"Funny" that you didn't actually contradict my observation, you actually confirmed it. I wrote:
It's very interesting to note that many people abandon anti-evolutionism while still remaining Christians, but I can't think of a single example of someone who didn't abandon a belief in evolutionary biology *without* the motivation being an embrace of fundamentalism. Clearly, the latter is a "religious conversion", not an objective decision about science based on a simple examination of the evidence, as is often the case for the acceptance of evolution.Each of the examples you give is of someone rejecting biology on the basis of their religious faith, not a comprehensive overview of the evidence.
Galbraith:
"But now I see that the Answers in Genesis type of ministry is absolutely essential. In fact, it’s fundamental, and unless Christians worldwide come to realize how important and significant it is, and how Satan has used evolutionary thought in such a masterful way to blind people, the outlook is not very hopeful.’"Wilder-Smith:
"If our student had been brought up in a Christian family he rapidly finds, for example, that the family Bible allegedly contains a mere collection of myths on creation, the flood, the prophets, and the life of Jesus Christ. Today's science teaches that human life did not arise with Adam and Eve. Rather, "pools of interbreeding genes" would allegedly better describe the scientific facts of our ancestry."Swinney:
"When he retired from research, he returned to Unionville, Iowa and became the pastor of Dunnville Baptist Church in Bloomfield, a church he had attended as a teenager." and "Our Vision: To see people come to recognize God through His revelation in creation, and to be reconciled to him through faith in Jesus Christ."Gentry:
"This book and these videos point to one great scientific fact: the One and only Creator God chose to call attention to the literal Genesis six-day creation of the Earth as given in the Fourth Commandment (Exodus 20:8-11), "For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: Wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day and hallowed it."These men are motivated by "defense of the faith" considerations, not the evidence. All four have expressed variations on "proclaiming the glory of God" as their goal, not following the evidence where it leads. As I stated, it's significant that there don't seem to be any "anti-evolution converts" who *aren't* evangelically religious. The religious position PRECEDES the rejection of evolution.
So, no, it wasn't God speaking to him through a bright light on the road to Damascus.
I never said it was. Heck, I'd find that *more* convincing than their hand-waving misrepresentations of the evidence (when they bother to actually address it at all).
It WAS based "on an actual examination of the facts" as was the case for the others cited, directly contradicting your post.
No, it wasn't, if you pay attention while reading their excuses. Galbraith for example *claims* a long examination of the evidence, but when asked for his best example, he says:
‘I think it has to be the total geologic record of all those sedimentary, waterborne layers. Fossils, as we now know, generally have to be formed by fast catastrophic burial to preserve the details we see. And within the layers, there is much other evidence that they were laid down rapidly. Also, the stratigraphic column, the “stack” of all these layers, is essentially continuous throughout the world; there is no worldwide discontinuity or “time break”. So it shows to me that there was indeed a worldwide Flood, and not just localized floods as many believe.’This, quite frankly, shows an amazing ignorance of the actual geologic record. If Galbraith had actually spent the "years" examining the evidence he claims, it's hard to understand how he could get the most basic details of geology so mind-numbingly wrong. Either he *didn't* spend a long time poring over the evidence, or he did so in the most myopic "blind man and the elephant" way possible. Either way, he's clearly not basing his conclusions on the actual evidence, he's basing them on a fantasy version.
I've read a few chapters of a couple of Wilder-Smith's books, and I don't see any reference to the "evidence" either -- he engages in a lot of ivory-tower argument based on his (incorrect) notions of information theory, with barely a reference in sight, much less any analysis or citation of any evidence. He hand-waves with a lot of his speculations labeled with words like "obviously", as if he didn't need to sully his brain by checking his presumptions against reality.
Gentry, meanwhile, bases his entire case on *one* thing only, Polonium Haloes, which have been debunked repeatedly. Furthermore, even if they *were* the mystery Gentry claims they are, colored rings in minerals would hardly be the kind of evidence that would single-handedly disprove evolutionary biology or "prove" the Bible and all it contains, as Gentry bizarrely maintains.
So I say again -- these guys don't base their anti-evolution positions on the totality of the evidence, they base it on their faith, because they sure as heck can't even describe the evidence properly, much less argue their case on it.
Furthermore, you haven't even established that all four of these men were even "evolutionists" to start with as you assert. Feel free to document that claim via some source other than creationist PR fliers.
Absolute, 100% hogwash. You wrote:
"people who abandon a belief in evolution do so not because of evidence, but because of evangelical conversions
Yet, I cited "Confessions of a Rocket Scientist" by Dr. Stanley Swinney in which he describes his own personal experiences as he shares the evidence that brought him to the conclusion of ID in the universe and away from evolution.
You completely avoided confronting this by writing:
"When he retired from research, he returned to Unionville, Iowa and became the pastor of Dunnville Baptist Church in Bloomfield, a church he had attended as a teenager." and "Our Vision: To see people come to recognize God through His revelation in creation, and to be reconciled to him through faith in Jesus Christ."
