Bryan College dropping Center for Origins Research

Posted 21 January 2013 by Nick Matzke

Todd Wood has just announced that Bryan College is discontinuing support for the Center for Origins Research (CORE). I am actually kind of sad about this. Wood was almost the sole representative of critical thinking in the creationist movement. He also had the virtually unique trait of understanding what modern evolutionary biology actually said before opening his big mouth about it. I can't think of a time when he quote-mined Gould's punctuated equilibrium quotes or blamed Darwin for Hitler or used the other careless, bottom-of-the-barrel tactics ubiquitous with creationists of the ID or AIG varieties. And I can think of many times when he called shenanigans on creationists engaging in those sorts of sins. Of course, I think "statistical baraminology" is basically junk -- the "baraminic distance correlation" they use to look for discontinuity depends entirely on the domain of analysis. If you use it on a group of fossil hominids and humans, it will make evident the biggest split in the character data in that very limited domain. And because cladistic datasets don't include uniform characters, only characters that change within the clade being analyzed, all of the characters must change somewhere, and typically this would mean that the "basal" and "derived" groups will be anti-correlated. But if your domain of analysis included characters from many other mammals and reptiles, fossil hominids and humans would appear nearly identical, i.e. highly correlated, because many characters that are identical for fossil and living humans would be included. Cladistic morphology datasets typically have very tight scope (focusing on a family or genus over which comparable characters can be easily scored), but DNA data has no such limitation. I think this is fundamentally why the statistical baraminologists could never find discontinuity in DNA datasets and soon abandoned DNA datasets. Anyway, I fear that Wood is soon going to face a tough choice: to get a creationism job, he'll probably have to knuckle under to creationist orthodoxy and stop criticizing the rampant intellectual shenanigans in his movement. To get a real biology job, he'll probably have to give up creationism, at least young-earth creationism. Honestly, I suspect he's intellectually closer to the latter option, whether or not he realizes it yet.

40 Comments

Carl Drews · 21 January 2013

Is Todd Wood related to the young-earth biblical archaeologist Dr. Bryant G. Wood?

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad · 21 January 2013

The results don't justify continuation of yet another creationist enterprise?

Who could have predicted that, other than everyone with a reasonable level of knowledge about science?

Glen Davidson

eric · 21 January 2013

To get a real biology job, he’ll probably have to give up creationism, at least young-earth creationism.

I kinda hope not. To repeat what I said on the Coppedge thread, what he believes/does in his spare time should not really be important. Can he perform and publish quality work, get grants, teach students (mainstream science), and mentor grad students (again - to do mainstream science). Those are the skills any prospective employer should be looking at. If he gets booted from his current job for unorthodox/heretical beliefs, that's to Bryan College's shame. We should not emulate a Bible college in that respect.

Nick Matzke · 21 January 2013

Is Todd Wood related to the young-earth biblical archaeologist Dr. Bryant G. Wood?

Presumably we would have heard about it before if this were the case...

Nick Matzke · 21 January 2013

I kinda hope not. To repeat what I said on the Coppedge thread, what he believes/does in his spare time should not really be important. Can he perform and publish quality work, get grants, teach students (mainstream science), and mentor grad students (again - to do mainstream science). Those are the skills any prospective employer should be looking at. If he gets booted from his current job for unorthodox/heretical beliefs, that’s to Bryan College’s shame. We should not emulate a Bible college in that respect.

It's one thing to have a weird personal hobby, which I agree shouldn't be factored into hiring considerations, but it's another thing to have had a career as a professional proponent and teacher of said weird viewpoint, with most of your published work based on that.

harold · 21 January 2013

To get a real biology job, he’ll probably have to give up creationism, at least young-earth creationism.

