Why don't more creationists think like Todd Wood?

[tas8831]

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.

Yeah, yeah, we get it - you want everyone to think you are just so smart and clever.

Pity your expertise does not extend to the topics that you pontificate in on this forum. Egotism does that - especially when one also suffers from the Dunning-Kruger effect.

 

[tas8831]

Zooooommmmmmm! Right over his head again! LOL!

Zooom - so you do not understand what begging the question is.

Typical.

 

[tas8831]

Of the 29,171 comments I have posted here how many do you think are devoid of rationale?

I'd say about 90% of those relating to science, based on what I have read.

I mean:

"How do you think unconscious vocal signals get to the brain so fast when a person, or a giraffe, is suddenly surprised or frightened?"

Really?

And are you going to judge them all by a few speculative theories presented for their entertainment value (if only to myself)?

I judge them by their content and their relationship to established, understood science. I also judge them by whether or not the poster later, after realizing that they've been outed as a Dunning-Kruger effect exemplar, pretends that their previous pontifications and assertions were really just for 'entertainment'.

And do you think I care?

You clearly do not, for your ego gratification needs and unyielding desires to prop up your religious beliefs outweigh any sense of humility or integrity you may have had at some time in the past.

 

[lesliedellow]

I am contemptuous of anyone who can't tell facts from beliefs.

You can’t have a very high opinion of yourself then.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Yeah, yeah, we get it - you want everyone to think you are just so smart and clever.

Pity your expertise does not extend to the topics that you pontificate in on this forum. Egotism does that - especially when one also suffers from the Dunning-Kruger effect.

If one is financially secure he can gamble in the stock market with a few bucks.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I'd say about 90% of those relating to science, based on what I have read.

I mean:

"How do you think unconscious vocal signals get to the brain so fast when a person, or a giraffe, is suddenly surprised or frightened?"

Really?




I judge them by their content and their relationship to established, understood science. I also judge them by whether or not the poster later, after realizing that they've been outed as a Dunning-Kruger effect exemplar, pretends that their previous pontifications and assertions were really just for 'entertainment'.

You clearly do not, for your ego gratification needs and unyielding desires to prop up your religious beliefs outweigh any sense of humility or integrity you may have had at some time in the past.

So you don't think the world would be a better place if there were more people like me?

 

[tas8831]

So you don't think the world would be a better place if there were more people like me?

Not in the least.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Not in the least.

Then you aren't aware of my qualities.

 

[TCassidy]

Zooom - so you do not understand what begging the question is.

Typical.

"What we've got here is failure to communicate. Some men you just can't reach." "Cool Hand Luke" (1967), "Captain" the prison warden, played by Strother Martin. Then the first sentence repeated by the prisoner, Luke, played by Paul Newman.

 

[pat34lee]

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).

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.

The gap theory is mostly popular with those who think
that there was a previous earth which was destroyed by
the fall of Satan. God then had to rebuild the earth from
the ruins of the old one. This is their way of reconciling
evolutionary time periods and the literal bible, which can
only be interpreted as having a recent 6 day creation.

 

[pat34lee]

You can’t have a very high opinion of yourself then.

Flaming, by the way. But I expect it from those
who have nothing better to offer.

It would be much easier to go with the rest
of the herd of sheeple, but I can't give up
the bad habit of thinking things through,
where many people are about as deep as
a page of paper because they let others do
their thinking for them.

Speaking of which, have you ever checked out gas
equations for yourself and seen why it is not possible
for gas giants, much less stars to form?

Have you ever thought about the conditions in space
and why it is impossible for dust and debris to become
anything more than dust and debris? Like planets?

 

[lesliedellow]

Speaking of which, have you ever checked out gas equations for yourself and seen why it is not possible
for gas giants, much less stars to form?

PV = nRT

Over here that is known as schoolboy physics. So what exactly has it got to do with gravitational collapse?

 

[Kaon]

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)
​

The truth about evolution

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?

Those "creationists" are ignored, or are given some other name. There are many "creationists" that I know who have no problem reconciling the valid parts of any scientific paradigm, and their faith. I do it all the time, but I also do not believe I am a creationist in the colloquial sense.

The problem lies with people's minds, a lack of imagination (ability to entertain simultaneity), and general prejudices and social pressures. It goes both ways; academics should not be automatically lauded because of their intellectual or authoritative position. It is due to intellectual fault; many people do not realize they are socially and intellectually programmed to think a certain way, and attack a paradigm that challenges theirs. It has become innate in the newer generation of academics. This Todd Wood is not an anomaly; I have seen similar arguments on these forums, but those people usually just say their peace and do not engage in the minutia of the aforementioned intellectual faults.

