Who is turning the screws on Todd Wood, the creationist biologist who opposes Tennesee’s new monkey law?

| 178 Comments

When, a week or two ago, Tennessee’s proposed antievolution law came back from the dead and suddenly looked like it had a real chance of passing, the only creationist who expressed opposition was Todd Wood of Bryan College. Yes, that’s William Jennings Bryan College, named after the famous antievolutionist of the 1920s who criss-crossed the nation promoting laws banning the teaching of evolution, and who battled Clarence Darrow in the (first but perhaps not only, if this law passes) Tennessee Monkey Trial.

Wood opposed the law on grounds that it was unnecessary – teachers already possess freedom to teach about real scientific controversies (ID/creationism are not, of course), subject of course to whatever curriculum and testing requirements there are.

Wood’s argument as stated wasn’t all that convincing, really – the law is necessary if your goal is to push creationism in public schools without getting in trouble, for instance. My gut instinct is that what was really going on was that Wood, for a long time one of the only self-critical, independent, and somewhat realistic voices within creationism, just doesn’t think that pushing ID/creationism via government power and the public schools is a good idea. It’s not even good for creationism – pushing your ideas in the public schools before they are accepted in the scientific community will instantly discredit your movement within science; it leads to heated political battles rather than academic discussion; and inevitably it has historically led to expensive and embarrassing court defeats for creationism, and tighter legal restrictions against teaching creationism.

So I bet that’s what Wood’s actual feeling was. However, he was writing to the governor of Tennessee, so perhaps framing his opposition in terms of necessity was done for that purpose.

However, I suspect that something has changed for Wood, because his posted letter to the governor has been taken down. Here’s the original link, it’s not there. So what happened? Did someone at Bryan College object to a creationist going off-message? Did someone at the Discovery Institute get worried about the influence that a Tennessee-based professional creationist opposing the law would have, and call up Bryan College or Wood himself and start harassing them? On any scenario you postulate, it’s pretty odd behavior, since Wood has long said what he thought, even when it was unpopular with other ID/creationists.

Usually I save things like this, when a creationist does something unusual and inconvenient for the movement, and it seems like it might get taken down later. But I didn’t do that in this case – so if anyone has the text, post it here (it was an open letter to the governor, after all).

178 Comments

The Google cache of the page is still up.

Text of the post:

My letter to Governor Haslam

I just sent this letter to Tennessee’s governor, Bill Haslam. I’m sure it will win me a lot of adoration and acclaim from my fellow creationists. Enjoy!

Dear Governor Haslam:

My name is Todd Charles Wood, and I am a biology professor at Bryan College in Dayton, TN. You might recognize Bryan College as the Christian school named for William Jennings Bryan and founded in the wake of the Scopes Trial. (Please note that the opinions expressed in this letter are my own and do not represent the opinions of Bryan College.)

I recently noted that the Tennessee state senate passed SB0893, the so-called “Monkey Bill” (ironically on William Jennings Bryan’s birthday of all days). I am sure that you’ve already received quite a number of heated letters and phone calls about this bill. As you certainly know, critics of the bill view it as a thinly-veiled attempt to inject creationism into the public science classrooms.

Because of my religious convictions, I am a committed creationist, but unlike many creationists, I have grown quite weary of the creation-evolution propaganda war. I believe this bill is an ideal example of what’s wrong with the creation-evolution war. For example, since the bill clearly states that religious discussions are not protected, it could not be used to permit “some Sunday school teachers to hijack biology class by proxy,” as the editorial in the March 21 edition of the Tennesseean suggested. On the other hand, my own reading of the bill indicates that it provides no protection that teachers don’t already have. Teachers are already well within their rights to discuss any scientific evidence that pertains to the prescribed curriculum and to encourage critical thinking about it. Many already do. Any teacher trying to bring creationist arguments into a public science classroom will run afoul of legal precedent. Judge Jones’s decision in Kitzmiller et al. v. Dover Area School District found that the anti-evolution arguments of Intelligent Design are a form of religiously-motivated creationism. The controversy surrounding the other issues mentioned by SB0893 (human cloning and climate change) are also permissible subjects to discuss in science classes already, and therefore do not need any additional protection. Thus, if critics are correct that this is an attempt to inject creationism into Tennessee science classes, the language is so vague and watered-down that it would be incapable of performing that task.

Legally then, it seems that this bill is simply unnecessary. It does not directly challenge Kitzmiller v. Dover, and it does not offer any protection that does not already exist. Because the bill is useless, I ask you to veto it. Please do not allow Tennessee to become a pawn in the creation-evolution propaganda war.

Respectfully yours,

Todd Charles Wood

Feedback? Email me at toddcharleswood [at] gmail [dot] com.

