Why don't more creationists think like Todd Wood?

[46AND2]

Nothing would change his mind regarding the bible being God's word. He has not stated that his understanding is infallible.

About God's word being infallible. Not about his understanding being infallible.

As do we all.

What do you believe that you know to be wrong?

About the bible being God's word.

He has never made that statement. He believes the bible is God's word and that it means what it says and says what it means.

The context of that statement was not his own infallibility but the infallibility of God's word.

As do we all.

His a priori assumption/conclusion is that the bible is God's infallible word.

Science is the systematic examination of the universe around us that organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about said universe. In Ken Ham's case that systematic examination includes the statements of the bible.

Again, what do you believe that you know is wrong. We all believe our understanding is correct. If we thought it was incorrect we would reexamine our reason for believing it.

The topic that was being discussed was creation and evolution. That was what the "what would change your mind" question was concerning. The topic was not whether he would change his mind about god or not. In other words, what would change his mind about his understanding of creation and evolution. The debate wasn't about Christianity and Atheism, so neither was the question; a question of that sort would not be in the purview of the topic being discussed.

To deflect his statement as merely being about the Bible being the word of god is shortsighted. It was a creation/evolution debate, and therefore his interpretation of the Bible is also under scrutiny of the question.

Answers in Genesis Statement of faith:

https://answersingenesis.org/about/faith/

explicitly says that this is what they do. They explain what they believe about the scriptural record...a literal six days, Noachian flood, etc. and then end their statement with:

By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record.

Again, I am not making up a strawman version of what many creationists believe. It's right there in their own words.

 

[TCassidy]

Again, I am not making up a strawman version of what many creationists believe. It's right there in their own words.

Exactly. No apparent evidence, no perceived evidence, no claimed evidence can legitimately contradict the word of God.

As the bumper sticker said, "God said it. I believe it. That settles it."

 

[DogmaHunter]

On the contrary. I was once an evolutionist, but the science made me change my views

That makes no sense, since the science is all about evolution.

Whatever convinced you, it wasn't the science.

But then I am not the one that believes in "missing" common ancestors to link separate species. I fully accept the evidence that every fossil remains the same across millions of years with no change in that type of creature at all during it's entire existence. They just incorrectly classify the offspring as separate species, so require "missing" ancestors.....

And here we go, with an another round of "i know better then all the experts who actually study this for a living. everyone should just listen to me"

 

[DogmaHunter]

But let's look at those responses a bit more closely.

Those responses are quite clear and don't need much elaboration.

It shows that Ken Ham believes his religious dogmatically and that Bill Nye just goes where the evidence leads him. If tomorrow new evidence shows him wrong - he'll change his views.

If tomorrow new evidence shows ken ham wrong..... he'll say that the evidence is incorrect.

Ken Ham believes God was the only eyewitness to the creation and has told us in Genesis 1 how that was accomplished. In order for him to change his mind he would have to change his faith from believing God and believing His word is inspired and infallible to not believing.

Yes, he would actually have to start hodling rational beliefs that are based on actual evidence. He would actually have to start being intellectually honest. He would actually have to ackowledge that if reality contradicts your beliefs, it's not reality that is incorrect...........

And he's saying that can't do that. He is thus wilfully ignorant. Intellectually dishonest. And in terms of actual science topics - completely irrelevant.

Bill Nye, on the other hand has rejected what Ken Ham believes to be eyewitness testimony

Yes. Because there isn't a single reason to accept those claims. Bill Nye, actually cares about evidence. Actually cares about being rationally justified in his beliefs. He cares that what he beliefs, is actually accurate. He doesn't like holding false beliefs. Which is why he values evidence.

and looks at other evidence he considers more reliable even though he seems to be saying his opinion of that evidence is subject to change.

He's saying that opinions about evidence are irrelevant. The evidence is what matters.
If you have a belief that states that there are no competitive sports that use balls smaller then a tennis ball, then your beliefs about that should change upon observing ping-pong, regardless of your opinions concerning ping-pong.

Objective facts trump faith based beliefs, any day of the week.

So, this is a case of both believing what they believe on the basis of the evidence they consider "best evidence."

False. If Ken Ham's beliefs were evidence based, then new evidence would be capable of changing his beliefs. And he's flat out denying that. No amount of evidence could change his religious beliefs. Those are his own words.

So no, Ken Ham most definatly doesn't base his beliefs on evidence.

The problem is that each one rejects the other's evidence as being "best evidence."

No. Bill Nye just accepts evidence. Ken Ham rejects any and all evidence which contradicts his a priori religious views.

The difference is clear.

So, which evidence is considered more reliable?

The evidence that you can independently test and verify.

Circumstantial evidence or eyewitness testimony?

Eyewitness testimony are just claims.
Objective evidence trumps claims, any day of the week.

If 100 people to have seen person X at bar Y, while DNA evidence places person X at the other side of the country at that specific time, then the 100 people are wrong or lying.

