Creationists Response to Denton

[SIXDAYCREATIONIST]

as promised, here is the response:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I find this fascinating, and I now have the book to read. Michael Denton, who has been considered a leading creationist and one of the leading proponents of intelligent design and has written books very critical of Darwinism, seems to have "readjusted" his position.

Lie number one: M. Denton was never a Creationist to begin with. He just didn’t accept evolution. There are many things that Denton has said that Creationists have disagreed with.

What is almost scary in its irony is that it seems that a great deal of the current Creationist thinking is founded upon "Evolution: a Theory in Crisis" and now its author has basically abandoned those arguments in favor of new ones!!

Lie number two: the modern Creationist thinking was founded upon Dr. Gish, Dr. Morris, and Dr. Gentry. The Genesis Flood, is what got many creationists excited about Creation to begin with. As for Denton’s book, about evolution being in crisis, his arguments still stand against evolution, and many evolutionists have had to alter their view on things (such as oxygen being found in lower layers).

What made me want to read his book was AiG's frustration at the seeming "defection" of one of their heroes!

Ken Ham is an ex-evolutionist, what does that mean for evolution? *roll eyes*

A first grader could come up with a better argument than that. People change their views, many people on both sides have switched; that does not make Creation or Evolution more valid. The empirical evidence is what makes a scientific theory valid.

It is a sad thing if evolutionists have to start using arguments like this to make their theory sound more valid. Perhaps the empirical is beyond evolutionists.


Kevin Davis – The Skeptic Times

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

kev said they'll be adding a lot more to their site later

 

[Micaiah]

My understanding is that Denton was never a Creationist. At one stage, he believed the arguments and conclusions put forward by evolutionsits were wrong, and claimed to believe in ID. Apparently he has since recanted on his views. I have his first book, and found it interesting.

I once read a review on his second book. The person who did the book review felt the second book failed to adequately explain the shift in beliefs. It did not dispel the clouds of doubt that were raised by the first book.

I have a theory about this type of shift in views. From what I've seen there are not too many people out there who acknowledge intelligent design, yet are able to remain in a state of agnosticism. If Creation is the result of intelligent design (it is!), then that begs the question 'who is this wonderful 'Designer' '. As Romans 1 says, creation leads to the Creator. If you suppress that truth, then you have to come up with an alternative that puts the mind at rest. Evolution offers the ideal anaesthetic for the cognitive dissonance created by ignoring the truth. The number of TE's on this site are testimony to the pressure bought to bear even on Christians to reject the historical record of Creation that is plainly presented in Genesis. Imagine how difficult it is for a secular scientist whose bread and butter depends on maintaining respectability among his peers.

 

[SIXDAYCREATIONIST]

i agree, but the fact they tried to deceive people into making others believe it was a "major" creationist, was not even close to being true. funny though when a group of people can't get their facts straight.

and yes, denton did NOT explain his original critique. it is obvious that evolution's problems still stand.