Who is turning the screws on Todd Wood, the creationist biologist who opposes Tennesee's new monkey law?

The Google cache of the page is still up.

Text of the post:

My letter to Governor Haslam

I just sent this letter to Tennessee's governor, Bill Haslam. I'm sure it will win me a lot of adoration and acclaim from my fellow creationists. Enjoy!

Dear Governor Haslam:

My name is Todd Charles Wood, and I am a biology professor at Bryan College in Dayton, TN. You might recognize Bryan College as the Christian school named for William Jennings Bryan and founded in the wake of the Scopes Trial. (Please note that the opinions expressed in this letter are my own and do not represent the opinions of Bryan College.)

I recently noted that the Tennessee state senate passed SB0893, the so-called "Monkey Bill" (ironically on William Jennings Bryan's birthday of all days). I am sure that you've already received quite a number of heated letters and phone calls about this bill. As you certainly know, critics of the bill view it as a thinly-veiled attempt to inject creationism into the public science classrooms.

Because of my religious convictions, I am a committed creationist, but unlike many creationists, I have grown quite weary of the creation-evolution propaganda war. I believe this bill is an ideal example of what's wrong with the creation-evolution war. For example, since the bill clearly states that religious discussions are not protected, it could not be used to permit "some Sunday school teachers to hijack biology class by proxy," as the editorial in the March 21 edition of the Tennesseean suggested. On the other hand, my own reading of the bill indicates that it provides no protection that teachers don't already have. Teachers are already well within their rights to discuss any scientific evidence that pertains to the prescribed curriculum and to encourage critical thinking about it. Many already do. Any teacher trying to bring creationist arguments into a public science classroom will run afoul of legal precedent. Judge Jones's decision in Kitzmiller et al. v. Dover Area School District found that the anti-evolution arguments of Intelligent Design are a form of religiously-motivated creationism. The controversy surrounding the other issues mentioned by SB0893 (human cloning and climate change) are also permissible subjects to discuss in science classes already, and therefore do not need any additional protection. Thus, if critics are correct that this is an attempt to inject creationism into Tennessee science classes, the language is so vague and watered-down that it would be incapable of performing that task.

Legally then, it seems that this bill is simply unnecessary. It does not directly challenge Kitzmiller v. Dover, and it does not offer any protection that does not already exist. Because the bill is useless, I ask you to veto it. Please do not allow Tennessee to become a pawn in the creation-evolution propaganda war.

Respectfully yours,

Todd Charles Wood

Feedback? Email me at toddcharleswood [at] gmail [dot] com.

The Google cache as an independent web page

He might be treated as a heretic to the cause. But wouldn't it be ironic if the Dishonesty Institute had a hand in trying to silence someone's freedom of speech regarding ID / creationism!

He's not one of our minions?

Sometimes I almost think we don't have a conspiracy going on at all.

Glen Davidson

They do this a lot.

The fundies are big fans of Joseph Stalin. They are always having purges.

I posted a long list on a thread a few days ago so don't care to repeat myself. It looks like Dembski might have been caught up in a purge. He is leaving Southwest bibleists after making a controversial comment, i.e. that the earth is old, which it is.

I really like Todd. I hope he's OK.

I feel another expulsion coming on. Above all things, fundamentalists insist on conformity.

Todd Wood, along with Kurt Wise, must be considered the only "honest" "scientific creationist" at work here in the United States. I admire his personal conviction - if not necessarily his judgement with regards to science - and I hope Governor Haslam will consider seriously that letter, and, more importantly, the advice he intends to seek from his state's board of education.

John Kwok

"It’s not even good for creationism – pushing your ideas in the public schools before they are accepted in the scientific community will instantly discredit your movement within science; it leads to heated political battles rather than academic discussion; and inevitably it has historically led to expensive and embarrassing court defeats for creationism, and tighter legal restrictions against teaching creationism."

I tend to think these controversies are primarily about money. The market for intelligent design creationist educational materials is limited to the christian school and home school markets. If they could break into the public school market, the potential profits would be enormous. I think professional creationists mostly know that scientists will never take them seriously, so the only route they have to increase their market share is through the political process. The profit potential of success makes the risks you identified worth taking, and the expense of court battles is borne by the taxpayers rather than the creationists themselves. Plus even court losses can be used as a wedge issue to rile up the base to vote GOP to appoint conservative judges like Roy Moore (the 10 Commandments Judge who will likely be relected to the post of Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court from which he was ousted).

Elizabeth Liddle said: I really like Todd. I hope he's OK.

raven said: They do this a lot. The fundies are big fans of Joseph Stalin. They are always having purges. I posted a long list on a thread a few days ago so don't care to repeat myself. It looks like Dembski might have been caught up in a purge. He is leaving Southwest bibleists after making a controversial comment, i.e. that the earth is old, which it is.

apokryltaros said: You remember the big rift that tore up Australian Creationists when Ken Ham was caught doing funny business with Answers In Genesis subscribers?

You remember the big rift that tore up Australian Creationists when Ken Ham was caught doing funny business with Answers In Genesis subscribers?

Kicked Out of Two Homeschool Conferences - Answers in Genesis ww.answersingenesis.org/.../kicked-out-homeschool-conferences 22 Mar 2011 – In addition, AiG as an exhibitor has also been expelled. ... In an email to Ken Ham, the leader of this homeschool group wrote to us (just after ...

joeF said:

Elizabeth Liddle said: I really like Todd. I hope he's OK.

I know Todd and he is O.K.

raven said:

Kicked Out of Two Homeschool Conferences - Answers in Genesis ww.answersingenesis.org/.../kicked-out-homeschool-conferences 22 Mar 2011 – In addition, AiG as an exhibitor has also been expelled. ... In an email to Ken Ham, the leader of this homeschool group wrote to us (just after ...

Not the first time Ken Ham has been Expelled. He has been kicked out of two homeschool conferences. Not sure what is going on here or much care. Probably the competition for fundie dollars is steep and they all claim to be the One True Xian Homeschooling Program.

On the bright side, I don't recall any anti-science in the east Tennessee elementary school that I went to. I recall seeing a tree diagram of the relationships between the major vertebrate classes.

Elizabeth Liddle said: I really like Todd. I hope he's OK.

raven said: They do this a lot. The fundies are big fans of Joseph Stalin. They are always having purges. I posted a long list on a thread a few days ago so don't care to repeat myself. It looks like Dembski might have been caught up in a purge. He is leaving Southwest bibleists after making a controversial comment, i.e. that the earth is old, which it is.

raven said: I posted a long list on a thread a few days ago so don't care to repeat myself. It looks like Dembski might have been caught up in a purge. He is leaving Southwest bibleists after making a controversial comment, i.e. that the earth is old, which it is.

[Seminary President Paige] Patterson said that when Dembski’s questionable statements came to light, he convened a meeting with Dembski and several high-ranking administrators at the seminary. At that meeting, Dembski was quick to admit that he was wrong about the flood, Patterson said. ... Patterson, like Nettles and Allen, believes that proper exegesis of the early chapters in Genesis requires a young earth. But he also said that young- and old-earth creationists banding together to combat evolution is more important than internal debates among creationists.

I actually found Tod Wood's comment quite insightful.

The logical flaw of the legislation is that it equates social or cultural controversy, that is, the "controversy" that some people may not like some aspect of reality, with scientific controversy, that is, actual controversy over whether something is an aspect of natural reality.

Life evolves. That is not scientifically controversial.

Todd Wood does seem to have many decent features.

However, as a non-religious person, I have to ask, if he wants to be religious, why doesn't he consider simply outright joining the millions or billions of religious people who are not creationists?

harold said: I actually found Tod Wood's comment quite insightful. The logical flaw of the legislation is that it equates social or cultural controversy, that is, the "controversy" that some people may not like some aspect of reality, with scientific controversy, that is, actual controversy over whether something is an aspect of natural reality. ...

Joe Felsenstein said: Or perhaps the Tennessee Legislature thinks we scientists are out there advocating evolution, global warming, etc.

harold said: I actually found Tod Wood's comment quite insightful. The logical flaw of the legislation is that it equates social or cultural controversy, that is, the "controversy" that some people may not like some aspect of reality, with scientific controversy, that is, actual controversy over whether something is an aspect of natural reality. Life evolves. That is not scientifically controversial. Todd Wood does seem to have many decent features. However, as a non-religious person, I have to ask, if he wants to be religious, why doesn't he consider simply outright joining the millions or billions of religious people who are not creationists?

harold asks: why doesn’t he (Todd Wood) consider simply outright joining the millions or billions of religious people who are not creationists?

Genesis is true because it reads like reportage.

Dave Luckett said: Nearly all human beings understand what narrative is, what story is, what fiction is. Nearly all human beings understand that narrative encompasses and encapsulates truth, but in many ways, and that truth is not only one thing.

Dave Luckett said:

harold asks: why doesn’t he (Todd Wood) consider simply outright joining the millions or billions of religious people who are not creationists?

I'm fairly sure he has done so: considered it, that is. And rejected it. Why? I think I can reconstruct the process, and I think it depends on a (heh!) fundamental proposition: Scripture must have authority. It must be true, factual and inerrant. Its words must mean exactly what they say. Words are not a form to a 'literalist'. They're not a way to represent reality. They are reality itself, just as it says - literally - at the beginning of John's gospel. (The idea that this passage is in itself a metaphor cannot occur to them.) That is, I think the proposition proceeds from a basic inability to understand what language is, what words are. The idea that words describe reality in many different ways is impossible for Wood and his cohorts to assimilate. For them, words either describe reality in one way only, or not at all. Metaphor may be possible, but only if it is labelled as such - that is, the words must tell you the reality first, and then proceed by way of simile or analogy or parable. The fact that this is manifestly, obviously, plainly false, totally contrary to endless examples of the use of language, cannot make any impression on them at all. Why not? Nearly all human beings do not understand words in that way. Nearly all human beings understand what narrative is, what story is, what fiction is. Nearly all human beings understand that narrative encompasses and encapsulates truth, but in many ways, and that truth is not only one thing. And there is the problem. Literalist after literalist says, in different ways: Genesis is true because it reads like reportage. But this doesn't mean that they know what reportage is. It only means that they don't know what narrative is. They can't recognise it. There's a blind spot there, a missing ability. It's like some people - usually neurologically damaged - can't recognise faces. Something has stunted that basic understanding that is one of the few things shared by all human cultures - the idea of narrative, of story. I can't say what that something is. Nature or nurture? I don't know. All I can say is that it's missing.

