Todd Wood: A Call for Being Reasonable

And, of course, this is one of the reasons why he is treated quite poorly by many in the YEC community. I know from my own experiences in that community (when I was part of it)—and the tribalism and adamancy is far more aggressive today----that the predominant peer-pressure is to perceive the conflict as a major culture war with massive stakes. Wood is considered too friendly with the enemy, precisely because he refuses to join in the denigration campaign.

I have a lot of respect for Todd Wood but I would like to ask him: "If there is gobs and gobs of significant evidence for evolutionary processes but you nevertheless believe the evidence is not sufficiently compelling, such that the Theory of Evolution will eventually be rejected by the academy, how do you explain the fact that the massive consilience from so many fields of science continues to grow exponentially? Considering the sheer quantity of research by armies of scientists, why hasn’t the foundation crumbled? Wouldn’t we expect to see major flaws by now?

5 Likes

Not “every single bit”.

From his blog that was linked (I suppose you decided to jump in without reading)

I also think there are substantial errors in the evolutionary perspective, places where things have gone wrong. I believe this for scientific reasons, because of evidence that I have myself examined, and for religious reasons related to my understanding of the Bible and Christian theology, and for personal reasons based on my encounters with almighty God in my own life.

I share admit there’s good evidence for evolution but…

…so far no one in this forum in various discussions about belief in the past weeks who is an atheist has admitted there’s good evidence for God and they’re just making an assumption against it. All I got was - we don’t have to defend against positive evidence; you have to prove it to us. I feel like I’m living in la-la-land.

I assume this is a bridge to atheists as well as disobedient, hypocritical, or false Christians who would be willing to wipe out their enemies.

Generally I see the article as a call to civil dialogue which is often missing in our society and attempting to be a peacemaker (Matthew 5:9)

1 Like

Did you see the post I made months ago where Donald Hoffman decided that since evolution by natural selection doesn’t work, he believes that reality isn’t real, basically that we live in a video game? Isn’t that the foundation crumbling and a major flaw?

This doesn’t make sense. If you’re saying a theistic evolutionary position is like that of the Reformers, show where the Bible clearly says God used an evolutionary process. The Reformers were actively using the Bible, not just stating that the Catholic position was NOT in the Bible.

1 Like

Todd Wood is a friend of mine. We were colleagues for nearly a decade, and we even published together. I’m glad you respect him, but–I can assure you–you clearly don’t understand him. He’s the most intellectually honest YEC I know. When presented with counter evidence (e.g., distant starlight), he says, “Yeah, that’s a problem and we (YECs) don’t have a good answer yet.” (He also thinks historical vs. observational science distinction is a joke, as well as micro- vs. macroevolution.)

14 Likes

It’s in that last word that all the faith is invested. He’s sure there will be an answer some day, while most of us are quite convinced that there will not, because there really should have been one by now, given the state of our knowledge. (Not just starlight, but all the rest.)

3 Likes

Right. I think this is where we have to discuss what evidence actually is.

2 Likes

In regards to “a call for being reasonable”, some didn’t get that call—and some ignored the call and let it go to voicemail.

3 Likes

Positive evidence? Such as…?

3 Likes

A post was split to a new topic: A Different Humble Sort of Peace

I do submit to God’s clear revelation first and foremost. I don’t submit to your idiosyncratic interpretation of it, because your interpretation is just man’s word. I trust God’s Word over man’s word.

The puzzle to me is why that isn’t enough for you. Why would you so often ask me to submit to your word first and foremost, rather than God’s Word? I’m just not comfortable giving you that sort of worship.

5 Likes

58 posts were split to a new topic: An Varied Discussion on Evolution and the Bible

Or maybe otherwise. You’d find something different with many of us.

1 Like

A post was merged into an existing topic: A Spirited and Eclectic Discussion on Evolution and the Bible

If some Christians are worried about divisiveness being a PR problem, then the divide between Protestants and Roman Catholics would seem to be higher up the agenda than creationists and theistic evolutionists.

4 Likes

And physicists claim the planets can orbit the sun without being guided by angels. Utter blasphemy!

5 Likes

I think there’s a disconnect here between Christians who have very different conceptions of how to approach the question of God’s relationship with the world. I presume @Chris_Falter, despite his agreements with Paul Price, also affirms that the motion of the planets and the evolution of living things would not have been possible without God creating and sustaining the laws of nature that makes these events happen. The question then becomes, how exactly does God sustain the laws of nature? Does he move the planets directly in a way such that it accords with what we call gravity and general relativity? Or is he “one causal step away” by endowing the planets (or spacetime) with causal powers that allow them to independently behave in that way?

Furthermore, if one is sympathetic to Michael Heiser’s Divine Council Worldview that the Bible speaks of the existence of multiple divine beings as part of the divine council and that God has delegated some of his authority in the universe to these beings, then the idea that immaterial angels guide the motion of the planets isn’t that far-fetched for even a modern Christian physicist to believe, even if nowadays we call these angels “the gravitational field”. The difference with something like Paul Price’s view is that we think such a view is not in conflict with the mainstream scientific explanation of the motions of the planets or the evolution of living things.

23 posts were split to a new topic: A Conversation about God, Evidence, and Teleology