Some Disturbing Trends in the Creation Movement

Site Admin

A number of creationists have recently become very concerned about the harm that certain persons in our circle are causing to both the creation and intelligent design movements. Quite a few persons, most of whom wanted to remain anonymous, have collaborated on this brief review documenting some of the major concerns.  We need to stress that several of those mentioned, including Todd Wood and Kurt Wise, have been valued reviewers and important supporters of the creation movement. This is especially true of their work for CORE and in various other publications, such as several chapters in the book The Quest.1

Introduction

Typical of the slide down to evolutionism is the American Scientific Affiliation which regressed from creationism to anti-creationism. This case will be reviewed to illustrate a trend of concern. On January 1, 1947, the American Scientific Affiliation (A.S.A.) published its first quarterly journal which continues to be published to this day. All of those involved in A.S.A.’s formation were openly opposed to evolutionary naturalism, although the drift toward theistic evolution existed even then. In 1959, North Dakota State College Professor Frank Cassel observed “in fifteen years [since the founding of A.S.A.] we have seen develop within A.S.A a spectrum of belief in evolution that would have shocked all of us at the inception of our organization” only a decade ago.2

Partly as a result of the steady drift towards evolutionism in the A.S.A., several active A.S.A. members, including Walter Lammerts and geneticist William Tinkle, formed The Creation Research Society in 1963. 3The first issue of the Creation Research Society Quarterly was published in July of 1964, and I (Bergman) became actively involved a short time later. I was also active in the A.S.A. until very recently, attending their conventions, and regularly publishing articles in the Journal of the American Scientific Affiliation, later renamed Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith. 4I was elected a Fellow of A.S.A. in April of 1983. I knew many creationists who were also actively involved in A.S.A., such as Wayne Friar, Ph.D., and we used to associate with each other at their yearly conferences.

My most recent concern with A.S.A. was an article I submitted for publication based on the peer-reviewed scientific literature refuting a common example of the “poor-design” claim made by some evolutionists. The then editor was very supportive of my paper, but the peer reviewers refused to approve it, essentially ignoring the clear evidence for the existing design. The “poor-design” claim was based squarely on evolutionary assumptions, not anatomical design flaws. The article was eventually published in my book documenting the fact that the “poor-design” claims were contrary to the evidence.5

It appeared to me that the A.S.A. leadership now was not only aggressively anti-creationist and anti-Intelligent Design, but also very opposed even to Intelligent Design arguments that are accepted by close to 90 percent of Americans. After A.S.A published a scathing and grossly ill-informed 1,691-word review of my book, The Dark Side of Charles Darwin, 6and refused to publish a rejoinder, I felt I could no longer be involved in an organization that had turned dogmatically anti-creationist and anti-Intelligent Design. 7The review was done by Professor Sara Joan Miles, a University of Chicago Ph.D., who taught at Wheaton College for 20 years. 8For example, she claimed that I made some mistakes in my book. Then, after she recognized that Darwin made some horrendous mistakes, apologized for her hero by stating, “But, so what? What if Darwin made mistakes. What if he held ideas we now know to be wrong?”

The fact is, Darwin’s concept of life evolving from simple molecules to humans is demonstrably false, so much so that many evolutionists prefer the term Neo-Darwinism. As Biology Professor Willem Ouweneel wrote: “biologists are generally more willing to listen to and engage opposing arguments [to evolution] than are theologians. This is because biological generalists are often somewhat aware of the weaknesses in the theory of evolution, whereas theologians are not.” 9He then documents that leading evolutionists cannot even agree on the most basic ideas theorized to explain what he calls ‘neo-Neo-Darwinism.’

Professor Ouweneel quoted Stanford University Nobel laureate, Professor Robert Laughlin, who documented that evolution is not only not science, but is actually anti-science, a view Laughlin documents in detail in his writings. 10Some excellent articles were at times published in the A.S.A. journal, and my over three-decade-long involvement was one of my most life-rewarding experiences ever, especially the many friendships I made. Unfortunately, the leadership philosophy now appears to be hardcore evolutionism with, at best, a very thin coat of theism. This example of how originally orthodox creationist organizations can go astray introduces my concern about the existing creation movement.

Ramifications of the Controversy

In a book that Todd Wood and Nazarene College professor Darrel Falk authored, they had one major life-event in common. 11Both were reared in loving Christian families and both claim that they became born-again Christians at a very young age. Both also had to struggle with their faith as a result of their exposure to evolution in school. Both acknowledged, as Falk admitted, that the 

unpleasant reality is that evolution itself is dangerous. It is not unusual for young people who have been taught creation in their churches to go off to a Christian college, become influenced by evolution, and ultimately abandon their faith [in Christianity]. Unfortunately, I have seen the same thing happen with students who left the Christian college where I used to teach. They went to a secular university to pursue a postgraduate degree, accepted evolution, and left their faith.12