Uh, so what? This is no way invalidates the evidence he has examined.
You also wrote:
It's not based on an actual examination of the facts
Yet, that directly contradicts the story of Galbraith who said:
"...embark on what turned out to be a three or four year intensive study of all the available material on creation/evolution. At the end of that time, I was convinced that the creation point of view, from a scientific standpoint, was the only credible position that a thinking person with a scientific background could accept.’"
But instead of confronting this, you again swerve off to Galbraith's commendation of creation ministries.
Again, so what? If he came to believe Creation through scientific research, it certainly would not be incompatible for him to voice support for those who also believe it.
Again, I quote:
"A former Evolutionist, Dr. Wilder-Smith debated various leading scientists on the subject throughout the world. In his opinion, the Evolution model did not fit as well with the established facts of science as did the Creation model of intelligent design.
To which your response is?:
"If our student had been brought up in a Christian family he rapidly finds, for example, that the family Bible allegedly contains a mere collection of myths on creation, the flood, the prophets, and the life of Jesus Christ. Today's science teaches that human life did not arise with Adam and Eve. Rather, "pools of interbreeding genes" would allegedly better describe the scientific facts of our ancestry."
For the third time, SO WHAT?! He has examined the evidence, looked at the arguments and concluded that Creation is the better scientific model.
He went on to say: "The Evolutionary model says that it is not necessary to assume the existence of anything, besides matter and energy, to produce life. That proposition is unscientific. We know perfectly well that if you leave matter to itself, it does not organize itself - in spite of all the efforts in recent years to prove that it does."
Notice, he didn't say "that doesn't glorify God". He didn't say "I'm basing my decision on emotion, not science". He has examined it from a SCIENTIFIC STANDPOINT.
As for Gentry, you wrote:
"bases his entire case on *one* thing only, Polonium Haloes, which have been debunked repeatedly.
Yet, he says:
"Every question regarding the validity or implications of the polonium-halo evidence for creation has been systematically dealt with in our published reports. Every proposal for an evolutionary origin of polonium radiohalos has been systematically and experimentally falsified. No hypothetical, naturalistic scenario has yet been suggested that can account for Creation's "tiny mystery" of the polonium halo.
Of course, you can find claims to the contrary on the internet and elsewhere. But if these claims had any real substance, they would have passed peer review and been published in the open scientific literature. The fact that they have not been, or have themselves been experimentally falsified, demonstrates the fact that this unique evidence for Creation still stands unrefuted."
Now, you may not like his science or agree with his conclusions or the scientific conclusions of the others cited. Once again, SO WHAT? Scientists disagree on any number of things. They look at the same evidence, information, data, etc. and come to different conclusions, sometimes dramatically different.
And don't forget Dr. Parker.
"Creation, Facts of Life is a book written by Gary Parker, PhD. He earned his doctorate in biology, with a cognate in geology (paleontology.) Dr. Parker is a former evolutionist who spent years teaching evolution in college. After a three year analysis of creation science, he converted. Throughout his book, Dr. Parker demonstrated his own honesty and scientific integrity with a willingness to accept what science proved as he did his studies in science. He showed that he was truly in search of the truth first.
Exactly what part of that didn't you understand?
Your incredible blanket claim that "people who abandon a belief in evolution do so not because of evidence" is laughable on its face. As if you know the mind and decision-making process of everyone who's decided that evolution is not the answer.
"you haven't even established that all four of these men were even "evolutionists" to start with as you assert"
LOL. That's it? That's your final fall-back position? I guess quoting them and/or sources well-acquainted with them isn't good enough for you? And what about Parker? He taught evo in for years in college. Oh, right, he's the one you wanted to ignore. How convenient.
These men are motivated by "defense of the faith" considerations, not the evidence
As opposed to evolutionists who aren't motivated to "defend their faith" in evolution? Naaaaah, that wouldn't happen would it???
"Darwin's book, On the Origin of Species, was published in 1859. It is perhaps the most influential book that has ever been published, because it was read by scientist and non- scientist alike, and it aroused violent controversy. Religious people disliked it because it appeared to dispense with God; scientists liked it because it seemed to solve the most important problem in the universe-the existence of living matter. In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to 'bend' their observations to fit in with it." - Lipson, H.S. [Professor of Physics, University of Manchester Institute of Science and Technology, UK], "A physicist looks at evolution," Physics Bulletin, Vol. 31, No. 4, May 1980, p.138.
""Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door." - Lewontin, Richard C. [Professor of Zoology and Biology, Harvard University], "Billions and Billions of Demons", Review of "The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark," by Carl Sagan, New York Review, January 9, 1997.
