Evolutionary Biology PhD, But Also Young Earth Creationist. Here's Why. — Todd Wood

Choosing wisely >> is intensely important. And that is a position that that is a statement that most people don't want to admit. My position does not have all the answers. They don't want to say that. They want to say my position has all the answers. You just have to accept my position, sign up for my for my newsletter, watch my podcast, and you will have all the answers, too. >> And I'm here to say no, you won't. [laughter] That's when it really became exciting to me. I really I started to get a new excitement for science because I realized there's more to this than just radiometric dating or what this fossil means. What do what do I do with dinosaurs? You know, they're dead. You don't have to do anything with them. [laughter] For some [music] time, we've wanted to interview someone who's active in the young earth creation science movement. Dr. Todd Wood models a thoughtful, gracious response even when engaging with people who vastly disagree with his perspective. Dr. Wood is president at Core Academy of Science, is one of the editors at the New Creation Studies Journal, and was formerly a professor at Brian College, a Protestant college located close here to our studio in Tennessee. We're honored to have Dr. Wood share with us today. If you appreciate what we do here at Anabaptist Perspectives, make sure you subscribe and share this with others. Now, onto the conversation with Dr. Wood. >> Dr. Todd Wood, thanks for coming out on the podcast today. >> Thanks for inviting me. >> So, you were a science professor for 13 years. Yes. >> Uh you started and are the president of the Core Academy of Science. >> That is correct. >> And you have a PhD. Yes. >> In evolutionary biochemistry. >> Correct. >> But yet you don't believe in evolution. I I mean you would hold to essentially younger creationism I think would be the term most people in the audience would be familiar with. So explain to me like what do you believe about creation and origins? >> What do I believe about creation? It's weird to me and it's still weird to me. It's always been weird to me. It's weird to me when Christians say it. It's weird to me when evolutionary biologists say it. >> The idea that you would believe in evolution is a strange thing to hear. Like do you believe in atomic theory or do you believe in gravity or do you believe in Mars? Yeah. I mean I guess I don't think of it like that, right? I don't think of it as a as a matter of belief. And this is how I've always thought about science. This is how many scientists think about science. This is how many scientists think about science. even if they don't want to admit this is how they think about science. But science is extremely pragmatic. The the the the best model is the one that wins, right? And so it doesn't really matter, you know, if you believe it or not or somebody believes it or not. It simply a question of does it do a good job of explaining information that you've gathered. >> And so in that way, you know, I can go into uh I can go into the lab and do evolutionary research because the particular problem I'm working on evolution happens to explain this information pretty well. That's just how I think about it. I've never really thought about it as a matter of I have to believe this or not believe this. So when people tell me you you don't believe in evolution, I always stop and think, do I? No, I don't. sort of. It works pretty well here. It works pretty well there. It doesn't work very well here. Big big picture. No, big picture. I think there's some >> significant areas where I disagree. So, the big the big areas where I disagree would be the idea that everything, you know, has come from a common ancestor. And that's going to be a pretty massive departure from sort of conventional evolutionary biologists and evolutionary biology because they're going to say, "Well, that's just that just follows. You can't you can't not accept that. >> It just follows from the data. If you believe the data and you believe evolution is a workable model, then it must be true that we're all related to a common ancestor." >> But I don't think that's true. So that's that is for me the biggest area of disagreement where I just come away going I don't think that's right um in terms of evolution. Um and I think that and not just because not just because I think there are anomalies in the data that make me think something else is going on but also because I have a bigger pot of information that I have to make sense of. Right? So part of the part of the problem here is that people play by rules >> and so science is played according to certain rules. >> And one of the rules that was decided very early in science like 300 years ago, 400 years ago, was that we're not going to deal with religious questions in science. This just we're just going to not do that. let's just focus on the the the scientific questions themselves. And these rules were sort of figured out. You know, it was it was in the 1600s, early 1600s in England. You've got the the Civil War going on, the English Civil War going on. You got Cromwell, you got parliamentarians, and you got loyalists, you got royalists, and you got latitudinarian religious people. You got your pilgrims and your and your your real conservatives. You got your Church of England people. And science was kind of thought of, you know, we're going to avoid all that political stuff and we're just going to look at, you know, is Newton right about stuff? Are chemicals, you know, are these chemical experiments correct? We're just going to come together and do these experiments >> and that's all we're going to do. And so that became kind of a rule of science. But in my mind, it was a rule of convenience, not a rule of absolute requirement. Right? It's possible for us to step back and say, "All right, well, I can do science like that, but I also have this other information here in the scripture that's been revealed by God >> to me, and I have to make sense of that, too." And now everything sort of changes, right? So, and that really does, I think, change a lot of things because [clears throat] I have to think, all right, well, here's this creation week that opens the scripture. >> Genesis 1, Genesis 1. How am I going to understand that? Here's God giving the Ten Commandments. Exodus 20 >> tells you why you should keep the the Sabbath. For in six days the Lord God made the heavens, the earth, the sea, >> and all that in them is. Well, that's pretty blunt. Um, that's not going to work for millions of years of evolution. I'm going to have to figure out what I'm going to do with that, right? And so, [clears throat] >> I think when you have to balance all of that data together, then the balance tips towards a creationist perspective very easily. That doesn't mean that evolution is fundamentally utterly stupid and wrong and we have to reject it at every level. That means certain parts of evolution are clearly not going to work. >> So like certain parts being say the earth is billions of years old or we all evolved from a common ancestor. >> Common ancestry would be one of those things. Human evolution would be another one of those things. Um, but the age of the earth, that's really more of a question for geologists to figure out rather than an evolutionary biologist. >> But even there, I would say, okay, well, >> yeah, there there's something funny going on here >> because like if if you from what you're describing with Genesis, >> it would be um extremely difficult or impossible to fit millions of years into what you just described. Like like if if God made everything in six days, >> I mean where's where's the millions of years smooshed into there? You you can't really. So then you start coming up with some other ideas of how to do that. I guess some people I guess >> lots of people have tried to do it over the years. One way to try to do it is to say that well you know God's days are different than our days and who knows God you know there weren't any people around to witness this this creation week. So it's go obviously a revelation. It's not a It's not an eyewitness testimony. So, it's something that God told someone to write down. >> So, you could say, "Well, maybe the days are longer." And then you got, you know, days before the sun was created. Sun's created on day four, which is really weird. Why would the sun be created on day four and the earth is having days and nights without the sun? And so people say, "Ah, days are weird." That's one of the clues. So days are weird. Maybe they're really long periods of time. >> Tried to do that. It's not very compelling. It's not very >> that that's not a position that's very uh uh commonly held anymore. >> I was going to say like wasn't this called um day age theory or something to that effect? Like the days are like an entire age, not an actual day. >> It was really popular in the 1800s. People thought look at the look at the correspondence between the fossil record and the and the the days of creation in Genesis 1. >> And >> Oh, interesting. >> Yeah. So that was a big thing. Oh, look, you know, you got land, dry land appearing. There you go. That's that's what happened. And you got, you know, your fish. >> Exactly. That's how it happened. The fish were first and then you have your land animals. There you go. And then humans are last. Well, guess what? In the fossil record, we are like the top smudge on the top of the fossil record. It's not even very interesting. So, so basically they're trying to correlate the days of creation to ages that are different layers in the fossil record essentially. But you're that that theory is not widely held today. Is that correct? >> No. Yeah. People have given up on that for a couple of reasons. One reason is it's not a very good correlation. >> Oh. >> Um, so the day that the fish are made is also the day that the birds are made, but the birds are way after the fish in the fossil record. Flying things come way later than the fish because you got to get first you got to get the fish to evolve in the water and then the fish have got to get out of the water onto the land and then once you're on the land then you can start >> experimenting with flying. >> That's how evolution explains. >> That's how an evolutionary the evolutionary biology explanation for where flying things come from. >> But you >> Yeah. And and the Bible seems to say, "Well, there's fish and birds on the same day." which, okay, that's that's a little weird. And then you have the great sea creatures. >> Um, and that one's a little more we're not exactly sure. I mean, it's very clearly big sea creatures. And the biggest sea creatures we have today are whales, but whales are clearly after well after the earliest fish. So, you'd have to say, well, the the great sea creatures in the Bible must include things that are now extinct. And now you're getting into really weird. Oh yeah. Oh, these words here really mean something very technical scientificy. >> So, so day age theory is definitely not not holding up. >> There are people who still want to push the day age theory, but they are becoming they're just being overshadowed. There there's the the the bigger movement today is to just say Genesis 1 is a it's a literary composition. >> Okay. designed to in some sense appropriate mythology >> and turn it around into something that would be deliberately monotheistic, deliberately um speaking truths. >> It would be like today I wrote a story about a Christian superhero >> and then I use that story to communicate things about Jesus even though it's a superhero story and it's not really it's fictional, right? So that's basically how people would understand it. That's that's the easier way because then you can say, >> you know, the days are the days. They're consecutive. There's no time sneaking around somewhere in the in the seams. It's simply not intended to tell you >> anything about the origin of creation. It's intended to tell you about, >> you know, this is this is the cultural millu in which the Israelites were living. And so God gave them their own little origin myth, creation myth, if you will, that is intended to help them understand God and the truth about God without actually having to communicate to them the gory details of evolution. >> Ah, so >> that's a much easier model than trying to say, well, this this word codes for this thing over here. That kind of stuff is really not helpful. Anabaptist Perspectives has been publishing material for nine years. Essays, regular podcasts, the Frank Reed series, and this summer, the Anabaptist Origins documentary series. All of this is possible and made freely available because of generous supporters like you. Our monthly supporters provide a valuable foundation, but this does not yet cover our ongoing production costs. To meet our budget for 2026 and to end the year in a financially stable position, we're seeking for $50,000 by the end of November. If you believe in the mission of Anabaptist Perspectives, you can give by going to anabaptist perspectives.org or by mailing a donation to our office at 127 county road 616 Athens, Tennessee 3733. You can also help by telling others about this podcast. Thank you for your support. And now back to the episode. So you're holding to the the creationist position. I guess we could use that word or, you know, whatever you want to call it. But then there are other interpretations among Christians. And we already mentioned the the day age one. But then there's some others. I think people may have heard like theistic evolution is one I've heard. You know, old earth creationism I've heard floated around. Um, >> so old earth creation is going to be kind of something along the lines of a day age. You could also, I suppose, be like, uh, you think that there's some kind of gap in time >> between in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth >> and then God commencing with the six days, right? >> Gap theory. >> So, you could, it's kind of a gap theory. You could say, >> you know, there's there's there's time in here the before time. >> Mhm. say when all the fossil record happened and then God bait people in the Neolithic and that's when Adam lived. Sure. Um >> you could say that well maybe the universe is billions of years old just like the big bang says but the earth and the fossil record are very recent. That's another position that you could take. Oh, >> so there's a there's a flood. There's a global flood. Global flood in places the fossil record, but the universe that's billions of years old. Who cares? >> Okay. So, I've heard that one definitely. But they would say the the the earth is or how would you say the the fossil record, you know, everything that's all young, but the rest of the universe is old. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Yeah. >> What what about theistic evolution? Like explain that. Is that basically saying we believe evolution, but God used it? basically. >> Yeah. Okay. >> Evolution is God's means of creating and that Genesis 1 through11 is not intended not given to us to communicate [clears throat] >> Mhm. >> historical reality about where things came from. So if you read it to say, well, how did Noah fit all the animals in the ark? You're misreading it. You should be reading it to say, well, how is the ark like Jesus? >> Because that's really the question. >> Okay. So, so you would say the theistic evolution position is untenable because bec because you would say they're just misreading Genesis essentially. Is that a fair way of saying that? >> I think when you evaluate all of the evidence together >> and I think all of the evidence has to be evaluated together that you cannot just say well the science is clear so we have to take the Bible or the Bible is clear so we have to reject all the science. Those are dangerous ways of thinking about these things because those are going to lead you to really strange positions. >> And if I can get controversial, for example, >> there's no there's no modern medicine in the Bible. You know, when when someone is sick, call the elders, have them anoint you, >> pray over you. That's what you should do. Maybe take a little wine for your stomach. Boom. That's modern medicine in the New Testament. But I think modern medicine is a gift from God. Okay. God gave us minds that can access and understand creation. Um and God many times gave us natural things that can help us manage things. >> Uh penicellin for example that was a that was a natural product that we figured out could be used to treat bacterial infection. So if I'm of the opinion that I can only understand the world based on what the Bible tells me is true, then I am liable to go very just either I'm going to forego wonderful things >> or I'm just going to um reject truth. And it's a risky thing because I know we have to be critical consumers of what the world tells us is true. >> But at the same time, you know, two years ago when we had our big big ice storm, um remember that we maybe you didn't have it over here on this side. >> Yeah. No, we had it. Yeah. >> I was living I'm live I live on the edge of the Cumberland Plateau. So we have a very steep driveway. We were snowed in for a long time [clears throat] and towards the end of that had a terrible toothache. Terrible toothache. Horrible. Kept me up all night. And I just told my wife we got to go find a dentist. And it never even never thought it never occurred to me that, you know, maybe I should try a pus or maybe I should see what the Bible says about these things. That's great. I am going to pray. I'm going to pray that God sends me a dentist. [laughter] >> Right? >> Um, >> so I think there's I think there's value in the wisdom that we've gained from studying the works of God or I wouldn't be a scientist. >> But I also think that, you know, we can't evaluate that wisdom all by itself. And we can't even call it wisdom all by itself if we're not thinking about who made it and and what he told us about where it came from. Right? So, I don't think, you know, looking at the Bible is wrong to tell us about these things. And I don't think that looking at science is wrong. I think that you have to do it together >> and consider it together >> and then decide what to do. >> An evolutionist would would basically say that's where the problem is because they would say you shouldn't be bringing religion into science or something. >> I think that's not quite it. I think what so what an evolutionary biologist would say very at least what they've told me is the science is very clear on this matter. >> It it is inconceivable that the earth is thousands of years old. It there's no way to understand this information. There's no way to understand the vast diversity of living things on this planet if evolution isn't true. It's the the stakes are too high. The science is too clear. And so we have to figure out a way that our theology can can work with this. And we have ways we can just say that Genesis 1 through11 doesn't really tell us about the history of of of creation. >> And so >> you they would also have to say with that then that say Noah's flood to use an obvious example would have to be figurative as well. Then would they would they hold that as well? It feels like you'd have to basically all of that tower babel. >> I'm often told, you know, we only really disagree on Genesis 1. And then I say, well, do you think there was global flood? No. And I said, well, then we agree disagree on the first nine chapters at least. How about the Tower of Babel? Well, no, I don't think that. Okay. Well, now we're up to 11 chapters. Um, yeah. So, >> there is more. And then you can get in, and here's where I think it really gets uncomfortable. You get into the New Testament, right? And Jesus Jesus when confronted with the question of divorce we be allowed to divorce for any reason and Jesus says well remember when God made us in the beginning he made male and female and what God has put together let no man um pull us under. And he's quoting there from Genesis 1 and Genesis 2. >> And he seems to be quoting in a way that says well this is this is this is normative for marriage. this is the the ideal of how marriage ought to be because this is the way God made it and therefore this is how we ought to this is how we ought to treat marriage >> and he's not saying this is just a figurative allegory or something you know like yeah >> yeah it's not it's not a literary reference it it at least doesn't seem like a literary reference it seems like he's saying this is where marriage came from God made marriage and and he says Moses let you get divorced because of the hardness of your hearts Ah, so to protect the safety of people, so you don't have to be married to an abuser, for example, Moses says, "All right, well, we're going to have an orderly, sensible divorce thing that we're going to allow." Okay, but that's because of sin. That's not because of the value of marriage. Because sin breaks marriage just like sin breaks everything. So, so that's Jesus. And then you got um Peter talking about the end times. How what will the end times be like? Well, Peter says, "Remember when the old world was washed away in the flood? That's what that's what the coming of Jesus, the second coming of Jesus is going to be like. You remember how everyone was taken unaware and people didn't believe Noah? That's how it's going to be when Jesus comes back." Now, that I suppose you could say, "Ah, that could be a literary reference." Okay, he could be he could be talking. Remember that time Gandalf fought the Balrog? Okay, sure. Yeah, I can understand that might not be. But then you get Paul and Paul comes in twice, Romans, Romans and First Corinthians where he basically says, you know why Jesus died? Because Adam sinned and messed everything up. And Adam brought death and Jesus had to die to undo what Adam did so that we could live. And now you think, "All right, well, that's going to be a really hard one to undo." >> So if you're a theistic evolutionist, right, or a Christian, >> you got to figure out what that means. >> You would have to Okay. Would they say then that Adam Wow. Would they deny that there was a historical Adam? I guess they would in some cases, but then other there is a strong impulse to try to keep Adam as some kind of figure in the story. You Yeah, you would have to like I I was actually really like like N Wright would hold a position kind of like this, but he's pretty like Yeah, there had to be had to be an Adam >> that first sin. Yeah. >> Because Paul wouldn't make sense. >> Yes. Because Paul kind of kind of unravels at that point. And it's and it's important enough to Paul that he puts it in two different letters. It's basically the same argument in two different letters. And so I come away thinking this must be >> this must be valuable, >> right? Paul puts it in two letters. Paul's writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. This is important. >> And so, you know, Peter, maybe that's not so important. Jesus, that's a little harder to get out of, but maybe, but Paul, I just can't undo Paul. And so there's a long there's there's basically this long-standing debate in in Christian uh theology about whether you have to have an atom or not. Can you can you get away with can you get away with not having an atom? That that's kind of the question. >> And I think where a lot of people are falling right now is no, you cannot get away with not having an atom. We have to figure out some way to have evolution and Adam and Eve in a garden and a sin, an original sin. And that that part of the story is is really not negotiable. >> Okay. So, so like let's say a Christian evolutionist that if they're a Christian evolutionist, that doesn't necessarily automatically mean they're denying original sin or denying a historical Adam and Eve. They're just very differently interpreting what those terms even mean as opposed to what you would be saying >> to some extent. But you also have the amazing human capacity to be inconsistent. And I say things like, "Well, you will even have How could you possibly understand Adam and Eve?" I don't know. It's not important. It doesn't keep me up at night. >> That would keep me up at night. I would be I would be thinking about that. I would be thinking about that a lot. I would be constantly being, "What am I going to do with Paul? What am I going to do with Paul?" Paul on the historical Adam. Jesus is the second Adam. That's an important thing. I don't know that I could live with that anxiety, but some people are perfectly capable of living with that anxiety. >> Wow. >> And so interesting. Okay. >> So, I think there's a lot of that. And then they would look at me and go, "Well, how do you explain radiometric dating?" And I say, >> "I don't know. Doesn't keep me up at night." [laughter] And they would say, "Well, radiometric dating is very important. How could you not how could you not have an opinion on that? How do you not know how to answer those questions? Those are very important questions. I don't care. >> Wow. [laughter] No, that's that's so that's but that is important. That's an important piece because it's kind of like you have to make a decision of >> correct. >> There are there are some things you won't be able to explain. >> Yes. >> And and choosing wisely >> is intensely important. And that is a position that that is a statement that most people don't want to admit. My position does not have all the answers. They don't want to say that. They want to say my position has all the answers. You just have to accept my position. sign up for my for my newsletter, watch my podcast, and you will have all the answers to. And I'm here to say, >> no, you won't. >> But you can sign up for my newsletter and watch my podcast, and you will be just as confused as why you started. [laughter] >> But that's actually kind of refreshing to hear because I think I think that that's been one of the things with with Young Earth Creation is that that has bothered me a little is like trying to explain everything. It's like, well, there's a lot to it. I mean, The world's complicated. There's a lot of things we just don't understand about the world and and so I've been a little bit hesitant or almost like are we just trying to explain everything. >> Do you want to get into that meer and talk to people is yeah totally getting >> so I want to I want to dive into that just a little. Okay. Cuz like for example uh you use the term in one of your books or different places um young age creationist versus young earth creationist. Would you want to quick >> say why you choose that book? I think the only reason I do that I think I think given given my understanding of scripture with the sun and the stars and the moon the the celestial bodies they're made on day four and then they're put into the sky the firmament and then you get to Exodus and it says in six days the Lord God made the heavens the earth the sea and all that is in them. Well, the celestial bodies, the sun, moon, and stars are in the heavens. That's that's what it says. So, I think, well, then everything must be young. >> Not just young earth creationism because the moon is young, Mars is young, the sun, the galaxies, they're all young. Now, that doesn't mean I can explain, you know, you know, how do we see light that's billions of light years away? I don't know. Um, but I I you know that part of scripture I feel like is is pretty clear. Now at the same time I don't know that there's a big doctrine at stake >> if the universe is billions of years old. I've I've tried to think about I mean maybe you could stretch it and say well it's the authority of scripture. We have to believe what God tells us. Sure. Sure. But in terms of like the resurrection or sin