As an example, Falk mentioned one of his students, a gifted young-Earth creationist woman who came to the college where he was teaching at then, Point Loma Nazarene College, on a near-full scholarship. An almost straight-A student, she went on to become a neurosurgeon and now is an evolutionist and an atheist. 13Also, unfortunately, the vast majority of evangelical Christian colleges believe in ‘evolutionary creation’ as does Darrel Falk, whose career was at a Nazarene college. Wood and Falk both acknowledged that “the majority of evangelical Christian colleges teach evolutionary creation” as fact. 14 

A Ph.D. dissertation by Professor Tom Kaden concluded the reason people become creationist/ID supporters “is not, at least for most of the people I encounter [in doing my Ph.D. research], because of a commitment to the literal truth of Genesis or some other creation story. Rather, it is that people discover for themselves the beauty and complexity of the living world and conclude that it ‘obviously’ must have been designed.” 15 In other words, their support for creationist/ID arises from their personal observations of the awesomeness of the living world. As Michael Shermer found in his research on the same question,  

the number one reason people give for why they believe in God is a variation of the classic cosmological or design argument. The good design, natural beauty, perfection, and complexity of the world or universe compels us to think that it could not have come about without an intelligent designer. In other words, people say they believe in God because the evidence of their senses tells them so.16

Consequently, as I document in my book Darwinism is the Doorway to Atheism, the creation issue is of central importance for Christianity. 17One quote of Todd Wood’s that has been used against the creation movement hundreds of times is as follows:

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. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise.18

A Google search of “gobs and gobs of evidence for evolution” produced 166,000 results. A check of the first two dozen results reveals a typical example in a paper titled: Creationist Admits “Problem”… “The Chimpanzee Genome and the Problem of Biological Similarity.” 19The paper quoted atheist Edward Babinski, author of Leaving the Fold: Testimonies of Former Fundamentalists. Babinski concluded that there exist “gobs and gobs” of evidence for evolution, defined as from “molecules-to-man,” due to natural selection selecting mutations. In fact, the evidence against evolution, as defined above, is overwhelming, and many of my creationists and even some evolutionist co-workers are dumbfounded that the claim that “gobs and gobs” of evidence exist for the molecules-to-man worldview could be made by a creationist.

The following quote is by one of the most active and aggressive opposers of both Creation Science and Intelligent Design, Professor Dennis Venema, who wrote:

As a faculty member at an evangelical Christian university, I have the privilege of interacting with colleagues from all over North America. Shortly after becoming acquainted with one colleague, I realized that we have a lot in common. For starters, … we both teach at Christian institutions. We also have very similar research backgrounds in biology: … We have both written articles on human/chimpanzee comparative genomics intended to inform believers of the challenge this new field of study presents for traditional interpretations of Genesis, and both of us have been criticized by other believers for doing so [the “research’, actually debating, of both Dennis and Todd has been carefully refuted]. Both of us feel that evolution is a robust scientific theory with a huge body of supporting evidence. Both of us have written critiques of folks in the Intelligent Design movement, as well as organizations like Reasons to Believe. In fact, I can think of only one major difference between us: my colleague is a Young Earth Creationist, whereas I am an Evolutionary Creationist 20His name is Todd Wood, and he is a member [now an ex-faculty member I was told due to the new requirement that Bryan faculty sign a statement that the Biblical Adam was literal] at Bryan College in Dayton, Tennessee.21

Wood added that: “I also believe that there is legitimate evidence for evolution (including universal common ancestry).” 22He adds that, “evolution is an extremely successful scientific theory.” One example of this success is: “When compared to the chimpanzee, the two species [human and chimp] differ by as little as 1-2%.” 23In his book The Quest, Wood states: “Studies  of the human and chimpanzee genomes since the early seventies have consistently shown a remarkable similarity between the two.” 24The difference between the genomes is not as little as 1-2 percent, nor remarkably similar, but instead, recent comparisons have documented that chimp DNA is at least 15 percent different, or only 85 percent similar, to human DNA. 25Thus, they are close to about 900,000,000 bases different. The importance of this claim is because no small number of Darwinists have used this false “1 -2%” claim as major support for their worldview.

Wood states that “consilience is probably the number one reason that people accept evolution. It’s just hard to imagine how so many different sorts of evidence could all point to the same wrong conclusion. 26I have spent over a half a century examining the twenty most common general claims given to accept evolution, such as “poor design,” “vestigial organs,” the natural selection claim, mutations as the major source of genetic variety, and anatomical similarity (homology). I have concluded that these reasons are all very problematic, and most are demonstratively incorrect.

In yet another case, Wood published an article attempting to refute the well-documented conclusion that many parts of Darwin’s theory were not original with Darwin. The article titled  “There Is No Darwin Conspiracy” 27concluded:

With the impending Darwin anniversary year and the indubitable appeal of Davies’s claims to creationists (judging from past commentaries on Darwin plagiarism theories: for example (sic, example), Bergman, 2002; Grigg, 2004; Hedtke, 1983; Humber, 1997), it is instructive to review and evaluate these claims. It will become apparent from this evaluation that there is no “Darwin conspiracy.”

