Posts

Beware temptation

Image
I've been thinking a lot about Galatians today. Now the works of the flesh are evident: sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions, envy, drunkenness, orgies, and things like these. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God. But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law. And those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. If we live by the Spirit, let us also keep in step with the Spirit. Let us not become conceited, provoking one another, envying one another.  (Gal. 5:19-26, ESV) The works of the flesh have the usual suspects but also enmity, strife, rivalries, dissensions, divisions, and envy.  It's easy for us to look at all those gross sins and think, I don't do that, I'

Origins 2022: Fun Times!

Image
 Well, despite a lot of weird setbacks this year, we've finished another mostly smooth and successful Origins conference.  This is our second year with the Creation Theology Society, and it's been a blessing to have those guys with us giving us good biblical guidance.  That's their interdisciplinary panel discussion in the photo above.  I've been very encouraged by all of their work. There was a lot of emphasis on baraminology and especially baraminology methods this year, and that was also exciting.  Regular readers might remember that there's been criticism of baraminology over the past few years (some of it good and some of it not so good), and despite my work showing that the methods aren't as bad as everyone says, it's definitely nice to see a real effort to diversify. As always, the conference has also been a fertile time for good ideas.  I talked to folks about the historical Abraham and what that means for our understanding of creation, the language

Origins 2022: My contributions

Image
    Today was the last day of Origins 2022 (sad), and I presented some of the work we've been doing at Core Academy.  First, we talked a bit about our work with human fossils and origins.  For this presentation, we indulged a bit in speculating about the ancestral form of humanity.  It's a really difficult problem.  I would guess that most modern creationists consider our appearance as Homo sapiens to be the original form of humanity.  In other words, Noah and family looked like us (Noah is as far back as we can extrapolate with the presently known fossils and DNA).  I've long thought that was just prejudice.  We naturally assume that people are like us, so of course Noah looked like us.  The problem is that the fossil record preserves humans that don't look much like us at all.  So how should we understand their appearance?  I wish I could tell you that we had a good answer, but figuring out the ancestral human form is just a really difficult problem.  What we ended u

Give me a break - Ken Ham's hyperevolution

Image
Give me a break. In the past couple months I've heard on more than one occasion the insinuation that somehow creationists are really evolutionists so the creation/evolution debate has radically changed.  Why?  Because Ken Ham now endorses "hyperevolution" in the Ark Encounter, and that's new!  Creationists have given up on creationism and now just accept an absurd form of evolution.  WOW!  "He's more of an evolutionist than I am!" Give me a break. I hope I can maintain a charitable attitude here, but this emerging attitude is so ludicrous I'm going to have a really hard time doing that. First of all, this isn't Ken Ham's original idea, any more than it's my original idea.  I've complained about this before ( see here ), but the true history of creationist thought is not really catching on.  There just seems to be a gut-level appeal to saying that Ken Ham is more evolutionist than the evolutionists! Except that this is a ludicrous exam

The Tower of Babel part 1

Image
I don't usually do a lot of cross-promotion (maybe I should?) , but today's podcast episode is a lot of fun. I hope you enjoy! Feedback? Email me at toddcharleswood [at] gmail [dot] com. If you enjoyed this article, please consider a contribution to Core Academy of Science. Thank you. Have you read my book?  You should check that out too!

Teaching, hearing, learning

Image
  It's weird to think that I'm old enough now that students can come back to me as adults to tell me what they thought of my teaching.  Sometimes that's a nice experience, because students really took my guidance and teaching to heart and became better people and better scholars for it.  Other encounters make me wonder if I taught anyone anything.  And then there are those instances where people think I've taught them things that I never did or would even consider.  I have been thoroughly misunderstood on more occasions than I care to remember, even on issues where I made my position perfectly, crystal clear.  Some folks, even after reading a large amount of my work, still have no idea what I actually believe and think I should be tossed out with the rest of the garbage. I've been thinking about this as I've seen a lot of people lately in the creation/evolution debate wildly misunderstand and misrepresent each other.  I recently read a book on theistic evolution

Them dry bones

Image
  Last week, I had the privilege of spending the entire week with my student Peter as we worked together on his Sanders Scholarship research.  We have been studying the "postcranial" skeleton (everything from the neck down) of hominins, as we continue to learn how to recognize what is human in the fossil record.  This work flows from my ongoing baraminology research project studying the skulls of fossil hominins.  In that research, I've found repeatedly a relatively clear distinction between human and nonhuman, most of which has been described here on my blog: Homo sediba ? Let's talk about Homo naledi Recent creationist comments on Homo naledi Hominins: Was I wrong???? The lingering issue that has always bothered me is the importance of the skeleton.  It was the skeletal similarities, for example between Homo sapiens and the Nariokotome Homo erectus skeleton, that led me to strongly suspect that humans were recognizable from their skeletons.  Likewise, the differen