or my eternal destination, I don't know that I don't know that there's anything at stake there. So you know on the question of stars and the origin of stars I think it's interesting and I strongly encourage people to you know people who are uh have the creationist mindset and who want to you know those kinds of commitments and want to understand the origin of the universe go for it. Uh not my calling. >> It's just not. So, uh, I don't find that to be a really big sticking point >> even though that that would be my position that the the universe itself is also as young as the earth. The universe, the earth, human beings, we all started at exactly the same time. >> Well, six days apart, but you get the idea. Sure. >> Um, >> so that's why I would use young age creationism because I feel like no, I'm taking a I'm taking a particularly extreme position here, [laughter] right? Young Earth gives you a little wiggle room. Maybe the stars are billions of years old. Maybe the galaxy is billions of years old. Uh more of a I think it's all >> pretty recent >> as far as recent goes. 6,000 years is still pretty old. >> I think I think that's helpful though because like I think consistency isn't, you know, part of that was one of the reasons I want to ask that, right? Because because then okay so so you're getting into here's why you believe those things but now I want to pivot slightly and say okay then and you're just starting to touch on this with some of the science there. What are the objectives of what we would say you know creation science or what am I doing the creationist movement? Yeah. Like, okay, so here's the things that we believe. Why the science? So, so a couple follow-ups on that. Is is it to say find evidence that the Earth is young or there's alternative explanations for evidence that says the Earth is or universe is really old? Um, or is it to show that, you know, young age starting points can be fruitful for general scientific inquiry? Like, talk to me about some of the more bigger picture pieces here. all of those things. But I think there's the biggest picture would be why would you do science at all? Right. >> Well, yeah. I think >> why not just read the Bible and do something useful? Be a farmer, build things, uh be a medical person, do something helpful, useful, right? Why should you get paid to play with fossils? What is the point of that? Right? And I don't know that this is exactly what would you would see in the Anabaptist tradition, but it would certainly be something I would see in in the the the the wings of Christianity, the wings of Protestantism that I have uh experienced with. And and yeah, uh that's a good question and I think it is a valid question because it does, you know, there's a lot of well there was a lot of federal money going into funding scientific research. I get a lot of money at Core Academy. Um well, a I get some money at Core Academy. We get a lot of donations, right, of people who want the work that we do to continue. >> Um so in the value of science, I mean, we could speak simply of the value of of of um basic what we call basic science, discovery science >> um that does not have a particular application agenda. I'm not doing material science in order to build better things. I'm not doing medical science in order to treat diseases. I'm just trying to understand how cells work. I'm trying to understand how ecology works and so forth. >> Um, so much of that has been enormously fruitful in ways. So, if you're a practical-minded person, just knowing about the world has made us better able to manage it and use it wisely. >> So, and and I I completely agree with that. Basic research is a value in and of itself. Even if you can't understand, what are we going to get from studying whatever salamanders in [clears throat] the Blue Ridge Mountains? Who cares about that? Fine, I get that. That kind of research has been enormously fruitful >> in very big ways that you just you never would really understand >> um until you look back on it historically and realize oh wow there's been so much that has been just pure basic research that has turned into enormous advances >> so there's value in basic research now why should a Christian do it and there I would say well okay here's a good question you think and let me just address to You think that Christians that there should be some Christians somewhere who are devoting their lives to the study of God's word and preaching and teaching about the truth of God's word? >> Yeah, >> you would agree with that? Yeah. Okay. Well, I think there ought to be Christians somewhere who are devoted to studying and interpreting and preaching God's works. >> So, because I'm a big picture guy, right? I'm looking at what the scripture says and I'm looking at what the world says or what the what the data of reality is and I'm trying to figure out how does this all go together? What does this how does this tell us about God? Because God is the author of both >> the world and the works and the word. So there must be a way to understand it that makes sense. Now, having said that, I don't pretend like I I am capable physically or mentally of understanding all of God's works. >> Nope. Just like I know, you know, the you get those really wise old Christian professors or pastors who will, you know, they've spent life studying the Bible and they still have questions. Yep, that's right. That's exactly right. >> But I also feel like there's much to be learned. One of the biggest things that occurred to me just in the past couple of years. So, one of the things you learn in biochemistry is the complexity of life, right? Biochemistry is sort of peeling back the the cells that make our bodies work, right? Uh and that might be new to some of you. The bodies are made of cells. Bodies are made of cells, everyone. Um >> they're tiny little packages or the biochemicals. And so we we we're sort of opening these cells and trying to figure out how they work. And they're just enormously com complex. And then you have, [clears throat] if you're not a believer, uh you think that life must be a natural product of the development of solar systems or something because there's no God to make life. So >> there you go. That must be how it is. Well, turns out that's really hard to do because there's lots of really interesting characteristics about life that make it in my estimation impossible to imagine how that happened. Now, you could understand that as being, well, that means that these evolutionists are wrong about that. Well, that you could understand it that way, but you could also understand it as well, what that tells me is you cannot have life without God giving you life. >> Life is a great gift of God. Now when I made that connection, here I am half cinch past, well past half a century of my life and I finally made that connection and I thought my goodness that is so much better than evolution is wrong. It's so much better than that because now I'm understanding oh yeah life is a gift of God. Every breath is a gift of God. That's not true just in some you know some thing to put on your wall some saying you live and love God loves you and gives you life. No, that means that the literal physical characteristics of cells cannot exist unless God makes them that way. >> That's wild stuff. >> So, I think there's much to be learned about God if we can take our attention. The problem, part of the problem is we we're all so overwhelmed by evolution and the teaching of evolution that it's hard. Our brains get sort of stuck in that way of thinking. And it takes us a half a century before we realize, oh, life is a gift from God. That's pretty cool. Yeah, it is pretty cool because God made it that way so that you would know >> life is a gift from God. And you are kind of responsible then to God because he gave you this gift. So you better use it wisely. >> Amazing theology from science. >> So that's the kind of thing that I that I've become more and more interested in as I've gotten, you know, as once I started Core Academy and I started thinking about these sorts of questions more deeply, I had time to think about them because I wasn't just teaching classes all the time. That's when it really became exciting to me. I really I started to get a new excitement for science because I realized there's more to this than just radiometric dating or what this fossil means. What do what do I do with dinosaurs? You know, they're dead. You don't have to do anything with them. [laughter] >> So, I want to look at some of the more of the details of the disagreement. Okay. Between >> Sure. what you would view and you know uh the creationist position versus the evolutionist because okay you're describing different science and how that points to God and and things. Um but yet I think it's fair to say you're looking at the science and an evolutionist or a Christian who is an evolutionist would look at the science and and you're coming to completely different conclusions. And I kind of want to get into like what like why that is. Um and and this is where I want to bring in that you this is the only one I've got my hands on. Maybe there's others, but this is this is a really neat book that you co-wrote uh with a Christian evolution evolutionist um right here, The Fool and the Heretic, which is which is a great read. I really enjoy it. But you I I want to get into a statement you made on page 30 and have you kind of respond to this here um if if you don't mind, which I think I'd sent this to you before, so it shouldn't be too much of a surprise. >> Always nerve-wracking when people say, "On this page of your bookage, you said this." >> Oh, great. But like I yeah I wanted to to note this because when we're talking the science right um you one of the things you said in the beginning of the book even um is is this you said you're not surprised that a non-Christian scientist would accept the theory of evolution nor than nor am I at all surprised that Christians like Daryl which is the the co-author of this of this book who would be an evol a Christian evolutionist um that that Christians like Daryl might see no conflict between their faith in Christ and acceptance of evolution. But then you go on to say but you view that as you know I think that's dangerous. you fundamentally disagree on the approach to scripture, but talk to me about that. Like, why are you not surprised? Like, why do they I don't know if that Yeah, elaborate basically on what what you're saying there on a cultural level, we're just sort of saturated with evolution, right? You you turn on any sort of nature program, they're going to tell you all about evolution, and it's makes a great story, >> right? Here are these cavemen and they're becoming more human. Oh boy. Or here's dinosaurs and they eat other animals. They eat other dinosaurs and it's this, you know, big monsters. I mean, that's the big show now on Netflix is this new dinosaur thing from Spielberg. Yeah. And you go to Jurassic Park and they'll tell you, oh, these dinosaurs were millions of years ago and they had their chance and they went extinct and now you're bringing them back and it's going to be bad. And it is and it's terrible and [clears throat] yeah, the whole culture is saturated in this. So, of course, people are going to believe it. Why would they believe anything else? What else is what what other what what else would they think, right? This is all they're getting all the time about science. Um and so there's, you know, there's this longstanding fuss in in the creation evolution debate about how evolutionists have all the resources and they can produce all this propaganda. And you talk to an evolutionary scientist, they have no idea what you're talking about >> because they're all competing for very limited set of research funds. They don't have a lot of money. And so they think, what are you talking about that we have all these resources? Yeah. Well, >> look bigger, right? Look bigger. What what are the what are the documentaries being made about? What are the movies being made about? It's all about evolution. When you go to a movie, you know, that isn't even about evolution. they chances are you might hear something about, oh, that was 25 million years ago or whatever and and >> it's everywhere. So, of course, people are going to believe it. Why why else would they not? Um, it'd be like going into the Soviet Union in the 50s and asking if there's anybody who seriously doubts atheism. That's all they're getting. Of course, that's what they think. It's it's it's unrealistic to think that there's going to be a strong resistance to the stories that they're being told. >> So in that level, I think it's perfectly understandable that people would think that. >> And then, you know, for Christians to say evolution is really a good model. Yeah. Well, okay, I can understand that people would say that. Mhm. >> Um the the place where I'm going to stumble is well the Bible says this and when I you know compare it to what the science says that seems to be quite a disconnection there. Now why would it be dangerous to think in terms of theistic evolution? I would say that it's dangerous [clears throat] not on a personal level, right? Because as I mentioned already, people are capable of wildly inconsistent things, right? >> I can believe, you know, I can believe one thing and not be bothered by something else and it doesn't it doesn't affect me at all. >> So, at a personal level, yes, can you have a Christian who believes in evolution and is not kept awake at night by trying to figure out what Paul meant about the second Adam? Sure, you can. Um, but there is also the systemic question, right? So when you start saying, well, you know, Genesis 1-11, you know, it's narrative theology. It's not really telling you about what happened. It's telling you about God and he is the maker of everything. It's not telling you how he did that. It's just