The Google cache as an independent web page

He might be treated as a heretic to the cause. But wouldn’t it be ironic if the Dishonesty Institute had a hand in trying to silence someone’s freedom of speech regarding ID / creationism!

He’s not one of our minions?

Sometimes I almost think we don’t have a conspiracy going on at all.

Glen Davidson

They do this a lot.

The fundies are big fans of Joseph Stalin. They are always having purges.

I posted a long list on a thread a few days ago so don’t care to repeat myself. It looks like Dembski might have been caught up in a purge. He is leaving Southwest bibleists after making a controversial comment, i.e. that the earth is old, which it is.

I really like Todd. I hope he’s OK.

I feel another expulsion coming on. Above all things, fundamentalists insist on conformity.

Todd Wood, along with Kurt Wise, must be considered the only “honest” “scientific creationist” at work here in the United States. I admire his personal conviction - if not necessarily his judgement with regards to science - and I hope Governor Haslam will consider seriously that letter, and, more importantly, the advice he intends to seek from his state’s board of education.

John Kwok

“It’s not even good for creationism – pushing your ideas in the public schools before they are accepted in the scientific community will instantly discredit your movement within science; it leads to heated political battles rather than academic discussion; and inevitably it has historically led to expensive and embarrassing court defeats for creationism, and tighter legal restrictions against teaching creationism.”

I tend to think these controversies are primarily about money. The market for intelligent design creationist educational materials is limited to the christian school and home school markets. If they could break into the public school market, the potential profits would be enormous. I think professional creationists mostly know that scientists will never take them seriously, so the only route they have to increase their market share is through the political process. The profit potential of success makes the risks you identified worth taking, and the expense of court battles is borne by the taxpayers rather than the creationists themselves. Plus even court losses can be used as a wedge issue to rile up the base to vote GOP to appoint conservative judges like Roy Moore (the 10 Commandments Judge who will likely be relected to the post of Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court from which he was ousted).

Elizabeth Liddle said:

I really like Todd. I hope he’s OK.

I know Todd and he is O.K.

raven said:

They do this a lot.

The fundies are big fans of Joseph Stalin. They are always having purges.

I posted a long list on a thread a few days ago so don’t care to repeat myself. It looks like Dembski might have been caught up in a purge. He is leaving Southwest bibleists after making a controversial comment, i.e. that the earth is old, which it is.

You remember the big rift that tore up Australian Creationists when Ken Ham was caught doing funny business with Answers In Genesis subscribers?

apokryltaros said: You remember the big rift that tore up Australian Creationists when Ken Ham was caught doing funny business with Answers In Genesis subscribers?

…not to mention the Piglet Scandal.

You remember the big rift that tore up Australian Creationists when Ken Ham was caught doing funny business with Answers In Genesis subscribers?

Funny business? Like radiometric dating? I thought he only dated women.

Kicked Out of Two Homeschool Conferences - Answers in Genesis ww.answersingenesis.org/…/kicked-out-homeschool-conferences

22 Mar 2011 – In addition, AiG as an exhibitor has also been expelled. … In an email to Ken Ham, the leader of this homeschool group wrote to us (just after …

Not the first time Ken Ham has been Expelled. He has been kicked out of two homeschool conferences.

Not sure what is going on here or much care. Probably the competition for fundie dollars is steep and they all claim to be the One True Xian Homeschooling Program.

joeF said:

Elizabeth Liddle said:

I really like Todd. I hope he’s OK.

I know Todd and he is O.K.

Cool :)

raven said:

Kicked Out of Two Homeschool Conferences - Answers in Genesis ww.answersingenesis.org/…/kicked-out-homeschool-conferences

22 Mar 2011 – In addition, AiG as an exhibitor has also been expelled. … In an email to Ken Ham, the leader of this homeschool group wrote to us (just after …

Not the first time Ken Ham has been Expelled. He has been kicked out of two homeschool conferences.

Not sure what is going on here or much care. Probably the competition for fundie dollars is steep and they all claim to be the One True Xian Homeschooling Program.

If I recall correctly, he was railing against people who deny a literal six day creation.

On the bright side, I don’t recall any anti-science in the east Tennessee elementary school that I went to. I recall seeing a tree diagram of the relationships between the major vertebrate classes.

Elizabeth Liddle said:

I really like Todd. I hope he’s OK.

Ditto.

raven said:

They do this a lot.

The fundies are big fans of Joseph Stalin. They are always having purges.

I posted a long list on a thread a few days ago so don’t care to repeat myself. It looks like Dembski might have been caught up in a purge. He is leaving Southwest bibleists after making a controversial comment, i.e. that the earth is old, which it is.

