Darwinists converting to creationism who aren't christian?

[shunyadragon]

Antony Flew converted to deism. He was one of the worlds foremost atheistic philosophers, but finally, as he got older and wiser, could no longer believe that this world could come about apart from a supernatural God of some sort. So he converted to deism.

Does not qualify, Anthony Flew only endorsed Deism when he became senile, and that could hardly be considered endorsing a Christian theistic Creationism. When questioned he was not even aware of some of the more contemporary arguments and scientific evidence concerning the scientific explanation.

[GKC_fan]

Does not qualify, Anthony Flew only endorsed Deism when he became senile, and that could hardly be considered endorsing a Christian theistic Creationism. When questioned he was not even aware of some of the more contemporary arguments and scientific evidence concerning the scientific explanation.

From all I've seen and heard, most importantly comments by Prof. Flew himself, he wasn't senile at all. We should be very careful about making such charges about someone.

As for his not knowing every possible or proposed counter-argument: so what? Or are you claiming that you know every single possible or proposed counter-argument for every belief that you hold??? ;->

And more importantly, how does the simple existence - i.e,. not support or proof, but merely an assertion - of a proposed counter-argument automatically invalidate a claim, or prove that that counter-argument is correct? It doesn't, of course, not in the least.

Cheers!
GKC_fan

[Vertetuesi]

In all this it's important to remember that Christian creationists (the main body of active creationists in the world today) don't aim simply to persuade people of creationism; rather they see that as a stepping stone to full Christian faith. Therefore they themselves wouldn't be that satisfied with seeing people 'convert' merely to creationism and not to Christianity.

[shunyadragon]

From all I've seen and heard, most importantly comments by Prof. Flew himself, he wasn't senile at all. We should be very careful about making such charges about someone.

No problem with this at all considering a once sharp scholar unable to comment intelligently on the current state of knowledge on this issue. Flew's reclusive silence and failure to come forward with a definitive explanation of his current view is a proble, which is not theism by the way.

As for his not knowing every possible or proposed counter-argument: so what? Or are you claiming that you know every single possible or proposed counter-argument for every belief that you hold??? ;->

And more importantly, how does the simple existence - i.e,. not support or proof, but merely an assertion - of a proposed counter-argument automatically invalidate a claim, or prove that that counter-argument is correct? It doesn't, of course, not in the least.

Cheers!
GKC_fan

It is not an issue of 'knowing every possible counter-argument' in Flew's current view. He admitted a decided lack of knowledge of the more recent developments in science and current philosophical views on this subject. A lack of fundamental knowledge is a problem.

[shunyadragon]

In all this it's important to remember that Christian creationists (the main body of active creationists in the world today) don't aim simply to persuade people of creationism; rather they see that as a stepping stone to full Christian faith. Therefore they themselves wouldn't be that satisfied with seeing people 'convert' merely to creationism and not to Christianity.

This basically has never happened yet. Yes, a conversion to fundamentalist Christianity would be to accept YEC or possibly OEC Creationism, but again that has not happened among the scholars in the scientific community.

[MooseOnTheLoose]

Does not qualify, Anthony Flew only endorsed Deism when he became senile, and that could hardly be considered endorsing a Christian theistic Creationism. When questioned he was not even aware of some of the more contemporary arguments and scientific evidence concerning the scientific explanation.

You've definitely got issues, sonny Jim.

[Preterist264]

I would say that some darwinists convert because they follow a religion like mormanism, JW, Islam, Judaism etc..

You won't see the agnostic and atheist forms converting unless they renounce their previously stated faiths.

[Preterist264]

I guess there are many definitions and sects of creationists: Young Earth, Old Earth, and Special Creationists for example. All adhering to the belief that God created everything including different species and then let evolution take over

I guess what I am asking is are there actually scientists who consider themselves strict darwin evolutionists who after waying the evidence have changed their mind? I'm not talking about scientists who have converted to Intelligent Design.

I haven't heard of any after doing some research. I guess the biggest reason is they consider, as do I, that creationism is not scientific and cannot be falsified.

Hmmmm I have not heard of anyone like that though I gave some reasons why someone could convert. I do know of scientists who have become christians because of Creationist science but I can't think of any that have converted to other religions (though given the other religions that could theoretically support YEC there must be some).

[shunyadragon]

I would say that some darwinists convert because they follow a religion like mormanism, JW, Islam, Judaism etc..

The problem with this is there is record of any scholars professors, or professionals in the field ever doing this.

You won't see the agnostic and atheist forms converting unless they renounce their previously stated faiths.

That is usually what happens, but still nothing.

[Levy]

I don't know about creationist. But, there are a lot of people who are jumping board with the Intelligent Design community.

[shunyadragon]

I don't know about creationist. But, there are a lot of people who are jumping board with the Intelligent Design community.

Yeah??? Like who???

Did you mean like dumping ID for real science?

[element771]

There was a two panel discussion regarding the scientific realibility of evolution and there was an agnostic on the anti-evolution panel. Everyone kept asking what he was doing on that "side of the fence."

I can't remember what his name was (I can look it up).\

Also....

Shuny, is there anything that you don't "know?" There has been word from Flew about his new beliefs which is besides the point. You don't know him or anyone around him....how do you know anything about the subject other than what others have said. Once again you are confused between fact and your opinion.

I think it is not too far of a stretch for someone to convert to deism....now if he turned orthodox Christian and was surrounded by Christians then I would suspicious. But just because you are old does not mean that you are senile. Also, just because you change your mind after a lifetime of searching, does not mean you are out of your mind.

I really doubt that this would be much of an issue if some religious guy went atheistic.

[Sparko]

I believe Michael Behe, proponent of ID, is not a Christian or particularly religous at all.

and ironically darwin was a christian. go figure.

[rogue06]

I believe Michael Behe, proponent of ID, is not a Christian or particularly religous at all.

About the most that can said about Michael Behe and religion is that he told The New York Times the question "intelligent design" poses is whether science can make room for religion. He acknowledges that the more one believes in God, the more persuasive "intelligent design" is. That and some remarks about new species being “poofed” into existence by a Creator. Yet he also has expressed an acceptance of common descent.

and ironically darwin was a christian. go figure.

He did become pretty agnostic though after the death of his daughter

[shunyadragon]

I believe Michael Behe, proponent of ID, is not a Christian or particularly religous at all.

and ironically darwin was a christian. go figure.

I believe Behe is a member of the Roman (catholic) Church. I will check on this and get back with you.

Checked and confirmed

http://www.discovery.org/a/10501

Behe is a lifelong Roman Catholic who recalls of his childhood that, “I don’t recall evolution ever being a topic of discussion. It just didn’t register at the Behe house….I think [my parents’] lack of interest faithfully reflects a laissez-faire attitude of Catholics toward the theory. Evolution never was the problem in the Catholic Church that it was in various Protestant denominations.” He “saw no theological problem with Darwin’s theory (properly understood)—and [I] still don’t.”

© source where applicable