Sadly, an Honest Creationist

Jutsuka

<div style="width:100%; filter:glow(color=royalblu
Dec 7, 2002
235
0
44
Sundsvall
Visit site
✟15,355.00
Sadly, an Honest Creationist

By Richard Dawkins


The following article is from Free Inquriy Magazine, Volume 21, Number 4.

Creation “scientists” have more need than most of us to parade their degrees and qualifications, but it pays to look closely at the institutions that awarded them and the subjects in which they were taken. Those vaunted Ph.D.s tend to be in subjects such as marine engineering or gas kinetics rather than in relevant disciplines like zoology or geology. And often they are earned not at real universities, but at little-known Bible colleges deep in Bush country.

There are, however, a few shining exceptions. Kurt Wise now makes his living at Bryan College (motto “Christ Above All”) located in Dayton, Tennessee, home of the famed Scopes trial. And yet, he originally obtained an authentic degree in geophysics from the University of Chicago, followed by a Ph.D. in geology from Harvard, no less, where he studied under (the name is milked for all it is worth in creationist propaganda) Stephen Jay Gould.

Kurt Wise is a contributor to In Six Days: Why 50 Scientists Choose to Believe in Creation, a compendium edited by John F. Ashton (Ph.D., of course). I recommend this book. It is a revelation. I would not have believed such wishful thinking and self-deception possible. At least some of the authors seem to be sincere, and they don’t water down their beliefs. Much of their fire is aimed at weaker brethren who think God works through evolution, or who clutch at the feeble hope that one “day” in Genesis might mean not twenty-four hours but a hundred million years. These are hard-core “young earth creationists” who believe that the universe and all of life came into existence within one week, less than 10,000 years ago. And Wise—flying valiantly in the face of reason, evidence, and education—is among them. If there were a prize for Virtuoso Believing (it is surely only a matter of time before the Templeton Foundation awards one) Kurt Wise, B.A. (Chicago), Ph.D. (Harvard), would have to be a prime candidate.

Wise stands out among young earth creationists not only for his impeccable education, but because he displays a modicum of scientific honesty and integrity. I have seen a published letter in which he comments on alleged “human bones” in Carboniferous coal deposits. If authenticated as human, these “bones” would blow the theory of evolution out of the water (incidentally giving lie to the canard that evolution is unfalsifiable and therefore unscientific: J. B. S. Haldane, asked by an overzealous Popperian what empirical finding might falsify evolution, famously growled, “Fossil rabbits in the Precambrian!”). Most creationists would not go out of their way to debunk a promising story of human remains in the Pennsylvanian Coal Measures. Yet Wise patiently and seriously examined the specimens as a trained paleontologist, and concluded unequivocally that they were “inorganically precipitated iron siderite nodules and not fossil material at all.” Unusually among the motley denizens of the “big tent” of creationism and intelligent design, he seems to accept that God needs no help from false witness.

All the more interesting, then, to read his personal testimony in In Six Days. It is actually quite moving, in a pathetic kind of way. He begins with his childhood ambition. Where other boys wanted to be astronauts or firemen, the young Kurt touchingly dreamed of getting a Ph.D. from Harvard and teaching science at a major university. He achieved the first part of his goal, but became increasingly uneasy as his scientific learning conflicted with his religious faith. When he could bear the strain no longer, he clinched the matter with a Bible and a pair of scissors. He went right through from Genesis 1 to Revelations 22, literally cutting out every verse that would have to go if the scientific worldview were true. At the end of this exercise, there was so little left of his Bible that

. . . try as I might, and even with the benefit of intact margins throughout the pages of Scripture, I found it impossible to pick up the Bible without it being rent in two. I had to make a decision between evolution and Scripture. Either the Scripture was true and evolution was wrong or evolution was true and I must toss out the Bible. . . . It was there that night that I accepted the Word of God and rejected all that would ever counter it, including evolution. With that, in great sorrow, I tossed into the fire all my dreams and hopes in science.