At one level...what Eric said. Let's leave the religious tests to Liberty University. There's technically no reason why he couldn't do competent biology. Yes, he'd have to privately "compartmentalize". That's nobody's business but his own. In reality, though, Todd Wood is in a bit of a tough situation. He probably can't easily move to a PhD-level research job, because, although he has a legit PhD, he's wasted all these years on useless creationist hand-waving. It's exquisitely difficult for solid people with years in valid research to get grants or good faculty jobs these days. Having done creationist work may be less of an issue than simply not having done real work. He had the luxury of trying to be the "one honest creationist" for quite a few years. Perhaps donations will be forthcoming now, but I suspect not. The money people fund denial, distortion, and bombastic whining. That's what they want. They most certainly do not seem to want nice, polite creationists who admit that evolution seems to make sense and that mainstream scientists are mainly decent, honest people. However - and I hope I'm wrong - he'll probably take this "route of least resistance". "Just recant a few of your past heresies, Todd, and we'll give you a low pressure, good paying science denial job. And if you don't we'll reject you at every level". The carrot and stick combination could be too difficult to resist. Another option might be teaching at the mainstream community college or high school level, where grants or a research track record aren't always needed, but Wood might be suspect to administrators, both because he is in some ways over-qualified, and due to legitimate fears that he might not be able to resist bringing religion into it, and becoming a sort kinder, gentler Freshwater. I'm going to suggest a final option. And I mean this legitimately. It isn't intended as an insult in the slightest. Medical laboratory technology. This would require Wood to go back to school briefly, although in theory he might qualify to do something like a paid clinical chemistry or microbiology fellowship, which could lead to a lab director job (plenty of PhD's do, although usually there is no track record of science denial). Medical lab technology is a reasonably growing area. The jobs are honest and satisfying, they make use of scientific skills, but they're applied enough that religion never needs to remotely come up one way or the other. It's harder work than bloviating science denial a few times a year for a fundamentalist college or think tank, can have less convenient hours, and may pay slightly less, but it also has numerous advantages. I would personally suggest to Wood that this is a vastly superior option to a job in the evolution denial industry.

Robert Byers · 21 January 2013

It was just budget stuff and not support for creationism.
If this tiny group is important to these issues then there is surely a lack of strength in evolutionism.
What is funds was doubled?
Would it be the end of evolutionary biology?!

Whats a few people if evolution is backed up by the evidence!?

This sparrow falling being noted is noting a bigger problem for a scientific theory.

apokryltaros · 21 January 2013

Robert Byers, Idiot For Jesus, pretending that there is no support for Evolutionary Biology does not make your lie true.

That, and you don't seem to care that Todd Wood never did anything to further Young Earth Creationism research in the first place, do you?

Sort of like how for all the years you have trolled here at Panda's Thumb, you have never once been able to explain to us how or why we must blindly accept your inanely incorrect proclamations about science and Young Earth Creationism as unimpeachable holy law, to the point where you've pulled excuses out of your ass to avoid doing so?

apokryltaros · 21 January 2013

eric said:
To get a real biology job, he’ll probably have to give up creationism, at least young-earth creationism.
I kinda hope not. To repeat what I said on the Coppedge thread, what he believes/does in his spare time should not really be important. Can he perform and publish quality work, get grants, teach students (mainstream science), and mentor grad students (again - to do mainstream science). Those are the skills any prospective employer should be looking at. If he gets booted from his current job for unorthodox/heretical beliefs, that's to Bryan College's shame. We should not emulate a Bible college in that respect.

To get a "real job" in Biology, Wood would only need to demonstrate that he has a competent understanding of Biology, and can demonstrate that he can get the job done without tripping over his Personal Biases For Jesus, as well as having rudimentary social skills. But the problem I see is that the majority of Young Earth Creationist/anti-science scientists and science teachers tend to develop an Ennui For Jesus that robs them of, if not cripples their desire to do any science in the first place.

John Harshman · 21 January 2013

Too bad about Todd. Just shows that it doesn't pay to be an honest creationist. Evolutionists don't like him (or rather feel sympathy and regret for him) because he's a creationist, and creationists don't like him because he says things they don't want to hear -- i.e. because he's honest. I think it would be hard for him to maintain a job in any real biology that's involved at all with evolution, just because the cognitive dissonance would be too stressful; then again, he must have managed that during his PhD program, so maybe.

Of course, I think “statistical baraminology” is basically junk – the “baraminic distance correlation” they use to look for discontinuity depends entirely on the domain of analysis.

It seems to me that the most glaring weakness of baraminology is they -- including Todd -- never attempt to justify their methods. It's merely assumed that one can detect baraminic boundaries in this way. It's the lack of curiosity about whether the methods even work that most clearly shows baraminology to be merely an imitation of science.