In short, this article attempts to refute the fact that Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection was borrowed from a variety of sources. 28In other words, Wood argues that arguments to question Darwin’s integrity and originality are wrong. In fact, a wealth of scholarly literature exists to document the claim that Darwin’s integrity and originality were both problematic. His contribution to evolution was less to originate the theory than to popularize it. As David Menton writes:

Charles Darwin is often portrayed as one of the greatest original thinkers of science, on a par with the likes of Newton. While his book On the Origin of Species has probably had a greater impact on society than any other book—except the Bible—most of the evolutionary views he expressed in On the Origin of Species were neither original nor scientific … Even the more refined concept of “natural selection,” which is often viewed as a unique contribution of Darwin, was clearly expressed by many others as early as 100 years before the 1859 publication of Origin of Species….Charles Darwin’s ideas on evolution were anticipated in nearly every essential detail by several of his predecessors, including his own grandfather, Erasmus Darwin (1731–1802).29

Some Limitations of Baraminology

Research on baraminology, which has been the passion of many creationists for several decades now, has also produced mixed results. One example was a baraminology approach which uses comparisons of select traits analyzed by Pearson correlation coefficient (PCC) to estimate the relative similarity on the traits selected between, for example, birds and dinosaurs. 30Comparing 187 characters of 42 taxa found a positive correlation between all birds in his sample and deinonychosaurians, and no bird in the sample was found to share a positive distance correlation with any non-deinonychosaurian coelurosaur.31

The major problem with this type of analysis is that one selects the traits to compare, and each trait is usually given equal weight. 32This requires very subjective judgments that could produce either positive or negative correlations, depending on the animal taxa and the specific traits selected. Thus it is hardly an objective comparison, therefore it is not scientific, and is problematic, as are all taxonomic attempts. 33Wood admitted this when attempting to respond to an article that largely refuted his baraminology work, or at least part of it. 34 Wood acknowledged that using his set of  “taxa and characters supports his conclusions of morphological continuity, but other sets with more characters do not.” 35Wood even acknowledged that “Any baraminology study can be disputed, and none can be considered truly definitive.” 36Non-statistical methods of baraminology research include morphology, cladistics, especially hybridization studies. 

Another example was a baraminology analysis published by Wood that concluded men are men and apes are apes, a conclusion that fits into the creation view. 37Then Wood added that his baraminology analysis of Australopithecus sediba concluded he was fully human.38

One evaluation of this methodology by one of the most knowledgeable experts in this area, Peter Line, concluded that the most surprising claim about Australopithecus sediba

was the interpretation of the new fossil species by creationist Todd Wood. Wood applied statistical baraminological techniques (baraminic distance correlation and multidimensional scaling) to craniodental character states (postcranial information was not considered), with the datasets used for this selected from the literature. From his analysis, he found that “the present results indicate that Homo habilis, Homo rudolfensis, and—most surprisingly—Australopithecus sediba belong in the human holobaramin.” 39Hence, they were all pronounced fully human (descendants of Adam and Eve), despite Wood admitting to “sediba’s extremely ape­-like forearms” 40As a result, he comes up with the farcical statement that “the dispersal of the human population from Babel would presumably have been led by H. habilis and H. rudolfensis, specimens of which appear stratigraphically lower than any other human species” (Wood, 2010, p. 86). Moreover, his comment about “the significance of human­-like australopiths and the ape­-like humans.” 41appears almost to concede the issue to the evolutionists…42

Line adds “Wood never even discusses specific craniodental character states in his analysis, and one doubts if he has fared any better than evolutionists in finding a solution to the problem posed by the interrelationships of morphological characters—just one of many problems associated with these types of studies.” 43The fact is, as stated by Lieberman, “no one has come up with a satisfactory way to define or test the independence of morphological characters.” 44Cladistic analysis using morphological character traits has been very unsuccessful in human evolutionary studies, as one would expect if evolution is false. As a result of their study, evolutionists Mark Collard and Bernard Wood concluded that “the type of craniodental characters that have hitherto been used in hominin phylogenetics are probably not reliable for reconstructing the phylogenetic relationships of higher primate species and genera, including those among the hominins.” 45Line concludes that, although Wood’s analysis raises issues for further investigation, it clearly

does not warrant sweeping conclusions that effectively extend the range of human variation to apish creatures swinging in trees like Tarzan. Wood’s datasets of character states are the same as those used in evolutionary cladistics studies, and as such many of the same problems and pitfalls inherent in cladistic studies apply to his baraminological study. For example, one major issue is that the morphological characters used need to be independent units of information, otherwise intercorrelated characters can incorrectly bias the outcome of any analysis.46

Dog-Like Creatures Evolved into Whales?