 

[DogmaHunter]

And, again the ad hominem. He does not consider his understanding to be infallible. He believes that which he is trying to understand is infallible.

I don't see the difference.
The result is the same: he considers it impossible that he's wrong.

While Bill Nye is saying "I could be wrong. If you think I'm wrong -show me wrong and I'll happily change my views. I'll even thank you, I like to learn!"

 

[46AND2]

Exactly. No apparent evidence, no perceived evidence, no claimed evidence can legitimately contradict the word of God.

As the bumper sticker said, "God said it. I believe it. That settles it."

As I said, conclusion before even looking at evidence.

Glad we could agree on that.

 

[Speedwell]

But let's look at those responses a bit more closely.

Ken Ham believes God was the only eyewitness to the creation and has told us in Genesis 1 how that was accomplished. In order for him to change his mind he would have to change his faith from believing God and believing His word is inspired and infallible to not believing.

No, he would not have to stop believing God and believing His word is inspired and infallible. He would just have to stop believing that the creation stories of Genesis were meant to be taken as accurate literal history. That is what he said that no evidence could cause him to do.

 

[TCassidy]

As I said, conclusion before even looking at evidence.

Because you reject the evidence does not mean he has not carefully studied it and came to a different conclusion.

 

[TCassidy]

The result is the same: he considers it impossible that he's wrong.

You keep repeating this same false charge. He does not think he is incapable of wrong. He thinks God is incapable of wrong.

So, as we both just keep saying the same thing over and over I suspect this discussion has run its course. And my initial observation has proven correct. Neither side is willing to accept the other side's "best evidence" - or to even consider it.

 

[DogmaHunter]

You keep repeating this same false charge. He does not think he is incapable of wrong. He thinks God is incapable of wrong.

No. He is absolutely convinced that he can not be wrong concerning his religious beliefs.
If it was merely the idea that god can't be wrong, then he could still be wrong in his understanding about what god is actually saying (like for example, that genesis isn't supposed to be a literal history text).

But that's not at all the case here.
It really is so that he believes that it is impossible that he is wrong about his interpretation of what he believes are god's words.

THAT'S the position he's unwilling to budge from, no matter what kind of evidence is presented.

Do you understand the difference?

So, as we both just keep saying the same thing over and over I suspect this discussion has run its course.

It rather seems to be a case of you not fully comprehending what I am saying....
As noted above. There's a difference between:
"god's words can't be wrong"
and
"my understanding of god's words can't be wrong".

And I'll again note that in both cases, it results in having a dogmatic worldview where the person believes it impossible to being wrong..................


In either case, it's an intellectually dishonest position without merrit.

 

[Speedwell]

You keep repeating this same false charge. He does not think he is incapable of wrong. He thinks God is incapable of wrong.

He believes God cannot be wrong. He also believes his arbitrary decision to regard Genesis as accurate literal history cannot be wrong. It is that second belief we are talking about.

Believing that Genesis is the infallible, inspired word of God is one thing; deciding that it must be accurate literal history is quite another. I don't know why you insist on confusing the two.

 

[TCassidy]

I don't know why you insist on confusing the two.

I don't. Obviously.

 

[TCassidy]

As noted above. There's a difference between:
"god's words can't be wrong"
and
"my understanding of god's words can't be wrong".

Except he never said "my understanding of god's words can't be wrong".

 

[Tom 1]

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?

Maybe he just knows a lot more about it than most.

 

[46AND2]

Because you reject the evidence does not mean he has not carefully studied it and came to a different conclusion.

Where do you think confirmation bias comes from?

 

[46AND2]

Except he never said "my understanding of god's words can't be wrong".

Yes. He did. When asked what, if anything, would change his mind, the question was specifically about creation and evolution. And he said nothing could change his mind. Therefore, nothing can change his mind from being a YEC to being a theistic evolutionist.

 

[Speedwell]

I don't. Obviously.

Do you believe that they are the same thing--that believing the Bible to be the infallible word of God entails belief in the literal historicity of Genesis? That may indeed be the position of Ken Ham, who might not realize that they are two distinct issues.

 

[TCassidy]

Do you believe that they are the same thing--that believing the Bible to be the infallible word of God entails belief in the literal historicity of Genesis?

No. But neither do I deny Ken Ham, or anyone else, the right to believe such.

That may indeed be the position of Ken Ham, who might not realize that they are two distinct issues.

He may not believe the two are distinct. Or he may. Either way his belief system is his. He may well believe he has evidence which supports his belief system as he believes it. In most cases that evidence tends to be subjective, but he still has the right to believe it.

 

[TCassidy]

Yes. He did. When asked what, if anything, would change his mind, the question was specifically about creation and evolution. And he said nothing could change his mind. Therefore, nothing can change his mind from being a YEC to being a theistic evolutionist.

Show me a direct quote where he said "my understanding of god's words can't be wrong".

 

[TCassidy]

Where do you think confirmation bias comes from?

From people who lack the capacity to see the issues from a perspective other than their own.