KnightWhoSaysNi

Denis Lamoureux is another good example. His scientific background is biology and dentistry. He used to be a YEC but now accepts the 'framework view' of theistic evolution.

Jason

KC

If you really want to get them foaming at the mouth, you can tell them that Richard Dawkins was a 'creationist' before he learned about evolution. I remember him saying something similar to that in an interview once, but for the life of me I can't find it.

KC

RufusAtticus

The theological discussion has been split to here.

Joe Meert

I was raised as the son of missionary parents although we never discussed the age of the earth/creationism. I am guessing my parents would have been old earth theistic evolutionists. As an early college student (and baptist bent), I remember thinking about how absurd evolution was considering the 2Lot (ok so I was not the best chemistry student).....Anyway, as I learned and explored more I came to think that evolution was the best explanation for the observations. I then turned strong atheist and have lately turned back around toward theistic evolution. The religious implications of evolution are no big deal to me at all. My religious views neither conflict nor contradict the findings of modern science nor do they guide my own view of nature.

Cheers

Joe Meert

emotional

My apologies for causing the thread to slip in this direction

pz

You know, when a thread sinks to swapping bible verses and dueling interpretations, I think it's time to say bye-by E/C, hello GRD.

Denis Lamoureux

I object! This is a typical post-modern hermeneutical move. Bluntly, this is censorship. The debate deals with with Biblical exegesis, and if you're not competent to engage the discuss then lurk on. I want E/C to respond to my questions.

Denis

Doubting Didymus

Not only was my suggestion only that, but I can also note that it is one you already put to use. Observe:

You already attack literalism, using edged sarcasm, no less. I can only draw from this that your exaggerated offense at my almost identical sentiment springs from some other source. Perhaps you imagine that my position as a moderator means that I have some sort of tangible authority, implying that you should take what I say on dogma? It doesn't work that way here. While you must obey any board rules we bring to your attention, the rest of the time we are just normal posters. There's no need to feel that I am telling you what to say: I'm not.

As for this:

I assert that no atheist who understands the subject perverts evolution in any way at all. Most of us have a strange obsession with verified scientific facts, which is as close to Darwins sentiments as it's possible to intellectually be.

The forum that this thread just left is the place for this discussion, and I would like to welcome you there, and to the IIDB as a whole.

Denis Lamoureux

Hi,
I can't let you get away with this. Is this 1950s positivism I am reading here in 2003? Furthermore, which 'Darwin' are you referring to? Surely, not the bastardized cariature of Dawkins.

Denis

Doubting Didymus

The forum for this discussion is Evolution/Creation. I'm sure you're aware that Dawkins' veiw of evolution is not a consensus among evolutionary scientists, and his other veiws are not the consensus of atheists. What, then, is your point?

Naturally, the Darwin I referred to is Old Charlie.

I'm not sure what you're 'not letting me get away with'. If you are asserting that atheists as a group have an incorrect veiw of evolution, please enlighten us. We have a whole forum dedicated to the topic.