Nick Matzke · 21 January 2013

John Harshman said: Too bad about Todd. Just shows that it doesn't pay to be an honest creationist. Evolutionists don't like him (or rather feel sympathy and regret for him) because he's a creationist, and creationists don't like him because he says things they don't want to hear -- i.e. because he's honest. I think it would be hard for him to maintain a job in any real biology that's involved at all with evolution, just because the cognitive dissonance would be too stressful; then again, he must have managed that during his PhD program, so maybe.
Of course, I think “statistical baraminology” is basically junk – the “baraminic distance correlation” they use to look for discontinuity depends entirely on the domain of analysis.
It seems to me that the most glaring weakness of baraminology is they -- including Todd -- never attempt to justify their methods. It's merely assumed that one can detect baraminic boundaries in this way. It's the lack of curiosity about whether the methods even work that most clearly shows baraminology to be merely an imitation of science.

Are you proposing a computer simulation study of special creation? :-)

John Harshman · 21 January 2013

Are you proposing a computer simulation study of special creation?

That would certainly be evidence that the baraminologists were serious. But of course the aren't.

Henry J · 21 January 2013

Are you proposing a computer simulation study of special creation? :-)

Like the one being ineffectively described in a thread over on AtBC? Henry

Ian Derthal · 22 January 2013

To get a real biology job, he’ll probably have to give up creationism, at least young-earth creationism. Honestly, I suspect he’s intellectually closer to the latter option, whether or not he realizes it yet.

In which case it's only a matter of time before Ham starts referring to him as a "Christian compromiser", especially if he deviates in any way from a 6,000 year old Earth ! Then again, he could always try Snelling's, or any other YEC working in mainstream science, trick and simply say nothing.

eric · 22 January 2013

Nick Matzke said: It's one thing to have a weird personal hobby, which I agree shouldn't be factored into hiring considerations, but it's another thing to have had a career as a professional proponent and teacher of said weird viewpoint, with most of your published work based on that.

If he's only published creationist work, and its not good quality science, then that is a legitimate factor a mainstream Uni needs to consider as part of the hiring decision. And it will probably kill his chances of a job anywhere except some of the smaller, teaching-focused universities that might not care about research. In my first post I was staying somewhat hypothetical because I frankly don't know what he's published, how many grants he's held, how many (and what quality) graduates have come out of his lab, etc., etc.

apokryltaros · 22 January 2013

eric said: If he's only published creationist work, and its not good quality science, then(...)

Isn't this verging on the ridiculously redundant, ala "wet water versus hydrogen-bonding powered water"?

Carl Drews · 22 January 2013

Maybe God is telling Todd Wood to drop his devotion to Bishop James Ussher and start accepting the testimony of the natural world instead (see Psalm 19:1-4a). It wasn't too late for Glenn Morton.

justificationbyreason.wordpress.com · 22 January 2013

Anyway, I fear that Wood is soon going to face a tough choice: to get a creationism job, he’ll probably have to knuckle under to creationist orthodoxy and stop criticizing the rampant intellectual shenanigans in his movement. To get a real biology job, he’ll probably have to give up creationism, at least young-earth creationism. Honestly, I suspect he’s intellectually closer to the latter option, whether or not he realizes it yet.

Why's that? Todd Wood is a YEC and he never has shown signs of being intellectually close to giving up YEC. Al least I can't remember that. I think that this is a lot of wish-full thinking. Many creationists have shown that they accept certain parts of evolution, and admitting that evolution is backed up by much evidence, doesn not imply that someone is intellectually closer to Darwinism. Or am I mistaken? When evolution is used by creationists to support a creation biology model, that would not be seen as intellectually closer to Darwinism. When Todd Wood loses his job, this would give credit to the thought that Todd Wood is intellectually closer to Darwinism.. Am I that stupid, or is there no logic behind this conclusion?

Flint · 22 January 2013

I don't think it's a matter of evidence or "intellectual closeness", but rather a matter of religious faith. If his faith tells him that YEC is true and reality is false in the necessary important respects, then he'll probably stick with his faith.

j. biggs · 22 January 2013

justificationbyreason.wordpress.com said:
Nick Matzke said: Anyway, I fear that Wood is soon going to face a tough choice: to get a creationism job, he’ll probably have to knuckle under to creationist orthodoxy and stop criticizing the rampant intellectual shenanigans in his movement. To get a real biology job, he’ll probably have to give up creationism, at least young-earth creationism. Honestly, I suspect he’s intellectually closer to the latter option, whether or not he realizes it yet.
Why's that? Todd Wood is a YEC and he never has shown signs of being intellectually close to giving up YEC. Al least I can't remember that. I think that this is a lot of wish-full thinking.

