Has anyone in this forum changed evo/creo sides?

Hi Jazz,I think this post covers a fair bit of your objection. See especially the tenrec example of methodological naturalism in action. Pending Tokyojim's return, perhaps you'd care to pick up the thread. It seems a good choice (in spite of the thread title) for this topic.

Hi corkscrew,I think this was probably uncalled for. There may be any number of reasons why someone would change their minds, none of which have anything to do with drugs or mental instability or lack of intelligence. For example, there is a creationist and Bible Codes advocate poster on this board who believes in demons who was once a respected scientist and author of a well-regarded book on ecology. There are also quite a number who've never been exposed to any of the evidence underlying evolutionary theory, and who've become convinced by the caricatures and pablum portrayed by creationist organizations. These latter can probably truthfully (if not entirely accurately) state that they "changed sides".It is the job of the evo side in this debate to present the evidence in as clear and understandable a manner as possible to this second category. Simply insulting the "other side" is counterproductive.Of course, true clots like kendemeyer and Syamasu are sort of fair game through their own personalities and actions - not simply because they're creationists.

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.