"Another reason that scientists are so prone to throw the baby out with the bath water is that science itself, as I have suggested, is a religion. The neophyte scientist, recently come or converted to the world view of science, can be every bit as fanatical as a Christian crusader or a soldier of Allah. This is particularly the case when we have come to science from a culture and home in which belief in God is firmly associated with ignorance, superstition, rigidity and hypocrisy. Then we have emotional as well as intellectual motives to smash the idols of primitive faith. A mark of maturity in scientists, however, is their awareness that science may be as subject to dogmatism as any other religion." - Peck, M. Scott [psychiatrist and Medical Director of New Milford Hospital Mental Health Clinic, Connecticut, USA], "The Road Less Travelled: A New Psychology of Love, Traditional Values and Spiritual Growth," [1978], Arrow: London, 1990, p.238.
""Spencer's belief in the universality of natural causation was, together with his laissez-faire political creed, the bedrock of his thinking. It was this belief, more than anything else, that led him to reject Christianity, long before the great conflict of the eighteen-sixties Moreover, it was his belief in natural causation that led him to embrace the theory of evolution, not vice versa. ... His faith was so strong that it did not wait on scientific proof. Spencer became an ardent evolutionist at a time when a cautious scientist would have been justified at least in suspending judgement. ... for him the belief in natural causation was primary, the theory of evolution derivative." - Burrow, John W. [Professor of Intellectual History, University of Sussex, UK], "Evolution and Society: A Study in Victorian Social Theory," [1966], Cambridge University Press: London, 1968, reprint, pp.180-181, 205).
"It is no more heretical to say the Universe displays purpose, as Hoyle has done, than to say that it is pointless, as Steven Weinberg has done. Both statements are metaphysical and outside science. Yet it seems that scientists are permitted by their own colleagues to say metaphysical things about lack of purpose and not the reverse. This suggests to me that science, in allowing this metaphysical notion, sees itself as religion and presumably as an atheistic religion (if you can have such a thing)." - Shallis, Michael [Astrophysicist, Oxford University], "In the eye of a storm", New Scientist, January 19, 1984, pp.42-43.
"Unfortunately many scientists and non-scientists have made Evolution into a religion, something to be defended against infidels. In my experience, many students of biology - professors and textbook writers included - have been so carried away with the arguments for Evolution that they neglect to question it. They preach it ... College students, having gone through such a closed system of education, themselves become teachers, entering high schools to continue the process, using textbooks written by former classmates or professors. High standards of scholarship and teaching break down. Propaganda and the pursuit of power replace the pursuit knowledge. Education becomes a fraud." - George Kocan, Evolution isn't Faith But Theory, Chicago Tribune, Monday, April 21, 1980.
"At this point, it is necessary to reveal a little inside information about how scientists work, something the textbooks don't usually tell you. The fact is that scientists are not really as objective and dispassionate in their work as they would like you to think. Most scientists first get their ideas about how the world works not through rigorously logical processes but through hunches and wild guesses. As individuals they often come to believe something to be true long before they assemble the hard evidence that will convince somebody else that it is. Motivated by faith in his own ideas and a desire for acceptance by his peers, a scientist will labor for years knowing in his heart that his theory is correct but devising experiment after experiment whose results he hopes will support his position." - Boyce Rensberger, How the World Works, William Morrow, NY, 1986, pp. 17 18. Rensberger is an ardently anti-creationist science writer.
" "When it comes to the origin of life on this earth, there are only two possibilities: creation or spontaneous generation (evolution). There is no third way. Spontaneous generation was disproved 100 years ago, but that leads us only to one other conclusion: that of supernatural creation. We cannot accept that on philosophical grounds (personal reasons); therefore, we choose to believe the impossible: that life arose spontaneously by chance." - George Wald, winner of the 1967 Nobel Peace Prize in Science, in Lindsay, Dennis, "The Dinosaur Dilemma," Christ for the Nations, Vol. 35, No. 8, November 1982, pp. 4-5, 14.
""Evolutionary theory has been enshrined as the centerpiece of our educational system, and elaborate walls have been erected around it to protect it from unnecessary abuse. - - What the 'record' shows is nearly a century of fudging and finagling by scientists attempting to force various fossil morsels and fragments to conform with Darwin's notions, all to no avail. Today the millions of fossils stand as very visible, ever-present reminders of the paltriness of the arguments and the overall shabbiness of the theory that marches under the banner of evolution." - Jeremy Rifkin, Algeny (New York: Viking Press, 1983), pp. 112, 125.
""A five million-year-old piece of bone that was thought to be a collarbone of a humanlike creature is actually part of a dolphin rib, ...He [Dr. T. White] puts the incident on par with two other embarrassing [sic] faux pas by fossil hunters: Hesperopithecus, the fossil pig's tooth that was cited as evidence of very early man in North America, and Eoanthropus or 'Piltdown Man,' the jaw of an orangutan and the skull of a modern human that were claimed to be the 'earliest Englishman'. "The problem with a lot of anthropologists is that they want so much to find a hominid that any scrap of bone becomes a hominid bone.'" - Dr. Tim White (anthropologist, University of California, Berkeley). As quoted by Ian Anderson "Hominoid collarbone exposed as dolphin's rib", in New Scientist, 28 April 1983, p. 199
Naaaaah, no agenda there.