (or really learned people) who deny the theory of evolution, not from any religious standpoint, but because there are genuine problems with the theory?

And by "deny the theory of evolution", I mean deny most, if not all, of what the theory is comprised of. After all, I suspect there are a lot of people that don't subscribe to every single minute detail of the theory, but I'm wondering if anyone denies it from a non-religious position as vehemently as some religious creationists.

ocean · #2 20th February 2003, 02:54 PM

The only reason someone would deny evolution is because of religion. The evidence for evolution is there, so no one denies it because of problems with the theory.

mac_philo · #3 20th February 2003, 02:59 PM

This is an interesting post, but the fact that you use the non-related word 'creationist' in the title is more evidence that the 'intelligent design' propagandists are doing an extremely effective job. They have created a dialectic where any objection to evolution is support for creationism.

Why would having a fundamental scientific objection to evolution make one a 'creationist'? Even if evolutionary theory was scientifically flawed, this wouldn't lend support to any other theory, would it?

But, to answer your question, no. I don't know of any (scientifically literate) persons who have fundamental, non religious objections to evolution. There are any number of such people who disagree about specific scientific problems, but they disagree within an evolutionary framework. This is what 'intelligent design' theorists lie about to create the illusion that there are actual scientists out there objecting to evolution...

Sorry for such a meandering response, but this is a very fundamental issue right now for religious factions using pseudoscience to fight for creationism in the classroom.

Pete Harcoff · #4 20th February 2003, 03:03 PM

Today at 01:54 PM ocean said this in Post #2 (http://www.christianforums.com/showt...329#post665329)

The only reason someone would deny evolution is because of religion. The evidence for evolution is there, so no one denies it because of problems with the theory.

But of course. But this position only hurts creationists, especially with regard to having evolution removed from the public school system, or sticking warning labels on text books, etc. After all, if all the basis for their objections to evolution rests on religion and not problems with the theory, then why should anyone who doesn't share their particular religious views care?

lucaspa · #5 20th February 2003, 03:12 PM

Today at 01:12 PM Pete Harcoff said this in Post #1

Are there any examples of scientists (or really learned people) who deny the theory of evolution, not from any religious standpoint, but because there are genuine problems with the theory?

And by "deny the theory of evolution", I mean deny most, if not all, of what the theory is comprised of. 

No.  Always the objection comes from some reason other than science.  Now, most of the time the emotional reason is disguised and the objections to evolution are couched in science, but the underlying motivation is not scientific.

This has been so since evolution was first proposed back in the late 1700s.  Ruse has an essay documenting the discussions about evolution in the period 1820-1859, before Darwin.  Always specific evolutionary hypotheses (such as Chamber's Vestiges of Creation)were rejected on scientific grounds by such people as  Sedgwick, but the motivation was always religious. Science served as the acceptable form in which to protest, since solely religious objections to a scientific theory were not considered valid.

Pete Harcoff · #6 20th February 2003, 03:12 PM

Today at 01:59 PM mac_philo said this in Post #3 (http://www.christianforums.com/showt...351#post665351)

This is an interesting post, but the fact that you use the non-related word 'creationist' in the title is more evidence that the 'intelligent design' propagandists are doing an extremely effective job.

With respect to the title of the thread, I was actually going for irony ("atheist creationist" being a bit of an oxymoron and all).

But I haven't seen any non-creationists object to evolutionary theory as vehemently as creationists. And since I don't share their fundamental religious beliefs, why should I give two hoots when they complain about the theory of evolution with respect to those religious beliefs?

Morat · #7 20th February 2003, 05:26 PM

There was than Indian guy. Sadly, I can't recall his name, but he testifed in the McLean case, I believe. When asked what he thought of evolution, he said it was "nonsense". When asked what he thought of Creationism, he said it was "worse nonsense".

I think he's an astronomer, though, of the Hoyle type.

Gooch's dad · #8 20th February 2003, 06:17 PM

Heck, the creationists would have more of a case if they could present a few evolutionary biologists, PhD level, who say that evolution is unsound. The creationists and ID'ers seem to be anything from geologists to chemists to, in the case of Philip Johnson, a lawyer. Are there any PhD evo biologists at either ICR or the Discovery Institute?

lucaspa · #9 20th February 2003, 10:48 PM

Today at 04:26 PM Morat said this in Post #7

There was than Indian guy. Sadly, I can't recall his name, but he testifed in the McLean case, I believe. When asked what he thought of evolution, he said it was "nonsense". When asked what he thought of Creationism, he said it was "worse nonsense".

I think he's an astronomer, though, of the Hoyle type.

Wickmarasinghe.  And he was a colleague of Hoyles, co-authoring several papers with him.

And that wasn't exactly his testimony.  Wickmarasinghe wasn't against common ancestry but against abiogenesis.  His comment was that it was nonsense to think that the earth was less than 20,000 years old. 

lucaspa · #10 20th February 2003, 10:51 PM

Today at 05:17 PM Gooch's dad said this in Post #8

Heck, the creationists would have more of a case if they could present a few evolutionary biologists, PhD level, who say that evolution is unsound. The creationists and ID'ers seem to be anything from geologists to chemists to, in the case of Philip Johnson, a lawyer. Are there any PhD evo biologists at either ICR or the Discovery Institute?

There is Kurt Wise, Ph.D in paleontology and had Stephen Gould as his mentor.  Gould was always puzzled at Wise's views but agree to be his graduate mentor anyway.

However, your whole position is Argument from Authority.  In any group, you can always find one or two to espouse practically any crazy idea. What matters is the data.