I thought that Dumbski has recanted his old earth views.

raven said: I posted a long list on a thread a few days ago so don’t care to repeat myself. It looks like Dembski might have been caught up in a purge. He is leaving Southwest bibleists after making a controversial comment, i.e. that the earth is old, which it is.

The main issue for Dembski at the seminary (and what he recanted) was whether the Flood was local. Here’s a Baptist take on the dispute about Dembski.

[Seminary President Paige] Patterson said that when Dembski’s questionable statements came to light, he convened a meeting with Dembski and several high-ranking administrators at the seminary. At that meeting, Dembski was quick to admit that he was wrong about the flood, Patterson said.

Patterson, like Nettles and Allen, believes that proper exegesis of the early chapters in Genesis requires a young earth. But he also said that young- and old-earth creationists banding together to combat evolution is more important than internal debates among creationists.

And here’s The Sensuous Curmudgeon’s take on it for some flavor. :)

I actually found Tod Wood’s comment quite insightful.

The logical flaw of the legislation is that it equates social or cultural controversy, that is, the “controversy” that some people may not like some aspect of reality, with scientific controversy, that is, actual controversy over whether something is an aspect of natural reality.

Life evolves. That is not scientifically controversial.

Todd Wood does seem to have many decent features.

However, as a non-religious person, I have to ask, if he wants to be religious, why doesn’t he consider simply outright joining the millions or billions of religious people who are not creationists?

harold said:

I actually found Tod Wood’s comment quite insightful.

The logical flaw of the legislation is that it equates social or cultural controversy, that is, the “controversy” that some people may not like some aspect of reality, with scientific controversy, that is, actual controversy over whether something is an aspect of natural reality.

The Tennessee law is written by people who think there is a scientific controversy over evolution, global warming, etc.

But on one point they got things hilariously mixed up. Teachers are supposed to be enabled to question the dominant view on … human cloning?

The dominant view on human cloning is that it is probably possible. The issue of whether one ought to allow it to be done is then not a scientific issue, it is an issue of ethics, politics, or religion. If there is someone who questions the dominant scientific view, well, I guess they would be saying that human cloning isn’t technically possible. In which case there would be no point in arguing about whether it would be a good thing, as you couldn’t succeed at it anyway.

Or perhaps the Tennessee Legislature thinks we scientists are out there advocating evolution, global warming, etc.

Joe Felsenstein said:

Or perhaps the Tennessee Legislature thinks we scientists are out there advocating evolution, global warming, etc.

That’s EXACTLY what people like that think. It’s part of a liberal agenda, didn’t you know? It’s part of our plan to ruin America.

harold said:

I actually found Tod Wood’s comment quite insightful.

The logical flaw of the legislation is that it equates social or cultural controversy, that is, the “controversy” that some people may not like some aspect of reality, with scientific controversy, that is, actual controversy over whether something is an aspect of natural reality.

Life evolves. That is not scientifically controversial.

Todd Wood does seem to have many decent features.

However, as a non-religious person, I have to ask, if he wants to be religious, why doesn’t he consider simply outright joining the millions or billions of religious people who are not creationists?

Absolutely. It’s a fairly blatant bait and switch. Now where have we seen that before?

These topics are controversial, not scientifically, but politically and culturally. That, regardless of what the legislation implies, is definitely not a reason to assume or act like it is scientifically controversial. Indeed, it is an excellent reason why the science should be the best possible. It should not be considered an excuse to substitute religion for science, in fact just the opposite.

Correctly stated, if you really want to address these “controversies”, you should do so in political science classes, or in sociology classes, or in anthropology classes. Science class is not the place to discuss political or cultural controversy. Science class is the place to get the science right, then you can worry about the implications. Until then, you are just fooling yourself.

Joe is right. Admitting that human cloning is possible is not advocating cloning. Admitting that global warming is real is not advocating global warming. Admitting that evolution is real is not advocating evolution. It is simply learning from the evidence and facing up to reality. Of course, Bob is right as well. We are talking about people who probably do equate admission of reality with advocacy. It’s almost as if they never learned any critical thinking skills in school. Imagine that.

harold asks:

why doesn’t he (Todd Wood) consider simply outright joining the millions or billions of religious people who are not creationists?

I’m fairly sure he has done so: considered it, that is. And rejected it.

Why?

I think I can reconstruct the process, and I think it depends on a (heh!) fundamental proposition: Scripture must have authority. It must be true, factual and inerrant. Its words must mean exactly what they say. Words are not a form to a ‘literalist’. They’re not a way to represent reality. They are reality itself, just as it says - literally - at the beginning of John’s gospel. (The idea that this passage is in itself a metaphor cannot occur to them.)