telling you that he is that and that he's different from all these other pagan gods and so forth. Um, but it's not about what it seems to be about, which is that God made everything in six days. That seems to me to be a kind of a dangerous way to approach the Bible because I can use that anywhere. Oh, the Bible says you shouldn't get a divorce. Well, you know, that's culturally, you know, that's a cultural thing in those days and the culture's changed, obviously. Bible says you shouldn't be fornicating before marriage. Well, you know, we live in a culture where that's acceptable and it can be done honestly, you know, between consenting adults. So, there you go. There's all sorts of ways that you can decide the Bible says very clearly one thing and I think it means something quite different means something very very different >> that that that whole exogetical model I just find that to be troubling and so the the theologians would come back and say well you're you're you're trying to do one-sizefits-all on scripture and and obviously that's not true and there are things that are very clearly um clearly revealed in scripture that we are bound to believe and there are other passages that are more obscure and harder to understand. And so we just think Genesis 1 through11 is one of the obscure ones that's harder to understand. And I tend to think that seems pretty easy to me. [laughter] I mean true. There are a lot of questions about things like, you know, the the giants in the earth in those days and the sons of God and the daughters of man. I don't know what that means, but the basic outline of what's going on there seems >> really quite obvious. So, um, >> yeah. So, I'm thinking I don't know that I don't know that the your criteria for saying what is obscure and difficult to understand and my criteria for understanding what is obscure and difficult to understand. I don't think they're the same criteria. And I think that fundamentally at the end of the day it's going to be that whole question of you know this is what evolution tells us is true >> and we are going to be culturally paras if we accept the biblical model of the origin of the universe because it's different and yet even as I say that I think well you know the Bible tells us certain things about sexual ethics and marriage and they are clearly out of step with our modern culture and I am perfectly happy to be a pariah there. Um, so why is it bad to be a pariah on the scientific questions, but on sexual ethics it's okay to be a pariah? I I don't know. There's a whole lot of nuance in this position, and I feel like, you know, the young age creationist position is a little more uh it's a little more consistent across the board. Um, when the Bible says, you know, wait till you're married, don't cheat on your spouse, I'm gonna do that. When the Bible says, um, uh, God made everything in six days. Okay, sounds good. >> And there you go. >> Now, I believe you wanted to know about the purpose. So, the purpose of science, why, what is my goal, right? >> Yeah, >> I think that was the question. And then I launched into this long rambling. >> No, this is this is right down the right street here. Like Okay. So, cuz so that kind of explains why >> maybe some Christians would hold to evolution, you know, right? What you were just describing. I mean, you you don't obviously don't agree with that, but that is, you know, the case, whatever. But you'd been saying earlier you have the word of God and then you see the works of of God like the his hand in creation. Would not our our um you know theistic evolutionist friends, I guess you could say, wouldn't they say, "Well, you're just denying the works of God that are so clearly displayed in creation." That's what they would say. >> That's exactly what they would say. You are making God a liar >> because God tell me about this. >> God has unquestionably, undeniably revealed billions of years of history and evolution is the way he made the world. And if you deny that, you are denying the evidence of God's creation. and therefore you are calling God a liar. >> So what yeah I mean what case do they have that you are denying quote unquote or whatever the works of God. So that argument I think just needs to get tossed because >> I'm going to say well you're doing that with Genesis because that's what Genesis says. Genesis says God made everything in six days and it wasn't very long ago and you're telling me that you know you don't believe that. So I guess you're calling God a liar. I think calling God a liar just needs to be taken right off the table. It's a dumb argument >> and and it's a dumb argument because no one's calling God a liar. >> Yeah. >> What we're saying is I'm dumb and I don't really understand but I think this is the right answer and we're coming to very different positions on that. We're arguing over interpretations and I'm arguing over interpretation of science and they're arguing over interpretation of scripture. >> Yeah. >> And Yeah. I I just don't think it's fair to come at it with, you know, God's a liar. You're, you know, you're making God a liar. You're rejecting God's truth. I I just think that's very unproductive. That's that's the way to end your conversation. >> That's what I really appreciated about this book, actually, cuz it was you and a Christian evolutionist, you know, basically describing it and having a dialogue, and I wasn't really sensing that in in the book of like you're just really you're you're dumb for whatever. Like, it wasn't that. It was like, we really disagree. Like we really really disagree. But you I think you're on to something there where nobody is out there calling God a liar. That's >> Yes. No one's calling God a liar. >> We are disagreeing or you are having fundamental disagreement though over how you have the word and the works as you were just saying the the evolutionist is saying you're denying the works of God, >> I guess, or whatever words you want to use. And then you'd be saying, "Yeah, but you're you're misconstring the words." >> And now we're kind of at a bit of an impass. >> Now we're at a bit of an impass. How do we proceed? And and the way we proceed, >> the way we're going to resolve this is we have to go out there and figure out how the world works, >> right? So, are there going to be scientists out there testing seriously the idea that the universe could be thousands of years old? No. Why would they ever do that? They have no need to do that. Yeah. >> All you need to look do is look in the sky and go, I can see light from stars that are billions of light years away. >> Yeah. Because that's kind of the that's the one of the arguments. >> There's no need to see if that could possibly be either not that far away or not that long ago or something like that. So the only people who are going to be motivated to do that are us >> Christians. So it seems to me that it is our responsibility then as Christians who believe that the scripture is true to resolve these open questions because no one else is going to do it >> right. So if I don't go out there and say all right well >> is there another way to understand this science. Um no one's no one's going to do that. No one no one's going to go out and look at hominin fossils or dinosaur bones or you know biochemicals DNA and so forth and try to imagine other ways of thinking about it because there's no reason to do that. We're the only ones with a reason. And if we really want to bring the church back together again, we're going to have to think about well what is our what is the what is the actual overall coherent story of Christian theology? It used to be for thousands of years, well 1500 years. It used to be creation, fall, redemption, glorification, right? Consummation. So God made everything good. Human beings sinned and messed it up. Jesus came to fix that. Now we can live with God forever >> in [clears throat] glory. That was that was the Christian message. And if you take away if you take away human sin and if you have evolution making the world look basically like it does now well now you've got suddenly creation and fall are something really different. Not the way Augustine imagined it. Certainly not the way Aquinas imagined it. Um >> these these these towering figures of church history they didn't think that way. So now, so are we saying, you know, Christians have been wrong for 1500 years, or are we saying we need a coherent story? >> Okay. But wouldn't our Christian evolutionist friends be like, well, but that's because they didn't know about fossils. >> Yes. Yes, they would absolutely say that if >> if Augustine knew what we know now, Augustine would have a different position. Well, that's a very cute response, but we don't actually know that, do we? >> We don't know that. Yeah, >> we don't we know what we know what Augustine and all the church fathers actually thought about their current culture. And what's interesting about that is that there are places in in in uh church history where you clearly see the adoption and use of cultural what what we would think of as science, natural natural wisdom. [clears throat] >> Um great example all the hexamra. Um so there was this whole mode of of um of writing about the the the creation week. It started with Basil of Cesaria who wrote this this well from from our modern perspective it's pretty crazy. Uh but he's going through the days of creation and talking about how it lines up with all of the the natural wisdom of the day and how the works of God demonstrate the character of God. And like I say, it's nuts. The the science is wildly wrong in many big ways. Um, but it's an engagement with science. So, Basil is engaging with the science of his day. And then you have other things where they're clearly resisting, right? So, the Greeks believed that the universe has always been here there. Well, there's some Greeks that believe that. And they believed in a in a in a in an infinite universe that the that the world itself didn't have a creator. That it's always been here. And the Christian theologians come along and say, "No, God made the heavens, the earth, the sea, and all that is in them. God made everything. That's a repeated claim of scripture. It cannot be that the earth is is eternal." So on the one hand, there's this deep desire to engage with and reconcile natural wisdom with biblical wisdom. But there's also a very clear recognition that there's limits to that. There are places where the Bible draws a line in the sand and you cannot you cannot cross that line because that puts you outside of what is legitimately Christian. So it's been that way for a very long time. Um so when people tell me, you know, what would what would you know Augustine believe if he knew about evolution? I don't know. But I know what Augustine believes when he knows about the science of his day because he talks about those things and some of the things he he buys into and some of the things he rejects. >> Um, so I think a nuanced perspective makes [laughter] more sense to me >> that there are some things that the Bible just doesn't talk about. Atomic theory, I don't care about atomic theory, sure, antibiotics and antibiotic resistance, that's not scriptural. Um, but I don't think there's anything bad about it because it seems to work as [clears throat] far as science goes. It's it those are workable models that I would accept. >> But then, you know, dinosaurs and cavemen and millions of years and that seems to be that seems to me to be pushing into a world that's where it's just not that's that something's gone wrong there and we can't can't follow that. Right. >> Right. It's like you're you're you're you're trying to bring some kind of reconciliation between these two because some somebody has to be wrong here. >> Somebody has to be wrong. >> Yes. Somebody has to be wrong. >> But I think given who we are as human beings, we're all wrong. >> Some of us are wrong in big ways and some of us are wrong in slightly less big ways. Okay? >> But the goal, and this goes back to the, you know, what am I doing in my science? The goal is God, right? God has made the world. And he did it for a reason. Part of that reason is his free choice of doing things. He had no need to make us. He didn't wake up and think I need to make something. Nope. That was that never happened. Um it was his free choice. But still when he decided to do that then the world was made according to a plan. He's got a plan. M >> and by studying the world and by studying his his word, what he tells us is true about the world, I'm going to be able to understand God better. >> That's my goal. That is ultimately the goal. And the the the corollaries and the consequences of that. I mean, yes, you're going to the the when you once we have a coherent model that really explains information and incorporates natural wisdom well and resists natural wisdom that needs to be resisted and it's compelling. Of course, people are going to believe it. That's how science works. That's how, you know, scholarship has always worked. So there it has that that effect of unifying the church but and it and it has the effect of being honest too, right? Because I'm not claiming to have all the answers. I do not have all the answers. I don't. Right? That's that's just the reality of my situation. So I don't have to pretend that I have an answer or I don't have to give you an answer that's kind of lame and say that explains everything. That's just not honest. So I can say I don't know. And so um it has that effect as well. And I think when you put God first and you think about what that means, you start to think about, okay, well, I need to obey the great commandments, right? Jesus gave us >> and and the scriptures give us very clear, big overarching bits of wisdom by which we should order our lives, right? So, love God, love your neighbor. There you go. The two great commandments. Um, go into all the