Joe Felsenstein said: Or perhaps the Tennessee Legislature thinks we scientists are out there advocating evolution, global warming, etc.

Because Revelation says at the beginning (1:3) that it's prophecy. It hasn't happened - yet. But literalists believe that it will happen, literally, in a sense, although the events are described in figures - that's accepted by literalists, because the text says so specifically, at 1:20. But they still say the figures describe literal events that will take place. They differ about what the meanings of the figures are, but they don't differ about those meanings being literally true.

So again, it's not fictional narrative, not really.

harold asks:: why doesn’t he (Todd Wood) consider simply outright joining the millions or billions of religious people who are not creationists?

Dave Luckett said: Because Revelation says at the beginning (1:3) that it's prophecy. It hasn't happened - yet. But literalists believe that it will happen, literally, in a sense, although the events are described in figures - that's accepted by literalists, because the text says so specifically, at 1:20. But they still say the figures describe literal events that will take place. They differ about what the meanings of the figures are, but they don't differ about those meanings being literally true. So again, it's not fictional narrative, not really.

No, there is no agreed set of rules on how to read Scripture. That's one reason why there's, what, thirty thousand different Christian denominations, divisions, assemblies, sects, whatever. (Or apparently. The real reasons are more usually power, personality, politics or money.)

The funny part is that even "strict literalists" read text non-literally when they must, if it's either that or deny that it's true in any sense. Jesus saying that some of his hearers would not die before he returned to establish his Kingdom, for instance.

He didn't say that this was meant symbolically, but of course the "literalists" say that what he meant was not an actual Kingdom in the usual sense of the word, no, no; he was speaking figuratively. And we know this, because, well, he didn't return and establish an actual mundane ordinary Kingdom, ptui. Not as such. No, he established a Church. Much better. See?

Or "die" didn't actually mean "die", it meant "go to hell". Honest. Nothing up my sleeve at all, there.

Yes, well. And so on.

The "literalists" will then put their hands on their hearts and say that Scripture is to be read literally except where it says it isn't, and that's what they do.

The funny part is, they usually actually believe it.

For about 2000 years (from, let's say, 500 BC to AD 1500) just about everybody agreed that the Bible said that the Sun makes a daily orbit around a fixed Earth, Nobody noticed that there were indications that this was meant figuratively. Only when the "naturalistic" evidence and reasoning convinced people that the Earth was a planet of the Sun did people take up a non-literal reading of the Bible in this regard. This means that for people who are not geocentrists, they have allowed naturalistic evidence and reasoning to influence how they read the Bible.

TomS said: For about 2000 years (from, let's say, 500 BC to AD 1500) just about everybody agreed that the Bible said that the Sun makes a daily orbit around a fixed Earth, Nobody noticed that there were indications that this was meant figuratively. Only when the "naturalistic" evidence and reasoning convinced people that the Earth was a planet of the Sun did people take up a non-literal reading of the Bible in this regard. This means that for people who are not geocentrists, they have allowed naturalistic evidence and reasoning to influence how they read the Bible.

But then, I have a soft spot for Todd :)

@ Raven: Adam and Eve's sons pretty much had to be motherf*****s, didn't they? If biblical literalists are asked about their support for incest, I wonder what they'd say?

mjcross42 said: @ Raven: Adam and Eve's sons pretty much had to be motherf*****s, didn't they? If biblical literalists are asked about their support for incest, I wonder what they'd say?

Rolf said:

But then, I have a soft spot for Todd :)

A soft spot cannot be claimed; it can only be earned.

SWT said: Despite the behavior of certain people commenting here, I think it's a mistake to assume that all Biblical "literalists" are stupid or that literalist theologians haven't given any thought to questions like this.

Well, here is Todd again:

http://toddcwood.blogspot.co.uk/2009/11/truth-about-creationism.html

Looks like I got it right in my post above.

Not that I find his position at all persuasive. Even when I was a Christian (and I still find it odd to write in the past tense) I thought the atonement was just weird, and fell on Peter Abelard with gratitude.

But Todd is certainly not stupid, and he's certainly given thought to these questions.

Todd Wood wants to employ magic as an explanation & still call himself a scientist.

He seems to be a nice kind of fellow but, still, for Todd Wood the Bible trumps fact. I think he's one of the most dangerous antiscience types out there. Unlike Bill Dembski or Michael Behe, Todd Wodd will win your sympathy. Sympathy for the man and sympathy for his position are just inches apart.

SWT said:

mjcross42 said: @ Raven: Adam and Eve's sons pretty much had to be motherf*****s, didn't they? If biblical literalists are asked about their support for incest, I wonder what they'd say?

They would point out (1) that the Bible says Adam and Eve had sons and daughters and (2) the divine prohibition against marriage of close relatives was not given until much later. Despite the behavior of certain people commenting here, I think it's a mistake to assume that all Biblical "literalists" are stupid or that literalist theologians haven't given any thought to questions like this.

RWard said: Todd Wood wants to employ magic as an explanation & still call himself a scientist. He seems to be a nice kind of fellow but, still, for Todd Wood the Bible trumps fact. I think he's one of the most dangerous antiscience types out there. Unlike Bill Dembski or Michael Behe, Todd Wodd will win your sympathy. Sympathy for the man and sympathy for his position are just inches apart.

The funny part is that even “strict literalists” read text non-literally when they must, if it’s either that or deny that it’s true in any sense.

If you have read any Bible commentaries from the literalist perspective, you find a bunch of quite smart men (hardly any women) who go to enormous lengths to make a literal reading feasible.

RWard said: Todd Wood wants to employ magic as an explanation & still call himself a scientist. He seems to be a nice kind of fellow but, still, for Todd Wood the Bible trumps fact. I think he's one of the most dangerous antiscience types out there. Unlike Bill Dembski or Michael Behe, Todd Wodd will win your sympathy. Sympathy for the man and sympathy for his position are just inches apart.

D P Robin said: That writer argued that there was no reason to prohibit incest because Adam, Eve, and their children (to an unspecified number of generations) were genetically perfect and that bad mutations were God's punishment for sins (as opposed to "Sin").

Anyway, I am aware of the ability of literalists, when not operating under any restraints, to tell us how the Bible says just about anything.

And he is also clear that his choice therefore is between abandoning science, or trying to figure out a scientific model that accommodates both scientific data and the bible. Of course we think that the project is doomed, but that doesn’t make him dangerous. It just makes him wrong. Honest, but wrong.

Flint said:

And he is also clear that his choice therefore is between abandoning science, or trying to figure out a scientific model that accommodates both scientific data and the bible. Of course we think that the project is doomed, but that doesn’t make him dangerous. It just makes him wrong. Honest, but wrong.

This is more generous than I can be. To me, Wood has a hypothesis -- that Genesis is accurate natural history. He has a test for this hypothesis -- basically, everything relevant that has ever been discovered. An honest scientist, having his hypothesis so resoundingly refuted, would abandon it in favor of something matching his empirical results. An honest scientist would NOT refuse to abandon such a clearly wrong hypothesis, and instead search for some way to accept observation AND a failed hypothesis. I agree this doesn't make him dangerous, but it doesn't make him honest either. If "honest" scientists refused to discard failed hypotheses, we'd have no science at all.

"Its top was a great temple shrine, emblazoned with zodiacal signs representing the hosts of heaven, Satan and his 'principalities and powers, rulers of the darkness of the world' (Ephesians 6:12). These evil spirits there perhaps met with Nimrod and his priests, to plan their long-range strategy against God and his redemptive purposes for the post-diluvian world. This included especially the development of a non-theistic cosmology, one which could explain the origin and meaning of the universe and man without acknowledging the true God of creation. Denial of God's power and sovereignty in creation is of course foundational in the rejection of His authority in every other sphere. . . . If something like this really happened, early in post-diluvian history, then Satan himself is the originator of the concept of evolution. "One question remains. Assuming Satan to be the real source of the evolutionary concept, how did it originate in his mind? . . . A possible answer to this mystery could be that Satan, the father of lies, has not only deceived the whole world and the angelic hosts who followed him--he has even deceived himself! The only way he could really know about creation (just as the only way we can know about creation) was for God to tell him! . . . . He refused to believe and accept the Word of God concerning his own creation and place in God's economy . . . He therefore deceived himself into supposing that all things, including himself and including God, had been evolved by natural processes out of the primordial stuff of the universe. . . ." (Morris, Troubled Waters of Evolution, 1974, pp 74-75).

It’s all lies. Virtually all of what Morris says about the Tower of Babel myth isn’t even in the bible. He just made it all up.

Flint said:

And he is also clear that his choice therefore is between abandoning science, or trying to figure out a scientific model that accommodates both scientific data and the bible. Of course we think that the project is doomed, but that doesn’t make him dangerous. It just makes him wrong. Honest, but wrong.

This is more generous than I can be. To me, Wood has a hypothesis -- that Genesis is accurate natural history. He has a test for this hypothesis -- basically, everything relevant that has ever been discovered. An honest scientist, having his hypothesis so resoundingly refuted, would abandon it in favor of something matching his empirical results. An honest scientist would NOT refuse to abandon such a clearly wrong hypothesis, and instead search for some way to accept observation AND a failed hypothesis. I agree this doesn't make him dangerous, but it doesn't make him honest either. If "honest" scientists refused to discard failed hypotheses, we'd have no science at all.

D P Robin said:

SWT said:

mjcross42 said: @ Raven: Adam and Eve's sons pretty much had to be motherf*****s, didn't they? If biblical literalists are asked about their support for incest, I wonder what they'd say?