That is, I think the proposition proceeds from a basic inability to understand what language is, what words are. The idea that words describe reality in many different ways is impossible for Wood and his cohorts to assimilate. For them, words either describe reality in one way only, or not at all. Metaphor may be possible, but only if it is labelled as such - that is, the words must tell you the reality first, and then proceed by way of simile or analogy or parable.

The fact that this is manifestly, obviously, plainly false, totally contrary to endless examples of the use of language, cannot make any impression on them at all.

Why not? Nearly all human beings do not understand words in that way. Nearly all human beings understand what narrative is, what story is, what fiction is. Nearly all human beings understand that narrative encompasses and encapsulates truth, but in many ways, and that truth is not only one thing.

And there is the problem. Literalist after literalist says, in different ways: Genesis is true because it reads like reportage.

But this doesn’t mean that they know what reportage is. It only means that they don’t know what narrative is. They can’t recognise it. There’s a blind spot there, a missing ability. It’s like some people - usually neurologically damaged - can’t recognise faces. Something has stunted that basic understanding that is one of the few things shared by all human cultures - the idea of narrative, of story.

I can’t say what that something is. Nature or nurture? I don’t know. All I can say is that it’s missing.

Genesis is true because it reads like reportage.

But it doesn’t. If you try to make sense of Genesis, it makes no sense.

One example of countless. God curses Cain to wander and puts a mark on him so other people won’t kill him. What other people? Supposedly there are three people on the earth, mom, dad, and the kid.

Then he wanders around, meets some nice girl, gets married, has a kid, founds a city. So where did this girl come from again. There was supposedly 3 people on the earth. And how did he even know what a city was in the first place.

It’s totally senseless and reads like a legend that no one was trying to even make sound plausible.

Dave Luckett said: Nearly all human beings understand what narrative is, what story is, what fiction is. Nearly all human beings understand that narrative encompasses and encapsulates truth, but in many ways, and that truth is not only one thing.

A very important point I always made to my students regarding literature: Fiction, to be “good”, to have any value at all, has to be TRUE. Not that a good story can’t be utterly fantastic (e.g. Lord of the Rings), but it has to have, as Gandalf would say, the ring of truth. We have to be able to see ourselves in it, to be able to say, “Yes, people might act that way.”

In that sense, much of the Bible is “true”. Much of it is obviously history, although poorly written by modern standards, so it reflects the strengths and weaknesses of real people–LOTS of weaknesses. But even the clearly fictional parts, e.g. Job and of course Genesis, are TRUE: they describe real human longings, jealousies, selfishness, fears, strivings, and hopes.

Dave Luckett said:

harold asks:

why doesn’t he (Todd Wood) consider simply outright joining the millions or billions of religious people who are not creationists?

I’m fairly sure he has done so: considered it, that is. And rejected it.

Why?

I think I can reconstruct the process, and I think it depends on a (heh!) fundamental proposition: Scripture must have authority. It must be true, factual and inerrant. Its words must mean exactly what they say. Words are not a form to a ‘literalist’. They’re not a way to represent reality. They are reality itself, just as it says - literally - at the beginning of John’s gospel. (The idea that this passage is in itself a metaphor cannot occur to them.)

That is, I think the proposition proceeds from a basic inability to understand what language is, what words are. The idea that words describe reality in many different ways is impossible for Wood and his cohorts to assimilate. For them, words either describe reality in one way only, or not at all. Metaphor may be possible, but only if it is labelled as such - that is, the words must tell you the reality first, and then proceed by way of simile or analogy or parable.

The fact that this is manifestly, obviously, plainly false, totally contrary to endless examples of the use of language, cannot make any impression on them at all.

Why not? Nearly all human beings do not understand words in that way. Nearly all human beings understand what narrative is, what story is, what fiction is. Nearly all human beings understand that narrative encompasses and encapsulates truth, but in many ways, and that truth is not only one thing.

And there is the problem. Literalist after literalist says, in different ways: Genesis is true because it reads like reportage.

But this doesn’t mean that they know what reportage is. It only means that they don’t know what narrative is. They can’t recognise it. There’s a blind spot there, a missing ability. It’s like some people - usually neurologically damaged - can’t recognise faces. Something has stunted that basic understanding that is one of the few things shared by all human cultures - the idea of narrative, of story.

I can’t say what that something is. Nature or nurture? I don’t know. All I can say is that it’s missing.

Why then don’t they take that approach when reading Revelation?

Joe Felsenstein said: Or perhaps the Tennessee Legislature thinks we scientists are out there advocating evolution, global warming, etc.