I don't recall Nick saying he wished Todd Wood would give up YEC, just that he suspected he would be intellectually closer to that option if forced to choose between working for an organization that forced him to be a charlatan for Jesus or doing actual science sans the Creationist agenda. Many have already pointed out that Wood needn't give up being a YEC as long as he can check his religion at the door to the lab.

Many creationists have shown that they accept certain parts of evolution, and admitting that evolution is backed up by much evidence, doesn not imply that someone is intellectually closer to Darwinism.

And no one said any different. Creationists usually will admit to a certain amount of evidence for evolution and then pretend that other equally valid evidences don't exist because they conflict with their religious doctrine. That is why Creationism isn't science. BTW, "Darwinism" isn't the same as evolutionary biology; it is a pejorative Creationists use when they present their straw-man versions of evolution.

Or am I mistaken? When evolution is used by creationists to support a creation biology model, that would not be seen as intellectually closer to Darwinism. When Todd Wood loses his job, this would give credit to the thought that Todd Wood is intellectually closer to Darwinism..

Except, this isn't the reasoning Nick is using when he says he "suspects" Todd Wood is intellectually closer to doing real science than working for AiG, ICR, etc. Nick has explained that Wood is actually honest when he presents evolution. Wood admits that the scientific evidence favors Evolution and not YEC. Is he misguided to think that he will somehow be able to rectify his YEC beliefs with all the scientific evidence to the contrary? Probably. But, I think Nick is intimating that Wood isn't intellectually dishonest enough to do what the people at organizations like ICR, AiG and DI do, which is hand-wave, misrepresent and flat out lie.

Am I that stupid, or is there no logic behind this conclusion?

That remains to be seen, but you definitely missed the point.

Tenncrain · 22 January 2013

As a reminder, Todd Wood said this (click here for full post) in his own blog. Here’s partial copy:

Todd Wood: The truth about evolution “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.” [bold text is original]

Nick Matzke · 22 January 2013

Tenncrain said: As a reminder, Todd Wood said this (click here for full post) in his own blog. Here’s partial copy:
Todd Wood: The truth about evolution “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.” [bold text is original]

Yeah -- in response to justificationbyreason.wordpress.com, of course I was just speculating on Todd Wood's psychology, but IMHO a YEC who writes stuff like the above is way closer to giving up and accepting that the evidence supports evolution overwhelmingly, than a YEC who honestly believes that evolution is a theory in crisis, there are no transitional fossils, yadda yadda.

Ray Martinez · 22 January 2013

Nick Matzke: Todd Wood has just announced that Bryan College is discontinuing support for the Center for Origins Research (CORE). I am actually kind of sad about this. Wood was almost the sole representative of critical thinking in the creationist movement. He also had the virtually unique trait of understanding what modern evolutionary biology actually said before opening his big mouth about it. I can’t think of a time when he quote-mined Gould’s punctuated equilibrium quotes or blamed Darwin for Hitler or used the other careless, bottom-of-the-barrel tactics ubiquitous with creationists of the ID or AIG varieties. And I can think of many times when he called shenanigans on creationists engaging in those sorts of sins.

I offer Atheist Nick Matzke's opinion as quality evidence supporting the fact that Todd Wood is not a real Creationist. RM (Protestant Evangelical, Old Earth, Paleyan IDist-species immutabilist)

DS · 22 January 2013

Yea, as Floyd would say, honesty and creationist are incompatible.