world, preach the gospel, the great commission, make, you know, make disciples. Great commission. That's good stuff. Um, uh, be like Jesus. God is God is going to, uh, work to make you like Jesus. So, what you do ought to be making you more like Jesus. Those are the things that we ought to be doing. And so when you decide well my science isn't really about serving the anxieties of people answering their questions or whatever the purpose of my science is God first and then other people then their anxieties. [laughter] So God comes first then the anxieties you know seek him first and all these things will be added to you. Yeah that's right. That's how it ought to be. Um, so I think there's a lot, you know, when you get your when you orient yourself well and you stop pretending like you have all the answers, it feels like your life starts to go back the way it should have been. >> Once you stop saying, "I've got all the answers. You just have to accept evolution. I've got all the answers. You just got to stop thinking about evolution." No. No. We don't have the answers, but together we can learn new things about God by studying what he's made. >> Back to studying his works, you know, right? >> Studying his works. There you go. >> Okay. But >> but but [laughter] there there's there's another section here I wanted to look at from the book. >> So with all this, right, trying to make all these things work, um you said that um evolutionists have come up with a lot of data that on the surface makes a very strong case for their theory. But instead of dismissing it, we need to come up with a better explanation. Um, you say that they different different spots through here. But like another point, you know, as a scientist who believes the Bible is true, you say you're not bothered by the evidence for evolution. So I I've been kind of familiar with the creationist world for a long time. And I've heard maybe not these exact words, but this idea, oh well, evolution is just a theory in crisis. It's on its last legs. I mean, this thing can barely stand. It it's it's just it's you know the fact that anybody believes that they got to be deceived basically. You definitely do not say that. >> I do not say that. No. >> And that was kind of refreshing in a way cuz like it felt like they were maybe overstating the case perhaps or I don't you know or I don't know. I just it didn't quite settle because I'm like if you have a lot of people who are really smart they they probably believe this for some reason you know and there's another point in here where you say that you know evolution has been a very successful theory extremely successful um you know accepted almost without question by a huge majority of the scientists in the world >> how does that fit [laughter] >> how does that fit well it it sort of goes back to those rules of the game right the idea that we're going to put aside our spiritual religious ideas and we're just going to do science. >> Um, if that's the way you think science ought to be ought to be done, >> then it does sort of come out that well, evolution seems like the best model that they haven't got, >> right? >> It's only when you decide, all right, well, I think that model of science, number one, is not how people really do science, and number two, I don't see any reason why it should be the way we do science. Um so once you liberate yourself from unnecessary rules of science then you sort of realize ah well there's other things >> and people ask me do you think there should be a Buddhist form of science that Buddhists follow. Sure. I guess I mean if Buddhists I don't know anything about Buddhism, but if Buddhists want to have Buddhist science, sure. Muslims, um I don't know pretty much anything about Muslims, but I understand they have some sort of creation. >> So if they want to be Muslim creationists, yeah, of course. How do we adjudicate between all of those things? That's going to be a more difficult question that's going to involve, you know, comparative religion stuff of which I am not an expert. Um, for me, you know, I have my own personal experiences with God um that have come through the church and studying his word and I just I can't imagine that it's not right. So, >> so there's sort of a personal anchor that I have in this whole discussion. Then then wouldn't the critique be then therefore you what you're doing isn't real science then >> exactly >> okay >> and my response to that is hogwash >> here let me give you an example I brought a prop you asked me to bring some visual aid so I brought a visual aid here >> in this fine transportation bag that I have with me I'm going to try to make sure that I don't get most of the pieces here Okay, there you go. >> Okay. So, what what am I looking at here? >> What are you looking at? You're looking >> This is a fossil, right? >> You're looking at the toebone of an admontosaurus. >> No. >> Yes. Really? >> You are touching the foot of a dinosaur. >> No kidding. >> Isn't that crazy? >> Tell people what that kind of dinosaur species was. >> So, an admonosaurus is, you know, it's probably bigger than a pickup truck. Probably slightly bigger than an elephant. Yeah, slightly bigger than >> this is his toe. >> You said to >> a toe bone. So, think about, you know, you know, this sort of a this sort of a bone here that would make up the sort of the joints or maybe an ankle bone or something like that. I'm not exactly sure which bone that is, but it's a toe bone. Yeah. It's very short and stumpy and >> but like for a toe, it seems kind of large. So, this was a big animal. >> This is a big animal. >> This is a big animal, right? >> Yeah. It's really cool. So, people tell me, uh, you know, you're you're you and and I know the guys, uh, the research team that that dug this up. I know where it was found. It was found in, um, in Wyoming at a place called, uh, the dragon's graveyard. Um, I know that it was one of thousands of Admonosaurus bones that came out of that quarry. >> Oh, wow. >> Uh, multiple quaries there where they've been digging these dinosaurs. I know a lot about this. And when I do this sort of thing, you know, I'm thinking about God and the creation and how these things came to be here because they died in a flood and got buried. And you know, people people say, "Well, you're not doing science then." Well, what am I doing? What is that? Right? I'm not studying the text of scripture. I'm not singing my I mean, I guess I could be singing praise songs just because people sing things, but I'm not I'm not I'm not worshiping this toebone. I'm not uh revering it as some sort of religious artifact. It's a toebone. It's just a toebone. Nothing to get freaked out about. >> Um even though it's it's it's genuine dinosaur piece. >> I mean, it's pretty awesome. >> It really is pretty cool. It's pretty cool, right? Is pretty cool. >> I mean, come on. Ah, but they would be like, well, yeah, but you're you're misconstruing the evidence. You're you're, you know, manipulating this to to fit a religious framework, you know, all of that, right? >> Let's let's unpack that question. Okay. So, >> so on the one hand, there's there's the question of should you be able to talk about religious concepts in science at all, right? >> Yeah. >> Can science even address the existence of God or whatever? >> Yeah, that's a tough one. I mean but it a lot of these early of course science can >> Yeah because like you look at someone like even like a Newton or a Galileo or whatever I mean their faith was very prevalent throughout their life in their science right I mean I haven't studied into it that much but you know I mean that's not exactly unheard of or unusual >> so so in science when you are when you are trying to um explain your data and this is something you learn in evolutionary biology you learn in biochemistry. These are fields where there's a lot of uncertainty in models and so you kind of have to be upfront with well this is this is how well things fit this model and that is literally something you would report in your research paper. Uh when I was in grad school, we were doing structural biology, which is, you know, coming coming up with chemical structures of proteins. >> And there you there were numbers that had to be reported in every paper that tell people about how uncertain your model is. >> Oh wow. >> And the goal was to explain the most of your data and minimize all the stuff that doesn't fit because the stuff that doesn't fit, you just sort of have to go, it doesn't fit. There might be this reason. There might be that reason. There's all sorts of legitimate reasons why it might not fit. But ultimately, we don't know. And it's just sort of an ad hoc thing that you just sort of say. That's what that's what you want to do in science. That's really what science is all about. And unfortunately, religious concepts can be kind of the ultimate ad hoc hypothesis. Why is it that dinosaurs are in the ground? Well, maybe God just put them there to test the faith of people as they, you know, studied things. >> I mean, I guess that's that could be true. I have no way of knowing that would be true. I mean, if God is literally out to try to deceive people, I don't know what to say to that. [laughter] I mean, right. So, that sort of ends your science because Okay. Well, this this could be a deception, I guess. >> Oh, yeah. Okay. You could never Yeah, that's true. It would totally That would be the end of all scientific inquiry. >> There would be no reason to go on, right? >> But if I said something very specific like, I think this animal was a real animal that lived at some time in the past and was died and buried in a global flood. Oh, well, now that's very specific. And now I've got lots of things that I can investigate in order to to to see if that's a legitimate realistic model. And some of that information might fit pretty well and some of it might not. But it's very different from the sort of ad hoc, oh maybe God just made it that way. >> That is a science ending thing. >> I I I see what you're saying there. Well, this is this is a perfect segue because I I had to ask you about dinosaurs in this episode. So, I'm I'm so overjoyed you brought this out cuz I I love dinosaurs, right? You know, dinosaurs are great. Um you know, my my uh my oldest child is, you know, has her little dinosaur book. She loves looking at dinosaurs and she can say T-Rex and all this stuff. >> Oh, good. Yes, kids are always good at pronouncing those. >> Yeah, like she could say dinosaur is like one of the first words she could pronounce. Anyway, people who know me will be not surprised at all that that is the game. Dinosaurs are fun. I have a dinosaur tooth on my desk. Um, okay. But so so I look at something like this and you know I was talking to a friend um fairly recently and this person had said that they had been taught growing up in school whatever well dinosaurs probably just never existed then because they're used to teach something that you know the church didn't agree with you know whatever. And I've heard different people say that it's like well then this there's no way they were actually real then because they've led people astray from the faith. So like how how do you actually explain dinosaurs within the younger earth framework? And and I'm saying that as kind of a maybe a case study to say how do you explain all the different things that we can't explain, you know, um how do you explain this fossil? >> Yeah. >> In the context of young earth or young age because what evolution would say it's however many what age would they put on this >> for this? >> This is upper cretaceous. So 70 75 million 65 million something in that range. >> Okay. So, it's at the very end of the dinosaurs uh existence. Um, so the first thing I would say is if this is a if this is something that didn't exist, then it's really strange that they're in the ground for real where people can dig them up, >> right? That's that tells me they had to be planted there. And now I'm thinking, well, who planted them and why? M >> um and then I have to go well all right well what are the details of this of this animal and what I find is okay well I mean it's really it's going to be hard to see if you can see this but you can see where the where the where the surface of the bone is broken away you can see all that weird network stuff there right >> oh >> that's called spongy bone >> that's kind of cool >> we all have that all of our bones are built like that there's a hard compact outer surface and Inside there's this hollow network of fibers, bone fibers that sort of >> makes the bone strong, but it makes the bone light. That's the key. >> You got to keep the weight down. >> Uh because if you were carrying around, you know, solid solid bone, it would be heavy. >> Um and I say that laughing because I have a I have a a human skeleton in the office that is made of solid plastic and it is unpleasantly heavy. Um, [laughter] it's unpleasantly heavy. Anyway, so there are these details here and then you could take thin sections of this and look at the microscopic details. And now it's getting really weird because you think, all right, well, why >> why would there be details here that would be inaccessible to most people without the proper equipment and certainly inaccessible to most time periods? Why? What is the point of making a faximile that is that good? >> Do you really is the goal really to deceive people that much? >> And I get to the end of that sort of reasoning and I think okay well either Satan put those things there or they really are what they are and that is the bones of animals. >> Then like how do you explain them? Because if this is 70 million years old supposedly and like yeah how do you explain it? Okay. So the first first thing I'm going to do is just set aside for the moment the time being the date. >> That's a question that involves [snorts] a lot of physics. It's a question that