It is noted that Wise and Wood occasionally acknowledge reality as concerning the evidence for evolution and challenges faced by YEC. So long as they are not being misrepresented or quoted out of context, what is the problem? An honest response from AiG, ICR, and CMI would be to learn from their example, confess their sins of omission and commission, and admit that the evidence for an ancient earth is unassailable.
6 Likes
I donât think Wood necessarily thinks the evidence is unassailable, he just acknowledges there are mountains of evidence to assault. 
3 Likes
Iâve never seen anyone here call Wise and Wood âcloset evolutionists.â Maybe someone has, but I doubt it, because Wise et al. are very clear about their creationist beliefs, regardless of the extent to which they agree with mainstream science on some issues. Some people (like Joel Duff) have pointed out that many YECs (including AiG) are actually hyper-evolutionists, but thatâs not the same as calling Wise et al. âcloset evolutionists.â
5 Likes
I went to see KH speak once, and he pushed this hyper-evolution pretty hard. Not a bit of supporting biology to go with it though.
Also, KH things poodles are evolutionary degenerates.
2 Likes
Thatâs not a fact. Itâs not remotely close to a fact.
3 Likes
I took it to be rhetorical.
What exactly do you mean by your claim that we are âconstantly focusing on Wise, Wood, et al. in their critiques of YECâ?
A quick skim of Peaceful Scienceâs search facility seems to indicate that Wise (and I would suspect Wood as well) are frequently praised here for their honesty, and their willingness to engage the evidence, and contrasted with the rest of YEC in that respect.
Are you suggesting that by âfocusing onâ Wise & Woodâs honesty, we make âAiG, ICR, CMI, etc.â look bad by contrast, so we âhave forced the[ir] handsâ to Poison the Well against Wise & Wood, otherwise they risk losing (further) credibility?
6 Likes
Poodles may not be âdegeneratesâ exactlyâbut their hair couture choices certainly test the boundaries of a proper canine aesthetic. (Many of them have no shame and cross-dressing is all too common.)
4 Likes
You guys are using Wise and Wood as exemplars of YEC and focusing critiques on them precisely because they accept things that the rest of YEC community disagrees with. It makes sense for these YEC organizations to publicly disavow them to differentiate their arguments from the mainstream YEC community.
If the full length article they cite Joel Duffâs attacks on AiG and also embed a link to one of Jeansonâs articles on attacks against him, which also cites @Joel_Duff and @dsterncardinale .
Shall we break this down? Wise really isnât on my radar, so Iâll comment mostly about Wood.
AiG misquotes Wood with that citation, no âGobsâ to be found, but I digress âŚ
In what way, precisely, does it make sense to deny the basic facts Wood stated. Does it make sense that AiG wants to suppress the truth? ⌠that AiG and other Creationist ministries must suppress all criticism, no matter how reasonable? Does it make sense to lie in support of the YEC faith?
Iâm pretty sure Wood doesnât agree with evolution, thatâs why heâs a YEC. Wood is a YEC who admits there is evidence for evolution. Iâll go out on a limb and say that most here, or at Pandaâs Thumb, Sensuous Curmudgeon, Talk.Origins, etc., fully understand the Wood is a YEC, and is not in any sort of closet. We appreciate Wood because he speaks honestly about the state of evolutionary science; âIt works.â
This criticism of Wood and Wise appears to be a case of AiG âeating their own youngâ, turning on supporters they helped to create. It may gather some short term support among the hardest of the hard-line YEC, but it is ultimately self destructive. Whatâs next? Excommunication from the Church of Ham for reading forums like this one?
5 Likes
NO Ben.
We are âusing Wise and Wood asâ explicit counterexamples â the vanishingly small number of YECs that honestly attempt to address all the evidence in a consilient manner â as opposed to the vast majority of YECs who offer ad hoc and inconsistent rationalisations.
If this attempt results in them admitting âthings that the rest of YEC community disagrees withâ, this heavily implies that âthe rest of YEC communityâ is mispresenting the evidence (either by omission or commission).
Yes, and that is exactly what we are doing â âdifferentiat[ing]â between Wise and Woodâs (admittedly misguided) attempts at doing serious science to support their positions, from âthe mainstream YEC community['s]â half-baked and credibility-free apologetics, which does not come even close to meeting scientific standards.
Nobody here is suggesting that Wise and Wood are representative examples (âexemplarsâ) of the YEC community as a whole.
5 Likes
@BenKissling Just to be clear, I donât claim that Wise and Wood are anymore evolutionists than Ken Ham it. Ham (and his anonymous attack writer) may feel that Wood/Wise/Coulson and the others that I have called The New Creationists define a âkindâ more broadly then they would wish but wise and wood are fundamentally no different with respect to their core assumptions about creationism. I view Ham as no less influenced by evolutionary biology than Wise, Wood, or Coulson. My past praise (ore maybe better put, my lighter critique) of the TNCs is not about their being evolutionists in any sense but rather for the demeanor, their approach to science, their willingness to question dogma within creationism even while holding to its core tenets. Wise doesnât say that whales must have come from walking ancestors he simply asks if that could be true. I know Colsonâs work well and in my mind he is a more consistent YEC than Ken Ham is.
This really isnâtâ about the science. Its not about evolution at all. This is about the perception that they are not simply falling into line with Ken Ham dogma. More so you need to ask yourself about Harry F. Sanders III that is writing these articles. What is his/her qualifications to write these articles and what personal relationship does he/she have with these so-called YEEs?
5 Likes
I would like to hear Ham say he has read Woodâs book and so can assess this piece about it that was just published at AiG. They seem to have a lot of trust in the anonymous writer who is producing these articles.
Interesting note has now been added at the end of the first installment after I pointed out who the author was. âEditorâs note: This article was mistakenly attributed to a single author upon initial publication. It is, however, a ministry statement and not the work of any single individual, as will be this entire series. We apologize for any confusion this may have caused.â But both articles are clearly written by the same person with maybe light editing and that person was identified on the original posting. Now they are backing off that attribution.
I am also not that familiar with Wise, but I do not see anyone suggesting either gentleman is exemplary or typical of YEC. On the contrary, Wood has demonstrated sufficient scientific understanding and integrity to understand and admit that the theory of evolution is a very robust and successful scientific theory, and that his rejection of it is based on his adherence to the doctrine that the Bible is inerrant and to be interpreted literally. His rejection is not based on any scientific weaknesses to the theory.
This is very atypical behaviour for a YEC, and I am sure everyone knows this.
I can fully understand why YECâs would be embarrassed by this and wish that no one paid Wood any attention. Too bad.
7 Likes
@Joel_Duff has now posted his YouTube response here. He discusses background on how AiG works and the lead up to the present series of articles. Major point emphasized towards the end that AiG also promotes their own robust version of Young Earth Evolution, which really only differs in their particular examples and demarcations of created kinds.
1 Like
There are substantial differences between what Wise and Wood have said with regard to mainstream science, and the occasional âmy bizarre theory vs your bizarre theoryâ contentions that sometimes break out within YEC ranks. Discussions on this board reflect that; you have said so yourself in posts above.
1 Like
Thatâs interesting, but it could use more specifics. Who are the YECs youâre thinking of here that engage with the evidence as much as Wise and Wood? What have they published? If there are too many to enumerate, just give a few of the best exemplars.
5 Likes
Thatâs an interesting theory.
If he really does want to guard himself from critiques by PS, why is it that he hasnât yet even mentioned my name?
1 Like
They mentioned names. When I say âPSâ I mean the group of people that comment here, not necessarily the official organization.