• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.

Why don't more creationists think like Todd Wood?

Discussion in 'Creation & Evolution' started by pitabread, Aug 15, 2018.

  1. pitabread

    pitabread Well-Known Member

    +7,273
    Canada
    Agnostic
    Private
    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.

    For instance he has famously written this on his blog (which has been quoted here a number of times):

    Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well. (emphasis in original text)
    http://toddcwood.blogspot.com/2009/09/truth-about-evolution.html

    I also found this fascinating from his writing on the chimp genome when he references the oft-repeated "similarity = common design" claim you hear from creationists:

    As mentioned already, the common creationist response to this argument is to appeal to a designer as the source of the similarity. Although this is undoubtedly true, it is trivial. The point Darwin makes is not that similarity alone indicates common ancestry but that the particular pattern or scheme of similarities across all organisms is the same pattern we would expect from common descent. As Darwin noted in the quote above, appealing to the will of the Creator does not explain the particular pattern of similarity that we observe, except in an ad hoc fashion. Creation biology needs an explanation of the pattern of similarities, not merely an ad hoc appeal to a common designer.

    (THE CHIMPANZEE GENOME AND THE PROBLEM OF BIOLOGICAL SIMILARITY)

    Rarely do I see creationists present an understanding that is it specific patterns that yield evidence for common descent, not mere similarity. And I can appreciate his criticism of the common creationist response to common descent, since arbitrary appeals to design effectively explain nothing.

    What I don't understand is why more creationists don't share Todd Wood's thinking. While he obviously rejects biological evolution (common descent) based on his writings, he also clearly has some understanding of the science behind it and accepts the reality of modern biological science.

    He also seems to recognize that creationists need to do a lot better than simply "Goddidit" when it comes to a presenting a competing explanation for biological diversity. And while I doubt that will ever be the case, it is still refreshing to see a creationist with a more honest approach to the subject.

    So why *don't* more creationists think like Todd Wood? What is the difficulty in recognizing the reality of current biology, the state of the theory of evolution (yes, it's still an applied science, not going away any time soon), and being upfront in challenging it on those grounds?
     
    • Agree Agree x 6
    • Like Like x 2
    • Winner Winner x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
    • List
    We teamed up with Faith Counseling. Can they help you today?
  2. Sketcher

    Sketcher Born Imperishable

    +5,164
    Non-Denom
    Single
    US-Republican
    - Nuanced views make it harder to sell books. Bombthrowing makes it easier to sell books.
    - Perceived and actual hostility to the Christian faith in college-level science programs means fewer believers being educated on what science is and what science isn't. And therefore, fewer believers like him.
     
    • Like Like x 2
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • List
  3. OldWiseGuy

    OldWiseGuy Wake me when it's soup. Supporter

    +6,729
    United States
    Protestant
    Single
    US-Others
    It's all just more gobbledegook. Evolution is a delusion, albeit a craftily designed one. Neither scientists or creationists can explain the creation.

    Imo of course. :D
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • List
  4. AV1611VET

    AV1611VET SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE Supporter

    +40,432
    United States
    Baptist
    Married
    US-Republican

    I've only said this some five times here.

    Evolution is not going anywhere.

    In fact, it is going to wax worse and worse, until it culminates in the Tribulation Period.

    It is Jesus' job ... not ours ... to pwn evolution.

    In my opinion.
     
  5. SkyWriting

    SkyWriting The Librarian Supporter

    +5,397
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    US-Others
    The low value in challenging the faithful?
     
  6. pitabread

    pitabread Well-Known Member

    +7,273
    Canada
    Agnostic
    Private
    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.
     
    Last edited: Aug 16, 2018
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • List
  7. John Bowen

    John Bowen Active Member Supporter

    421
    +221
    Fiji
    Christian
    Single
     
  8. John Bowen

    John Bowen Active Member Supporter

    421
    +221
    Fiji
    Christian
    Single
    Quantum physics how a scientist thinks can change the course of a experiment. 80 years of tests prove it .Nothing just evolves on its own.Issac Newton for every action there is a reaction .Biology ,dna beyond that you get atoms , subatomic particles , until you get to light waves that can be changed proved by simple wave dynamics .Btw the first thing supposedly said by God " Let there be light" .
     
  9. OldWiseGuy

    OldWiseGuy Wake me when it's soup. Supporter

    +6,729
    United States
    Protestant
    Single
    US-Others
    Can evolution be replicated, if even on paper?
     
  10. essentialsaltes

    essentialsaltes Stranger in a Strange Land

    +9,448
    Atheist
    Legal Union (Other)
    To answer the title question, because very few creationists have advanced degrees in biology. And the ones that do, like this guy and Behe (maybe not fair to call him a creationist, but as someone with some bones to pick with evolution), sound very different from your typical creationist, because they actually have some deep knowledge of the science of biology, and the evidence that supports the modern theory of evolution.

    "Evolution is a controversial topic, so it is necessary to address a few basic questions at the beginning of the book. Many people think that questioning Darwinian evolution must be equivalent to espousing creationism. As commonly understood, creationism involves belief in an earth formed only about ten thousand years ago, an interpretation of the Bible that is still very popular. For the record, I have no reason to doubt that the universe is the billions of years old that physicists say it is. Further, I find the idea of common descent (that all organisms share a common ancestor) fairly convincing, and have no particular reason to doubt it. I greatly respect the work of my colleagues who study the development and behavior of organisms within an evolutionary framework, and I think that evolutionary biologists have contributed enormously to our understanding of the world." Darwin's Black Box, pp 5–6.
     