Another example of my concerns is the creationist-authored chapter titled “Mammal Kinds: How Many Were on the Ark?” 47which includes the following claim:

some of the animals which are aquatic or marine today may not have been aquatic at the time of the flood. … whales might turn out to be another example. Only when including the legged archaeocetes (and/or possibly the terrestrial suborder Acreodi) do the whales have a fossil record continuous with the Flood. Vestigial legs and hips in modern whales confirm legged ancestors of the whales existed only a short time ago. It is possible that the purely marine cetaceans of the present were derived from semi-aquatic or even terrestrial ancestors on the ark.48

One immediate concern about this quotation is whales do not have vestigial legs or hips that “confirm legged ancestors of the whales existed only a short time ago.” 49Instead, they have copulatory organs that are critical for reproduction in their watery environment. Furthermore, a chasm exists between the alleged whale precursor and true whales. 50Ironically, Woods has repeated this claim: “There are fossil whales with hind legs that sort of look like they could be the ancestors of modern whales.” 51Wood also makes similar claims about Lucy the fossil, such as “Lucy does have characteristics of both modern humans and modern apes in one body. Lucy is an intermediate.” 52No, she (or he, paleoanthropologists are not sure of its sex) is not an intermediate, not even close. 53One example is Wood’s claims about her feet, yet no feet or hands were found with this fossil. The evidence is clear: Lucy was an ape as Answers in Genesis correctly documents and which has been well-documented by secular anatomists and paleoanthropologists.54

The Creation Model Controversy

Many of those supporting the baraminology group, including both Todd Wood and Kurt Wise, have published very little in the non-baraminology journals in decades. They and others opine that they will not publish in the Creation Research Society Quarterly (CRSQ) due to their claim that the journal publishes poor research. Instead of working to improve the alleged poor quality of CRSQ, they have eschewed involvement, although both Wood and Wise have occasionally served as editors. One other example where they have adversely affected the creation cause is as follows:

During the 6th ICC in 2008, Todd Wood and Kurt Wise served as Biology Editors and rejected some 80% or so of the biology papers submitted because they did not include material on "baraminology" or a “creation model” which was never defined. This caused no small uproar, and so Andrew Snelling stepped in to try to help, but from what I understand, many biologists did not resubmit their papers. One paper on the deterioration of the genome was rejected and when resubmitted was accepted. They rejected a biology paper on radiohalos in diamonds, so Andrew Snelling co-authored the paper. A few others who resubmitted their papers were accepted.55

An example related to the paper given at the third ICC:

After my talk, Todd with obvious open hostility, objected to my attempt to refute endosymbiosis. I have not experienced this before and only once after this event, so the encounter stands out in my mind, even today. Another example was when I presented a paper on magnetic monopoles at the 3rd ICC (Bergman, 1994, pp. 87-93). Kurt Wise came up on the platform and asked what does this have to do with the creation model? The answer is, a lot, as subsequent papers on this subject have shown.56

This problem also existed at the 2018 ICC peer-reviewing process. I know of four papers that were rejected, and the main reason given was as follows:

  1. As editors, we feel that papers need to build the creationist model, not just attack the evolutionary one.  We feel that as proposed, your submissions do not accomplish that important goal of ICC.
  2. This proposal in its current form is inadequate for the ICC. It does not build the
    creation model as per instructions.

Another reason given for their rejection is that certain reviewers did not approve of critiquing Darwinism, which they called “evolution bashing.”  They would rather focus on building the creation model. The problem is, knowing which one of the many creation models that exist that they would rather build, they do not say.  The creation model was never defined, as many contradictory creation models exist. Some common competing creation/flood models include the residual catastrophism model, Bretz’s Missoula (Columbia River) flood model, the Catastrophic Plate Tectonics (CPT) model, Walter T. Brown’s Hydroplate Theory, Larry Vardiman hypercane model, David Bassett’s Scriptural Universe Model (S.U.M.), the biogeographic rafting (or floating mat) model, the Canopy model, the neo-Canopy model, and J.W. Smith’s Noah’s Upheaval (NU) Flood Theory (NUFT), to name a few of the more popular models. The Trollingers effectively show that none of these models are empirical (operational) science but technically historical (origin) science which Ken Ham and others document is problematic. 57Most of the recent ICC-rejected articles have now been peer-reviewed after very favorable feedback, and published elsewhere.

Creation models rarely even cover the major issues, such as how mankind was created, nor even the origin of life in general. How the animals knew when and where to travel to the Ark’s location has rarely been covered by a creation model. The development of models often amounts to attempting to remove the supernatural element from Creation. Some events require faith and, to some degree, creation models appear to be primarily an attempt to explain miracles by naturalism. This goal is what led to the complete replacement of supernaturalism by naturalism, as C.S. Lewis has eloquently warned. 58 

Creation models cover primarily three areas: the age question, the details of the Ark of Noah, and the Genesis Flood, by taking the existing scripture skeleton and, using much speculation, embellish it. What is the creation model for the creation of the cell, the heart, the brain, and every other body part? What is the creation model for the creation of lightning, the Earth, the Solar System, the animals and plants? What about the creation of photons, protons, positrons, neutrinos, and electrons, and all of the other subatomic particles? And the Sun and stars and just about everything else including time, space, matter and energy? All the scriptures say is God created most things by fiat, nothing more. Both the Flood and the Ark are important topics that should be covered, but so should the rest of Creation as well as the problems with Darwinism in explaining Creation.