involves a lot of geocchemistry and that gets really complicated really fast. So let's just talk about the depositional environment of these bones. So what that means is okay so these were found these admonosaurus bones are found in a layer of um semicconsolidated rock meaning that some of it is just sort of a fine grain loose sort of a sort of a halfway between a clay and a sand and then other parts are solid rock um and it's inconsistent. They're all over the place. Now, what's been fun about this project, this has been going on for 27, this will be this will be the 27th year they've been doing these digs in Wyoming, and they've mapped every bone coming out of the quarry, coming out of that site, which is extremely interesting because now we're learning all sorts of really interesting things. One of the things that we learn from this is that the bones are they're on a large geographic area, but they're shaped like a lens. They're wide in the middle and they're thin on the edges. H So that's curious. They're also um not random. By which I mean you when you start on the top of the lens, you know you're going to find a small bone first. Usually a toebone or an ankle bone, something like that, >> ribs. It's only when you get down to the bottom of the lens that you find the big, you know, leg bones and stuff like that. >> Oh, >> they don't occur in the top. It's almost as if the size of the bones has been sorted. You'll note right away that there's almost nothing there that's articulated. So, you don't have skeletons laid out like the animal just died and got buried and then the skeleton was found. >> Mhm. >> It's the bones are all in a jumble, but they're not in a random jumble. They're in a jumble of clear order of size. Uh they're in a lensshaped deposit. Um, and all of that speaks to essentially the animals died somewhere. They those bones floated in water. The the bodies floated in water and decomposed and then the bones were transported somewhere and deposited. That's how you get the size sorting. That's how you get the orientation of the long bones going particular ways. That's how you get the lens. It's all because there was a there was a some kind of big deposit that happened that put those bones in the ground. And here's where it gets really exciting. It's not the only Admonosaurus site where that happens. It's actually pretty common for Admonosaurus deposits to be extremely numerous, disarticulated, size sorted, lensshaped, look like they died, fell into water, decomposed, and then got buried by some massive landslide. Now, I'm not saying that we have to conclude from that that there was a global flood that killed those animals and and decompose their bodies floating in water and then deposited them. Um, but I'm also not saying that that would prove that wrong. [laughter] >> It certainly is consistent with what we would think about where these fossils came from. Now, biblically speaking, okay, where do dinosaurs come from? Presumably, they're beasts of the earth, right? God creates the beasts of the earth on the sixth day. So, if if you're not going to do anything to try to squeeze millions of years into there, >> okay, well, they're beasts of the earth and they are created at the same time human beings are created. >> So, this bone is suddenly not 70 million years old. Correct., you know, few thousand. >> It's no older than anything else buried in the flood. >> Yeah. Okay. Now, I don't know that they were created in the same place as people. Um, I don't know that Adam could have, you know, looked out across the landscape from the Garden of Eden and seen, you know, Brachiosaurus and >> Dloicus and whatever. >> Um, chronologically, they would be at they would presumably be at the same time. Now, then you have uh Noah bringing two of every kind onto the ark. Okay. Well, dinosaurs are kinds >> and so I guess he would have had dinosaurs on the ark. What happens next? Well, that's a big fuzzy question. Um, and there's lots of people with lots of opinions on where the dinosaurs went and why they went extinct and clearly it has something to do with the flood because that's where we find them buried in flood sediments. Um, so you can look at big pictures of the fossil record and say, "Ah, well this looks like this looks like the flood. This looks like where the flood would have been active and burying burying things and dinosaurs in the middle of that. So there's lots of different ways of going about this. You can look at the fine details of the actual deposit of the Admonosaurus bones. You can look at big picture of you know the fossil record. You can look at the biblical story and and it sort of starts to coalesce. There are still questions that we don't understand. One big question that I have been recently wrestling with is dinosaur nests. you know, why do we have so many dinosaur eggs, intact dinosaur eggs in the fossil record, and why do they occur in these little, you know, depressions in the sediment that look like nests? >> That's a really weird thing. Um, because you'd think if the flood was big enough to kill off all of these monosaurus, rot their bodies, and then deposit them in big catastrophic flows, you would think that would smash some eggs. I I don't I don't know much about eggs and egg, you know, egg care, but seems like >> see see that that's important because you're saying like, hey, there might be there's multiple ways perhaps to explain. >> We don't have all the answers right now. Questions that are still open. >> Yeah. And you don't have the answers necessarily either. I think that's also important to >> but the model makes a lot of sense of a lot of the data. So I can look at all sorts of indications of what the flood would do. One of the things you would say that you would expect for the flood would be that well if the water was over the whole continent over all the land well I would expect you know if there was a a you know a deposit of material from all that water it would be over all the land. Well, yeah. I mean, when you look at the when you look at the rock record from when the dinosaurs are found, the the layers where the dinosaurs are found, those those layers tend to be big big big layers, big continentwide layers that are astoundingly big. Um, and so you start to think, wow, that is that would seem to need a continentwide explanation. >> Oh, yeah. And then you also would notice well there's also this issue of why is the ocean up over the land at this point. >> That's a weird question because there there is pl there are places in the modern world where there are continent shelf that's covered by ocean. That's true but >> not very much. Um so that's another piece of the puzzle. So so when you think about the big picture and all [snorts] the little different ingredients yes there are big nagging questions. How do you explain radiometric dating? Why are there dinosaur nests? Why are there dinosaur track waves and so forth? But there's a lot of data that the flood makes a lot of sense of that leads me to think we're probably on the right track. You know, when you got the Bible saying that was a global flood and then you got all these in pieces of information that look like it does kind of look like a global flood. And then you start to think, well, I guess there was a global flood. I maybe maybe it maybe it killed the dinosaurs somehow. I don't know exactly the details of how that would work, but yeah, maybe maybe it maybe it was involved in the extinction of the dinosaurs. >> And then when you start looking at things, then you start to see other pieces of the puzzle fall into place. Now, go back to one of your other questions, you know, am I just forcing the data to fit my model? >> Yes, because I'm sure that's what will be in the comments. Somebody's going to be like, you're just forcing the data. You're starting with the assumption. That's you. You Yep. I get that all the time. Um, [laughter] but here's the thing. I didn't force these bones to be in a lensshaped deposit, sorted by size, completely disarticulated. I didn't make multiple Edmontosaurus sites with those same characteristics. It seems like whatever happened to all these anondosauruses, it was pretty widespread across the western US, northwestern US. Uh, and and Canada, sorry, Canada, but yes, you're you have it monosource, too. So, northwest US and Canada, North America. Uh, yeah, I didn't do that, right? And so, I'm gonna interpret it different from you, but it's not because I'm forcing the data to fit something. It's just because, well, those data happen to fit pretty well. >> And if I were forcing the data, I would say I could explain why dinosaur nests, they're not dinosaur nests. Eggs aren't really dinosaur eggs. It's not what it appears. Or I've got some other I've got some other explanation for why these things exist. That would be something where you would say, "Yeah, that guy's just forcing that data." But if I'm just sitting here going, "Yeah, I don't know. I'm not sure how I'm forcing data. I'm looking at data going that actually kind of fits. >> And then I'm thinking, well, how does this other stuff fit? That's when I go back to the lab or I go back to the field and do more research and try to understand things better. >> That's what science does. It makes me a scientist. >> And the point of is, you know, there are some things that don't fit >> like you. Yeah. And that I think that's maybe um the evolutionists or whatever the critics have gotten a little tired of it sounding like the creationists think they've got everything perfectly squared away. I think there's been some of that or or they get that sense and so then they're like, "Oh, you no, there's things that you can't explain right now." And you're saying that that's true. >> Yeah, that's true. And I want to be fair here. I think that's true. No matter what Christian position you want to hold on evolution, if you think evolution is God's mechanism of creation and there was no historical Adam, you have a lot of big questions that you can't explain. And if you are a, you know, a Bible believing young age creationist who thinks that God made dinosaurs and they got buried in the flood and that's what killed them, you have a lot of big questions that are left to explain. >> You don't you don't get to get out of that, right? And so anybody who says, "I've got all the answers. my my model explains everything. That's when you should go, I don't think so. I don't I don't think that's true. Um, you should be suspicious of that guy. >> Yeah. >> And I think that's perfectly reasonable and perfectly healthy because nobody has all the answers and that's why we do what we do. That's why I'm doing what I'm doing because I want to know >> more about God's creation. >> Which which goes perfectly with another piece I wanted to ask you about here. Let's see if I can find um but now this you you segueed perfectly to the next question I had and and again back to the book you co-authored with this Christian evolutionist. He had a couple questions I guess you could say. He said like um he's like okay I genuinely admire referring to you admire Todd's passion for finding scientific ev evidence for creation. I really do. >> And this is funny. He said he will fail because he's plain wrong. [laughter] you know. Um, and then he and then he says he knows he's referring to you again. He knows that I think he will fail because the evidence for evolution is vastly overwhelming. Okay, that's at the one spot. And then another one is again him talking to talking about you and your research. He's saying, you know, Todd is the first to acknowledge there isn't enough scientific evidence yet to support young earth creationism as in like we have work to do, etc., etc. like we've just been saying um there's some he thinks but he knows there's not nearly enough as much as perhaps you would say for evolution or you know in his view. [snorts] So with that in mind what are areas of research that you find most promising that you're most excited about um with creation science with the the work that you're doing because as you've been saying there's a lot of work to do. There are lots of things we don't know or can't explain. Um talk to me about that. Yeah, I I this dinosaur dig is probably the biggest one or not the biggest one. It is one of the bigger ones that's that's ongoing and has been ongoing now almost 30 years. >> Wow. >> Um it's it's an extraordinary trove of fossils. It is um and it is producing really great science and it is producing really great scientists >> as well. It's used as a training ground for for um paleontologists. Uh so it's pretty exciting to me. Basically, you can pick just about anything in creation science. It's really interesting stuff. I mean, there's there's research going on, of course, on the formation of various rock layers all over the world. I'm not a geologist. I don't really >> I don't really follow it all but I know plenty of people doing that kind of work all the time trying to understand better you know how do these rock layers form how do they relate to the rock layers above and below and so forth >> um there's [clears throat] the one of the more interesting things that's starting to happen is with the availability of so much information now >> um before it used to be sort of hidden away in these books and now it's you know you can download spreadsheets that cover the entire fossil record. >> Uh which was not something I could do when I was growing up. Um now we can start talking about big patterns which is extremely exciting. So the last so every four years there's an international conference on creationism where creationists from pretty much all over the place get together and present their latest research. One of the really fascinating really fascinating projects from the last um ICC which happened in 23 was this project where the researcher had uh researcher Kurt Weise had um compiled information