See what I mean about pathetic? Most revealing of all is Wise’s concluding paragraph:

Although there are scientific reasons for accepting a young earth, I am a young-age creationist because that is my understanding of the Scripture. As I shared with my professors years ago when I was in college, if all the evidence in the universe turns against creationism, I would be the first to admit it, but I would still be a creationist because that is what the Word of God seems to indicate. Here I must stand.

See what I mean about honest? Understandably enough, creationists who aspire to be taken seriously as scientists don’t go out of their way to admit that Scripture—a local origin myth of a tribe of Middle-Eastern camel-herders—trumps evidence. The great evolutionist John Maynard Smith, who once publicly wiped the floor with Duane P. Gish (up until then a highly regarded creationist debater), did it by going on the offensive right from the outset and challenging him directly: “Do you seriously mean to tell me you believe that all life was created within one week?”

Kurt Wise doesn’t need the challenge; he volunteers that, even if all the evidence in the universe flatly contradicted Scripture, and even if he had reached the point of admitting this to himself, he would still take his stand on Scripture and deny the evidence. This leaves me, as a scientist, speechless. I cannot imagine what it must be like to have a mind capable of such doublethink. It reminds me of Winston Smith in 1984&nbsp; struggling to believe that two plus two equals five if Big Brother said so. But that was fiction and, anyway, Winston was tortured into submission. Kurt Wise—and presumably others like him who are less candid—has suffered no such physical coercion. But, as I hinted at the end of my previous column, I do wonder whether childhood indoctrination could wreak a sufficiently powerful brainwashing effect to account for this bizarre phenomenon.

Whatever the underlying explanation, this example suggests a fascinating, if pessimistic, conclusion about human psychology. It implies that there is no sensible limit to what the human mind is capable of believing, against any amount of contrary evidence. Depending upon how many Kurt Wises are out there, it could mean that we are completely wasting our time arguing the case and presenting the evidence for evolution. We have it on the authority of a man who may well be creationism’s most highly qualified and most intelligent scientist that no evidence, no matter how overwhelming, no matter how all-embracing, no matter how devastatingly convincing, can ever make any difference.

Can you imagine believing that and at the same time accepting a salary, month after month, to teach science? Even at Bryan College in Dayton, Tennessee? I’m not sure that I could live with myself. And I think I would curse my God for leading me to such a pass.

Sadly this is the mindset of most creationists, no matter how much overwhelming evidence one would present they would still just sit there like a petulant 5 year old and go: No! :(
 

MatthewDiscipleofGod

Senior Veteran
Feb 6, 2002
2,992
267
47
Minnesota
Visit site
✟20,802.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
"Sadly this is the mindset of most creationists, no matter how much overwhelming evidence one would present they would still just sit there like a petulant 5 year old and go: No!"

Don't feel sad for us creationists. There is nothing wrong with taking God at his word over faulty assumptions. In fact many arguments for evolution during the Scopes Trial now have been thrown out my other evolutionists over the years since then. That just gives you and idea what there is no reason to feel sad. Evolutionary "science" changes, the Bible doesn't.
 
Upvote 0

kaotic

Learn physics
Sep 22, 2002
4,660
4
North Carolina, USA
Visit site
✟14,836.00
Faith
Agnostic
Politics
US-Democrat
That just gives you and idea what there is no reason to feel sad. Evolutionary "science" changes, the Bible doesn't.

You are completely right. That's the good thing about science it can be tested, and if something doesn't add up scientists can find the problem and fix it.

YAY SCIENCE! YAY SCIENCE! :cool:
 
Upvote 0

Mechanical Bliss

Secrecy and accountability cannot co-exist.
Nov 3, 2002
4,897
241
43
A^2
Visit site
✟21,365.00
Faith
Atheist
Politics
US-Democrat
Originally posted by Project 86
There is nothing wrong with taking God at his word over faulty assumptions.&nbsp;

Yes there is, considering (1) you have zero evidence that the Bible is God's word, only the "faulty assumption" out of faith that it is and (2) you have zero evidence that the theory of evolution is based upon "faulty assumptions."
 
