A Creationist Admits That Evolution IS Science

Young Earth Creationist Todd Wood explains that evolution is science and discusses the nature of science. Note that he does not ACCEPT evolution, he just believes that it is valid science.He makes a point which has been made before, but since creationists go on making the same error it bears repeating. Science does not rely solely on direct observation. Observable consequences will do fine (just as they do fine when forensics experts reconstruct a crime) Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

Thread copied here from the A Creationist Admits That Evolution IS Science thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.

Well, it's a step in the right direction I suppose. But I read his blog on the link you provided and would be more interested to hear in detail why he considers Evolution a valid science and yet ultimately fails to accept it.
When you consider all the different types of evidence for evolution (includng fossils, geographical distribution of species, genetics, observed small-scale adaptations/mutations within our lifetime, vestigial organs, etc), I find it impossible to imagine why anyone could really fail to accept the evidence. What additional evidence would they need to accept Evolution as a fact? Do we really have to wait thousands and thousands of years to record many examples of large-scale natural adaptations before everyone finally accepts that as valid evidence?

to give him the biggest benefit of the doubt, he probably views Evolution as a valid science, much like String Theory is valid science. It makes some neat guesses/predictions, but could ultimately fail to work as well as it seems to right now. In other words, it's a neat area of exploration, carried out in a scientific manner, but not necessarily accurate in it's assumptions and conclusions.The less gracious interpretation is that he's merely saying something to sound more reaosnable, while still trying to push his views on those who are less likely to tune him out if he "admits" that evolution is science. Even if we wait that long, I'm sure they'd just bring up kinds and say, "but look, it's still the same kind, you still haven't shown me a crocoduck."

How does this guy deal with the cognitive dissonance this must create for him. There he says:

quote:

---

Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well.

---

Yet he still doesn't believe it. How does he deal with it???

---

"Few are those who see with their own eyes and feel with their own hearts." -Albert Einstein"I would rather have a mind opened by wonder than one closed by belief."
~ Gerry Spence

He doesn't accept evolution because it contradicts his religious beliefs. And I find that attitude vastly preferable to the dishonest self-worship more typical of creationism.

This is why he rejects evolution: At least he is honest enough to recognize that evolution is not a scientific theory in crisis. However, he trusts his own intepretation of the bible and its lack of evidence over the preponderance of emperical evidence. Pretty remarkable actually the level of congitive dissonance this requires.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

---

"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

This is very true, but I can't see how he can possibly be intellectually honest with himself. I think there maybe a risk of his brain short circuiting at this level. Is there possibly smoke coming out his ears?

---

"Few are those who see with their own eyes and feel with their own hearts." -Albert Einstein"I would rather have a mind opened by wonder than one closed by belief."
~ Gerry Spence

And if the creationists survive with the rest of us long enough to witness many large scale natural evolutionary changes, no doubt they'll evolve their story as well.I can see it now:"There was no evolution of new species before Darwin proposed his theory, but God thought it was such a good idea he decided to start the process of evolution through natural selection sometime around the 19th or 20th century."

I did...? I had always thought that evolution was a good idea. It saves me a lot of time and effort to do the thing I really love... skeeball.Kidding aside, as long as he can deal with the smoke coming out his ears, then good for him. You have to give him credit for facing reality even if he ultimately decides to turn his back on it. At the very least, it is less dangerous for him to turn his back on the science of evolution than it is for a smoker to turn their back on evidence that smoking is bad for the health, as long as he doesn't try to force his beliefs into the science class and on other people. Which I imagine he won't seeing as he has agreed that evolution is good science and creationism is not. If more creationists were like this, I don't think there would be a debate.Edited by Izanagi, : No reason given.Edited by Izanagi, : No reason given.

I think you're right.It crosses the line of allowing personal freedom to argue that someone should not be making a subjective decision if that person understands the decision is actually subjective and wants to do it anyway.As far as I can tell, "faith" is just a nice word for subjective things that have to do with religion and God.