Challenge to Creationists!

[Vance]

I posted this over in the C&E Forum, but I thought I would let the Creationists here take a shot at it as well. In the creationist only forum, a YEC was asserting that many who reject evolution do so purely on scientific grounds, without religious motivations. 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 the theory of 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.

 

[Delta One]

Just a few from the Answers in Genesis website:

Dr Garry Parker is one example anyway. Dr. Parker began his teaching career as a non-Christian and evolutionist. The details of his spiritual and scientific conversion, "From Evolution to Creation" (available in pamphlet form and videocassette), include comic incidents. For example, he was a participant in a debate where his science department—defending the Bible —debated the Bible department—which was defending evolution! Don't you find that interesting?? I doubt that it would be as easy as doing a Google search for it.

Dr James Allen for two. Catch what he says about it here in the article Jumping Ship: <http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i3/jumping_ship.asp>. He recounts how his wife's question made him sit down and really question and critically analyze evolutionism. From the article above:

We asked him how he now viewed the supposed evidence for evolution. He said:

‘I began to look more critically at the assumptions underlying some of those things that seemed so logical. For example, I came to see that resemblances between taxonomic families, orders, classes, etc. are due to the work of a creator, not common ancestry.’

​

Jim Allan says that previously, when people brought up creationist interpretations of the evidence he would say, ‘Why bring that nonsense to me?—it’s not science.’

But in the last decade or so, as he has considered a number of these, he has found that they are perfectly reasonable and intellectually acceptable. He now finds it sad that anyone should insist on evolutionary interpretations, which are ‘unproven and unprovable.’

For three, Scott Hemphill, see the "King" of Hearts available at: <http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2005/0118king.asp>.

Once again, from the link:

And here’s what happened, as Phil recounts Scott’s conversion:

“Scott was an ardent evolutionist, and a harsh and very outspoken critic of the gospel. l had already passed out an entire case of Refuting Evolution books, but had one book left—which I placed on my desk. I was hoping that the title itself would spark a conversation with a coworker. It not only sparked a conversation but a conversion, as Scott became a Christian by overcoming the ‘stumbling block and foolishness’ of creation."

Notice, that although many come to Christ first and then come to the realisation that there must have been a Creator and how inconsistent with the Bible evolution is, their eyes are opened and the same evidence for evolution that they used to see, they now see as evidence for creation. These are only a few examples of those who have rejected evolution by examining the evidence or being exposed to the powerful creationary message. Praise the LORD for the creation message! I could waste my time searching for more examples, but why bother? I'm pretty sure that it will be a waste of time and we will reach no logical conclusion.

Many reject evolution on Biblical grounds and later they realise that it can too be refuted on scientific grounds. But that creationist would be correct in that many scientists are seeing how evolution just cannot work and are either turning to an agnostic position of 'jumping ship' and becoming creationists!