The Problem of Discrimination Against Creationists

A former editor of CRSQ stated that Todd recommended rejecting almost every single article sent to him to review. Even more disturbing is the letter he [Todd Wood] has penned opposing a bill written to protect teachers and others who dare to critique Darwinism. One example, sent to Tennessee Governor Haslam in 2012, is as follows:

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 Tennessean 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. … 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.59

This letter is appallingly irresponsible. I have written five books 60and scores of articles documenting the fact that teachers are not protected and can be, and often are, fired for ‘mistakes’ like passing out articles in their classes from highly respected peer-reviewed journals, such as Nature and Science, that question some aspect of Darwinism. Even some ID advocates were appalled by Wood’s letter. One, an attorney involved in cases involving their termination, John Calvert, wrote in response to this letter:

Todd is completely wrong that K-12 teachers have some sort of legal right to teach different sides of controversial scientific issues. As the courts have made clear, K-12 teachers have very few enforceable rights in this area. The teacher who presents the information discussed by Wood is at the mercy of the school administration, which in turn is usually at the mercy of the Darwinist bullies. The point of this bill is to give a statewide statutory right to protect teachers (and students) from abusive administrators doing the dirty work of the Darwin lobby. Again, what a stupid, stupid letter.61

A prominent ID supporter wrote that, “As far as I am aware, Todd Wood has often criticized and has never defended Intelligent Design or Creationism, but seems to defend evolution at every turn. Nor has he ever spoken up for those ID supporters and creationists who lost their careers due to their conclusions based on the evidence. I have to wonder where his sympathies actually lie.”62

Wood Quote Used by Others to Portray Darwin Critics as Ignorant Scholars

Todd Wood has provided hardline, theistic evolutionist Dennis Venema with support for the view that the evidence for evolution is very strong. If Venema wanted to exploit Wood, then he would need only to have quoted short excerpts from Wood where he says, “evolution is an extremely successful scientific theory,” and similar comments.

The goal of former young-Earth creationist Venema’s material in his book Adam and the Genome is very clear. 21A major one is to delegitimize Darwin-skeptic Christians as authorities in the eyes of their evangelical Christian readers. Consistent with his writings elsewhere, Venema doesn’t just want to critique Darwin-skeptic arguments. He wants to plant seeds of doubt in the minds of readers that the Christians they respect as critics of Darwinism don’t know what they are talking about. Venema wants readers to conclude that Christian ‘Darwin critics’ are ignorant (at best), poor scholars, even dishonest: 

Venema knows that he cannot openly express these thoughts or he’ll be judged as acting in an uncharitable way towards his Christian brothers and sisters. BioLogos, who he works with, must maintain a veneer of civility if it wants to continue to be invited to churches. And to communicate this message, Venema knows that Todd Wood is the perfect stooge. Todd Wood is a young-Earth creationist with a Ph.D. who makes the very personal attacks against Darwin-skeptics that Venema wants his readers to believe!62

In fact, Todd Wood gains wide respect from evolutionists for his attacks on fellow Darwin-skeptics and providing examples that evolutionists and atheists relish citing. In Adam and the Genome Venema calls Wood a “friend and colleague.” 63Venema later cites Todd Wood’s writing, that he “is unique among the young-earth literature in that it is thoroughly accurate and does not misrepresent the data.”  Other evolutionists have stated that Todd Wood is "one of the only self-critical, independent, and somewhat realistic voices within creationism." 64Another evolutionist endorsement opines "Wood has been almost a single, lone voice in the wilderness and has not been reticent about taking on fellow creationists for their sloppy science."65

We are not claiming that Wood is a “closet evolutionist” but that he sometimes acts like a typical internet evolutionist.

In conclusion, I want to thank the seven persons (three ID supporters and four creationists), who contributed most of the material, often quoted verbatim, in this paper. Some of the strong quotes were toned down, illustrating the harm and level of hostility that some persons have created in both the Creation Science and Intelligent Design movements.

References

Babinski, E.T. 1995. Leaving the Fold: Testimonies of Former Fundamentalists. Prometheus Books, Amherst, NY.

Bergman, J. 1994. “Magnetic Monopoles and Grand Unification Theory.” Chapter 9 (pp. 87-93 of 646pp.) in Third International Conference on Creationism, Technical Symposium Sessions, Pittsburgh, PA.

Bergman, J. 1998.The unbridgeable chasm between prokaryotes and eukaryotes.  Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Creationism. R. Walsh (editor). Pittsburgh, PA.

Bergman, J. 2002. Did Darwin plagiarize his evolution theory? Technical Journal  16(3):58–63.