Joe, I think you’ve stumbled upon the truth. After all, “EEVVILLL DARWINIST” scientists like yourself are advocating their GODLESS ATHEISTIC RABID LIBERAL views masquerading as “Science” down the throats of the poor innocent folks in Tennessee (Like those who regard Kirk Cameron and Ken Hamm as heroes, for example.).

John Kwok

Because Revelation says at the beginning (1:3) that it’s prophecy. It hasn’t happened - yet. But literalists believe that it will happen, literally, in a sense, although the events are described in figures - that’s accepted by literalists, because the text says so specifically, at 1:20. But they still say the figures describe literal events that will take place. They differ about what the meanings of the figures are, but they don’t differ about those meanings being literally true.

So again, it’s not fictional narrative, not really.

A person who makes up his own definitions for commonly understood terms, e.g.“a real Atheist is defined as a person who opposes the Biblical version of reality,” is apparently living in a different reality from the rest of us. ALL the rest of us. Even literalist/fundamentalist/evangelicals.

We all define “atheist” pretty much as any standard dictionary does. Look it up.

Now, what’s the word I’m thinking of… someone who lives in his own, idiosyncratic version of reality, shared by no one else? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?

Ray Martinez said:

I propose that a real Christian is defined as a person who accepts and promotes the Biblical version of reality; and a real Atheist is defined as a person who opposes the Biblical version of reality.

Hmmm… So all Muslims and all Hindus are “real Atheists”. Let me get back to you on that, Ray.

rossum said:

Ray Martinez said:

I propose that a real Christian is defined as a person who accepts and promotes the Biblical version of reality; and a real Atheist is defined as a person who opposes the Biblical version of reality.

Hmmm… So all Muslims and all Hindus are “real Atheists”. Let me get back to you on that, Ray.

As are those who accept such non-Biblical “versions of reality” as the heliocentric model of the Solar System, the germ theory of disease, … or Old Earth Creationism.

@TomS and Rossum:

Ray always evades my requests to clarify, but so far his only operational criteria for “atheist” has to do with whether they promote doubt of evolution, not what they believe. To my knowledge, and I have been following his antics for years, he has never applied the “atheist” label to anyone who promotes doubt of evolution - even if he calls them “evolutionists” or says that they’re “in our camp.” So, in Ray’s book, Ken Miller (devout Christian) is an “atheist evolutionist”, while Mike Behe (who seems less sure than Miller that the designer is God) is just an “evolutionist”.

Now sometimes he does use “athests” and “evolutionists” interchangeably, but that’s just one example of many that anti-evolution activists try to have both ways.

Ray Martinez said:

It is impossible to be a Creationist and a Evolutionist at the same time. Wood is not honest. Your inability, Glen, to see the logical impossibility does not surprise. Evolutionists, in addition to being dishonest, are mentally handicapped.

Projection to the max.

A real Theist would never kiss the ass of any Atheist, most of all Dawkins. I offer the praise of Dawkins by Miller as solid evidence that Miller is not a Theist, but a fellow Atheist.

Liar. All it shows is that Miller is not as bigoted as you are.

Since we already know Evolutionists think evidence exists supporting evolution, what’s the point?

Only Evolutionists believe evidence exists supporting evolution. In response our Evolutionist plays the “agree with us or you are dishonest” card.

The evidence for evolution is obvious and overwhelming. You have to be promoting fraud to say otherwise. It’s as simple as that.

We are relieved to be considered dishonest by persons who think apes morphed into men over the course of millions of years.

Ridicule alone does not disprove an idea, @$$hole.

Any Christian who accepts the assumptions of Naturalism to explain nature and evidence the same becomes incontrovertible evidence supporting the fact that this person is not a real Christian but an Atheist.

Naturalism merely takes reality as we precieve it, nothing more or less. It is not about atheism and has no assumptions. Atheism may be a conclusion reached from naturalism, however.

Real Christians accept Biblical assumptions.

True, but there are many interpretation of the Bible and therefore many ways to be a Christian.

Your point says Miller is a Deist, in the context of claiming he is Christian. The contradiction seen here demands explanation.

A false statement.

These comments confirm the facts: Miller accepts the Atheist explanation of nature. I offer the fact as evidence supporting the fact that Miller is not a real Christian. Real Christians and real Atheists accept diametrically different explanations of nature. The fact that our Evolutionist (Tenncrain) is unable to understand this basic fact of logic once again supports the fact that Evolutionists are mentally handicapped (stupid people). This is what happens when God is given the finger; one becomes a moron without any awareness of the fact. A delusion is surely at work, only it is working on those who beieve in evolution, not God.

More false statements.

Mike: Stop evading with irrelevancies. Where did you obtain the idea that Ken Miller is a Christian? and Todd Wood a Creationist?

http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/mi[…]_hitler.html

“My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God’s truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter.”

–Adolf Hitler (1922)

As we can see, anyone can claim to be a Christian (and Creationist).

Thank you. We like making that point ourselves. So, Ray, how do we know YOU are a real Christian?

Imagine that; Scott’s epistemology says it is not possible to define a real Christian and real Atheist!

Straw man fallacy, @$$hole.

I propose that a real Christian is defined as a person who accepts and promotes the Biblical version of reality; and a real Atheist is defined as a person who opposes the Biblical version of reality.

And replaces it with an actual version of reality.

I’ve been reading posts from Ray Martinez for a very long time. He was never very engaged with reality, and that hasn’t changed, but now he seems increasingly bitter. I suspect there’s an emotional cost to being always wrong. The legal and intellectual defeats must wear on a man.

Dave Luckett said:

Well spotted, Ray - there is indeed something terribly wrong. It’s you, Ray.

Ray sometimes appear at PT (sometimes even at AtBC I believe) - maybe this time he got frustrated by having his only friend at t.o. turning into a harsh critic. But Ray isn’t worth wasting words on; he is 100% science illiterate & denialist, and 100% Bible inerrantist - within his own preferred interpretation.

Just Bob said: Now, what’s the word I’m thinking of… someone who lives in his own, idiosyncratic version of reality, shared by no one else? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?

I nominate Ben Stein, IBIG, Ray Martinez, FL, SteveP., Bill Dumbski, Mikey Behe, Casey Luskin, Ken Ham, among many, many others, who exists within “his own, idosyncratic, version of reality”.

RWard said:

I’ve been reading posts from Ray Martinez for a very long time. He was never very engaged with reality, and that hasn’t changed, but now he seems increasingly bitter. I suspect there’s an emotional cost to being always wrong. The legal and intellectual defeats must wear on a man.

More like psychologicall unhinged. I guess he hasn’t taking his “Mind Off Jesus” pill yet.

RWard said:

I’ve been reading posts from Ray Martinez for a very long time. He was never very engaged with reality, and that hasn’t changed,

It indeed seems that Ray largely relies on ignoring material and switching the subject to divert attention, also relying on silly ad hominem remarks.

Will Ray ever read Miller’s Finding Darwin’s God to discover that Miller actually accepts an active God, rejects deism, rejects Richard Dawkins’s views on philosophy and theology? We would not mind Ray proving us wrong by Ray reading all of Finding Darwin’s God (and Miller’s other book Only A Theory), but seems very doubtful Ray will.

but now he [Ray] seems increasingly bitter. I suspect there’s an emotional cost to being always wrong. The legal and intellectual defeats must wear on a man.

Anti-evolutionists seem to especially target their bitterness against former anti-evolutionists like myself (I’m an ex-YEC). I get this treatment from friends that remain YECs, even some family and relatives. Former YEC Glen Morton (click here) reported the same thing, as have other former anti-evolutionists.

rossum said:

Ray Martinez said:

I propose that a real Christian is defined as a person who accepts and promotes the Biblical version of reality; and a real Atheist is defined as a person who opposes the Biblical version of reality.

Hmmm… So all Muslims and all Hindus are “real Atheists”. Let me get back to you on that, Ray.

Muslims and Hindus consider Christians to be infidels.

John said:

Just Bob said: Now, what’s the word I’m thinking of… someone who lives in his own, idiosyncratic version of reality, shared by no one else? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?

I nominate Ben Stein, IBIG, Ray Martinez, FL, SteveP., Bill Dumbski, Mikey Behe, Casey Luskin, Ken Ham, among many, many others, who exists within “his own, idosyncratic, version of reality”.

Dembski, Behe, Luskin, and Ham accept the concepts of natural selection, microevolution, macroevolution and common descent to exist in nature. In other words the Fundies and the DI are in bed with Darwin and Dawkins.

Atheists: Just be glad that you’re on top.

RM (Protestant Evangelical, Old Earth, Paleyan IDist-species immutabilist, and strong supporter of President Obama)

John said:

RWard said:

I’ve been reading posts from Ray Martinez for a very long time. He was never very engaged with reality, and that hasn’t changed, but now he seems increasingly bitter. I suspect there’s an emotional cost to being always wrong. The legal and intellectual defeats must wear on a man.

More like psychologicall[y] unhinged. I guess he hasn’t taking his “Mind Off Jesus” pill yet.

In context this means Ken Miller and Todd Wood have taken that pill—exactly what I have been saying and arguing in this thread, thanks John.

