An Honest and Intelligent Creationist

[OmarKhayyam]

For those who regard the title as an oxymoron I submit as exhibit one a fellow named Todd Wood.

Dr. Todd Wood, Ph D has all the creationist credentials and associations. And he professes a faith in a young earth and 6 day creation.

BUT

He also is honest enough and has the moral courage to admit ToE has "gobs" of evidence to support it.

Browse his blogs. They are short.

Here is a creationist I can respect.:bow: Unlike some here who have been vocal in their criticisms of ToE.

 

[Morse]

This is a bizarre specimen, and I cant remember where I put my scalpel...

 

[Nepenthe]

Herein lies the crux of creationist arguments:

"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. Evolution itself is not flawed or without evidence. Please don't be duped into thinking that somehow evolution itself is a failure. Please don't idolize your own ability to reason. Faith is enough. If God said it, that should settle it."​

 

[Archer]

If I were God I would make evolution a top priority I would want my creations to adapt and survive.

The churches condemned themselves when they limited the power of God to what they could understand and failed to accept that some things were not written because the comprehension of such things still can not be understood by the masses.

 

[Just_me_Mike]

If I were God I would make evolution a top priority I would want my creations to adapt and survive.

The churches condemned themselves when they limited the power of God to what they could understand and failed to accept that some things were not written because the comprehension of such things still can not be understood by the masses.

Why? If you are God you don't need anything. The fact that God creates what he creates seems to not add or subtract one bit from God as a perfect being. The fact that everything happens on its own time path, means it is going at the pace God wants it to go on. It is neither behind or ahead of schedule.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

He apparently has more skill in rejecting scientific data than interpreting the Bible.

"Creationism" is a biblical interpretation. For a scientist to indulge in it, they first must forgo a reasonable interpretation of scientific data and then apply the same thoughtless method to interpreting the Bible.

 

[Archer]

Why? If you are God you don't need anything. The fact that God creates what he creates seems to not add or subtract one bit from God as a perfect being. The fact that everything happens on its own time path, means it is going at the pace God wants it to go on. It is neither behind or ahead of schedule.

I am saying evolution of sorts is logical and as unGodlike as I am I can see the logic. Even creatures created perfect for their environment must be able to adapt (evolve) to follow the first command. "Be fruitful and multiply" this in itself means spread to different climate to prevent over population. There are many other causes for adaptation as well.

 

[Thief]

Why? If you are God you don't need anything. The fact that God creates what he creates seems to not add or subtract one bit from God as a perfect being. The fact that everything happens on its own time path, means it is going at the pace God wants it to go on. It is neither behind or ahead of schedule.

Here at the forum I have proposed my own reading of Chapter Two, the book of Genesis.

I see it as an obvious shift in the initial scheme of things as Man was not developing as he should have.
This implies the creation of Man needed adjustment.
Perhaps this would be a spot on the 'schedule'?

 

[imaginaryme]

For those who regard the title as an oxymoron I submit as exhibit one a fellow named Todd Wood.

Dr. Todd Wood, Ph D has all the creationist credentials and associations. And he professes a faith in a young earth and 6 day creation.

BUT

He also is honest enough and has the moral courage to admit ToE has "gobs" of evidence to support it.

Browse his blogs. They are short.

Here is a creationist I can respect.:bow: Unlike some here who have been vocal in their criticisms of ToE.

Good find. I read a months worth of blogs; I'm sure I shall go back for more. Maybe Man of Faith could take a swing by there.

Guy ain't never going to get me to accept YEC, but as he himself oft repeats, it is a matter of faith and not science. A creationist who keeps his faith out of his science? More, please.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

This is good and all, but it's a rather sad state of affairs when a creationist simply being honest calls for special recognition. It's like giving somebody special recognition for showing up to work on time, or for not abandoning their pregnant wife.

 

[Man of Faith]

The person is just wrong according to Richard Dawkins. The world actually looks created. From Dawkins book, The Blind Watchmaker "Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose." So you see even Richard Dawkins admits that things appear designed for a purpose.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

The person is just wrong according to Richard Dawkins. The world actually looks created. From Dawkins book, The Blind Watchmaker "Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose." So you see even Richard Dawkins admits that things appear designed for a purpose.

"Appear" being the key word. Read for comprehension.

 

[Man of Faith]

"Appear" being the key word. Read for comprehension.

That is correct, which means to me that the world does not look evolved, it looks created. It is scientists job to prove it was evolved because it looks (appears) created. It appears that the Bible account of creation is true.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

That is correct, which means to me that the world does not look evolved, it looks created. It is scientists job to prove it was evolved because it looks (appears) created. It appears that the Bible account of creation is true.

Appearances can be deceiving when one doesn't understand the limitations of a particular perspective.

 

[Man of Faith]

BTW the title of the first chapter in The Blind Watchmaer is "Explaining the Improbable". Meaning the ToE is improbable and has to be explained. The world looks created, not evolved.

 

[Man of Faith]

Appearances can be deceiving when one doesn't understand the limitations of a particular perspective.

Well, I don't buy the scientists arguments of common descent of all animals so they have more work to do. I have the righteous perspective of a world that appears created.

 

[imaginaryme]

The person is just wrong according to Richard Dawkins. The world actually looks created. From Dawkins book, The Blind Watchmaker "Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose." So you see even Richard Dawkins admits that things appear designed for a purpose.

Somebody has an unhealthy obsession with Dawkins. I know about unhealthy obsessions.
Dawkins doesn't admit jack. Dawkins lets his agenda get ahead of his brain. He chooses such a wording because he is attacking creationism, which is not the best way to approach science; yet he does manage to do good work. Meaning Dawkins is a good doer of science, but not so good as a speaker of science.

 

[Tristesse]

The person is just wrong according to Richard Dawkins. The world actually looks created. From Dawkins book, The Blind Watchmaker "Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose." So you see even Richard Dawkins admits that things appear designed for a purpose.

That doesn't mean that they are. They give the "appearance" of design.

 

[Tristesse]

Well, I don't buy the scientists arguments of common descent of all animals so they have more work to do. I have the righteous perspective of a world that appears created.

You don't "buy it" because you have a predisposition not to "buy it." While scientists look at the evidence without that predisposition. They just look at the evidence and draw conclusions from the evidence that they've gathered. The earth may have been created, I don't know and neither do you, but that has nothing to do with the theory of evolution. There are great scientists who are religious and accept the fact of evolution, even the last pope accepted the theory of evolution. So, creation and evolution are not mutually exclusive.

 

[Gunfingers]

I love how Dawkins was such a liar up until he said something that, if seen from a sufficiently twisted perspective, seemed to support YEC.

This is yet another great example of the conspiracy theorist mentality. All supporting evidence, no matter how trivial or how dubious, is clung to like a life preserver. It's not about getting the right answer, it's about trying, trying trying to make your already established view seem right.

MoF knows full well that Dawkins doesn't think the world is designed, and that he deliberately picked that verbiage to point out flaws in ID. But he has to take every little thing to build a wall around YEC.

They exhibit the same in reverse. Everything poor argument for the opposing side, every poor justification, these things are cudgels used to bludgeon down the enemy. Anyone remember how MoF kept bringing up Piltdown man? It's a hoax, after all, and thus does not prove evolution. YECers carry that fact like a banner and ignore the fact that there are hundreds of other real early human fossils clearly evidencing human evolution.

This is like dealing with 9/11 truthers.