Nick Matzke · 22 January 2013

I offer Atheist Nick Matzke’s opinion as quality evidence supporting the fact that Todd Wood is not a real Creationist. RM (Protestant Evangelical, Old Earth, Paleyan IDist-species immutabilist)

Eh? You got both parts of that wrong. I am not an atheist, and whatever else he is, Todd Wood is definitely a real creationist, at least at the moment.

justificationbyreason.wordpress.com · 23 January 2013

j. biggs said:
justificationbyreason.wordpress.com said:
Nick Matzke said: Anyway, I fear that Wood is soon going to face a tough choice: to get a creationism job, he’ll probably have to knuckle under to creationist orthodoxy and stop criticizing the rampant intellectual shenanigans in his movement. To get a real biology job, he’ll probably have to give up creationism, at least young-earth creationism. Honestly, I suspect he’s intellectually closer to the latter option, whether or not he realizes it yet.
Why's that? Todd Wood is a YEC and he never has shown signs of being intellectually close to giving up YEC. Al least I can't remember that. I think that this is a lot of wish-full thinking.
I don't recall Nick saying he wished Todd Wood would give up YEC, just that he suspected he would be intellectually closer to that option if forced to choose between working for an organization that forced him to be a charlatan for Jesus or doing actual science sans the Creationist agenda. Many have already pointed out that Wood needn't give up being a YEC as long as he can check his religion at the door to the lab.
Many creationists have shown that they accept certain parts of evolution, and admitting that evolution is backed up by much evidence, doesn not imply that someone is intellectually closer to Darwinism.
And no one said any different. Creationists usually will admit to a certain amount of evidence for evolution and then pretend that other equally valid evidences don't exist because they conflict with their religious doctrine. That is why Creationism isn't science. BTW, "Darwinism" isn't the same as evolutionary biology; it is a pejorative Creationists use when they present their straw-man versions of evolution.
Or am I mistaken? When evolution is used by creationists to support a creation biology model, that would not be seen as intellectually closer to Darwinism. When Todd Wood loses his job, this would give credit to the thought that Todd Wood is intellectually closer to Darwinism..
Except, this isn't the reasoning Nick is using when he says he "suspects" Todd Wood is intellectually closer to doing real science than working for AiG, ICR, etc. Nick has explained that Wood is actually honest when he presents evolution. Wood admits that the scientific evidence favors Evolution and not YEC. Is he misguided to think that he will somehow be able to rectify his YEC beliefs with all the scientific evidence to the contrary? Probably. But, I think Nick is intimating that Wood isn't intellectually dishonest enough to do what the people at organizations like ICR, AiG and DI do, which is hand-wave, misrepresent and flat out lie.
Am I that stupid, or is there no logic behind this conclusion?
That remains to be seen, but you definitely missed the point.

My apologies, for misreading that Nick said that Todd wood is intellectually closer to abandoning YEC. Instead, I read now (more carefully) that he suspects that Todd Wood is closer to doing real science than working for another organization. But I suspect that he first will try to continu CORE in another form possibly. My previous comment is therefore largely irrelevant and can safely be ignored ;-)

And no one said any different. Creationists usually will admit to a certain amount of evidence for evolution and then pretend that other equally valid evidences don’t exist because they conflict with their religious doctrine. That is why Creationism isn’t science. BTW, “Darwinism” isn’t the same as evolutionary biology; it is a pejorative Creationists use when they present their straw-man versions of evolution.

A) There are two ways of looking at creationism. One from a faith-based evidence perspective, and one from a scientific-based perspective. There's one kind of evidence that rules them all. But it really depends on where in that case your priorities are placed. B) It just depends on how you define Darwinism, but I define Darwinism as everything related to evolution by natural selection. But I sure know that people could have negative connontations with that term. Thanks again for correcting me!

eric · 23 January 2013

apokryltaros said:
eric said: If he's only published creationist work, and its not good quality science, then(...)
Isn't this verging on the ridiculously redundant, ala "wet water versus hydrogen-bonding powered water"?

Possibly. Its a very fine needle to thread, being a YEC yet publihing, teaching, doing good biology. You're right, its questionable whether any sincere creationist could thread it. I'm not saying he has (or he hasn't). I guess my point is: we should use empiricism and the evidence of his individual actions to determine whether he's threaded it or not. Not base the decision on a generalization or preconception that YEC's can't do that.

j. biggs · 23 January 2013

justificationbyreason.wordpress.com said: My previous comment is therefore largely irrelevant and can safely be ignored ;-)

No problem, I've been known for misreading things myself on occasion.

A) There are two ways of looking at creationism. One from a faith-based evidence perspective, and one from a scientific-based perspective. There's one kind of evidence that rules them all. But it really depends on where in that case your priorities are placed.

