Ignorant, stupid or insane? (Or maybe wicked?)

quote:

---

A creationist who has in depth study of the many line of evidence that relate to the theory of evolution (therefore not ignorant), and also is considered an intelligent person who is very well educated (PhD style, therefore not 'stupid') and also shows absolutely no characteristics of mental illness (therefore not insane). And finally, he has renounced some high paying jobs in order to become an active proponent of creationism (therefore most probably not wicked)

---

Do you have anybody in mind ? Because making up the characteristics of hypothetical person who would not exactly fit the description is not much of an argument. (And you haven't quite managed to do that, even).As far as I know the closest would be somebody like Kurt Wise, who did NOT renounce a high-paying job and admits that his creationism is founded in his religious beliefs rather than the science. If you can find only a few rare individuals who don't quite fit the description it would seem that Dawkins has a point.

Last I heard Behe was arguing that God did some genetic engineering, creating combinations of mutations that Behe thinks too improbable to occur by chance.
(Also, it should be pointed out that "theistic evolution" is often taken to mean the view that God created a universe where evolution would produce the desired results, without God needing to intervene in the process).