They would point out (1) that the Bible says Adam and Eve had sons and daughters and (2) the divine prohibition against marriage of close relatives was not given until much later. Despite the behavior of certain people commenting here, I think it's a mistake to assume that all Biblical "literalists" are stupid or that literalist theologians haven't given any thought to questions like this.

If you have read any Bible commentaries from the literalist perspective, you find a bunch of quite smart men (hardly any women) who go to enormous lengths to make a literal reading feasible. Read a treatment of the "offspring" problem. That writer argued that there was no reason to prohibit incest because Adam, Eve, and their children (to an unspecified number of generations) were genetically perfect and that bad mutations were God's punishment for sins (as opposed to "Sin"). dpr

Isn't Wood supposed to be an "honest" creationist ?

I don't care how "nice" a creationist is. Luskin says he volunteers at soup kitchens but he propagates despicable acts and is a professional propagandist.

I used to think that folks like Wise and, now Todd, were "honorable" because they were up front with their intellectual slander, but no more.

I side with Dawkins who said of Kurt Wise, "he's a disgrace to the human species."

No, Kurt and Todd, your hypothesis has been demonstrated wrong over and over and you are a waste of time and breath.

I don't like to get into comments on the personality of people whom I do not know.

But do any of these people who are being described as honest, straightforward and consistent in their Biblical literalism use the same standard of Biblical literalism before any naturalistic evidence and reasoning for the Earth being a planet of the Sun? Are they geocentrists, or have they discovered something in the Bible that nobody noticed until the rise of modern science led people to change their minds about the Solar System?

TomS said: But do any of these people who are being described as honest, straightforward and consistent in their Biblical literalism use the same standard of Biblical literalism before any naturalistic evidence and reasoning for the Earth being a planet of the Sun? Are they geocentrists, or have they discovered something in the Bible that nobody noticed until the rise of modern science led people to change their minds about the Solar System?

Thanks for the reference. This series of responses to geocentrism does not give the impression that his rejection of geocentrism is Bible-based. There is one comment about a Biblical passage where he disagrees with the geocentric interpretation - but he doesn't make the claim that there is any text in the Bible in denial of geocentrism. I would dare say that this series reads at least as "naturalistic" as any theistic defense of an "old earth" or mutability of "kinds".

@ Elizabeth Liddle: I've been patiently waiting for someone more qualified than I to make an obvious rebuttal, but it looks as though I'll have to take a shot before this thread peters out. Elizabeth said: "The only thing non-scientific about his [Wood's] position is that he starts with a very high prior on the Biblical data being reliable. Which isn’t so very different from the very high prior we put on certain laws in science (the Second Law of Thermodynamics, for instance - which is why we dismiss perpetual motion machines out of hand)."

As much as I admire Elizabeth, not only for her erudition but for her warm, respectful manner, I gotta say her "soft spot" for Todd Wood has gone to her head here. The Second Law of Thermodynamics has very high a priori value because it has earned it the hard way, through increasingly rigorous and precise exchanges between theory and experiment starting with early 19th century observations of heat flow. This is as different as can be from the a priori value a young earth believer places on scriptural "data" in the face of the decisive evidence against it.

Stan Polanski said: @ Elizabeth Liddle: I've been patiently waiting for someone more qualified than I to make an obvious rebuttal, but it looks as though I'll have to take a shot before this thread peters out. Elizabeth said: "The only thing non-scientific about his [Wood's] position is that he starts with a very high prior on the Biblical data being reliable. Which isn’t so very different from the very high prior we put on certain laws in science (the Second Law of Thermodynamics, for instance - which is why we dismiss perpetual motion machines out of hand)." As much as I admire Elizabeth, not only for her erudition but for her warm, respectful manner, I gotta say her "soft spot" for Todd Wood has gone to her head here. The Second Law of Thermodynamics has very high a priori value because it has earned it the hard way, through increasingly rigorous and precise exchanges between theory and experiment starting with early 19th century observations of heat flow. This is as different as can be from the a priori value a young earth believer places on scriptural "data" in the face of the decisive evidence against it.

The law that entropy always increases holds, I think, the supreme position among the laws of Nature. If someone points out to you that your pet theory of the universe is in disagreement with Maxwell's equations — then so much the worse for Maxwell's equations. If it is found to be contradicted by observation — well, these experimentalists do bungle things sometimes. But if your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation.

But his field is biology, and right now, he is trying to find out whether there is a way that biological data can be accounted for within a model that is consistent with a literal reading of Genesis. As I said, that seems doomed, but not dishonest. He is not, that I can see, engaging in “smoke and mirrors”. He simply believes that there must be a model that reconciles the two, because he believes both the data and that Genesis is the literal word of God.

Elizabeth said: "But I don’t think the difference is one of honesty."

The more I think about Todd Wood the less I know what "honesty" means. Honestly. Concerning the geological evidence, it should take him or any other scientifically literate, honest person about fifteen minutes, max, of Google time to "be forced to agree with Sedgwick."

I am awed by his capacity for cognitive dissonance. In musical terms, if he were a composer, his dissonance would make Arnold Schoenberg sound like Mozart. And yet through it all he remains eerily serene. Spooky, isn't it?

Maybe instead of honest a better word would be earnest.
After all, if he is being dishonest with someone it is mostly himself.

Is he an omphalos creationist? If so, that would preserve his honesty perfectly: Yes, the world looks old, because God MADE it look old, but He told us how old it REALLY is in scripture--so you can't even accuse Him of being deceptive. I believe I read that Wood fully acknowledges that the signs of great age that science knows about are real, and should not be disputed as in error by creationists.

Tortured reasoning, sure, but not necessarily dishonest.

SLC said:

raven said: They do this a lot. The fundies are big fans of Joseph Stalin. They are always having purges. I posted a long list on a thread a few days ago so don't care to repeat myself. It looks like Dembski might have been caught up in a purge. He is leaving Southwest bibleists after making a controversial comment, i.e. that the earth is old, which it is.

I thought that Dumbski has recanted his old earth views.

Frank J said: This is exactly why I am rapidly losing hope that we'll ever win this in my lifetime...

cwjolley said:

Frank J said: This is exactly why I am rapidly losing hope that we'll ever win this in my lifetime...

You can't win against crazy, you can only contain it.

raven said: Lenny Flank: The creationists are quite open in their belief that evolutionary theory, even theistic evolution, is, quite literally, the work of the Devil: "Behind both groups of evolutionists one can discern the malignant influence of 'that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world'." (Morris, 1963, p. 93) Indeed, one of the founders of the modern creationist movement, Dr. Henry Morris, has declared that evolutionary theory was given to Nimrod by Satan himself, at the Tower of Babel:

"Its top was a great temple shrine, emblazoned with zodiacal signs representing the hosts of heaven, Satan and his 'principalities and powers, rulers of the darkness of the world' (Ephesians 6:12). These evil spirits there perhaps met with Nimrod and his priests, to plan their long-range strategy against God and his redemptive purposes for the post-diluvian world. This included especially the development of a non-theistic cosmology, one which could explain the origin and meaning of the universe and man without acknowledging the true God of creation. Denial of God's power and sovereignty in creation is of course foundational in the rejection of His authority in every other sphere. . . . If something like this really happened, early in post-diluvian history, then Satan himself is the originator of the concept of evolution. "One question remains. Assuming Satan to be the real source of the evolutionary concept, how did it originate in his mind? . . . A possible answer to this mystery could be that Satan, the father of lies, has not only deceived the whole world and the angelic hosts who followed him--he has even deceived himself! The only way he could really know about creation (just as the only way we can know about creation) was for God to tell him! . . . . He refused to believe and accept the Word of God concerning his own creation and place in God's economy . . . He therefore deceived himself into supposing that all things, including himself and including God, had been evolved by natural processes out of the primordial stuff of the universe. . . ." (Morris, Troubled Waters of Evolution, 1974, pp 74-75).

Here is a typical example of creationist thinking and exegenesis. Evolution was invented by satan and handed down to Nimrod at the Tower of Babel. 1. It's all lies. Virtually all of what Morris says about the Tower of Babel myth isn't even in the bible. He just made it all up. 2. The bible quotes he uses have nothing to do with what he claims. Morris just tossed them in there to look important and hoped that no one would look them up.

Just Bob said: Is he an omphalos creationist? If so, that would preserve his honesty perfectly: Yes, the world looks old, because God MADE it look old, but He told us how old it REALLY is in scripture--so you can't even accuse Him of being deceptive. I believe I read that Wood fully acknowledges that the signs of great age that science knows about are real, and should not be disputed as in error by creationists. Tortured reasoning, sure, but not necessarily dishonest.

Elizabeth Liddle said:

Just Bob said: Is he an omphalos creationist? If so, that would preserve his honesty perfectly: Yes, the world looks old, because God MADE it look old, but He told us how old it REALLY is in scripture--so you can't even accuse Him of being deceptive. I believe I read that Wood fully acknowledges that the signs of great age that science knows about are real, and should not be disputed as in error by creationists. Tortured reasoning, sure, but not necessarily dishonest.

No. His reasoning, as I understand it, is that there must be another model that makes as much sense of the data. It does happen. Just because a model is very well supported by evidence, doesn't mean that there isn't an alternative model that is even better supported. Todd is looking for that alternative model.

raven said: Kicked Out of Two Homeschool Conferences - Answers in Genesis ww.answersingenesis.org/…/kicked-out-homeschool-conferences 22 Mar 2011 – In addition, AiG as an exhibitor has also been expelled. … In an email to Ken Ham, the leader of this homeschool group wrote to us (just after … Not the first time Ken Ham has been Expelled. He has been kicked out of two homeschool conferences. Not sure what is going on here or much care. Probably the competition for fundie dollars is steep and they all claim to be the One True Xian Homeschooling Program.