Ray Martinez the delusional creotard and preeminent Liar for Jesus crowed:

John said:

RWard said:

I’ve been reading posts from Ray Martinez for a very long time. He was never very engaged with reality, and that hasn’t changed, but now he seems increasingly bitter. I suspect there’s an emotional cost to being always wrong. The legal and intellectual defeats must wear on a man.

More like psychologicall[y] unhinged. I guess he hasn’t taking his “Mind Off Jesus” pill yet.

In context this means Ken Miller and Todd Wood have taken that pill—exactly what I have been saying and arguing in this thread, thanks John.

Sorry Ray, you don’t know Ken as well as I do. He has said that those who belong to faiths hostile to science should reject them. He has also said - and this should be available at the World Science Festival video section (http://www.worldsciencefestival.com) that, as a working scientist, he harbors no thoughts about his devoutly held Roman Catholic Christian faith; it is only in private, away from his work, that he will consider his religious views (This was said back in June, 2009 when he was a panlist at the World Science Festival program devoted to science, faith and reason.).

Ray Martinez the clueless delusional creotard Liar for Jesus barked:

John said:

Just Bob said: Now, what’s the word I’m thinking of… someone who lives in his own, idiosyncratic version of reality, shared by no one else? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?

I nominate Ben Stein, IBIG, Ray Martinez, FL, SteveP., Bill Dumbski, Mikey Behe, Casey Luskin, Ken Ham, among many, many others, who exists within “his own, idosyncratic, version of reality”.

Dembski, Behe, Luskin, and Ham accept the concepts of natural selection, microevolution, macroevolution and common descent to exist in nature. In other words the Fundies and the DI are in bed with Darwin and Dawkins.

Atheists: Just be glad that you’re on top.

RM (Protestant Evangelical, Old Earth, Paleyan IDist-species immutabilist, and strong supporter of President Obama)

Ken Ham is a YEC, and I am sure you know that if you’ve checked his Answers in Genesis website.

JK (Deist, former evolutionary biologist, Conservative Republican, POTUS critic)

Just Bob said:

Ray Martinez said:

Real Christians accept Biblical assumptions.

Assumptions. Interesting word, that. I’ll wager that the only “Biblical assumptions” that you’ll permit any “real Christian” to have are the same ones YOU have. What a coincidence.

Do you know how many thousands of Christian denominations there are already? Do you know why there are so many? The ostensible reason is that they all assume DIFFERENT things about the Bible (although the real reason for many schisms is simply power plays).

.

Not true.

Almost all accept Scripture to be the inspired word of God, Christ Incarnate, Crucified, Resurrected, Apostolic authority, miracles, the way of faith as opposed to works (compliance to a code of conduct).

Darwinian evolution (the only evolution ever accepted by science) says all these things are completely false.

Which denomination did your church most recently split from, Ray? Don’t you assume that the Bible permits acceptance of an old Earth? Most CHRISTIAN trolls here don’t assume that at all.

The YECs accept the main claims of Darwinism: the Fundies are in YOUR bed (Thank God).

We are very happy to be rejected by the Fundamentalists, that is, the dumbest people in Western society.

RM (Protestant Evangelical)

John said:

Ray Martinez the clueless delusional creotard Liar for Jesus barked:

John said:

Just Bob said: Now, what’s the word I’m thinking of… someone who lives in his own, idiosyncratic version of reality, shared by no one else? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?

I nominate Ben Stein, IBIG, Ray Martinez, FL, SteveP., Bill Dumbski, Mikey Behe, Casey Luskin, Ken Ham, among many, many others, who exists within “his own, idosyncratic, version of reality”.

Dembski, Behe, Luskin, and Ham accept the concepts of natural selection, microevolution, macroevolution and common descent to exist in nature. In other words the Fundies and the DI are in bed with Darwin and Dawkins.

Atheists: Just be glad that you’re on top.

RM (Protestant Evangelical, Old Earth, Paleyan IDist-species immutabilist, and strong supporter of President Obama)

Ken Ham is a YEC, and I am sure you know that if you’ve checked his Answers in Genesis website.

JK (Deist, former evolutionary biologist, Conservative Republican, POTUS critic)

Ham and all YECs accept the existence of natural selection, microevolution, limited macroevolution and common descent.

Again, the Fundies are in bed with Darwin and Dawkins (Thank God).

Ray Martinez said:

Almost all accept Scripture to be the inspired word of God, Christ Incarnate, Crucified, Resurrected, Apostolic authority, miracles, the way of faith as opposed to works (compliance to a code of conduct).

Almost all of whom? Weasel-wording.

Ray Martinez said:

Darwinian evolution (the only evolution ever accepted by science) says all these things are completely false.

No, it doesn’t. *Reality* says those things are either false, or so poorly-defined as to be worthless concepts.

