Evolutionist turned Creationist

[wblastyn]

Here's the link:

http://www.raidersnewsupdate.com/lead-story8.htm

The arguement's he makes are not very convincing, and he seems to equate evolution with atheism.

What does everyone else think?

 

[Pete Harcoff]

From the article:

"What it comes down to is that both (ideas) require faith - one is a blind faith and the other is a reasonable faith," he said. "Explain to me where did the original matter come from? Where did the first star come from?"

Where did God come from?

"Natural selection and mutation, he said, has been discredited even by scientists."

Where? Who are these scientists who have discredited natural selection and mutation?

"Once they accept a creator God, they become accountable to Him because, then, he makes the rules," Riddle said. "The (creation) alternative has so much more to offer - hope, eternal life - just accept Jesus as your lord and savior - it's a free gift. The Bible is very specific that there is only one way to heaven."

Ah... I see, it's all about bribery. Who cares about an explanation for the diversity of biological life on Earth, when instead, you can be invited to the big party in the sky.

"One's behavior is determined by their values and values are determined by world view. If a person is a product of chance or evolution, then their behavior is irrelevant - it doesn't matter what they do, they don't answer to anyone," he said. "Their understanding of who they are and why they're here is skewed when there's not a personal creator who loves them and cares for them."

Why is it atheists (at least the ones I've spoken to) seem to have no problem with finding moral guidelines for their own behavior, despite insistence from some Christians that they shouldn't be able to?

I agree with wblastyn. The arguments he tries to make only preach to the choir and further misunderstanding about what evolutionary theory actually is.

 

[now_I_am_found]

I must say that I found this article very interesting.  I just finished taking Physics not too long ago, and talk about a real filter exercise!  It is good to know other perspectives in order to witness, but that science class stands from the perspective that the big bang is how everything happened.  I agree with the author of that speech in that you do have to have faith in order to believe in the creation of man as it is in the Bible.  I believe that the Word is true in telling the way that the world has developed, and history agrees also.

 

[wblastyn]

The article tries to make it seem as like he was some grand evolutionary scientist who finally saw the light, which doesn't seem true at all from what he says. 

I don't understand how he wrote books on the subject when he doesn't seem to have a clue about them:

"Natural selection and mutation, he said, has been discredited even by scientists.

"There's no mechanism for change," he said. "I do believe in genetic variation in natural selection, but they do not amount to one species like a dinosaur becoming a bird or a fish walking up on land.""

 

[Morat]

Found: Are you still in high school? Because I'd hope you weren't expecting anything more about the origins of the universe than "Big Bang" in a high school physics class.

It's not the sort of subject you cover in college physics until two or three years in.

And, offhand, I hope you're not going into biology at Berry College...a big shock awaits in Bio 101.

 

[Jerry Smith]

Rome, GA was where I grew up from the ages of 3 mos to 12 years. I don't know about Berry's academics, but their campus is gorgeous. A little heaven on earth! I'd like to take a trip back down there sometime soon just to enjoy the place.

 

[notto]

Today at 05:45 PM wblastyn said this in Post #4 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=692479#post692479)

The article tries to make it seem as like he was some grand evolutionary scientist who finally saw the light, which doesn't seem true at all from what he says. 

I don't understand how he wrote books on the subject when he doesn't seem to have a clue about them:

"Natural selection and mutation, he said, has been discredited even by scientists.

"There's no mechanism for change," he said. "I do believe in genetic variation in natural selection, but they do not amount to one species like a dinosaur becoming a bird or a fish walking up on land.""

http://www.train2equip.com/bioMike.asp
His degrees are in Mathematics and Education and he worked in the computer industry for 25 years (and has been in "Creation Ministry" for 20).

No surprise that he doesn't have a clue about evolution.
1) He has no formal study in the area
2) He has never worked in the area
3) He made his decision 20 years ago and a lot has happened since then.

My guess is that he never took much over a high school biology course or maybe some basic college level biology, but he certainly wasn't a professional "evolutionist" or anyone of consequence in the field.

Of course it seems that he has developed quite a business of creating "science" curriculums for Creation ministry. I guess you don't have to have studied topics like biology and physics to do that - pity. I'm glad that public school students aren't working off of biology curriculums and materials developed by undergrad math majors.

 

[Eddie]

misleading, suggestive with no substance, puffery.  I think this guy found jesus on his way to the dollar. Blech. 