  11. pitabread

    pitabread Well-Known Member

    +7,273
    Canada
    Agnostic
    Private
    I'm not exactly sure what you are asking. What is 'on paper' is simply our understanding of biological evolution as is observed to occur in biological organisms.

    Replicating the evolutionary process would either be done via experiments or simulations.
     
  12. Sanoy

    Sanoy Well-Known Member

    +1,177
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    I like a Todd as well. There is so much rhetoric and sloganeering in common creationist dialogue ( both sides in my experience) that he is the only one I can go to to get a plain picture of the reality these beliefs are in. He isn't going to sugar coat anything. If the available evidence isn't on the side of his belief he is going to tell you that from the start. When that Journal came out showing 90 some % of organisms came about at once he was the first person I went to to sort the fluff and rhetoric from the reality. And sure enough he already wrote on it cautioning Christians.

    I encourage other creationists to check him out and use his site for balance. There is evidence for evolution, we need to stop saying there isn't and deal with the evidence that drives the conclusion.
     
    Last edited: Aug 16, 2018
  13. Ophiolite

    Ophiolite Recalcitrant Procrastinating Ape

    +4,967
    United Kingdom
    Agnostic
    Private
    I've made the comment on this forum before, that the abyssmal state of Creationist objections has tempted me to log in under an alternate name* and make the Creationist case, confident I can do a better job than any one has on this forum to date. I just hate to see any argument handled so ineptly. If a belief in the non-existence of evolution is so important then that belief should be presented professionally, with sound logic and evidential support. Now the task is hampered by the lack of the latter, but still. So, I share your bemusement.

    *Note to mods: it's just a temptation. No trouble resisting!
     
  14. AV1611VET

    AV1611VET SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE Supporter

    +40,432
    United States
    Baptist
    Married
    US-Republican
    Role Reversal
     
    Last edited: Aug 16, 2018
  15. AirPo

    AirPo with a Touch of Grey

    +7,091
    Atheist
    Married
    • Informative Informative x 1
    • List
  16. OldWiseGuy

    OldWiseGuy Wake me when it's soup. Supporter

    +6,729
    United States
    Protestant
    Single
    US-Others
    I mean step-by-step description of the evolution of stereoscopic vision for example, in understandable terms. No giant leaps, all the details.
     
  17. AV1611VET

    AV1611VET SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE Supporter

    +40,432
    United States
    Baptist
    Married
    US-Republican
    Try it now.
     
  18. AirPo

    AirPo with a Touch of Grey

    +7,091
    Atheist
    Married
    :thumbsup:!
     
  19. Justatruthseeker

    Justatruthseeker Newbie Supporter

    +962
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Widowed
    US-Others
    I'll ask as I ask every evolutionist.

    What evidence?

    Fossils that remain the same for every single creature from the oldest found to the youngest found for that type of creature?????

    New forms that appear suddenly in the fossil record without intermediaries, similar to the variation appearing that we see in dogs????

    Don't get me wrong, I understand that if they had never seen a dog in real life, but only found bits and pieces of their fossil remains, They would conclude that they were separate species and that evolution from one species to another had occurred. This is understandable. Incorrect, but understandable being they have never observed these creatures in life...

    28926d9e64249372260208f85e893512.jpg

    So with only bits and pieces to go from, it is not surprising at all that they simply mistake variation "within" the species as variation into new species.

    Variation is not surprising, can you not see the variation capable "within" a species?

    Evolution is nothing but incorrect classifications after incorrect classifications, error after uncorrected error. They can't even consistently classify what is a species because they have no consistent definition, so it is no wonder they have a "species problem" and classify 60% of the fossil record incorrectly.

    Or perhaps we would care to look at fruit flies...

    "Most mutants which arise in any organism are more or less disadvantageous to their possessors. The classical mutants obtained in Drosophila [the fruit fly] usually show deterioration, breakdown, or disappearance of some organs. Mutants are known which diminish the quantity or destroy the pigment in the eyes, and in the body reduce the wings, eyes, bristles, legs. Many mutants are, in fact, lethal to their possessors. Mutants which equal the normal fly in vigor are a minority, and mutants that would make a major improvement of the normal organization in the normal environments are unknown.” Theodosius Dobzhansky, Evolution, Genetics, and Man (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1955), p. 105.

    “A review of known facts about their [mutated fruit flies’] ability to survive has led to no other conclusion than that they are always constitutionally weaker than their parent form or species, and in a population with free competition they are eliminated. Therefore they are never found in nature (e.g., not a single one of the several hundreds of Drosophila mutations), and therefore they are able to appear only in the favourable environment of the experimental field or laboratory ...” Nilsson, p. 1186."

    None of them are found in nature, they can only survive in the favorable conditions of the laboratory where there is no competition and food is provided.... And they are all still "Fruit Flies"........

    There is no evidence for evolution except incorrect classification of species, due to that "species problem".......
     
  20. Ophiolite

    Ophiolite Recalcitrant Procrastinating Ape

    +4,967
    United Kingdom
    Agnostic
    Private
    Any casual reader who is inclined to believe this nonsense should take the time to make a diligent study of the evidence. If you are so inclined please feel free to contact me by pm and I shall be happy to recommend, based on your educational background, books, articles or other materials that would allow you to make an informed decision.
     
    • Optimistic Optimistic x 1
    • List
Loading...