Todd, you are asking the wrong question

I was directed to the following post (http://toddcwood.blogspot.co.uk/2012/09/what-would-convince-me-part-1.html) from another creationist blog.

Being a humble limey, I know nothing of Todd Wood, but it does seem that he is a reasonably well connected creationist with a ministry and therefore there are many who follow what he says.

The comment and post that sent me Todd’s way said that he would be examining over a series of posts what would make him accept evolution. This piqued my interest and so I followed the link and was immediately disappointed.

The question that Todd is actually answering and investigating is this

 

if someone could show that evolution and Christian theology were indeed compatible, would that be enough to convince me that evolution was correct?

 

Oh how my heart fell when I read that.

Apart from the complete absence of what would constitute a satisfactory theological argument; the thing that screamed out me is that evolution is not determined by theology, but by science. One simply does not decide to believe evolution on the basis of clever philosophy. One accepts evolution due to the weight of evidence and experimental demonstration over the past 100+ years.

I think I get what Todd is trying to do though. In my creationist days I was very much of the opinion that the only right conclusion for the Christian was creation. My viewpoint was (and to a certain extent still is) that evolution creates too many problems at the root of Christian theology that the two are at least problematic roommates. In that respect I certainly sympathise with Todd’s question and can see that he at least believes he is trying to engage in an honest bit of soul searching.

The base problem with his question is that it starts from the point of view that there is a factual truth behind Christian theology. Regardless of where he goes with his answers, he will not at any point ask the question, “is it possible there is no God and no literal creation?” If anything of the kind is entertained, it will be rhetorical only and not for a second considered seriously.

This is what held me back for many years. My view of evolution was dictated by my adherence to Christianity. This is a scientifically unhealthy place to be.

Thankfully, I wasn’t so jaded that I would reject Christians who accepted evolution. In that regards I held a view that differences in opinion about evolution were not worth losing friends over.

I have added Todd’s blog to my reader and I will be interested in what posts he comes up with on the subject. I want to see where he goes with this and I want to see if there are any old and familiar misunderstandings.

Above all though, I want to see Todd face the question of what would he do if he honestly and critically, without bias, examined the evidence of evolution and used that same scientific integrity to equally question creationism.

Advertisements

3 thoughts on “Todd, you are asking the wrong question

  1. There is nothing that is true that is incompatible with Christianity. Truth cannot contradict itself.

    The THEORY of Evolution is not incompatible with Christianity. God is the author and could have authored evolution.

    The THEORY of Evolution does not, however, have the overwhelming weight of evidence so casually attributed to it.

    In fact,

    Science is merely a tool, limited in its ability to confirm data.

    Science does not draw conclusions, the human person does. As often as it has been used to draw the right conclusion, it has been used to draw the wrong one.

    As far as evolution, there lack of evidence speaks volumes.

    Most people have an impression of the theory of evolution and it is misused regularly, especially as a political club.

    _____

    • Hi Kevin,

      I appreciate you left this comment some time ago, I trust you’ll forgive me replying so late.

      Generally,I agree with your comment; there are just two things that stick out for me.

      1) Evolutionary THEORY, refers to something that science has a very high level of certainty about. So high, it can be said to be true. The theory part refers to the mechanism by which it happened. Evolutionary THEORY, as you put it, does not mean that evolution itself is under debate.

      2) I too used to think that there was a lack of evidence for evolution. Then I actually started looking for myself instead of taking when I read in commentaries and believing that.

      To those who would honestly and with an open mind look at the the science, they will find that the evidence is in fact significant, and grows each year.

  2. Above all though, I want to see Todd face the question of what would he do if he honestly and critically, without bias, examined the evidence of evolution and used that same scientific integrity to equally question creationism.

    The scientific evidence for evolution is woefully uncritical and missing.

    As to creationism, that depends on what you mean. To deny dinosaurs is silly.

    To say that all things had a beginning, like the Big Bang theory authored by a Jesuit Priest, and that beginning we call God is creationism, if not the version we hear.

    That there are lasting changes in a gene pool is evolution we can prove.

    That life somehow evolved from nothing, or even matter, is an absurdity.

    That an elephant has somehow evolved from a unicellular creature is possible, but implausible.

    Reason and moral attributes only belong to one species – humankind.

    _____

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s