Bergman, J. 2008. Slaughter of the Dissidents: The Shocking Truth About Killing the Careers of Darwin Doubters (Revised version, 2012). Leafcutter Press, Southworth, WA. Revised 2nd edition published in 2013. 

Bergman, J. 2015. The Dark Side of Charles Darwin: A Critical Analysis of an Icon of Science. New Leaf Press, Green Forest, AR; formerly published (2011) by Master Books. 

Bergman, J. 2016. Silencing the Darwin Skeptics. Leafcutter Press, Southworth, WA, 394 pages.

Bergman, J. 2017. C.S. Lewis: Anti-Darwinist: A Careful Examination of the Development of His Views on Darwinism. Wipf & Stock Publishers, Eugene, OR.

Bergman, J. 2018. Censoring the Darwin Skeptics. Leafcutter Press, Southworth, WA, 509 pages. 

Bergman, J. 2019a. Darwinism is the Doorway to Atheism: Why Creationists Become Evolutionists. Leafcutter Press, Southworth, WA.

Bergman, J. 2019b. The “Poor Design” Argument Against Intelligent Design Falsified. Bartlett Publishing, Tulsa, OK.

Bergman, J. 2019c. Useless Organs: The Rise and Fall of a Central Claim of Evolution. Bartlett Publishing, Tulsa, OK. 

Bergman, J. 2020. Whale Evolution: A Whale of a Tail. Book manuscript submitted for publication.

Biddle, D., et al. 2016. Debunking Human Evolution in our Public Schools. Bartlett Publishing, Tulsa, OK.

Cassel, J.F. 1959. The evolution of evangelical thinking on evolution. Journal of the American Scientific Affiliation 11(4):26-27, p. 27.

Collard, M., and B. Wood. 2000. How reliable are human phylogenetic hypotheses? PNAS USA, 97(9):5003–5006.

Kaden, Tom. 2019. Creationism and Anti-Creationism in the United States: A Sociology of Conflict. Springer, New York, NY.

Laughlin, R.B. 2010. The Crime of Reason: And the Closing of the Scientific Mind. Basic Books, New York, NY.

Lieberman, D.E. 1999. Homology and hominid phylogeny: Problems and potential solutions. Evolutionary Anthropology 7(4):142–151.

Line, Peter. 2010. Gautengensis vs. sediba: A battle for supremacy amongst ‘ape-men’ contenders, but neither descended from Adam. Creation.com. (Creation Ministries International). https://creation.com/homo-gautengensis, June 17.

Menton, D. 2003. Lucy, She’s No Lady!  Answers in Genesis, Florence, KY. 

Menton, D. 2005. Darwin didn’t discover evolution or natural selection. St. Louis MetroVoice 5(7). Reprinted here: https://answersingenesis.org/charles-darwin/darwin-didnt-discover-evolution-or-natural-selection/, July.

“Miles Elected to Council.” 1995. Newsletter of the American Scientific Affiliation 37(1):1, January/February.

Miles, S.J. 2012. Review of "The Dark Side of Charles Darwin: A Critical Analysis of an Icon of Science." Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 64(2):133-135.

Morris, H. 1984. History of Modern Creationism. Master Books, San Diego, CA.

Ouweneel, W.J. 2018. Adam, Where Are You? And Why This Matters: A Theological Evaluation of the New Evolutionist Hermeneutic. Paideia Press, Jordon Station, Ontario, Canada. (The author has a Ph.D. in biology from University of Utrecht, graduating cum laude in genetics and embryology. He also holds a Ph.D. in philosophy from the Free University of Amsterdam and a Ph.D. in theology from the University of Orange, Free State in Bloemfontein, South Africa.)

Senter, Phil. 2010. Using creation science to demonstrate evolution: Application of a creationist method for visualizing gaps in the fossil record to a phylogenetic study of coelurosaurian dinosaurs. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 23(8):1732–1743.  

Shermer, Michael. 2000. How We Believe: The Search for God in an Age of Science. Freeman, New York, NY.

Tompkins, J.P.  2016. Analysis of 101 chimpanzee trace read data sets: Assessment of their overall similarity to human and possible contamination with human DNA. Answers Research Journal 9:294–298. 

Trollinger, S.L., and W.V. Trollinger. 2016. Righting America at the Creation Museum. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD.

Venema, D.R. 2011. A tale of three creationists. BioLogos. https://biologos.org/articles/a-tale-of-three-creationists; http://biologos.org/blogs/dennis-venema-letters-to-the-duchess/a-tale-of-three-creationists-part-22#sthash.QmUmXWaq.dpuf, January 7.

Wise, K. 2009. Genesis Kinds: Creationism and the Origin of Species. T.C. Wood and P.A. Garner (editors). Center for Origins Research Issues in Creation, Book Number 5, Chapter 5. Wipf and Stock Publishers, Eugene, OR. 

Wood, T.C. 2009. There is no Darwin conspiracy. Answers Research Journal 2:11-20.

Wood, T.C. 2010. Baraminological Analysis Places Homo habilis, Homo rudolfensis, and Australopithecus sediba in the human holobaramin. Answers Research Journal 3:71–90.