I know at least once that I said that the theory of evolution is a scientific model that works, and works especially well for people who do not subscribe to a religion or relationship with a deity. But, I have significant mathematical problems with evolution; this usually erases the former part of my position on evolution, and there isn't enough time to count before I am called a science denier, or a religious nut (despite being a mathematician, and approaching the issue mathematically.) It happens on here, and it happens in academia. The problem isn't with the paradigm; the problem is the mentality (intellectual and social) of humans.


These camps are arguing two sides of the same coin, and it will never get to a juxtaposition of creationism and evolution until people attain grander/more appropriate imaginations.

 

[tas8831]

"What we've got here is failure to communicate. Some men you just can't reach." "Cool Hand Luke" (1967), "Captain" the prison warden, played by Strother Martin. Then the first sentence repeated by the prisoner, Luke, played by Paul Newman.

Thats great.
But it does not explain your replies as indicated:

YOU:
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.

ME:
So, you've never been to a church service, I take it.

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

Looks like a non sequitur, to me.

Or:

And, who witnessed creation? Uh, God did. He was there. Verse 2 of Genesis 1 says so.

I really am not impressed with the circular reasoning gambit.

Zoooommmm! Right over his head!

What was over my head? That you think circular reasoning is logical? No, I got that.

 

[Speedwell]

Thats great.
But it does not explain your replies as indicated:




Looks like a non sequitur, to me.

Or:



What was over my head? That you think circular reasoning is logical? No, I got that.

To be fair, it's not really circular reasoning. It assumes the premise that Genesis was written by God and is a 100% accurate literal account of creation.

 

[TCassidy]

The gap theory is mostly popular with those who think
that there was a previous earth which was destroyed by
the fall of Satan. God then had to rebuild the earth from
the ruins of the old one. This is their way of reconciling
evolutionary time periods and the literal bible, which can
only be interpreted as having a recent 6 day creation.

But we are not talking about the gap theory. I never mentioned nor do I believe in the gap theory. I though my post pretty much explained that.

 

[pat34lee]

PV = nRT

Over here that is known as schoolboy physics. So what exactly has it got to do with gravitational collapse?

"A star is born when atoms of light elements are squeezed under enough pressure for their nuclei to undergo fusion."
How is a star born?

How do you get such a weak force as gravity to gather
enough gas together in space, with nothing to constrain
it, and put it under enough pressure to make it collapse
into a gas planet, much less a star?

The most basic gas equations tell you it's impossible.
Star Formation

And it only gets worse. Early in big bang time, all the
matter and energy were travelling apart from each other
at nearly the speed of light. There is no way they got close
enough for gravity to affect them. So, where did the early
stars come from?

 

[USincognito]

"A star is born when atoms of light elements are squeezed under enough pressure for their nuclei to undergo fusion."
How is a star born?

How do you get such a weak force as gravity to gather
enough gas together in space, with nothing to constrain
it, and put it under enough pressure to make it collapse
into a gas planet, much less a star?

And yet we've observed it.
Revolutionary ALMA Image Reveals Planetary Genesis

The most basic gas equations tell you it's impossible.

Strange that Some Dude On The Internet knows this but astrophysicists worldwide do not.

 

[pat34lee]

But we are not talking about the gap theory. I never mentioned nor do I believe in the gap theory. I though my post pretty much explained that.

No, you just brought up a gap that literally isn't there.

I went back to recheck your argument. The gap you
see doesn't matter, except to say that, for some reason,
God could have just let the earth set alone, unfinished
for an unspecified period of time. Why do you think he
would have done that and then specified that the rest
of creation took six days about six thousand years ago?

 

[pat34lee]

And yet we've observed it.
Revolutionary ALMA Image Reveals Planetary Genesis

Did you read carefully? I see a lot of wishful thinking.
Belief. Not science.

"These features are almost certainly the result of young planet-like bodies that are being formed in the disc. This is surprising since such young stars are not expected to have large planetary bodies capable of producing the structures we see in this image," said Stuartt Corder, ALMA Deputy Director.

“When we first saw this image we were astounded at the spectacular level of detail. HL Tauri is no more than a million years old, yet already its disc appears to be full of forming planets."

Strange that Some Dude On The Internet knows this but astrophysicists worldwide do not.

Trust me, they know it. Here is one of the most honest quotes.

Neil deGrasse Tyson: we don't understand the most fundamental aspects of our universe

"Not all gas clouds in the Milky Way can form stars at all times. More often than not, the cloud is confused about what to do next. Actually, astrophysicists are the confused ones here. We know the cloud wants to collapse under its own weight to make one or more stars. But rotation as well as turbulent motion within the cloud work against that fate.So, too, does the ordinary gas pressure you learned about in high-school chemistry class. Galactic magnetic fields also fight collapse: they penetrate the cloud and latch onto any free-roaming charged particles contained therein,restricting the ways in which the cloud will respond to its self-gravity. The scary part is that if none of us knew in advance that stars exist, frontline research would offer plenty of convincing reasons for why stars could never form."
Death by Black Hole: And Other Cosmic Quandaries - PDF Free Download