If I recall correctly, he was railing against people who deny a literal six day creation

DS said:

Elizabeth Liddle said:

Just Bob said: Is he an omphalos creationist? If so, that would preserve his honesty perfectly: Yes, the world looks old, because God MADE it look old, but He told us how old it REALLY is in scripture--so you can't even accuse Him of being deceptive. I believe I read that Wood fully acknowledges that the signs of great age that science knows about are real, and should not be disputed as in error by creationists. Tortured reasoning, sure, but not necessarily dishonest.

No. His reasoning, as I understand it, is that there must be another model that makes as much sense of the data. It does happen. Just because a model is very well supported by evidence, doesn't mean that there isn't an alternative model that is even better supported. Todd is looking for that alternative model.

That's great. When he finds another natural explanation with more explanatory and predictive power than the theory of evolution he can publish it and convince everyone. Until then. he should stop denying reality and face up to the evidence that actually exists. There might be a better hypothesis out there, but until you actually find it you are just being dishonest and stubborn. Trying to make others reject reality in favor of your pie in the sky daydreams and fantasies is not how science is done, nor should it be.

Elizabeth Liddle said:

DS said:

Elizabeth Liddle said:

Just Bob said: Is he an omphalos creationist? If so, that would preserve his honesty perfectly: Yes, the world looks old, because God MADE it look old, but He told us how old it REALLY is in scripture--so you can't even accuse Him of being deceptive. I believe I read that Wood fully acknowledges that the signs of great age that science knows about are real, and should not be disputed as in error by creationists. Tortured reasoning, sure, but not necessarily dishonest.

No. His reasoning, as I understand it, is that there must be another model that makes as much sense of the data. It does happen. Just because a model is very well supported by evidence, doesn't mean that there isn't an alternative model that is even better supported. Todd is looking for that alternative model.

That's great. When he finds another natural explanation with more explanatory and predictive power than the theory of evolution he can publish it and convince everyone. Until then. he should stop denying reality and face up to the evidence that actually exists. There might be a better hypothesis out there, but until you actually find it you are just being dishonest and stubborn. Trying to make others reject reality in favor of your pie in the sky daydreams and fantasies is not how science is done, nor should it be.

Where is Todd "denying reality"? Where is he "trying to make others reject reality in favor of your pie in the sky daydreams"? It seems to me he is doing quite the opposite. He is insisting that the scientific consensus model holds up, and that the only reason at present to reject it is if you also regard Genesis as the literal word of God.

Sympathy for the man and sympathy for his position are just inches apart

harold said: As for science, the idea of starting with the non-intuitive, misinterpreted mythology of a culture distant in time and space as a pre-supposition that can't be logically evaluated is completely ridiculous.

Joe Felsenstein said:

harold said: I actually found Tod Wood's comment quite insightful. The logical flaw of the legislation is that it equates social or cultural controversy, that is, the "controversy" that some people may not like some aspect of reality, with scientific controversy, that is, actual controversy over whether something is an aspect of natural reality. ...

The Tennessee law is written by people who think there is a scientific controversy over evolution, global warming, etc. But on one point they got things hilariously mixed up. Teachers are supposed to be enabled to question the dominant view on ... human cloning? The dominant view on human cloning is that it is probably possible. The issue of whether one ought to allow it to be done is then not a scientific issue, it is an issue of ethics, politics, or religion. If there is someone who questions the dominant scientific view, well, I guess they would be saying that human cloning isn't technically possible. In which case there would be no point in arguing about whether it would be a good thing, as you couldn't succeed at it anyway. Or perhaps the Tennessee Legislature thinks we scientists are out there advocating evolution, global warming, etc.

Where is Todd “denying reality”? Where is he “trying to make others reject reality in favor of your pie in the sky daydreams”?

harold said:

Sympathy for the man and sympathy for his position are just inches apart

I vehemently disagree with this statement...

Bah! Wood has two pegs, a round one and a square one. He lives in a world overflowing with round holes, and no square ones. He INSISTS on clinging to his square peg anyway. If he only tries hard enough, he'll find a hole that's round and square at the same time. This is called "honesty". I guess. But not even Elizabeth Liddle can argue that he's going wherever the evidence leads. Which is a different KIND of honesty. I guess.

To think that sympathy for the man won’t icrease sympathy for his ideas is naive.

Flint said: Bah! Wood has two pegs, a round one and a square one. He lives in a world overflowing with round holes, and no square ones. He INSISTS on clinging to his square peg anyway. If he only tries hard enough, he'll find a hole that's round and square at the same time. This is called "honesty". I guess. But not even Elizabeth Liddle can argue that he's going wherever the evidence leads. Which is a different KIND of honesty. I guess.

harold said: I have referred to Wood, sarcastically, as the "only honest creationist". I don't consider him to be perfectly honest with himself, of course. However, he does come rather close to admitting that all the evidence is against what he believes, and that he arbitrarily chooses to believe it anyway. That is more honest than lying about the evidence.

Elizabeth Liddle said: Todd is a biologist, not a geologist. Perhaps if he looked more closely at geology he would be forced to agree with Sedgwick. But his field is biology, and right now, he is trying to find out whether there is a way that biological data can be accounted for within a model that is consistent with a literal reading of Genesis. As I said, that seems doomed, but not dishonest. He is not, that I can see, engaging in "smoke and mirrors". He simply believes that there must be a model that reconciles the two, because he believes both the data and that Genesis is the literal word of God. He refuses to pretend that such a model already exists, but nor has he thrown up his hands and given up looking. I don't know that is true of Kurt Wise.

Elizabeth Liddle said: Where is Todd "denying reality"? Where is he "trying to make others reject reality in favor of your pie in the sky daydreams"? It seems to me he is doing quite the opposite. He is insisting that the scientific consensus model holds up, and that the only reason at present to reject it is if you also regard Genesis as the literal word of God.

Elizabeth Liddle said:

Just Bob said: Is he an omphalos creationist? If so, that would preserve his honesty perfectly: Yes, the world looks old, because God MADE it look old, but He told us how old it REALLY is in scripture--so you can't even accuse Him of being deceptive. I believe I read that Wood fully acknowledges that the signs of great age that science knows about are real, and should not be disputed as in error by creationists. Tortured reasoning, sure, but not necessarily dishonest.

No. His reasoning, as I understand it, is that there must be another model that makes as much sense of the data. It does happen.

Just because a model is very well supported by evidence, doesn't mean that there isn't an alternative model that is even better supported. Todd is looking for that alternative model.

harold said:

To think that sympathy for the man won’t icrease sympathy for his ideas is naive.

By no means am I telling you what to do, I am merely clarifying my own view.

Why do we think our faith depends on these [creationist] arguments being true? Why can't we just let these things go and rest in our own experiences of the risen Lord?

Elizabeth Liddle said: Where is Todd "denying reality"? Where is he "trying to make others reject reality in favor of your pie in the sky daydreams

Why do we think our faith depends on these [creationist] arguments being true? Why can't we just let these things go and rest in our own experiences of the risen Lord?

One of the characteristics of ID/creationists that I have frequently noticed is that their “scientific” knowledge” appears to consist of little more than a set of memorized, disjointed facts. They can argue incessantly about “facts,” but they never seem to be able to grasp tightly interlocking relationships.

So they don’t know any physics and chemistry beyond what they may have heard in middle school; and they certainly don’t appear to understand the patterns of interrelationships in geology and biology.

If science to them is simply a set of memorized and disjointed “facts,” I would assume it is quite possible that an ID/creationist who is apparently aware of seemingly large sets of these disjointed facts could rationalize to themselves that the “facts” might be wrong, thereby permitting them to retreat to sectarian dogma “rationally.”

If one doesn’t understand the interrelationships – or, in fact, chooses not to learn or be aware of them – then any set of “facts” is just a set of assertions that might be wrong; therefore dogma is justified.

I have long suspected that all ID/creationists simply memorize things to get by. They can parrot, but they don’t really understand much of anything.

Mike Elzinga said: One of the characteristics of ID/creationists that I have frequently noticed is that their “scientific” knowledge” appears to consist of little more than a set of memorized, disjointed facts. They can argue incessantly about “facts,” but they never seem to be able to grasp tightly interlocking relationships. So they don’t know any physics and chemistry beyond what they may have heard in middle school; and they certainly don’t appear to understand the patterns of interrelationships in geology and biology. If science to them is simply a set of memorized and disjointed “facts,” I would assume it is quite possible that an ID/creationist who is apparently aware of seemingly large sets of these disjointed facts could rationalize to themselves that the “facts” might be wrong, thereby permitting them to retreat to sectarian dogma “rationally.” If one doesn’t understand the interrelationships – or, in fact, chooses not to learn or be aware of them – then any set of “facts” is just a set of assertions that might be wrong; therefore dogma is justified. I have long suspected that all ID/creationists simply memorize things to get by. They can parrot, but they don’t really understand much of anything.

phhht said:

Elizabeth Liddle said: Where is Todd "denying reality"? Where is he "trying to make others reject reality in favor of your pie in the sky daydreams

To the extent that Todd asserts the existence of gods, he denies reality. In reality, there are no more gods than there are unicorns or leprechauns.

To the extent that he advocates explanations based on the presumed existence of gods, he is trying to make others reject reality.

Todd wants to convince us of his view of reality based on "experiences of the risen Lord." He cannot or will not understand that such experiences, however personally compelling, need not have any connection whatsoever with reality.

phhht said: To the extent that Todd Wood asserts the existence of gods, he denies reality. In reality, there are no more gods than there are unicorns or leprechauns.

Elizabeth Liddle said: [S]cience can neither prove nor disprove the existence of gods ...

phhht said: To the extent that he advocates explanations based on the presumed existence of gods, he is trying to make others reject reality.

Elizabeth Liddle said: This is only true from the PoV of someone who rejects supernatural phenomena as being "reality". It's a defensible position - indeed I hold it - but I only hold it because I think supernatural models are superfluous, not because I think they have been demonstrated to be false. I don't think that second thing is actually possible.

phhht said: Todd Wood wants to convince us of his view of reality based on "experiences of the risen Lord." He cannot or will not understand that such experiences, however personally compelling, need not have any connection whatsoever with reality.

Elizabeth Liddle said: I think he understands that they "need not". I think he would disagree that they "do not".