Wood, T.C. 2011. Using creation science to demonstrate evolution? Senter’s strategy revisited.  Journal of Evolutionary Biology 24(4):914-918. 

Wood, T.C. 2018. The Quest. New Creation, Nashville, TN.

Wood, T.C., and D.R. Falk with Foreword by Rob Barrett. 2019. The Fool and the Heretic: How Two Scientists Moved Beyond Labels to a Christian Dialogue about Creation and Evolution. Zondervan Academic (a division of Zondervan and HarperCollins Christian Publishing), Grand Rapids, MI.

Yoon, C.K. 2009. Naming Nature: The Clash Between Instinct and Science. W.W Norton & Company, New York, NY.

  • 1Wood, T.C. 2018. The Quest. New Creation, Nashville, TN.
  • 2Cassel, J.F. 1959. The evolution of evangelical thinking on evolution. Journal of the American Scientific Affiliation 11(4):26-27, p. 27.
  • 3Morris, H. 1984. History of Modern Creationism. Master Books, San Diego, CA.
  • 4For a list that includes 27 articles I authored published in the ASA Journal see https://n414.fmphost.com/fmi/webd/ASAdb49?script=SearchForAuthor&$SearchString=%22Bergman%2C+Jerry%22 .
  • 5Bergman, J. 2019b. The “Poor Design” Argument Against Intelligent Design Falsified. Bartlett Publishing, Tulsa, OK.
  • 6Miles, S.J. 2012. Review of "The Dark Side of Charles Darwin: A Critical Analysis of an Icon of Science." Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 64(2):133-135, p. 134.
  • 7Bergman, J. 2015. The Dark Side of Charles Darwin: A Critical Analysis of an Icon of Science. New Leaf Press, Green Forest, AR; formerly published (2011) by Master Books.
  • 8“Miles Elected to Council.” 1995. Newsletter of the American Scientific Affiliation 37(1):1.
  • 9Ouweneel, W.J. 2018. Adam, Where Are You? And Why This Matters: A Theological Evaluation of the New Evolutionist Hermeneutic. Paideia Press, Jordon Station, Ontario, Canada. (The author has a Ph.D. in biology from the University of Utrecht, graduating cum laude in genetics and embryology. He also holds a Ph.D. in philosophy from the Free University of Amsterdam and a Ph.D. in theology from the University of Orange, Free State in Bloemfontein, South Africa.)
  • 10Laughlin, R.B. 2010. The Crime of Reason: And the Closing of the Scientific Mind. Basic Books, New York, NY, pp. 58-59.
  • 11Wood, T.C., and D.R. Falk with Foreword by Rob Barrett. 2019. The Fool and the Heretic: How Two Scientists Moved Beyond Labels to a Christian Dialogue about Creation and Evolution. Zondervan Academic (a division of Zondervan and HarperCollins Christian Publishing), Grand Rapids, MI.
  • 12Wood, T.C., and D.R. Falk. 2019. The Fool and the Heretic: How Two Scientists Moved beyond Labels to a Christian Dialogue about Creation and Evolution . Zondervan Academic (a division of Zondervan and HarperCollins Christian Publishing), Grand Rapids, MI, p. 35.
  • 13Wood and Falk, 2019, pp. 142-143.
  • 14Wood and Falk, 2019, pp. 20.
  • 15Kaden, Tom. 2019. Creationism and Anti-Creationism in the United States: A Sociology of Conflict. Springer, New York, NY, p. 50.
  • 16Shermer, Michael. 2000. How We Believe: The Search for God in an Age of Science. Freeman, New York, NY, p. xiv.
  • 17Bergman, J. 2019a. Darwinism is the Doorway to Atheism: Why Creationists Become Evolutionists. Leafcutter Press, Southworth, WA.
  • 18This is an oxymoron like “alone together” or “jumbo shrimp”; emphasis in original.
  • 19Babinski, E.T. 1995. Leaving the Fold: Testimonies of Former Fundamentalists. Prometheus Books, Amherst, NY.
  • 20An “Evolutionary Creationist” can be described as one believing in Darwinism with a thin coat of theism.
  • 21a21bVenema, D.R., and S. McKnight. 2017. Adam and the Genome: Reading Scripture after Genetic Science. Brazos Press, Ada, MI.
  • 22http://biologos.org/blogs/dennis-venema-letters-to-the-duchess/a-tale-of-three-creationists-part-1#sthash.QmUmXWaq.dpuf .
  • 23https://biologos.org/articles/a-tale-of-three-creationists
  • 24Wood, 2018, p. 76.
  • 25Tompkins, J.P. 2016. Analysis of 101 chimpanzee trace read data sets: Assessment of their overall similarity to human and possible contamination with human DNA. Answers Research Journal 9:294–298.
  • 26Wood, 2018, p. 70; emphasis his.
  • 27Wood, T.C. 2009. There is no Darwin conspiracy. Answers Research Journal 2:11-20.