I'm not disagreeing here necessarily, but could you clear up what you mean by faith-based evidence? Perhaps you are alluding to subjective/personal religious experience, but I can't be sure. If you are saying that, it is hard to argue that personal experiences support any type of Creationist doctrine. Remember that YEC's actually do make scientifically testable claims, such as a global deluge or that the world is around 6,000 years old. These claims are objectively wrong. There is no scientific evidence to support either position and myriads that contradict them.

B) It just depends on how you define Darwinism, but I define Darwinism as everything related to evolution by natural selection. But I sure know that people could have negative connontations with that term.

The problem with using "Darwinism" isn't the way you define it but the baggage creationists have attached to it. When a person accepts that scientific evidence overwhelmingly supports evolution, they aren't worshiping Darwin, which is what is intimated by attaching ism after Darwin's name. Also, evolution has progressed and changed significantly since Darwin's time. In fact during the late 19th and early 20th century it was thought that genetics and evolution were at odds with each other simply because Darwin and Mendel postulated a different mechanisms of inheritance. It turned out Darwin was wrong about inheritance. Once the correct mode of inheritance was determined, however, it actually enhanced evolution theory.

John Harshman · 23 January 2013

Nick Matzke said: Todd Wood is definitely a real creationist, at least at the moment.

You forget that Ray is the only True Creationist(TM). Todd Wood clearly believes in evolution within kinds, not species immutability. He might as well be an atheist/evolutionist (the terms are interchangeable).

Ray Martinez · 23 January 2013

Nick Matzke said:
I offer Atheist Nick Matzke’s opinion as quality evidence supporting the fact that Todd Wood is not a real Creationist.
Eh? You got both parts of that wrong. I am not an atheist, and whatever else he is, Todd Wood is definitely a real creationist, at least at the moment.

Real Creationists don't write: “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” (Todd Wood). A real Creationist would say the exact opposite. What's quite apparent is that Wood is a double agent, or he is horribly confused. The fact that ardent Evolutionists like yourself and John Harshman say nice things about Wood indicates that Wood is not a real Creationist. Real Creationists, as one could expect, are rejected by Evolutionists, not accepted. RM (Old Earth, Paleyan IDist-species immutabilist)

DS · 23 January 2013

Real Creationists don’t write:

Truer words wer never written.

Henry J · 24 January 2013

But some of them do manage to output a large number of words!

John Harshman · 24 January 2013

We should all thank Ray for being a perfect example of the sort of creationist Todd Wood isn't.

Ray Martinez · 24 January 2013

John Harshman said: We should all thank Ray for being a perfect example of the sort of creationist Todd Wood isn't.

Again, the approval of Todd Wood by Atheist John Harshman is quality evidence supporting the fact that Wood is not a real Creationist.

Just Bob · 24 January 2013

Ray Martinez said:
John Harshman said: We should all thank Ray for being a perfect example of the sort of creationist Todd Wood isn't.
Again, the approval of Todd Wood by Atheist John Harshman is quality evidence supporting the fact that Wood is not a real Creationist.

OK, I, an atheist, approve of much--even most--of what Jesus said. Ergo that is "quality evidence" that Jesus was not a real Christian [Actually, Jesus was NOT a Christian, by any definition of the term.]

https://me.yahoo.com/a/hVRHCnZug_xllssnKFJTN4zOUQGXHwN4#7215b · 25 January 2013

Can't say I'm sorry to see CORE disappear, though Todd Wood's statement indicates he is working to keep it going in some fashion. By being an honest creationist, Todd is more dangerous than the obvious liars and charlatans, because he gives an undeserved veneer of respectability to his brand of YECism. He can be trotted out as a show pony by those who want to claim that YECism can be a respectable field of scientific research when it really can't. The shame isn't the disappearance of CORE, but rather the waste of Todd Wood's talent caused by the infection of his brain by the YECism meme.

dalehusband · 4 February 2013

Ray Martinez said: I offer Atheist Nick Matzke's opinion as quality evidence supporting the fact that Todd Wood is not a real Creationist. Real Creationists don't write: “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” (Todd Wood). A real Creationist would say the exact opposite. What's quite apparent is that Wood is a double agent, or he is horribly confused. The fact that ardent Evolutionists like yourself and John Harshman say nice things about Wood indicates that Wood is not a real Creationist. Real Creationists, as one could expect, are rejected by Evolutionists, not accepted. RM (Protestant Evangelical, Old Earth, Paleyan IDist-species immutabilist)