Upvote 0

Evangelion

<b><font size="2">δυνατός</b></font>
MB -

Yes there is, considering (1) you have zero evidence that the Bible is God's word, only the "faulty assumption" out of faith that it is

No, we have evidence which we interpret in a particular way, and (on the basis of which) arrive at a particular conclusion. You interpret the evidence another way, and arrive at the opposite conclusion. So yes, there is evidence - but no, it's not perfectly conclusive.

and (2) you have zero evidence that the theory of evolution is based upon "faulty assumptions."

Agreed - which is why I would never advance such an argument. :cool:
 
Upvote 0
Agreed - which is why I would never advance such an argument.

Apparently Project86 is advancing the position that the theory of evolution is nothing more than a set of faulty assumptions used to interpret physical evidence. Otherwise his comment makes little sense.

Of course you and others may be aware that evolution is not merely an interpretive science but also is in many cases a predictive one, but many out there are more than willing to buy the "faulty assumptions" snake oil from the professional creationists & then pretend that their revealed truth trumps it: It's easier than admitting that under their epistemology, their revealed truth trumps the evidence.

I don't mind conceding points to revealed truth of some kinds. A person who claims a personal relationship with God can get some mileage out of that with me...

But when they talk about the "Word of God" being more trusty than the work of science because science is constructed by fallible humans, they lose credibility. They conveniently overlook the fact that the "Word of God" of which they speak is found in the handwriting, the language, and the literary style of - you guessed it: fallible humans. What they are really saying is that they trust fallible humans who claim to speak for God more than they trust fallible humans who admit their fallibility and rest their arguments on evidence.
 
Upvote 0

Evangelion

<b><font size="2">δυνατός</b></font>
JS -

Apparently Project86 is advancing the position that the theory of evolution is nothing more than a set of faulty assumptions used to interpret physical evidence. Otherwise his comment makes little sense.

Well, yes. I agree that this is what P86 appears to be doing.

Of course you and others may be aware that evolution is not merely an interpretive science but also is in many cases a predictive one, but many out there are more than willing to buy the "faulty assumptions" snake oil from the professional creationists & then pretend that their revealed truth trumps it: It's easier than admitting that under their epistemology, their revealed truth trumps the evidence.

LOL, very true.

I don't mind conceding points to revealed truth of some kinds. A person who claims a personal relationship with God can get some mileage out of that with me...

That's refreshingly reasonable of you. :)

But when they talk about the "Word of God" being more trusty than the work of science because science is constructed by fallible humans, they lose credibility. They conveniently overlook the fact that the "Word of God" of which they speak is found in the handwriting, the language, and the literary style of - you guessed it: fallible humans. What they are really saying is that they trust fallible humans who claim to speak for God more than they trust fallible humans who admit their fallibility and rest their arguments on evidence.

Agreed. Excellent points, and well made. :cool:
 
Upvote 0

Jutsuka

<div style="width:100%; filter:glow(color=royalblu
Dec 7, 2002
235
0
44
Sundsvall
Visit site
✟15,355.00
Originally posted by Jerry Smith
But when they talk about the "Word of God" being more trusty than the work of science because science is constructed by fallible humans, they lose credibility. They conveniently overlook the fact that the "Word of God" of which they speak is found in the handwriting, the language, and the literary style of - you guessed it: fallible humans. What they are really saying is that they trust fallible humans who claim to speak for God more than they trust fallible humans who admit their fallibility and rest their arguments on evidence.

My personal opinion on the matter above is that if there is a god and he speaks through laungague, that language is mathematics. Although we are fallible humans, math is not.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums