Why don't more creationists think like Todd Wood?

[Speedwell]

It doesn’t seem to cause any problems in British schools. Ever since I have been negotiating religious forums on the internet, it has struck me as a bit ironic that it is the supposedly secular British society which has few problems with religious education, and the supposedly religious American one which does.

Because we don't have an established religion--just a minority Protestant group who think they should be.

 

[pat34lee]

Todd Wood is a fascinating individual to me. He's a creationist with a Biology degree and PhD in Biochemistry. He also rejects biological evolution insofar as common descent and the explanation for the diversity of life on Earth. Yet at the same time, he appears to be one of the few creationists I've seen who is also honest about the state of biology and the biological sciences.

Appeal to authority. Anyone can be right or wrong.

Evolution and old-age theories that support it have nothing
concrete to support them. They are theories and must be
taken on faith, just like creationism. This begins with evolution
and goes all the way back to the big bang.

Big bang - formation of stars - formation of galaxies
formation of planets - formation of moons - beginning of life.

None ever observed, none can be replicated.

 

[mark kennedy]

This is kinda my point though. When creationists claim things like this (which is contrary to the reality of biological science), it just undermines any criticism they may have. Blanket denialism just goes nowhere.

That's why I don't understand why more creationists are honest about modern biology like Todd Wood is.

I've ran into this more times then I can count. Creationists want to argue strenuously against the theory of evolution and old earth geology. I don't think it's productive and there is certainly no serious question that evolution happens. The question tends to be more philosophical then the average Christian will have the patience for. I think Creationists and Darwinians have a running debate that concerns them but doesn't effect biological adaptive evolution or systematic theology. I've always been attracted to the subject matter for that reason.

The subject of origins leaves the comfortable confines of science and theology, if you want to explore the subject matter mind your moorings. I can drift in and out of theology and science proper, there appears to be no other way. I share your frustrations, I just don't happen to agree that concluding a Creator is an affront to science. It's a fascinating exploration of things that will leave our more trusted disciplines and wander into theory and speculation. Caution is advised, we have a lot to learn about matters of faith and science and we are never more vulnerable then when we think we have all the answers. If science is teaching us anything it's how much there is to know, and how hard it is to nail down cold hard facts.

Some interesting points raised in the OP, like Todd Wood your struggling with some pretty difficult questions. We do well to be careful what conclusions we might jump to when exploring such voluminous source material.

 

[TCassidy]

Evolution and old-age theories that support it have nothing concrete to support them.

Believing in the universe being old does not necessarily support evolution.

The waw disjunctive that starts verse 2 of Genesis 1 separates verse one, both logically and chronologically, from the following verses.

Therefore, the Earth, going only by scripture:
Could it be 6,000 years? Yes. The bible doesn't say.
Could it be 10,000 years? Yes. The bible doesn't say.
Could it be 100,000 years? Yes.The bible doesn't say.
Could it be 1,000,000 years? Yes. The bible doesn't say.
Could it be 1,000,000,000 years? Yes. The bible doesn't say.
Could it be 4.5 billion years? Yes. The bible doesn't say.

What it does say is that, according to verse 2, the circumstantial clause, during the time period from the end of verse 1 the beginning of verse 2, the earth remained unformed and unfilled, darkness reigned, and God's Spirit was present.

The earth being "unformed" and "unfilled" precludes any life or evolutionary activity. For however long that period was, the earth remained a lifeless primordial mixture of random elements.

It was not until verse 3, according to the narrative, that God began to form the unformed and fill the unfilled.

 

[lesliedellow]

Appeal to authority. Anyone can be right or wrong.

Evolution and old-age theories that support it have nothing
concrete to support them. They are theories and must be
taken on faith

So you can even have another YEC, who is actually a working biologist, tell you that there are “gobs and gobs” of evidence for evolution, and still you keep your head planted firmly in the sand.

Do you really wonder why people are contemptuous of YECs?

 

[pitabread]

Appeal to authority. Anyone can be right or wrong.

Appeal to authority fallacy is when someone uses expertise in one field to support expertise in another. For example, using the opinion of a lawyer, engineer or chemist in matters of biology would be an appeal to authority.

However, using an appropriately credentialed individual for their area of expertise is a not an appeal to authority fallacy. For example using a lawyer for a legal opinion or an engineer for matters of engineering.

Or in the case of biological evolution, a biologist.

Evolution and old-age theories that support it have nothing
concrete to support them. They are theories and must be taken on faith, just like creationism.

Scientific theories are by definition well-supported by evidence. This idea they are just "faith" is a creationist myth. Because creationists can't deal with the evidence to support ideas in science, many just pretend it just doesn't exist.

This is why someone like Todd Wood is so refreshing. In them you have a creationist who is honestly willing to face what they are up against instead of pretending.

 

[tas8831]

I wish I knew.

ooo ooo I know why! I know!

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I have been involved in academia most of my adult life and, believe me, some of the nuttiest people I have ever met have been academics.

Thankyouthankyouthankyou!

 

[OldWiseGuy]

ooo ooo I know why! I know!

Tell me......then we'll both know.

 

[tas8831]

Tell me......then we'll both know.

Ok - judging from the things you've written on here that are totally devoid of rationale (yet you insist you are right) and completely erroneous (as in nearly everything you've claimed regarding biology), your egotism prevents you from realizing that maybe your way is not the best after all?

 

[tas8831]

And once again you get it wrong. Seems to be a habit with you.

ZZZOOOOMMMM!!!! Right over his head!

 

[tas8831]

Zoooommmm! Right over his head!

Yes, it is over my head that someone would employ circular reasoning and convince himself that he had made a great argument.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

hmmm..... why DON'T 'creationists' think like so and so ?
Yahweh created all things, and never , ever, not once, were His thoughts as low and as wrong as man's thoughts.
Those who abide in Yahweh, trusting Him, learn from Yahweh, by sheer grace, not to think nor even to consider those men and those things opposed to Yahweh.

 

[pitabread]

Yes, it is over my head that someone would employ circular reasoning and convince himself that he had made a great argument.

Maybe he was being sarcastic?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Ok - judging from the things you've written on here that are totally devoid of rationale (yet you insist you are right) and completely erroneous (as in nearly everything you've claimed regarding biology), your egotism prevents you from realizing that maybe your way is not the best after all?

The company I work for loves the way I do things. They give me free reign and wouldn't change a thing. And I mostly do understand why they do things the way they do them. It is the hurt pride of one of my bosses that keeps him from adopting my methods. While he was alive his father heaped praise on me but criticism on him. He still harbors resentment towards me for that. The other is so overwhelmed by his responsibilities that he reverts to the 'old ways' for a sense of security. As a result they are always behind, whereas I am ahead of the game in my area of responsibility as I am free to innovate (I am a very creative guy). I am well rewarded in pay and benefits, and, both my bosses dread the day I retire and express gratitude and relief that I will stay working for the company for another season.

In short, they don't know what they'll do without me.
And based on my 40 years of experience with the company they will be in a pickle when I retire.

 

[TCassidy]

Yes, it is over my head that someone would employ circular reasoning and convince himself that he had made a great argument.

Zooooommmmmmm! Right over his head again! LOL!

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Ok - judging from the things you've written on here that are totally devoid of rationale (yet you insist you are right) and completely erroneous (as in nearly everything you've claimed regarding biology), your egotism prevents you from realizing that maybe your way is not the best after all?

Of the 29,171 comments I have posted here how many do you think are devoid of rationale? And are you going to judge them all by a few speculative theories presented for their entertainment value (if only to myself)?

And do you think I care?

 

[pat34lee]

Believing in the universe being old does not necessarily support evolution.

The waw disjunctive that starts verse 2 of Genesis 1 separates verse one, both logically and chronologically, from the following verses.

When someone makes a list:
evening, morning, day 1
evening, morning, day 2
evening, morning, day 3
evening, morning, day 4
evening, morning, day 5
evening, morning, day 6
evening, morning, day 7

You cannot logically stick in any period of time between them.
By doing so, you destroy the continuity, and may as well throw
out the whole chapter.

This is like the fallacy that the unfinished earth was imperfect.
Nothing during the creation week was less than perfect, because
there was no sin yet, and God could create nothing less. Those
who believe that Satan fell in Genesis 1 need to read their bibles.
Satan is still in heaven, still the accuser of the brethren.

 

[pat34lee]

So you can even have another YEC, who is actually a working biologist, tell you that there are “gobs and gobs” of evidence for evolution, and still you keep your head planted firmly in the sand.

Do you really wonder why people are contemptuous of YECs?

I am contemptuous of anyone who can't tell facts from beliefs.
If you or anyone else, including Christians, want to believe that
chaos and time are gods, feel free to do so.
Just don't expect me to join you or consider you enlightened
when you call God a liar.

 

[TCassidy]

You cannot logically stick in any period of time between them.

I didn't. Verses 3 through the end of the chapter all begin with a waw consecutive linking them both logically and chronologically to the previous verse (with the exception of verse 27 which is a logical continuation of verse 26).

This is like the fallacy that the unfinished earth was imperfect.

The unfinished (unformed and unfilled) earth was imperfect in the sense of not being complete, but certainly was not imperfect in any moral or ethical sense.

I am not certain where you are getting those objections as they certainly are not anything I have articulated in the above responses.