I concur, with the proviso that it is reasonable to reject the truth of propositions for which there is no evidence. That’s why I reject the existence of the supernatural.

phhht said:

phhht said: To the extent that Todd Wood asserts the existence of gods, he denies reality. In reality, there are no more gods than there are unicorns or leprechauns.

Elizabeth Liddle said: [S]cience can neither prove nor disprove the existence of gods ...

Nor can it prove or disprove the existence of unicorns or leprechauns, yet we (I) have no problem whatsoever in saying that in reality, these things do not exist. In this regard, gods, unicorns, and leprechauns are distinct from apples, zebras, cosmic background radiation, and evo-devo. The distinction I want to draw is that the latter list is comprised of items which do exist.

I endorse phhht's comments. While I agree with you that supernatural explanations are indeed superfluous, that, I might add, is the rationale behind the demand from ID "theorists" like Behe and Johnson who contend that there should be a more expansive defintion of science so it could included the study of supernatural phenomena, however, by doing just that, they would distort science into something unrecognizable to generations of scientists.

I also hope you understand why I don't regard either Todd Wood or Kurt Wise as "honest creationists" since they refuse to acknowledge the overwhelming evidence before them that support the unifying theories of Plate Tectonics (Geology) and Modern Synthesis Theory of Evolution (which includes the Darwin-Wallace Theory of Evolution via Natural Selection) (Biology) that account for the geological and biological history of Planet Earth. If they were indeed "honest", then they would accept both scientific theories as our best scientific explanations for these histories of Plaent Earth, emulating the scores of religiously devout scientists who do. The only "honesty" I am willing to give them credit for is that they haven't gone out of their way to be pimps for their creationist mendacious intellectual pornography, unlike Michael Behe, Bill Dembski, Ken Ham, David Klinghoffer, Casey Luskin and others of their ilk.

Elizabeth Liddle said: Recall that one of the alleged properties of that God is of self-revelation to individual human beings.

Paul Burnett said:

Elizabeth Liddle said: Recall that one of the alleged properties of that God is of self-revelation to individual human beings.

Politely put. My wife is a psychologist - she uses other descriptors for people who hear voices in their head.

I think you need a better argument than “your model of reality is false” to refute the claim that God is real.

Elizabeth Liddle said:

Paul Burnett said:

Elizabeth Liddle said: Recall that one of the alleged properties of that God is of self-revelation to individual human beings.

Politely put. My wife is a psychologist - she uses other descriptors for people who hear voices in their head.

I'm also a psychologist. And I don't use pathological descriptors unless there is pathology.

TomS said: And I'd also note that when someone ascribes something to Divine revelation, it is not always in the form of "voices in their head".

Elizabeth Liddle said: The latter list [apples, zebras, cosmic background radiation, evo-devo] is comprised of models that independent observers readily agree are supported by data. The former [gods, unicorns, leprechauns] is a list of models that most independent observers do not agree are supported by data, and, in particular, do not make predictions that are reliably verified by new data.

Elizabeth Liddle said: But that is not the nice clean razor you want to apply. For example most people agree that the objects have colour properties drawn from a circular array of hues. A substantial minority do not. In other words, colour is a subjective experience, although we know quite a bit about why some people do not have tricolour vision. But people with less than tricolour vision do not deny that red and green do not exist. They simply claim that they cannot detect or experience them. What if the same is true of God? And, more to the point, what if those who have experience of what they call God regard it as real as the experience of red for those of us with tricolour vision? Or, even more pertinently, of colours inconceivable to most of us that are visible to the tiny minority with tetracolour vision?

I know of not one single shred of unequivocal, empirical evidence for the existence of gods - in clear distinction from apples, zebras, etc. Nor do I know of any explanation for the perception of gods - apart from pathology, of course.

John said: I also hope you understand why I don't regard either Todd Wood or Kurt Wise as "honest creationists" since they refuse to acknowledge the overwhelming evidence before them that support the unifying theories of Plate Tectonics (Geology) and Modern Synthesis Theory of Evolution (which includes the Darwin-Wallace Theory of Evolution via Natural Selection) (Biology) that account for the geological and biological history of Planet Earth. If they were indeed "honest", then they would accept both scientific theories as our best scientific explanations for these histories of Plaent Earth, emulating the scores of religiously devout scientists who do.

Todd Wood wrote: 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. I say these things not because I'm crazy or because I've "converted" to evolution. I say these things because they are true. I'm motivated this morning by reading yet another clueless, well-meaning person pompously declaring that evolution is a failure. People who say that are either unacquainted with the inner workings of science or unacquainted with the evidence for evolution. (Technically, they could also be deluded or lying, but that seems rather uncharitable to say. Oops.) Creationist students, listen to me very carefully: There is evidence for evolution, and evolution is an extremely successful scientific theory.

klwennstrom said: The Google cache of the page is still up. Text of the post: My letter to Governor Haslam I just sent this letter to Tennessee's governor, Bill Haslam. I'm sure it will win me a lot of adoration and acclaim from my fellow creationists. Enjoy! Dear Governor Haslam: My name is Todd Charles Wood, and I am a biology professor at Bryan College in Dayton, TN. You might recognize Bryan College as the Christian school named for William Jennings Bryan and founded in the wake of the Scopes Trial. (Please note that the opinions expressed in this letter are my own and do not represent the opinions of Bryan College.) I recently noted that the Tennessee state senate passed SB0893, the so-called "Monkey Bill" (ironically on William Jennings Bryan's birthday of all days). I am sure that you've already received quite a number of heated letters and phone calls about this bill. As you certainly know, critics of the bill view it as a thinly-veiled attempt to inject creationism into the public science classrooms. Because of my religious convictions, I am a committed creationist, but unlike many creationists, I have grown quite weary of the creation-evolution propaganda war. I believe this bill is an ideal example of what's wrong with the creation-evolution war. For example, since the bill clearly states that religious discussions are not protected, it could not be used to permit "some Sunday school teachers to hijack biology class by proxy," as the editorial in the March 21 edition of the Tennesseean suggested. On the other hand, my own reading of the bill indicates that it provides no protection that teachers don't already have. Teachers are already well within their rights to discuss any scientific evidence that pertains to the prescribed curriculum and to encourage critical thinking about it. Many already do. Any teacher trying to bring creationist arguments into a public science classroom will run afoul of legal precedent. Judge Jones's decision in Kitzmiller et al. v. Dover Area School District found that the anti-evolution arguments of Intelligent Design are a form of religiously-motivated creationism. The controversy surrounding the other issues mentioned by SB0893 (human cloning and climate change) are also permissible subjects to discuss in science classes already, and therefore do not need any additional protection. Thus, if critics are correct that this is an attempt to inject creationism into Tennessee science classes, the language is so vague and watered-down that it would be incapable of performing that task. Legally then, it seems that this bill is simply unnecessary. It does not directly challenge Kitzmiller v. Dover, and it does not offer any protection that does not already exist. Because the bill is useless, I ask you to veto it. Please do not allow Tennessee to become a pawn in the creation-evolution propaganda war. Respectfully yours, Todd Charles Wood Feedback? Email me at toddcharleswood [at] gmail [dot] com.

SWT said: Behold (from 2009):

Todd Wood wrote: 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. I say these things not because I'm crazy or because I've "converted" to evolution. I say these things because they are true. I'm motivated this morning by reading yet another clueless, well-meaning person pompously declaring that evolution is a failure. People who say that are either unacquainted with the inner workings of science or unacquainted with the evidence for evolution. (Technically, they could also be deluded or lying, but that seems rather uncharitable to say. Oops.) Creationist students, listen to me very carefully: There is evidence for evolution, and evolution is an extremely successful scientific theory.

Ray Martinez said: There is something terribly wrong when a "Creationist" writes something that can be ascribed to Richard Dawkins. Atheists: how does it feel to have your ass kissed by a YEC? Ray (Old Earth Paleyan IDist-species immutabilist)

An honest (at least relatively) creationist is condemned by Ray.

Does this surprise?

Glen Davidson

SWT said:

John said: I also hope you understand why I don't regard either Todd Wood or Kurt Wise as "honest creationists" since they refuse to acknowledge the overwhelming evidence before them that support the unifying theories of Plate Tectonics (Geology) and Modern Synthesis Theory of Evolution (which includes the Darwin-Wallace Theory of Evolution via Natural Selection) (Biology) that account for the geological and biological history of Planet Earth. If they were indeed "honest", then they would accept both scientific theories as our best scientific explanations for these histories of Plaent Earth, emulating the scores of religiously devout scientists who do.

Behold (from 2009):

Todd Wood wrote: 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. I say these things not because I'm crazy or because I've "converted" to evolution. I say these things because they are true. I'm motivated this morning by reading yet another clueless, well-meaning person pompously declaring that evolution is a failure. People who say that are either unacquainted with the inner workings of science or unacquainted with the evidence for evolution. (Technically, they could also be deluded or lying, but that seems rather uncharitable to say. Oops.) Creationist students, listen to me very carefully: There is evidence for evolution, and evolution is an extremely successful scientific theory.

Plus, an update from 2010.

Well spotted, Ray - there is indeed something terribly wrong. It's you, Ray.

Ray Martinez said: Behold (from 2009):

Todd Wood wrote: 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. I say these things not because I'm crazy or because I've "converted" to evolution. I say these things because they are true. I'm motivated this morning by reading yet another clueless, well-meaning person pompously declaring that evolution is a failure. People who say that are either unacquainted with the inner workings of science or unacquainted with the evidence for evolution. (Technically, they could also be deluded or lying, but that seems rather uncharitable to say. Oops.) Creationist students, listen to me very carefully: There is evidence for evolution, and evolution is an extremely successful scientific theory.

There is something terribly wrong when a "Creationist" writes something that can be ascribed to Richard Dawkins. Atheists: how does it feel to have your ass kissed by a YEC? Ray (Old Earth Paleyan IDist-species immutabilist)

SLC said: A former colleague of mine took a course in engineering economics from Morris at VPI and told me that he was the worst professor he ever had. He would spend the entire class period facing the blackboard and writing on it, never looking at the students or responding to questions.