 

[anon5354]

empty rethorics. Kind of like an infomercial

 

[PhantomLlama]

Although evolutionist theory maintains the universe began with the Big Bang and dates the Earth as being 4.6 billion years old, he said current scientific findings don't support those ideas. Instead, Riddle pointed to several indicators in the Genesis, the first book of the Bible.

In studying biblical genealogies, Riddle said readers will find the same 10 names listed as the ancestors of Adam - the first man.

"That alone shows the earth is between 6,000 and 8,000 years old," he said, adding that evidence from science and astronomy support that age.

He claims that science has disproved an old earth, but then all he gives us is an argument from scripture followed by a claim that 'evidence supports that age'. This seems to me like a statement designed to create the impression he has backed up his claim of a young earth, when all he has really said is 'the bible says so, so it must be true'.

 

[wblastyn]

'the bible says so, so it must be true'

Or "my interpretation if the Bible says so, so it must be true".

 

[Doubting Thomas]

What I often notice with people who claim to have once been "evolutionists" but are now YECs is that they are hard pressed, when asked, to coherently lay out the basic argument of Origin of Species, much less speak intelligently about neo-Darwinism. Essentially, they briefly bought into an error-ridden notion of what Darwinism is, then eventually realised that their version of the theory was ridiculous (as indeed it was), mistaking their flawed understanding of the theory with the real thing.

The more enterprising among them (I'm being kind) then go around and convince people who don't know any better and are too lazy or prejudiced to do their own research at the library that this caricature of evolution is the real deal and proceed to punch holes in it. Voila! They have overturned 150 years of serious, careful research while shovelling intellectual comfort food to people who were eager for the message that their home-grown theology was right all along. It's a cute trick that perpetuates the ingrained anti-intellectualism found in too many places in society. Who needs to understand anything about geology, paleontology, comparative anatomy, development, genetics (a staggeringly broad field!), the physics behind dating techniques or any of dozens of other disciplines that have contributed to our understanding of the natural world when all you "really" need can be read in Genesis in a matter of minutes?

 

[lucaspa]

Yesterday at 12:25 PM now_I_am_found said this in Post #3

It is good to know other perspectives in order to witness, but that science class stands from the perspective that the big bang is how everything happened.  I agree with the author of that speech in that you do have to have faith in order to believe in the creation of man as it is in the Bible.  I believe that the Word is true in telling the way that the world has developed, and history agrees also.

if you look at Riddle, he isn't arguing that the Big Bang happened.  Instead, he is tackling a question that arises from knowing the Big Bang happened: where did the matter/energy come from?

Unfortunately, the "faith" you have is against the evidence in nature.  Now, if you really believe in creation, where did that evidence come from?  Who put it in nature?  Has to be God, doesn't it?  So you are now saying God lied to you.

What you believe is your particular interpretation of "the Word", not the Word itself.  History does not agree with a literal interpretation of Genesis 1-8. For instance, there are no records of a world-wide Flood in the records of the Egyptians, Indus Valley dwellers, or Chinese. 

 

[lucaspa]

Today at 10:56 AM Doubting Thomas said this in Post #12

What I often notice with people who claim to have once been "evolutionists" but are now YECs is that they are hard pressed, when asked, to coherently lay out the basic argument of Origin of Species, much less speak intelligently about neo-Darwinism. Essentially, they briefly bought into an error-ridden notion of what Darwinism is, then eventually realised that their version of the theory was ridiculous (as indeed it was), mistaking their flawed understanding of the theory with the real thing.

Excellent point. Riddle does indeed seem to have large misconceptions about what evolution is.  Altho I think you are being kind.  I see no evidence that Riddle ever accepted evolution, but simply uses it as a ploy to gain credibility.  I see this often in the atheism vs theism debate.  "I was a fundamentalist but now am an atheist" or "I was an atheist but now see the Light". Somehow this is supposed to indicate that the person really understands the opposing position and then rejected it.

However, as you pointed out, the acid test of this is whether they really can represent the other position accurately, and Riddle can't.  His first comment is saying evolution can't tell you about the origin of the matter in the universe. That statement always tells you that you aren't dealing with a serious discussion about science, but the atheism vs theism debate.

 

[Gracchus]

The fellow does seem to stack up as a professional witness.

 

[lucaspa]

Today at 03:09 PM Gracchus said this in Post #15

The fellow does seem to stack up as a professional witness.

I haven't seen where Riddle was ever a "top defender of evolution" as claimed.

 

[Cantuar]

It makes it so much nicer for the faithful to hear that someone used to be an evolutionist. Maybe there's hope for Richard Dawkins yet! Sigh...