Has anyone in this forum changed evo/creo sides?

And what were you smoking when you concocted your paean to the Easter Bunny?regards,
Esteban Hambre

Read 'God' for 'Easter Bunny".....and vice versa. Both are just as likely/unlikely.

Hi, Jazzlover.I've told my story enough times that people may be getting tired of it, but I don't mind telling it again.I used to be a conservative fundamentalist Baptist. I suppose that my doubts were growing for a while; as I mentioned, I was quite disturbed when I read the Gospels and realized that Jesus' social message was quite at odds with the conservative politics that I believed in at the time. I came up with some rationalization for it. I was also a bit nervous when I realized that the account of the ressurrection in the four Gospels were inconsistent.But the final straw was the theory of evolution (which is why I continue to have such a strong interest in it). I came to the conclusion that the Theory of Evolution explained the world much better than a literal reading of Genesis. I simply could not continue to believe in the creation story in Genesis as literal history.Unfortunately (or fortunately?), I was so steeped in the fundamentalist dogma that the Bible had to be 100% literally true, or none of it was true, that my entire faith was shattered.And this was not a choice on my part. I really fought losing my faith. I tried to continue to beleive, tried to convince myself that I still believe, prayed that God would strengthen my faith, and so forth. But in the end I had to be honest with myself, and the others around me, that I just didn't believe in God any more.If I had belonged to a more liberal Christianity, it is possible that I would have remained a Christian. Or, even if I would still have became an atheist, it would have been a slower, less traumatic transformation, and the Bible would still be on my night stand by my bed instead of the Tao Te Ching.

I don't think this is as simple a statement as it might seem. While it is true, I suspect a pretty large portion of the population (half? purely guessing) have never even thought about this, and it's no small percentage who wouldn't even know what you mean when you suggest it unless you explained.I'm basing this purely on my experience teaching 4th and 5th grade math for a couple years and talking to parents.I guess I'm saying this, because Jazzlover said, "Explain yourself I dont get you." You didn't explain yourself, because it seems obvious to you. You just asserted it again.

Yeah, he's a creationist, and I'm a creationist, too, by his definition. That's the problem with the whole terminology. About 78% (39 out of every 49) of Americans who believe in evolution are creationists.By "creationist" most of us mean "anti-evolution-ist." Stephen is not anti-evolution. He just believes evolution is guided by supernatural beings. He agrees that there is no evidence against common ancestry.This doesn't really change your point in message 75, which I think is accurate. I just don't think that Stephen really qualifies as a person who switched from evolution to creation. He disputes natural selection, but not evolution.

quote:

---

I don't think this is as simple a statement as it might seem. While it is true, I suspect a pretty large portion of the population (half? purely guessing) have never even thought about this, and it's no small percentage who wouldn't even know what you mean when you suggest it unless you explained.

​

I'm basing this purely on my experience teaching 4th and 5th grade math for a couple years and talking to parents.

​

I guess I'm saying this, because Jazzlover said, "Explain yourself I dont get you." You didn't explain yourself, because it seems obvious to you. You just asserted it again.

---

Hmm, this is interesting. I really thought I had explained it!So how would you teach it or explain it?

You're right. I stand corrected. I have a regrettable tendency to lump all anti-evos who have a heavy emphasis on belief in one or another aspect of the supernatural as "creationists".I think the fundamental problem is in the definition of "creationist". Behe is usually considered in that camp, although his divine intervention is limited to sub-cellular biochemical pathways, after which evolution took its course. Denton is also usually considered a creationist, although I personally would label him a theistic evolutionist, which deals mostly with origins, in which category BTW I would tentatively place you (barring evidence to the contrary). Denton does make a nice example of someone who went from YEC to OEC to some hybrid of the "best of all possible worlds" position. I will concede that I really don't have a handle on Stephen. I'm hard-pressed to place him in the theistic evo category because of his apparent strong supernaturalistic, teleological "divine tinkerer" position. OTOH, I concede your point inre his position on common descent and other aspects of evo theory.Maybe trying to categorize people is a fool's game, although I think it a very human tendency.

I don't know. I don't think the idea that numbers are abstract can be explained in a paragraph. That explanation is not an easy one.Maybe your brief comments will be enough for Jazzlover. Why don't we wait and see?