He graduated from Rice University with a bachelor's degree in civil engineering in 1939.[2] He married Mary Louise on January 24, 1940, and they later had six children. After his graduation in 1939, and through 1942, he was a hydraulic engineer working with the International Boundary and Water Commission. He returned to Rice, teaching civil engineering from 1942 until 1946. In 1946 he wrote a short book entitled That You Might Believe (1946). From 1946 through 1951, he studied at the University of Minnesota, where he was awarded a master's degree in hydraulics (1948) and a Ph.D. in hydraulic engineering (1950). In 1951 he became a professor and chair of civil engineering at the University of Louisiana at Lafayette. He then served as a professor of applied science at Southern Illinois University, 1956—1957, and subsequently as professor of hydraulic engineering and in civil engineering at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University (Virginia Tech), again serving as the department chair. In 1963 Morris and nine others founded the Creation Research Society. After a dispute with the administration of the university[citation needed], Morris resigned from his position at Virginia Tech in 1969. In 1970, he co-founded the Christian Heritage College in Santee, California which spawned Institute for Creation Research (ICR) in 1972.

Chairman ------------ Henry Morris III

President ---------- John D. Morris

dalehusband said: BTW, look also at this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institute_for_Creation_Research It was founded by Henry M. Morris. And look who its leaders are today: his sons!

Chairman ------------ Henry Morris III

President ---------- John D. Morris

I thought nepotism was unethical.

dalehusband said: If he was such a terrible professor, why was he not fired? This is why I don't like the idea of granting tenure to anyone at a university.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad said: An honest (at least relatively) creationist is condemned by Ray. Does this surprise? Glen Davidson

Tenncrain said:

Ray Martinez said: Behold (from 2009):

Todd Wood wrote: 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. I say these things not because I'm crazy or because I've "converted" to evolution. I say these things because they are true. I'm motivated this morning by reading yet another clueless, well-meaning person pompously declaring that evolution is a failure. People who say that are either unacquainted with the inner workings of science or unacquainted with the evidence for evolution. (Technically, they could also be deluded or lying, but that seems rather uncharitable to say. Oops.) Creationist students, listen to me very carefully: There is evidence for evolution, and evolution is an extremely successful scientific theory.

There is something terribly wrong when a "Creationist" writes something that can be ascribed to Richard Dawkins. Atheists: how does it feel to have your ass kissed by a YEC? Ray (Old Earth Paleyan IDist-species immutabilist)

Here's a short video of theist and mainstream biologist Ken Miller giving some praise to atheist Richard Dawkins.

Oh wow, Ray repeats his idiotic dishonesty and compares what I wrote to his moronic lies.

How Ray-like. Always missing the point, always stupid, always dishonest, always hateful.

Glen Davidson

Ray Martinez said:

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad said: An honest (at least relatively) creationist is condemned by Ray. Does this surprise? Glen Davidson

It is impossible to be a Creationist and a Evolutionist at the same time. Wood is not honest. Your inability, Glen, to see the logical impossibility does not surprise. Evolutionists, in addition to being dishonest, are mentally handicapped.

DS said:

Ray Martinez said:

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad said: An honest (at least relatively) creationist is condemned by Ray. Does this surprise? Glen Davidson

It is impossible to be a Creationist and a Evolutionist at the same time. Wood is not honest. Your inability, Glen, to see the logical impossibility does not surprise. Evolutionists, in addition to being dishonest, are mentally handicapped.

He is honest about the evidence for evolution. You should take the hint Ray.

Ray Martinez said:

Tenncrain said:

Ray Martinez said: Behold (from 2009):

Todd Wood wrote: 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. I say these things not because I'm crazy or because I've "converted" to evolution. I say these things because they are true. I'm motivated this morning by reading yet another clueless, well-meaning person pompously declaring that evolution is a failure. People who say that are either unacquainted with the inner workings of science or unacquainted with the evidence for evolution. (Technically, they could also be deluded or lying, but that seems rather uncharitable to say. Oops.) Creationist students, listen to me very carefully: There is evidence for evolution, and evolution is an extremely successful scientific theory.

There is something terribly wrong when a "Creationist" writes something that can be ascribed to Richard Dawkins. Atheists: how does it feel to have your ass kissed by a YEC? Ray (Old Earth Paleyan IDist-species immutabilist)

Here's a short video of theist and mainstream biologist Ken Miller giving some praise to atheist Richard Dawkins.

A real Theist would never kiss the ass of any Atheist, most of all Dawkins. I offer the praise of Dawkins by Miller as solid evidence that Miller is not a Theist, but a fellow Atheist.

Ray Martinez said:

DS said:

Ray Martinez said:

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad said: An honest (at least relatively) creationist is condemned by Ray. Does this surprise? Glen Davidson

It is impossible to be a Creationist and a Evolutionist at the same time. Wood is not honest. Your inability, Glen, to see the logical impossibility does not surprise. Evolutionists, in addition to being dishonest, are mentally handicapped.

He is honest about the evidence for evolution. You should take the hint Ray.

Since we already know Evolutionists think evidence exists supporting evolution, what's the point?

dalehusband said: rofessor, why was he not fired? This is why I don't like the idea of granting tenure to anyone at a university.

John said:

dalehusband said: rofessor, why was he not fired? This is why I don't like the idea of granting tenure to anyone at a university.

Morris was a good speaker, in a folksy way, when I heard him debate Ken Miller at Brown's hockey rink back in the Spring of 1981. His speaking abilities, however, were no match for Ken Miller or those of us - including yours truly - who asked Morris "mean questions" (That is according to the delusional creotard undergraduates in attendance who thought we were "mean" to kindly, fatherly, old Dr. Henry Morris.

DS said:

Ray Martinez said:

DS said:

Ray Martinez said:

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad said: An honest (at least relatively) creationist is condemned by Ray. Does this surprise? Glen Davidson

It is impossible to be a Creationist and a Evolutionist at the same time. Wood is not honest. Your inability, Glen, to see the logical impossibility does not surprise. Evolutionists, in addition to being dishonest, are mentally handicapped.

He is honest about the evidence for evolution. You should take the hint Ray.

Since we already know Evolutionists think evidence exists supporting evolution, what's the point?

The point is that it's the truth as anyone can plainly see. To deny this is simply dishonest, for anyone.

Tenncrain said:

Ray Martinez said:

Tenncrain said:

Ray Martinez said: Behold (from 2009):

Todd Wood wrote: 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. I say these things not because I'm crazy or because I've "converted" to evolution. I say these things because they are true. I'm motivated this morning by reading yet another clueless, well-meaning person pompously declaring that evolution is a failure. People who say that are either unacquainted with the inner workings of science or unacquainted with the evidence for evolution. (Technically, they could also be deluded or lying, but that seems rather uncharitable to say. Oops.) Creationist students, listen to me very carefully: There is evidence for evolution, and evolution is an extremely successful scientific theory.

There is something terribly wrong when a "Creationist" writes something that can be ascribed to Richard Dawkins. Atheists: how does it feel to have your ass kissed by a YEC? Ray (Old Earth Paleyan IDist-species immutabilist)

Here's a short video of theist and mainstream biologist Ken Miller giving some praise to atheist Richard Dawkins.

A real Theist would never kiss the ass of any Atheist, most of all Dawkins. I offer the praise of Dawkins by Miller as solid evidence that Miller is not a Theist, but a fellow Atheist.

Miller an atheist?!? Did you even check the link? You would have seen that Miller very much disagrees with Dawkins (and vice versa) on philosophy/theology even if they generally agree on scientific matters. I'm just a lowly ex-YEC, but I get the impression Miller draws his own conclusions about his scientific and theological views. Oh, the video is almost 5 minutes long, yet there were only 3 minutes between between your reply to the post about Miller and your previous post. How do you explain this? Perhaps you checked the link long before you started posting, anyway we're all ears.

Why does Ray want to drive educated people away from Christianity?

Tenncrain said:

John said:

dalehusband said: rofessor, why was he not fired? This is why I don't like the idea of granting tenure to anyone at a university.

Morris was a good speaker, in a folksy way, when I heard him debate Ken Miller at Brown's hockey rink back in the Spring of 1981. His speaking abilities, however, were no match for Ken Miller or those of us - including yours truly - who asked Morris "mean questions" (That is according to the delusional creotard undergraduates in attendance who thought we were "mean" to kindly, fatherly, old Dr. Henry Morris.

It's reported Miller also more than held his own when debating Duane Gish. Anyway, according to historian Ronald Numbers, Morris confided having deteriorating relations with his bosses at (now) Virginia Tech. Numbers mentioned it was mainly 'administrative' issues, although Morris being so outspoken about his YEC/Flood Geology views didn't exactly help. Feeling the heat, Morris went on voluntary sabbatical from Virginia Tech and later decided to leave teaching to be a full-time YEC promoter which of course led to him founding the ICR.

Henry J said: Why does Ray want to drive educated people away from Christianity?

Ray Martinez said: Real Christians accept Biblical assumptions.

Ray Martinez said:

Tenncrain said:

Ray Martinez said:

Tenncrain said:

Ray Martinez said: Behold (from 2009):

Todd Wood wrote: 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. I say these things not because I'm crazy or because I've "converted" to evolution. I say these things because they are true. I'm motivated this morning by reading yet another clueless, well-meaning person pompously declaring that evolution is a failure. People who say that are either unacquainted with the inner workings of science or unacquainted with the evidence for evolution. (Technically, they could also be deluded or lying, but that seems rather uncharitable to say. Oops.) Creationist students, listen to me very carefully: There is evidence for evolution, and evolution is an extremely successful scientific theory.

There is something terribly wrong when a "Creationist" writes something that can be ascribed to Richard Dawkins. Atheists: how does it feel to have your ass kissed by a YEC? Ray (Old Earth Paleyan IDist-species immutabilist)

Here's a short video of theist and mainstream biologist Ken Miller giving some praise to atheist Richard Dawkins.