on species uh that occur in the fossil record from the bottom of the fossil record to the top of the fossil record. And there was very clear trends that you could see where there seems to be this really weird middle part where there's an unusual amount of preservation of species and then there's the sort of the top chunk and the bottom chunk where there's very not not very good at pres preserving species. Um and he says well that middle chunk is where the flood's happening obviously. Um, [laughter] and it's really >> interesting. >> It's really extraordinary. I mean, so suddenly, you know, when you're able to see things big enough, you start to see, oh, that's what that's what that's talking about. That's when God said, I'm going to send a flood that covers everything. That's what he meant. There it is. There it is in the data now. >> Um, >> and you said Kurt Kurt Wise. >> Kurt Wise. >> Okay. So, Kurt Weise. Wow. Um, let's see. PhD in paleontology. I think he has. Isn't he the one that studied under Steven J. G up at Harvard? >> Yes guy. >> Okay. I'd like to meet him someday. That's >> Well, you can come to the international conference on creationism. >> I've wanted to. >> Next year. >> Oh, where is it going to be? >> It's in uh Cedarville, Ohio at Cedarville University. >> Oh, okay. So, that's actually not that far away. I would be tempted. I'd like to. >> You should act. You should go. Well, you can ride with us. >> Oh, okay. >> Cuz we're right here and we'll we're going to take a van. So, yeah. >> Yeah. For people that may not know, like our main podcast headquarters is right here in Southern Tennessee. And you're close by. you're you're not that far away, which is really cool. I was like, "Hey, that's awesome." I didn't actually know when I reached out to you initially. >> So, yeah. So, the ICC is is the place to go to see the latest and greatest. >> And yes, there's always going to be quibbles and arguments among creationists about, [laughter] >> hey, did you do that right and have you made the right conclusions? And yes, that's true. That's always going to happen. That happens in conventional science, too. But there's that conference is always worth going to because there's always something really startling to come out of that. Um, and it's exciting. My own work now is not biochemical. My own work now is mostly studying the physical record of human >> history on the planet. >> Most of my work >> Okay. Wait, no, no, no. Now tell me more on this. Okay. So, so because the standard evolutionary narrative is you have the different >> I don't know what you call types of humans that you know kind of form and you know yeah and you got you know Neanderls and this and that and whatever. Um, are you talking that's the kind of stuff you're doing or >> Yes. >> Interesting. >> So, there's been So, as I mentioned, you know, there's this revolution in information. You can get all this information. Well, there's also been a revolution in paleontology because people are getting these fancy 3D scanners and scanning their fossils and putting those scans on the internet where people can get them. >> Oo. So, now you can basically study a fossil without having to go to wherever it's stored, wherever around the world. That's that's kind of cool. >> And not only that, but the the human fossil record itself is now to some degree accessible. Hm. >> Um, you know, in the 90s, if you wanted to study, you know, Neanderls or apemen or whatever, you would have to travel to where the fossils are >> to make your measurements and to take your pictures and that would be the end of it. >> Or you could get, if you were if if you had enough money, you could buy casts. They would they would take, you know, they would take their silicone and they would make a a mold of the fossil. If it was sturdy enough, they would do that and then they would make like a plaster cast of the of the fossil. >> So, those are the ways that you could study things. Um, but now it's it's just there. You just have to know where to look for it. And there are whole databases devoted to this stuff. So you can read a paper about a fossil and then you can get it you can get a you can get a three-dimensional model of that fossil and confirm what they say. >> That is pretty neat. >> It's and it's it's accessible in a way that's just been it's it's to an unprecedented extent. And so, you know, part of part of what I've done is mostly just been confirming some things, right? People say, "This is what Neanderls are like." Well, I've got enough Neanderl skulls now that I can look at them and go, "Yeah, that is exact. I can see exactly what you're talking about." >> Um, I can see the traits that you're you're saying are Neanderl traits. That makes sense. And then the other part of it is to try to understand, you know, is it true part a big part of my research for a long time has simply been evaluating is it true that there's sort of this transition from ape to human, right? >> So we've got all these fossil whatever fossil ape men, fossil cavemen. Is there just sort of this unbroken line from something that you would undoubtedly call an ape to something that is very clearly human. There's a lot of people who say that that's exactly what you see. Um but my research has not shown that that's the case. My research continues to show, well, there are these things that are very clearly ape and there are these things that are very clearly human and they're not they don't blend right into each other. And then there's the fun stuff where you have where you have a lot of um fossils that have been given fancy names that there's not much to it, right? There's there's 400 Neanderls out there, bodies, actual bodies, and multiple bones from most of those bodies. That's a lot of information. You can learn a lot about Neandertols. Um, and there's hundreds of sites where these these these bodies have been found. When you get to something like Homohabilis, Handyman, or Capable Man, there are fewer sites. They're mostly in East Africa. They're mostly Well, they're all in East Africa. They are highly fragmentaryary fossils. Uh the the skeletons, well, up until this year, the skeletons that have been found had been the you would mistake them for driveway gravel. If you didn't know what you were looking at, you would not realize that you were looking at a skeleton. Um, now >> whoa, >> this year it's been I'm pretty excited about this. There have been an associated set of limb bones and other skeletal pieces that now actually have given us a much better perspective on what people call homeless. But at the same time, I don't I'm not sure. So there are these parts where the model where where my model at least is a is is admittedly uncertain because >> I'm not even sure homohabilis is a thing. I don't know that that's a real thing or is it just a bunch of different fossils from a bunch of different things that have been sort of lumped together and called a thing. Maybe that's true, maybe it's not true. >> Um, so that's one of the things that I'm really interested in in discovering is, you know, what is the data behind that? So you end up, you know, I end up reading a lot of original research reports, reading a lot of of the history of how people have interpreted these fossils and yeah, so there's differences of of opinion for everybody. So yeah, >> could be human, might be a mix of things, might be some things that are not human. Um, yeah, but it's be it's it's it the exciting thing for me is always going to be the accessibility. I can go now. I have a whole collection of Homohabilis 3D prints that I've gotten >> and from scans of fossils because they're out there. People make them available. >> Like where do you publish research like this? I know you've published research papers in a variety of places to pin that right. >> So, so obviously if you're going to be blatantly openly creationist, you're going to have to publish in a >> sort of a blatantly openly creationist venue. Um because the common wisdom remains that creationists do not do science. Creationism is not science. We don't talk about creation science. That's not legitimate science. But you can publish basic observational stuff. So for example, the the dinosaur dig has produced several papers that have been published in regular science journals. >> Now those papers do not wave the creationist flag and say this is because of the flood. They they just talk about there's some sort of catastrophic imp placement of these dinosaur bones. This is the best model to explain them. >> Don't talk about where that catastrophe came from. Don't talk about what they think about it. >> Just present the model. >> Um so, so there are those venues, but generally speaking for me, I'm going to go to the ICC and present my work there. And I've got plans in motion for multiple papers at the next ICC. pretty excited about the different uh different projects I've got cooking. >> And it's all, you know, all of it. So, it's possible because this material is available. You can you can see it. You can download this information. You can gather it from the published literature and put it into a big data set and interpret stuff in ways that creationists in the 80s and 90s had no ability to do. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Yeah, >> without actually going to museums and spending spending years compiling information. We can do it now. >> I can do a lot of it from my office. >> So, you wrote in um the last um actually I think it was the first volume of the new creation uh studies journal. So, I think you've been involved um in that as a what editorial or >> Yeah. editorial board person. Yeah. >> Yeah. And it was interesting reading some of that and um you he said in one of the articles there something along the lines of if disputing the details of fossils, genes or texts does not make us more like Jesus, we need to bring those activities back into the lordship of Christ. And I think that's a really important piece like how do we do science in a way that points back to Christ instead of it being something that isolates us from each other or turns it into like almost like battle lines. you know, they're over there, I'm over here, and we're chucking grenades at each other or something, metaphorically speaking. >> So, how do we maintain that good witness and love towards those that we disagree with on some pretty fundamental things, say, when it comes to evolution and so forth? >> I think first issue is we need to love our neighbor, which means we need to get to know our neighbors. >> It is really easy to think of evolutionists as these monsters if you don't know any of them. Right? >> It's easy to think of any group as a monster if you don't actually know any of them. Um, and you just take people's word for it. And part of part of that getting to know them is is on a personal level. It could be on a personal level. Um, and part of that is also uh professional. Um, so I have a colleague at at Lomol Linda University who always encourages us work with work with the evolutionists as much as you can because they're going to have insights that you don't have because they have they see things differently than you do and you're going to have insights that they don't have because you see things that they're going to miss. Um, which I think is remarkably important. But I think it also has a that that side benefit that it gets you it gets you to know them as professional people. >> Um, and once you do that, and this is a really fun thing, the people who really go out of their way to get to know conventional scientists and work with so forth, um, they they will they tell me without exception that the stereotype of the monster evolution trying to destroy kids faith is just not true. >> Um >> so so so one way to bring all of this back to the lordship of Christ is to make it personal by getting to know people that just don't see things the way you do. I went to a conf I went to a theology conference last fall. First time I'd ever been there. It was a big conference. I'm not going to name names. You know who you are. Um but it was a big conference and it was on on some level very discouraging to see how the creation issue was handled at that conference. mostly because it was sort of like let's just get prominent people who have different opinions about things to talk about them in a civil manner. >> And when I say civil manner, I'm talking barely civil. [laughter] I mean, [clears throat] these guys were they were berating each other in a very polite way, but it was very clearly unfriendly and unkind. >> And I felt like that model where you [clears throat] have perfect strangers dragged up on a stage and forced to >> present and it's a performance. It's not really getting anywhere. Mhm. [snorts] >> Um, and you don't really know those people before. You know, the the thing that makes this book different from all the other, >> you know, three perspectives on creation, evolution, Daryl and I spent several years meeting regularly in person. >> I had to pray with him. I had to listen to him pray. Uh, we read scripture together. We worshiped together. We went to church together. The performance was secondary to what we were doing to get to know each other. That's how it helped to proceed. We shouldn't be dragging a bunch of disagreeing scholars in to say, "Write this book about your different perspectives or do this uh panel discussion about your different perspectives." >> That's not helping. I mean, that might impress some people who are on their side, right? Oh, my guy did good or that guy did bad. >> It's just furthering tribalism in in the church. It's not actually >> helping us to love one another. >> Um, so I get those kinds of invitations and I'm very leery. I don't know about that. >> I want to know who I'm talking with. I did one a number of years ago at a at a conference and um it was very strange. It was very strange