  • 28Darwin plagiarized the concept of ‘natural selection’ from English zoologist (and creationist) Edward Blyth who published (in 1835) on it being strictly a conservation mechanism for Genesis’ created kinds. Darwin never gave Blyth credit and redefined ‘natural selection’ as a creative cause.
  • 29Menton, David. 2005. Darwin didn’t discover evolution or natural selection. St. Louis MetroVoice 5(7), July. Reprinted here: https://answersingenesis.org/charles-darwin/darwin-didnt-discover-evolution-or-natural-selection/.
  • 30Wood, T.C. 2011. Using creation science to demonstrate evolution? Senter’s strategy revisited. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 24(4):914-918, p. 915.
  • 31Wood, 2011, p. 916.
  • 32Senter, Phil. 2010. Using creation science to demonstrate evolution: Application of a creationist method for visualizing gaps in the fossil record to a phylogenetic study of coelurosaurian dinosaurs. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 23(8):1732–1743.
  • 33Yoon, C.K. 2009. Naming Nature: The Clash Between Instinct and Science. W.W Norton & Company, New York, NY.
  • 34Senter, 2010.
  • 35Wood, 2011, p. 914.
  • 36Wood, 2011, p. 917.
  • 37Wood, 2018, p. 21.
  • 38Wood, 2010.
  • 39Wood, T.C. 2010. Baraminological analysis places Homo habilis, Homo rudolfensis, and Australopithecus sediba in the Human Holobaramin, Answers Research Journal 3:71–90, p. 71.
  • 40Wood, 2010, p, 81.
  • 41Wood, 2010, p. 71.
  • 42Line, Peter. 2010. Gautengensis vs sediba: A battle for supremacy amongst ‘ape-men’ contenders, but neither descended from Adam. Creation.com. (Creation Ministries International), https://creation.com/homo-gautengensis, June 17.
  • 43Line, 2010.
  • 44Lieberman, D.E. 1999. Homology and Hominid Phylogeny: Problems and Potential Solutions. Evolutionary Anthropology 7(4):142–151, p. 143.
  • 45Collard, M., and B. Wood. 2000. How reliable are human phylogenetic hypotheses? PNAS USA 97(9):5003–5006, p. 5005.
  • 46Lieberman, 1999, p. 143
  • 47Wise, K. 2009. Genesis Kinds: Creationism and the Origin of Species. T.C. Wood and P.A. Garner (editors). Center for Origins Research Issues in Creation, Book Number 5, Chapter 5. Wipf and Stock Publishers, Eugene, OR.
  • 48Wise, 2009, p. 143.
  • 49Bergman, J. 2019c. Useless Organs: The Rise and Fall of a Central Claim of Evolution. Bartlett Publishing, Tulsa, OK.
  • 50Bergman, J. 2020. Whale Evolution: A Whale of a Tail. Book manuscript submitted for publication.
  • 51Wood, 2018, pp. 26-27.
  • 52Wood, 2018, p. 26.
  • 53Biddle, D., et al. 2016. Debunking Human Evolution in Our Public Schools. Bartlett Publishing, Tulsa, OK.
  • 54Menton, 2003.
  • 55From a participant in this project who wishes to remain anonymous.
  • 56Bergman, 1998, pp. 67-68.
  • 57Trollinger, S.L., and W.V. Trollinger. 2016. Righting America at the Creation Museum. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD.
  • 58Bergman, J. 2017. C.S. Lewis: Anti-Darwinist: A Careful Examination of the Development of His Views on Darwinism. Wipf & Stock Publishers, Eugene, OR; Bergman, J. 2023. C.S. Lewis’ War Against Scientism and Naturalism. Cantaro Press, Ontario, Canada.
  • 59https://scienceblogs.com/tfk/2012/04/13/todd-wood-the-disco-tute-and-t.
  • 60Bergman, J. 2008. Slaughter of the Dissidents: The Shocking Truth About Killing the Careers of Darwin Doubters (Revised version, 2012). Leafcutter Press, Southworth, WA. Revised 2 nd edition published in 2013; Bergman, J. 2016. Silencing the Darwin Skeptics. Leafcutter Press, Southworth, WA, 394 pages; Bergman, J. 2018. Censoring the Darwin Skeptics. (Leafcutter Press, Southworth, WA, 509 pages.
  • 61Internet Post. Permission given by John Calvert to reproduce his quote.
  • 62a62bFrom an ID supporter who requested anonymity.
  • 63Venema and McKnight, 2017, p. 65.
  • 64Matzke, Nick. 2012. Who is turning the screws on Todd Wood, the creationist biologist who opposes Tennessee’s new monkey law? https://pandasthumb.org/archives/2012/03/who-is-turning.html, March 27.
  • 65Kidder, James. 2017. Science and Religion: A View from an Evolutionary Creationist. http://scienceandcreation.blogspot.com/2017/01/david-macmillan-on-homo-naledi-ken-ham.html, January 26.