The only thing you really seem to be, Ray, is a pathological liar.

dalehusband · 4 February 2013

dalehusband said:
Ray Martinez said: I offer Atheist Nick Matzke's opinion as quality evidence supporting the fact that Todd Wood is not a real Creationist. Real Creationists don't write: “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” (Todd Wood). A real Creationist would say the exact opposite. What's quite apparent is that Wood is a double agent, or he is horribly confused. The fact that ardent Evolutionists like yourself and John Harshman say nice things about Wood indicates that Wood is not a real Creationist. Real Creationists, as one could expect, are rejected by Evolutionists, not accepted. RM (Protestant Evangelical, Old Earth, Paleyan IDist-species immutabilist)
The only thing you really seem to be, Ray, is a pathological liar.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_can_you_tell_if_someone_is_a_pathological_liar How can you tell if someone is a pathological liar? Pathological liars - or "mythomaniacs" - may be suffering from histrionic personality disorder or narcissistic personality disorder. The following comments basically reflect a pathological liar who has the characteristics of histrionic personality disorder. Some Characteristics: Exaggerates things that are ridiculous. One-upping. Whatever you do, this person can do it better. You will never top them in their own mind, because they have a concerted need to be better than everyone else. This also applies to being right. If you try to confront an individual like this, no matter how lovingly and well-intentioned you might be - this will probably not be effective. It's threatening their fantasy of themselves, so they would rather argue with you and bring out the sharp knives than admit that there's anything wrong with them. They "construct" a reality around themselves. They don't value the truth, especially if they don't see it as hurting anyone. If you call them on a lie and they are backed into a corner, they will act very defensively and say ugly things (most likely but depends on personality), but they may eventually start to act like, "Well, what's the difference? You're making a big deal out of nothing!" (again, to refocus the conversation to your wrongdoing instead of theirs). Because these people don't value honesty, a lot of times they will not value loyalty. So watch what you tell them. They will not only tell others, but they will embellish to make you look worse. Their loyalty is fleeting, and because they are insecure people, they will find solace in confiding to whomever is in their favor at the moment. They may be somewhat of a hypochondriac. This can come in especially useful when caught in a lie, for example, they can claim that they have been sick, or that there's some mysteriously "illness" that has them all stressed out. It's another excuse tool for their behavior. Obviously, they will contradict what they say. This will become very clear over time. They usually aren't smart enough to keep track of so many lies (who would be?). Another WikiAnswers contributor adds: They lie about even the smallest things. For example, saying "I brushed my teeth today," when they didn't. They add exaggerations to every sentence. They change their story all the time. They act very defensively when you question their statements. They believe what they say is true, when everyone else knows it isn't. An alternate 'checklist': Lies when it is very easy to tell the truth. Lies to get sympathy, to look better, to save their butt, etc. Fools people at first but once they get to know him, no one believes anything they ever say. May have a personality disorder. Extremely manipulative. Has been caught in lies repeatedly. Never fesses up to the lies. Is a legend in their own mind. More opinions and input from WikiAnswers contributors: I have found a few differences in pathological liar and a "slime ball" liar. Pathological liars cannot tell that they are lying; they actually believe the lie as soon as it comes out of their mouth. They lie about unimportant things that don't really matter to anyone. This can be caused by mental defect but isn't always. Slime-ball liars lie about things that make them look better or embellish to get attention. They also lie to keep their butts out of trouble and to get what they want. Here are things to ask yourself: How could this many things happen to one person? Would believe these stories if someone else told you? Think back to the beginning: you had red flags and alarms going off in you head. Learn to trust your instincts. It is very hard to tell when one is a pathological liar. Some people just are liars and lie to lie because they can and they don't care about getting caught and aware that you know they have lied. These people care not about lying, it's no big deal. It's like "ok, so what? I lied". The pathological liar on the other hand, IS aware that they are lying BUT will go to extremes to make you believe that they are truthful. They appear to believe their own lies BUT in truth, they know their lies are just that, lies. But because their efforts are constantly backing up their lies, it appears to us that they actually believe their lies, when we eventually do find out about them and then we tend to feel sorry for these people. Then they have an excuse, "I am sick, I don't know why I lie, I believed what I was saying etc." The only truth was the fact that they don't know why they lie. Other than that it's crap. It is true that most of them have an extremely low sense of self worth and are continuously trying to make themselves feel better about THEMSELVES and this is one reason they lie. It is about them but the lies are not always set up with the purpose to hurt some one else; it's that these people feel so low about themselves they need to create ANYTHING different from the ugly reality they feel about themselves so they lie about even the most tiniest little thing. The people closest to them get sucked into these lies which sometimes start as something very trivial and then turn into something that can turn everyone involved worlds upside down and inside out. Unmasking the pathological liar is an easier task when the pathological liar is no more than a casual acquaintence to the "un-masker." Close relationships provide camouflage for the pathological liar, and intimacy provides a heavily-fortressed breeding ground. Other indicators: 1) Rage attacks after they realize you're questioning their lies. 2) Distraction techniques, e.g. hanging up the phone when you catch them in lie, playing word games, or even just running out of the room. After using the distraction technique, or rage attack, or sometimes both, they will pretend that nothing ever happened. They re-write history, so it never did happen in their minds. Normal people do it too, but these people take it to the extreme. From "Go Ask Alice": Lies are unplanned and impulsive. Behavior is repeated over a long period of time. Lies don't seem to exist for any external reason. Behavior may not always be a conscious act. Lies are admitted, changed, and/or adapted if a false story is challenged. From Andrea Broadbent "The Truth about Truman": To begin, the definition of pathological actually means abnormal or grossly atypical. Therefore, a pathological liar prevaricates more frequently than the average person or tells more abnormal lies. In most cases, pathological liars tell lies that are "unplanned and impulsive" (Hausman). These lies are usually very emotional stories that tend to serve no purpose except to impress people (Ford 133). As of now, psychiatrists are unsure whether or not pathological liars are fully capable of realizing if and when they are lying, so detecting whether or not a person is a pathological liar is a very difficult task (Hausman). By looking at the list of conditions commonly connected with people considered to be pathological liars, psychiatrists are better able to determine whether or not a person might actually have the disorder. Some main qualities linked with pathological liars include dysfunctional family origin, family lying patterns, anomalies of sexual life, frequent substance abuse, and a great capacity for language. From Raymond Lloyd Richmond, Ph.D. "Psychological Honesty": Even a pathological liar carries deep in his heart a desire for goodness and honesty and yet, because of painful emotional wounds, believes that the world never has, and never will, recognize his pain. And so, to hide that pain from himself, he uses all the lies he can concoct to hurl at the world as he runs in fear from his own goodness. For me, the first indication has been that I hear them tell different things to different people and they can't all be right, because they directly contradict each other! And I am able to prove it. If you can prove over and over again that things someone is telling you are outright false, then you have a pathological liar on your hands. With the Internet, it is now easier than ever to "fact-check" even the most mundane things. I think pathological liars often lose track of the lies they tell different people and it will eventually catch up with them.

