Todd Wood on Evolution

Todd Wood – as many of you will know – is a YEC baraminologist who is a protegee of Kurt Wise. His blog is worth a read as he often takes on some of the sillier anti-evolutionary stuff that is out there (e.g. here). Today he writes:

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.

Then he states something that very much echoes what Wise has said in the past:

It is my own faith choice to reject evolution, because I believe the Bible reveals true information about the history of the earth that is fundamentally incompatible with evolution. I am motivated to understand God’s creation from what I believe to be a biblical, creationist perspective.

Despite his acceptance of the evidence for evolution, the Bible still trumps all.


8 thoughts on “Todd Wood on Evolution

  1. One has to have some respect for creationists in the Kurt Wise mold. I stridently disagree with their position that evidence can be dismissed purely on faith grounds. But at least they’re honest. They’re a rare type of creationist: Creationists who don’t lie through their teeth every chance they get.

  2. I have to admire the honestly of creationists like this guy. However anyone so willing to put the words of a book before evidence scares the pants off me. It’s a mindset that can lead to some very unpleasant outcomes.

  3. I concur. Wise deserves the respect due anyone who would cede authority to science, biology and the way of things as revealed by scientific inquiry.

    Yet I am left not knowing what to say. Perhaps, “Well, there your go.” Or, “What else do you need to know?” Maybe, “There’s no accounting for taste.”

    For some the promise of mystery unknown is more attractive than the mystery of what is know. I always thought that the later held more promise. Probably why I am left not knowing what to say. Curse of the realist.

  4. I too have respect for Wise. But may I argue it’s worthwhile to focus on the antithetical. The vast hordes of creationsts not only are constant liars, intentionally or unknowingly, but behaving in a highly amoral way.

    Given their public obsession with morality, this hypocrisy and more.tactically adds up to political vunerabilty.

    The left could learn a lot by watching how successful the right twists them up into energy draining pretzels by accussing them of violating their own code of behavior. “I came here for the free excjange of ideas, and look what I got.” This is especially noticeable in the blogosphere.

    I’ve yet to see a well-organized campaign to undermine a Right Wing Inc. leader/spokesperson using their audience’s own strongly held values/morals. Without an audience there’s no money. There’s no reason for being. Eventually there’s a sign-off.

    I’m not talking about engaging in the content such leaders serve up as meat to chew on, but focusing on deviations between the media star’s behavior and the audience’s true moral system.

    Success is judged by how much the mechanism gets gummed up.

    [No comment preview?]

  5. Despite his acceptance of the evidence for evolution, the Bible still trumps all.

    Actually, it’s one narrow interpretation out of many many different interpretations of the Bible that still trumps all.

  6. From what I have read of Wood and Wise they seem to mean that Evolution has a lot of evidence if one assumes some form of Naturalism. I think there also may be a tinge of anti-realism to their philosophy of science, though I could be wrong about that.

    Blake Reas

  7. I like this Wood guy. His post is honest and might mean that there are cases in which we can have a discussion about what one ought to believe without having to discuss that stupid canard about the second law of thermodynamics. This debate has never *really* been about whether there is sufficient evidence for evolution; it’s about what kind of evidence one takes to be authoritative. I think Wood is wrong, but he’s at least not making me explain transitional forms for the zillionth time and it’s crystal clear where the disagreement is located.

Comments are closed.