A real Theist would never kiss the ass of any Atheist, most of all Dawkins. I offer the praise of Dawkins by Miller as solid evidence that Miller is not a Theist, but a fellow Atheist.

Miller an atheist?!? Did you even check the link? You would have seen that Miller very much disagrees with Dawkins (and vice versa) on philosophy/theology even if they generally agree on scientific matters. I'm just a lowly ex-YEC, but I get the impression Miller draws his own conclusions about his scientific and theological views. Oh, the video is almost 5 minutes long, yet there were only 3 minutes between between your reply to the post about Miller and your previous post. How do you explain this? Perhaps you checked the link long before you started posting, anyway we're all ears.

Any Christian who accepts the assumptions of Naturalism to explain nature and evidence the same becomes incontrovertible evidence supporting the fact that this person is not a real Christian but an Atheist. Real Christians accept Biblical assumptions. Your point says Miller is a Deist, in the context of claiming he is Christian. The contradiction seen here demands explanation.

Tenncrain said:

Ray Martinez said:

Tenncrain said:

Ray Martinez said:

Tenncrain said:

Ray Martinez said: Behold (from 2009):

Todd Wood wrote: 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. I say these things not because I'm crazy or because I've "converted" to evolution. I say these things because they are true. I'm motivated this morning by reading yet another clueless, well-meaning person pompously declaring that evolution is a failure. People who say that are either unacquainted with the inner workings of science or unacquainted with the evidence for evolution. (Technically, they could also be deluded or lying, but that seems rather uncharitable to say. Oops.) Creationist students, listen to me very carefully: There is evidence for evolution, and evolution is an extremely successful scientific theory.

There is something terribly wrong when a "Creationist" writes something that can be ascribed to Richard Dawkins. Atheists: how does it feel to have your ass kissed by a YEC? Ray (Old Earth Paleyan IDist-species immutabilist)

Here's a short video of theist and mainstream biologist Ken Miller giving some praise to atheist Richard Dawkins.

A real Theist would never kiss the ass of any Atheist, most of all Dawkins. I offer the praise of Dawkins by Miller as solid evidence that Miller is not a Theist, but a fellow Atheist.

Miller an atheist?!? Did you even check the link? You would have seen that Miller very much disagrees with Dawkins (and vice versa) on philosophy/theology even if they generally agree on scientific matters. I'm just a lowly ex-YEC, but I get the impression Miller draws his own conclusions about his scientific and theological views. Oh, the video is almost 5 minutes long, yet there were only 3 minutes between between your reply to the post about Miller and your previous post. How do you explain this? Perhaps you checked the link long before you started posting, anyway we're all ears.

Any Christian who accepts the assumptions of Naturalism to explain nature and evidence the same becomes incontrovertible evidence supporting the fact that this person is not a real Christian but an Atheist. Real Christians accept Biblical assumptions. Your point says Miller is a Deist, in the context of claiming he is Christian. The contradiction seen here demands explanation.

Thanks for in effect confirming you didn't even check the link! Do you always run from material you think might conflict with your prior commitments? Miller and theists like him believe in an active God. Miller is not even close to being a deist (your use of strawman noted). Miller and other theists simply let theology apply only to theological realms and let science apply only to scientific matters. You might check out his popular book 'Finding Darwin's God' to learn about his actual theological beliefs instead of what you just think he believes. His book also has a lot of good science although Finding Darwin's God is over a decade old; his more recent 'Only A Theory' has more updated science.

It is an incontrovertible fact that Ray Martinez speaks for no deity.

Mike Elzinga said: It is an incontrovertible fact that Ray Martinez speaks for no deity.

RWard said:

Mike Elzinga said: It is an incontrovertible fact that Ray Martinez speaks for no deity.

We each create our god in our own image. Ray's is a rather unpleasant fellow.

Ray Martinez said: These comments confirm the facts: Miller accepts the Atheist explanation of nature. I offer the fact as evidence supporting the fact that Miller is not a real Christian. Real Christians and real Atheists accept diametrically different explanations of nature. The fact that our Evolutionist (Tenncrain) is unable to understand this basic fact of logic once again supports the fact that Evolutionists are mentally handicapped (stupid people). This is what happens when God is given the finger; one becomes a moron without any awareness of the fact. A delusion is surely at work, only it is working on those who beieve in evolution, not God.

BTW, when you guys "Reply" to a comment, would you be so kind as to trim the ancient "blockquotes"? The system doesn't show more than 3, so any more than that is a waste. It just makes it that much more difficult to form a reply. Thanks.

Scott F said:

Ray Martinez said: These comments confirm the facts: Miller accepts the Atheist explanation of nature. I offer the fact as evidence supporting the fact that Miller is not a real Christian. Real Christians and real Atheists accept diametrically different explanations of nature. The fact that our Evolutionist (Tenncrain) is unable to understand this basic fact of logic once again supports the fact that Evolutionists are mentally handicapped (stupid people). This is what happens when God is given the finger; one becomes a moron without any awareness of the fact. A delusion is surely at work, only it is working on those who beieve in evolution, not God.

Notice that Ray not only gives himself license to define what a "Real Christian"(tm) is, but he also gets to define what a "Real Atheist"(tm) is. He probably has a few handy definitions in his back pocket for a "True Republican"(tm) and a "True American"(tm), a "True Man"(tm), a "True Woman"(tm) and a "True Scotsman"(tm). (It's not what you think!)

dalehusband said:

SLC said: A former colleague of mine took a course in engineering economics from Morris at VPI and told me that he was the worst professor he ever had. He would spend the entire class period facing the blackboard and writing on it, never looking at the students or responding to questions.

Read all about him here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_M._Morris

He graduated from Rice University with a bachelor's degree in civil engineering in 1939.[2] He married Mary Louise on January 24, 1940, and they later had six children. After his graduation in 1939, and through 1942, he was a hydraulic engineer working with the International Boundary and Water Commission. He returned to Rice, teaching civil engineering from 1942 until 1946. In 1946 he wrote a short book entitled That You Might Believe (1946). From 1946 through 1951, he studied at the University of Minnesota, where he was awarded a master's degree in hydraulics (1948) and a Ph.D. in hydraulic engineering (1950). In 1951 he became a professor and chair of civil engineering at the University of Louisiana at Lafayette. He then served as a professor of applied science at Southern Illinois University, 1956—1957, and subsequently as professor of hydraulic engineering and in civil engineering at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University (Virginia Tech), again serving as the department chair. In 1963 Morris and nine others founded the Creation Research Society. After a dispute with the administration of the university[citation needed], Morris resigned from his position at Virginia Tech in 1969. In 1970, he co-founded the Christian Heritage College in Santee, California which spawned Institute for Creation Research (ICR) in 1972.

If he was such a terrible professor, why was he not fired? This is why I don't like the idea of granting tenure to anyone at a university.

The fact that our Evolutionist (Tenncrain) is unable to understand this basic fact of logic once again supports the fact that Evolutionists are mentally handicapped (stupid people).

— Ray

Frank J said: Note to others: I am deliberately using Ray's dictionary, because he refuses to acknowledge anyone else's. More reasonable people, including most evolution-deniers, would call Miller a theist, not even a Deist. He in fact criticized Deism in "Finding Darwin's God."

Frank J said:

The fact that our Evolutionist (Tenncrain) is unable to understand this basic fact of logic once again supports the fact that Evolutionists are mentally handicapped (stupid people).

— Ray the insane creotard barked

But not necessarily atheists, correct? Last I heard you consider Miller an atheist and an evolutionist, but Behe just an evolutionist but not an atheist. Is that still current, and may I concluse that you consider Wood an evolutionist but not an atheist? Note to others: I am deliberately using Ray's dictionary, because he refuses to acknowledge anyone else's. More reasonable people, including most evolution-deniers, would call Miller a theist, not even a Deist. He in fact criticized Deism in "Finding Darwin's God." And they would not call Behe an "evolutionist" because he's a career activist against evolution and "evolutionists, despite his acceptance of common descent.

Mike Elzinga said: It is an incontrovertible fact that Ray Martinez speaks for no deity.

Scott F said: Notice that Ray not only gives himself license to define what a "Real Christian"(tm) is, but he also gets to define what a "Real Atheist"(tm) is. [....]

Behe is that rarity of rarities, an IDiot who accepts the reality of common descent.

— John

Ray Martinez said:

Scott F said: Notice that Ray not only gives himself license to define what a "Real Christian"(tm) is, but he also gets to define what a "Real Atheist"(tm) is. [....]

Imagine that; Scott's epistemology says it is not possible to define a real Christian and real Atheist!

I propose that a real Christian is defined as a person who accepts and promotes the Biblical version of reality; and a real Atheist is defined as a person who opposes the Biblical version of reality.

Ray Martinez said:

Mike Elzinga said: It is an incontrovertible fact that Ray Martinez speaks for no deity.

Mike: Stop evading with irrelevancies. Where did you obtain the idea that Ken Miller is a Christian? and Todd Wood a Creationist?

A person who makes up his own definitions for commonly understood terms, e.g."a real Atheist is defined as a person who opposes the Biblical version of reality," is apparently living in a different reality from the rest of us. ALL the rest of us. Even literalist/fundamentalist/evangelicals.

We all define "atheist" pretty much as any standard dictionary does. Look it up.

Now, what's the word I'm thinking of... someone who lives in his own, idiosyncratic version of reality, shared by no one else? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?

Ray Martinez said: I propose that a real Christian is defined as a person who accepts and promotes the Biblical version of reality; and a real Atheist is defined as a person who opposes the Biblical version of reality.

rossum said:

Ray Martinez said: I propose that a real Christian is defined as a person who accepts and promotes the Biblical version of reality; and a real Atheist is defined as a person who opposes the Biblical version of reality.

Hmmm... So all Muslims and all Hindus are "real Atheists". Let me get back to you on that, Ray.

@TomS and Rossum:

Ray always evades my requests to clarify, but so far his only operational criteria for "atheist" has to do with whether they promote doubt of evolution, not what they believe. To my knowledge, and I have been following his antics for years, he has never applied the "atheist" label to anyone who promotes doubt of evolution - even if he calls them "evolutionists" or says that they're "in our camp." So, in Ray's book, Ken Miller (devout Christian) is an "atheist evolutionist", while Mike Behe (who seems less sure than Miller that the designer is God) is just an "evolutionist".

Now sometimes he does use "athests" and "evolutionists" interchangeably, but that's just one example of many that anti-evolution activists try to have both ways.

Ray Martinez said: It is impossible to be a Creationist and a Evolutionist at the same time. Wood is not honest. Your inability, Glen, to see the logical impossibility does not surprise. Evolutionists, in addition to being dishonest, are mentally handicapped.

A real Theist would never kiss the ass of any Atheist, most of all Dawkins. I offer the praise of Dawkins by Miller as solid evidence that Miller is not a Theist, but a fellow Atheist.

Since we already know Evolutionists think evidence exists supporting evolution, what’s the point? Only Evolutionists believe evidence exists supporting evolution. In response our Evolutionist plays the “agree with us or you are dishonest” card.

We are relieved to be considered dishonest by persons who think apes morphed into men over the course of millions of years.

Any Christian who accepts the assumptions of Naturalism to explain nature and evidence the same becomes incontrovertible evidence supporting the fact that this person is not a real Christian but an Atheist.

Real Christians accept Biblical assumptions.

Your point says Miller is a Deist, in the context of claiming he is Christian. The contradiction seen here demands explanation.

These comments confirm the facts: Miller accepts the Atheist explanation of nature. I offer the fact as evidence supporting the fact that Miller is not a real Christian. Real Christians and real Atheists accept diametrically different explanations of nature. The fact that our Evolutionist (Tenncrain) is unable to understand this basic fact of logic once again supports the fact that Evolutionists are mentally handicapped (stupid people). This is what happens when God is given the finger; one becomes a moron without any awareness of the fact. A delusion is surely at work, only it is working on those who beieve in evolution, not God.

Mike: Stop evading with irrelevancies. Where did you obtain the idea that Ken Miller is a Christian? and Todd Wood a Creationist? http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/mi[…]_hitler.html “My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God’s truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter.” –Adolf Hitler (1922) As we can see, anyone can claim to be a Christian (and Creationist).

Imagine that; Scott’s epistemology says it is not possible to define a real Christian and real Atheist!

I propose that a real Christian is defined as a person who accepts and promotes the Biblical version of reality; and a real Atheist is defined as a person who opposes the Biblical version of reality.

I've been reading posts from Ray Martinez for a very long time. He was never very engaged with reality, and that hasn't changed, but now he seems increasingly bitter. I suspect there's an emotional cost to being always wrong. The legal and intellectual defeats must wear on a man.

Dave Luckett said: Well spotted, Ray - there is indeed something terribly wrong. It's you, Ray.

Just Bob said: Now, what's the word I'm thinking of... someone who lives in his own, idiosyncratic version of reality, shared by no one else? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?

RWard said: I've been reading posts from Ray Martinez for a very long time. He was never very engaged with reality, and that hasn't changed, but now he seems increasingly bitter. I suspect there's an emotional cost to being always wrong. The legal and intellectual defeats must wear on a man.

RWard said: I've been reading posts from Ray Martinez for a very long time. He was never very engaged with reality, and that hasn't changed,

but now he [Ray] seems increasingly bitter. I suspect there's an emotional cost to being always wrong. The legal and intellectual defeats must wear on a man.

rossum said:

Ray Martinez said: I propose that a real Christian is defined as a person who accepts and promotes the Biblical version of reality; and a real Atheist is defined as a person who opposes the Biblical version of reality.

Hmmm... So all Muslims and all Hindus are "real Atheists". Let me get back to you on that, Ray.

John said:

Just Bob said: Now, what's the word I'm thinking of... someone who lives in his own, idiosyncratic version of reality, shared by no one else? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?

I nominate Ben Stein, IBIG, Ray Martinez, FL, SteveP., Bill Dumbski, Mikey Behe, Casey Luskin, Ken Ham, among many, many others, who exists within "his own, idosyncratic, version of reality".

John said:

RWard said: I've been reading posts from Ray Martinez for a very long time. He was never very engaged with reality, and that hasn't changed, but now he seems increasingly bitter. I suspect there's an emotional cost to being always wrong. The legal and intellectual defeats must wear on a man.

More like psychologicall[y] unhinged. I guess he hasn't taking his "Mind Off Jesus" pill yet.

Ray Martinez the delusional creotard and preeminent Liar for Jesus crowed:

John said:

RWard said: I've been reading posts from Ray Martinez for a very long time. He was never very engaged with reality, and that hasn't changed, but now he seems increasingly bitter. I suspect there's an emotional cost to being always wrong. The legal and intellectual defeats must wear on a man.

More like psychologicall[y] unhinged. I guess he hasn't taking his "Mind Off Jesus" pill yet.

In context this means Ken Miller and Todd Wood have taken that pill---exactly what I have been saying and arguing in this thread, thanks John.

Ray Martinez the clueless delusional creotard Liar for Jesus barked:

John said:

Just Bob said: Now, what's the word I'm thinking of... someone who lives in his own, idiosyncratic version of reality, shared by no one else? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?

I nominate Ben Stein, IBIG, Ray Martinez, FL, SteveP., Bill Dumbski, Mikey Behe, Casey Luskin, Ken Ham, among many, many others, who exists within "his own, idosyncratic, version of reality".

Dembski, Behe, Luskin, and Ham accept the concepts of natural selection, microevolution, macroevolution and common descent to exist in nature. In other words the Fundies and the DI are in bed with Darwin and Dawkins. Atheists: Just be glad that you're on top. RM (Protestant Evangelical, Old Earth, Paleyan IDist-species immutabilist, and strong supporter of President Obama)

Just Bob said:

Ray Martinez said: Real Christians accept Biblical assumptions.

Assumptions. Interesting word, that. I'll wager that the only "Biblical assumptions" that you'll permit any "real Christian" to have are the same ones YOU have. What a coincidence. Do you know how many thousands of Christian denominations there are already? Do you know why there are so many? The ostensible reason is that they all assume DIFFERENT things about the Bible (although the real reason for many schisms is simply power plays).

Which denomination did your church most recently split from, Ray? Don’t you assume that the Bible permits acceptance of an old Earth? Most CHRISTIAN trolls here don’t assume that at all.

John said:

Ray Martinez the clueless delusional creotard Liar for Jesus barked:

John said:

Just Bob said: Now, what's the word I'm thinking of... someone who lives in his own, idiosyncratic version of reality, shared by no one else? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?

I nominate Ben Stein, IBIG, Ray Martinez, FL, SteveP., Bill Dumbski, Mikey Behe, Casey Luskin, Ken Ham, among many, many others, who exists within "his own, idosyncratic, version of reality".

Dembski, Behe, Luskin, and Ham accept the concepts of natural selection, microevolution, macroevolution and common descent to exist in nature. In other words the Fundies and the DI are in bed with Darwin and Dawkins. Atheists: Just be glad that you're on top. RM (Protestant Evangelical, Old Earth, Paleyan IDist-species immutabilist, and strong supporter of President Obama)

Ken Ham is a YEC, and I am sure you know that if you've checked his Answers in Genesis website. JK (Deist, former evolutionary biologist, Conservative Republican, POTUS critic)

Ray Martinez said: Almost all accept Scripture to be the inspired word of God, Christ Incarnate, Crucified, Resurrected, Apostolic authority, miracles, the way of faith as opposed to works (compliance to a code of conduct).

Ray Martinez said: Darwinian evolution (the only evolution ever accepted by science) says all these things are completely false.

An old-earth creationist who believes in the immutability of species. How does that work? Do you believe that Rana pipiens was around in the Precambrian?

Tenncrain said: Will Ray ever read Miller's Finding Darwin's God to discover that Miller actually accepts an active God, rejects deism, rejects Richard Dawkins's views on philosophy and theology?

Ray Martinez said: Muslims and Hindus consider Christians to be infidels.

Dembski, Behe, Luskin, and Ham accept the concepts of natural selection, microevolution, macroevolution and common descent to exist in nature. In other words the Fundies and the DI are in bed with Darwin and Dawkins. Atheists: Just be glad that you’re on top. RM (Protestant Evangelical, Old Earth, Paleyan IDist-species immutabilist, and strong supporter of President Obama)

Almost all [Christians] accept Scripture to be the inspired word of God, Christ Incarnate, Crucified, Resurrected, Apostolic authority, miracles, the way of faith as opposed to works (compliance to a code of conduct). Darwinian evolution (the only evolution ever accepted by science) says all these things are completely false.

Ham and all YECs accept the existence of natural selection, microevolution, limited macroevolution and common descent. Again, the Fundies are in bed with Darwin and Dawkins (Thank God).

With the entrance of Ray this thread seems to be deteriorating. I'll leave it open for a while, but it's on its last legs.

Richard B. Hoppe said: With the entrance of Ray this thread seems to be deteriorating. I'll leave it open for a while, but it's on its last legs.

Richard B. Hoppe said:

Richard B. Hoppe said: With the entrance of Ray this thread seems to be deteriorating. I'll leave it open for a while, but it's on its last legs.

Oops. That got posted in the wrong thread. Sorry.

dalehusband said: You mean he is infesting another one?

We need a Texas sized fly swatter.

So the question is, why don’t you also accept the existence of natural selection, microevolution, limited macroevolution and common descent? Aren’t you a YEC? Or maybe you also believe in a flat Earth too?

— dale husband

Frank J said:

Behe is that rarity of rarities, an IDiot who accepts the reality of common descent.

— John

I'd agree if you said "admits" instead of "accepts." I can't read minds but I think that most DI folk privately accept CD, but know better than to admit it to the "big tent."

Here's a link to a radio interview held earlier today featuring Genie Scott of NCSE about this bill:

http://thedianerehmshow.org/audio-player?nid=15873