Muhammad Bilal Raza Awan · 6 February 2013

Wood was just about the sole adviser regarding significant thinking within the creationist movements. He as well acquired the particular essentially unique mark regarding comprehending what exactly present day evolutionary biology actually explained ahead of best the large oral cavity over it. Begin using this on a number of fossil hominids and also mankind, it will create evident the most important separated within the identity files in that very confined site. And also mainly because classicist data-sets don’t consist of unvarying characters, exclusively characters this switch within the clad being examined, the entire characters have to switch a place, and also typically this can result in the particular “basal” and also “derived” organizations are going to be anti-correlated. Anyhow, When i dread this Wood can be soon about to confront a new daunting alternative: to obtain a creationism job, he’ll most likely have to knuckle below for you to creationist orthodoxy and also halt criticizing the particular wild intellectual shenanigans throughout the movements.
Thanks for sharing such a valuable information.
http://educationinn.com/szabist-university-islamabad-admissions/

Midnight Rambler · 9 February 2013

Sorry, but as an actual evolutionary biologist, who has been trying to find a semi-permanent job for the last 7 years, where half of my peers don't have faculty or other similar status positions and many of my rejection letters have said "Thank you for applying, but we had over 400 applicants for our position of assistant professor of insect systematics", I hope Wood never gets a legitimate biology position over any of us.