You go to far. It’s not “massive”. It’s not “exponential”. The ranks have experienced “crumbling” when a noted personality leaves the ranks or express sincere doubt. And we definitely see “major flaws” in the evolutionary paradigm at least yearly, sometimes more often than that. You have overstated your position.
Sorry, I don’t have transcripts of multiple private conversations. I retract nothing. Ask him yourself.
I just contacted Todd Wood.
Todd Wood, you are a hit on Peaceful Science today but someone is claiming to be your long-time friend - a Kenneth Turner - and is probably misquoting you, unless you truly believe the micro-vs-macroevolution distinction is a “joke”.
It sure would be nice to hear from you, or even at Peaceful Science to clear up the matter. I know you are different in your views, but I think Kenneth Turner (possibly others) have taken undue liberties and read-into your most recent blog post."
I also supplied him the link.
Thanks for doing this. Seems like the most productive way to resolve this.
Great. I hope you post his reply.
Now for some nuance. The most normative understanding of “micro-evolution” is at or under the level of species. So any “evolution” above this level is “macro-evolution.” But the standard modern YEC understanding allows for “evolution” (though they prefer terms like “adaptation”) well above this taxonomic level, including family or even higher. So, by standard definition, YEC allows for “macro-evolution” (look up Paul Garner for some proof). Obviously, YEC maintains limits at some point.
(Interestingly, standard OEC models allow for less “evolution” than YECs!)
That’s not what I wrote. I discussed “anti-evolution” idols. Many YEC I know are not anti-evolution. Don’t you agree that Jesus is greater than your opposition to evolution?
Yes, Todd is quite aware of definitions.
When did Todd Wood tell you that the micro-macroevolution distinction is a “joke”?
He didn’t use the word “joke” for this, but he told me (among other things) that he disagreed with the normal micro vs. macro distinction in 2011-2012.
are you aware that the standard definition of “macro-evolution” is at or above the species level? if so, do you agree that “evolution” includes speciation and then some? (if so, you agree with macro-evolution)
We can find the quote. I would not misquote you.
Yes we can find the quote. See here. Note, as well, that I never said YEC-idols. You certainly did misquote me. I said anti-evolution idols:
One of the clear tells is that you are willing to work with OECs to discuss an old earth as a possible interpretation, but you won’t do the same with Christians that affirm evolution. That double talk it not honest or good faith.
You have the presupposition that evolution is in conflict with Scripture, but that presupposition can’t be found in Scripture. Someday I hope you are willing to trust God’s Word over your own presuppositions.
I’d like @r_speir to explain his exegesis of texts and what especially he finds about evolution that is in conflict with Scripture. I’m curious if it’s different or similar to my views.
To be fair:
I think you did clarify that you are not saying it is, but I would caution you that I do think you project your experience onto what you think others’ motivations might be. I understand this because I’m judgmental this way too. I sort of think we have a similar personality.
It’s been 13 hours and you appear to have moved on from your quest to find this quote. Do you have the character to admit you were wrong and - dare I suggest - even apologize?
I found only this and it corroborates Dr. S’s claim:
My accusation was this:
This would not normally require an apology if it was only a recollection of an event. But I did use quotes and I insisted that Dr. S specifically used the term “YEC idols”, which is not the case. Therefore, I can only admit my culpability.
@swamidass, you have my apology in this matter. You did accuse me of following anti-evolution idols, not YEC idols. My apology is in sincerity and I do not want to mitigate my guilt, but sheesh, that is a hefty accusation on your part that I follow idols. Stranger yet, is how millions across the planet are apparently in the same idolatrous cult as I, at least according to you.
I apologize to you just the same.
@thoughtful I realize this is important to do. I have tried to do that some on the previous thread
See my comments this morning and @3flames as well. However, I do have more Scriptures that I believe might forbid a belief in evolution. Some are controversial and I would probably be censored if we got into a serious theological discussion that starting offending people. Let’s compare notes the best we can.
I saw some of that. However, I wouldn’t invoke any of that, so we are probably on different pages
I challenge you to reconsider 1 Corinthians 4:6, Paul’s injunction “not to go beyond what is written”. It is a powerful testament that the Torah and the Prophets were not to be added to by any form of worldly gain of knowledge or wisdom - that would include any rewriting of ancient history and any novel scientific discovery [that is, any so-called ‘scientific discovery’.]
I have never seen an Evolutionist who has offered a good answer against Paul’s directive to not go beyond what is written as @Mark10.45 comments demonstrate below. Because his opening statement is wrong, it sends his whole response askew. Too, when an Evolutionist gives any answer to Scripture, we must always remember that their response is coming first through the filter of an evolutionary paradigm. @Mark10.45 states:
“This passage has nothing to do with science…Paul is preaching to the church at Corinth not to look to him or other apostles more highly than Jesus, which is the thing that is written. He is telling them to be “fools for Christ” and not develop their own theologies, calling for the church to be pure in what is written about Jesus, not to ignore science.”
What he clearly gets wrong is 1. that the “Scriptures” to Paul were the Torah and the Prophets, and 2. that the rule of theological studies is to always compare Scripture to Scripture and to remain in those bounds, and 3. that many spirits have gone out into the world today and that each should be properly discerned and tested against the standard of the holy text of the Bible.
Then why deal with science at all? It is the realm of worldly knowledge. YEC models all speculate extensively beyond what is written - there is no chapter and verse on heterozygosity or radioactive decay.
How does the study of either of those disciplines impinge on a YEC belief or add to the Scriptures?