Your understanding of what the science *claims* is faulty. Not understanding the technical details is perhaps forgivable, but to misrepresent what is being claimed in the first place is laughable.

An old-earth creationist who believes in the immutability of species. How does that work? Do you believe that Rana pipiens was around in the Precambrian?

Tenncrain said: Will Ray ever read Miller’s Finding Darwin’s God to discover that Miller actually accepts an active God, rejects deism, rejects Richard Dawkins’s views on philosophy and theology?

To Ray, he’d still be an atheist. Ray thinks pretty much everyone but him and the late Scott are atheists.

Ray Martinez said:

Muslims and Hindus consider Christians to be infidels.

So? That has nothing to do with either atheism or evolution.

Dembski, Behe, Luskin, and Ham accept the concepts of natural selection, microevolution, macroevolution and common descent to exist in nature. In other words the Fundies and the DI are in bed with Darwin and Dawkins.

Atheists: Just be glad that you’re on top.

RM (Protestant Evangelical, Old Earth, Paleyan IDist-species immutabilist, and strong supporter of President Obama)

You a supporter of President Obama??? Go jump in a lake, you COMMUNIST MUSLIM lover!

See, I can insult people with insane lies just as you do!

Almost all [Christians] accept Scripture to be the inspired word of God, Christ Incarnate, Crucified, Resurrected, Apostolic authority, miracles, the way of faith as opposed to works (compliance to a code of conduct).

Darwinian evolution (the only evolution ever accepted by science) says all these things are completely false.

No, that is just another of your many baseless assertions. Evolution says nothing about the truth or falsehood about the nature and mission of Jesus, for example.

Ham and all YECs accept the existence of natural selection, microevolution, limited macroevolution and common descent.

Again, the Fundies are in bed with Darwin and Dawkins (Thank God).

So the question is, why don’t you also accept the existence of natural selection, microevolution, limited macroevolution and common descent? Aren’t you a YEC?

Or maybe you also believe in a flat Earth too?

Indeed, what is your problem with atheism itself? I mean if you going to attack something so wildly, shouldn’t you be able to show what is wrong about it? But you never have.

With the entrance of Ray this thread seems to be deteriorating. I’ll leave it open for a while, but it’s on its last legs.

Richard B. Hoppe said:

With the entrance of Ray this thread seems to be deteriorating. I’ll leave it open for a while, but it’s on its last legs.

Oops. That got posted in the wrong thread. Sorry.

Richard B. Hoppe said:

Richard B. Hoppe said:

With the entrance of Ray this thread seems to be deteriorating. I’ll leave it open for a while, but it’s on its last legs.

Oops. That got posted in the wrong thread. Sorry.

You mean he is infesting another one?

We need a Texas sized fly swatter.

dalehusband said: You mean he is infesting another one?

It seems that RayM can sulk in stereo.

We need a Texas sized fly swatter.

I suddenly had a ghastly vision of what would happen if RayM got his hands on a matter transporter.

dale husband Wrote:

So the question is, why don’t you also accept the existence of natural selection, microevolution, limited macroevolution and common descent? Aren’t you a YEC?

Or maybe you also believe in a flat Earth too?

Ray is old earth (he refuses to say how old), young biosphere (current one is post-Flood; he refuses to say how many previous ones there were or when they began and ended). He is a heliocentrist (he has criticized Tony Pagano’s geocentrism) so he is most likely not a flat-earther.

That said, I must say in Ray’s (relative) defense that, as evasive as he is on “what happened when” he is much less evasive, and more critical of other evolution-deniers, than the current crop of “big tent” scam artists and trolls. And his denial of “microevolution” is quite gutsy in this hyper-politically-correct “big tent” era.

That these people are evasive is all the more reason to keep asking about the details of their particular alternate “theory,” especially the “what happened when” part, and its irreconcilable differences with what other evolution-deniers admit. Evasion is data; assuming is foot-shooting.

Frank J said:

John Wrote:

Behe is that rarity of rarities, an IDiot who accepts the reality of common descent.

I’d agree if you said “admits” instead of “accepts.” I can’t read minds but I think that most DI folk privately accept CD, but know better than to admit it to the “big tent.”

In his Dover testimony, Behe admitted that he accepted common descent.

Here’s a link to a radio interview held earlier today featuring Genie Scott of NCSE about this bill:

http://thedianerehmshow.org/audio-p[…]er?nid=15873

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Nick Matzke published on March 27, 2012 7:01 PM.

Yet another Scopes Monkey Trial on the way in Tennessee was the previous entry in this blog.

Lauri Lebo on the Tennessee anti-evolution bill is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Categories

Archives

Author Archives

Powered by Movable Type 4.38

Site Meter