because they didn't give us very much time to give our positions >> and and I didn't really know the people I was talking with and the the evolution side went really technical and I just went with it's what the Bible says and I sort of made a very uh honestly it was a very emotional spiritual kind of appeal that you know God told Abraham he was going to have a baby and him and Sarah are going to have a baby. God, you know, told Moses to go lead the people out of Israel or out of Egypt. And uh, you know, maybe this is my time to stand up and do the impossible and believe what God tells me. And >> it was not wellreceived by the other people on the panel, [laughter] >> but you know, they were we're total strangers. And I just feel like this is just the wrong way to do it. We should not be we should not be getting up to perform there. there's a place for people to say, "This is what I think, this is what I believe, and this is how it works in my Christian faith. That makes sense to me." You know, write your books. Cool. Uh, and review books, fine. Um, but it needs to be the the personal needs to come first. The brothers and sisters in Christ, that needs to be the first thing that you think about before you start thinking about, well, your position is stupid. >> [laughter] >> Because it's really hard to say that when you like the person, right? Daryl and I are both in there going, you know, in our book we're talking about, you know, I think the others the other position is damaging and dangerous and you should not believe that guy. >> Yeah. >> But that is hard earned. We had to we had to go through a lot to get to the point where we were comfortable saying that to each other. >> Uh >> yeah, that was not that was not simple. Um, [snorts] and I can I can respect Daryl's honesty and his sincerity and his Christian character. Never even a question about that. Um, so people tell me you can't be a Christian and believe in evolution. That is false. I know one I know at least one genuine Christian who is absolutely convinced evolution is the way God made God created. Just evolution is God's mechanism of creation. I know at least one. I know probably more than that, but >> you know, I know one really well enough to say no doubt he's a Christian. Um, but if all we're ever going to do is just listen to what my side tells me is true, then we're just going to be pitiful little tribes, ineffective, divided, broken. >> It's not going to it's not good. And it's it's not what Jesus wanted. Jesus said, "The world will know you are my disciples by your love for one another." Mhm. >> And when we're sniping at each other and calling people stupid because they believe sincerely, honestly, wellthoughtout positions on theology and and science for calling people stupid for that and and and mocking them, then how is the world going to know we're any different from somebody who's arguing about whether Oralopythecus is the direct ancestor of Homo or whether Oralopycus is a sister taxonom. Hobo, right? And you might not even know what that means, but that's, you know, science jargon. Scientists can bicker and and and squabble about all these things. If our squables aren't any different than that, then why would anyone think that we're >> that we have something good to offer? So, I think that's where it has to start. That's where >> you know that's where it has to come back to bring dragging that back into uh into focus of the big the big questions of life you know what are we here for what what does God want from us and unfortunately we all interpret that through our particular lenses there's particular people who are just very fidious and particular about details they're detailoriented people and they're the ones that tend to get really carried away in these sort of debates and and yes, you detail people need to come back over here with the rest of humanity and talk about just being a decent human being. >> Um, >> and think about what it is to love your neighbor and love your enemy and and what did Jesus want from you? >> Not everybody's a Pharisee. Not everybody deserves to be called whitewash tombs. Some people are just doing the best they can. and trying to yeah really avoiding the tribalism and the isolation from each other and then like you said sniping at each other from our our you know standoff positions or something. Man, that's so easy to do though on, you know, of course it is. I mean, we're Protestants for crying out loud. Look at us. We can't agree on anything. How should we baptize people? Should we baptize infants? Should we wait to do believers baptism? Should we dunk them or should we sprinkle them? What What is acceptable? We're going to have to have whole different churches. We're going to have to go off and be different churches alto together because we can't agree on how to how to baptize people or we can't agree on on all these sorts of little things. And oh my goodness, of course we're good at tribalism and this is so so we need to sort of step back from all of this and decide all right what is really worth drawing a line in the sand over >> and there has to be a different thing for fellowship and for me you know fellowship and even cooperation even professional cooperation you don't need to be whatever I am uh you need to agree with me 100%. >> Um, for us to to work together, I don't need I don't need that kind of uniformity. I think unity is quite different from uniformity. >> We can be together. We can work together towards a common goal of understanding God's creation even if we totally disagree. And so Darl and I wrote that book. And I and you know we both sort of looked at it and said we are going to platform the other person's position. >> Is this really what I want to do? [laughter] >> There's a lot of people are going to be very bothered by that. >> But I I for me it came down to I need to tell people that we need to be better Christians as we do these kinds of >> discussions. >> And I found it very helpful. I this this was um refreshing to hear a perspective like this where you know two different um positions could have the kind of dialogue you you guys exemplified in this book. Yeah, it was it was I appreciated that and I wish there could be a little more of that. I yeah, I guess the isolation, you know, lobbing hand grenades across no man's land at each other on some of these issues can can get a little old maybe. And maybe people looking on from the outside that aren't quite sure what to do with the whole thing will be like, I don't know. This whole thing's really confusing. I don't I'm not even going to care. Yes. >> You know, and I I've definitely heard that, especially young people like, you know, I just I'm not even going to care because that looks nasty. Yeah. >> Yep. >> Yeah. >> It's not worth my time. Not worth my effort. Yeah. And I think, you know, as a scientist who is a Christian, I feel it is one of the most rewarding, astonishing, exciting things [snorts] that you could do >> to to be able I mean, think about this. This was an animal that God made and it was buried in the ground until some Christians decided to go out to Wyoming and dig it up. Who knew this was there? God knew this was there. That's pretty extraordinary thing. In 20 2016, 10-year space probe mission finally paid off when we got back the first highresolution photographs of the surface of Pluto. When that mission started, Pluto was a planet. And by the time it got there, Pluto had been devoted to not a planet. [laughter] But God was the first God was the only one to have seen those that surface until we got there and saw it for ourselves. >> It's extraordinary. God's put all sorts of wonders out there. There are amazing things. And we get to go out and discover them. What a privilege. This should this should no matter what you think the interpretation is, you should be excited. should always be excited at new discoveries of God's creation that further our understanding of his works. >> And I think we're we're kind of at the heart of the whole the whole thing, right? I mean, loving our neighbor, you know, and handling these things in a Christlike way. And uh there there's another point you made in somewhere in the book where you're like, you know, in the past there's been some creationists doing science that was actually kind of bad science or maybe like not you maybe not being very fair to the other position and how we we need to move past that. We need to do better. >> Yes. >> On the science on the on how we handle these things. And I I I think you're on something there. I really do. And I'm I don't know. Do you want to respond on that or elaborate? Creationism, the creationist movement is a massive big spectrum of ideas and [clears throat] expertise. Um, there are people like me who have earned a doctorate in doing evolutionary research. There are people who are literally uneducated, formerly uneducated. um and everything in between. Um so of course there's going to be stuff that you know ideas and positions that are being promoted that are just not correct. And the other thing science moves forward. We learn new things. This is part of what creation makes creationism really interesting to me because it's not the same. You pick up a book from 100 years ago, creationist writing, it's really different. I mean there's there's certain ideas that are going to carry through and there are certain ideas that are going to be adapted >> to new to new data but uh a lot of the stuff is going to be really different because they're dealing with different sorts of science then and and it's going to be not the same as what we have now. So 100 years ago, right, you you would have a different form of of of creation science, but the mechanisms we have to inform people aren't nearly what exists in the conventional world, right? So, so now you talk to kids and even kids will know uh T-Rex walked on two legs. The body was mostly parallel to the ground. The tail did not drag. Right? 100 years ago, all the pictures had T-Rex standing upright, tails dragging on the ground. There's not there's no there's almost no [snorts] not quite no, but there are almost no places where we have any evidence that dinosaurs were dragging their tails. >> We have lots of trackways in lots of different places. very little evidence anywhere that dinosaurs were dragging their tails. But kids know that because there's all these shows and these books and everything that are telling them this. We used to think this and now we think this. We don't have that effectively in creationism. So, you've got a lot of folk wisdom that's still being pushed around >> because people don't know, well, we we don't think that anymore. Mhm. >> Um this is an idea that was an old idea that had its day and well we've moved on to something better. Yeah. So so part of what we need in creationism I guess if there is a need in the community is better ways of communicating how different creationism is from what it was when I was a kid. So if all you knew about creationism was stuff that you read in the Genesis Blood by Wickman Morris or you read a book about creation that was published in the 80s, you know nothing. >> I mean I don't want to be rude, but creationism has changed a lot since those books were written and it's really different than it was back then. lots of really exciting new research that's happening and you might want to give it a different try nowadays because it's not the same as what you thought. >> What's the interesting the other side of that is that you get a lot of a lot of people now coming to something like the creation museum or something and seeing all this new creation research and thinking well this is different. When did they start thinking about this? and they think like, "Oh, this creationism, this new creationism is totally different from the old creationism, and it's completely new." And they just haven't been around for the for the detailed discussions and and research that has led to modern creationist ideas that are very different from what they grew up on. So, they feel like creationism has done this crazy quantum shift into some totally new thing that it didn't used to be. And no, it didn't. It just slowly gradually changed things and added things and modified the model until we come to the model that we have now. >> Mhm. >> Because that's how science works. >> I keep saying that because it's important to understand. >> So, we've talked about a lot of different things on this. >> We have. Yeah. And I keep rambling. >> No, this No, this is great. But I wanted to ask you, was there something you specifically wanted to discuss that we didn't get to in the interview? I'm all talked out. Um, but uh but I future is wide open. >> I I would love to see the uh the the whatever you want to call cavemen research and I'm assuming that I'll probably you'll probably publish some stuff on that at some point in the future. >> Oh, I've got a lot of publications already out there. Yeah. >> Okay. Okay. So, people can can look those up. Maybe I'll put some in the show notes. Link to the book in the description. I want people to go read it um to, you know, the core academy. Uh people can go check out more of your work there as as well. and our podcast, Let's Talk Creation. >> Yeah. >> Which you can find on YouTube, wherever you get your podcasts and at let's talkcreation.org. If you're looking for more kind of discussions like we've what we've just had, that's a great place to go because we have all sorts of really interesting guests and it's not the usual characters that you're used to. It's the rest of us. [laughter] Well, Todd, I I just I' I've appreciated following your work and um the the stuff you've published and written has been helpful to me and it's pretty neat that this worked out. I I really appreciate you taking the time to come on the show and share with us today. >> Yeah, you're welcome. Glad to do it. >> [music]