Skip to comments.Creationist Kurt Wise critiques secular science on program
Posted on 03/10/2007 11:07:03 AM PST by balch3
LOUISVILLE, Ky. (BP)--Secular scientists who fear allowing the conclusions of creationism into secular universities have good reason to be afraid because they are accountable to the creator, Kurt Wise, professor of theology and science at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, said on the Albert Mohler Radio Program in February.
If its true that there was a creation, then you realize that means theres someone in control, Wise said on the broadcast hosted daily by Southern Seminarys president. And if there was a flood -- in other words, a creator who actually judged this creation -- that means were in big trouble. So I think theres every reason why an evolutionist would be very frightened of creationists advocating creationism.
Wise appeared on the Feb. 13 show to comment on discussion stirred by recent news articles on evolution in commemoration of what would have been Charles Darwin 198th birthday Feb. 12. A USA Today article pointed out that some secular scientists are upset over the fact that a number of creationists have obtained doctoral degrees from major universities recently.
Wise earned a Ph.D. at Harvard University in paleontology under late evolutionist Stephen J. Gould. Mohler noted that famed evolutionist Richard Dawkins called Wise the greatest disappointment he knows in modern science -- a designation Mohler said should be worn with pride.
I am absolutely thrilled you end up in the center of his target, and thats why you are on the program today, Mohler said. Its because you have so boldly set out the case. Richard Dawkins cant imagine anyone who understands modern science in terms of its theory and history and paradigm and model and still believes the words, In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
It is important for Christians to talk about evolution, Mohler noted, because too often believers have responded inadequately to the challenges of Darwinism.
For the better part of two centuries the Christian church has been trying to figure out how to respond to the challenge of Darwinian theory and the prevailing evolutionary model, Mohler said. Ill just be very candid to say that in so many cases the church has failed.
The two greatest errors Christians have made are capitulating to evolution on one hand and rejecting it in an unintelligent way on the other hand, Mohler said.
Wise argued that accepting the Bibles account of creation makes intellectual sense.
If you want a correct account of an event, you want an eyewitness, Wise said. You want an eyewitness whos reliable. You want an eyewitness who understands. Who better than God Himself? If He really is the creator, then He has the accurate account. How could a scientist thousands of years later, who wasnt there, actually have a better account of the origin than God Himself?
Modern science is limited because it draws conclusions based only on the things scientists can observe and experience, Wise said.
Scientists cannot deduce anything about a creation, he said. Theyve never seen a creation before -- not a creation out of nothing of the universe. Their experience is limited to what they see and hear in the present. With those kinds of limitations, they couldnt possibly deduce the right thing about the beginning of things.
Humans cannot separate science and religion because scientists begin their work with assumptions about the world that are deeply religious, Wise said, adding, Science drips with theology. You cannot do science without making theological assumptions.
Mohler pointed to the writings of prominent evolutionists as evidence that theology and science overlap.
All you have to do is read the evolutionists, he said. Theyre always talking about the meaning of life. Richard Dawkins tries to find it in the mystery in the sheer accidental nature of the whole thing. The late Carl Sagan tried to find it in the immensity of what appears to the human eye to be limitless space.... You cant talk about humanity without talking about the meaning of human life.
In response to a question from a caller, Mohler and Wise said they believe the earth is relatively young because they trust the Bibles account of creation as accurate and straightforward.
At the end of the day, I cannot interpret the straightforward words, sentences and propositions of Genesis 1-11 any differently than Romans 1-11, Mohler said. So thats why I hold to a young earth.
It seems to be a clear reading of Scripture that God told us that the earth is young, he said. And I hold that position for that reason. I also believe that science is such that these (evolutionary theories) are theories of humans. So if its a choice between Gods clear Word and humans reason, then Im going to take Gods Word.
Thanks for the post.
this might become amusing.
ONE BIG TRUTH BUMP!!
If your holy books contradict well founded observations in science, one of 3 things is true:
1) You misunderstand your holy books.
2) Your holy books are wrong.
3) Both (1) and (2)
4) your definition of "well founded observations in science"
All gods WERE immortal.
> Dead Darwin, dumb dawkins and all the little darwinettes
> and dawkinettes VS. God's Word.
The record of scientists versus the record of those who were sure they understood what God said with respect to the physical universe is clear and unmistakeable.
The religiously clad idiocracy is 0 for many, many 100s.
> 4) your definition of "well founded observations in science"
Some examples that religious folk have had trouble with over the years:
The earth moves.
Germs cause disease.
The earth is quite old.
It just looks old because it's lead a rough life.
...posts the creationist, using his computer, taking his medicine, driving his car.
All the fruits of scientists who (thankfully) didn't share his petrified, stunted imagination and curiosity.
4) Your science is incomplete and/or wrong
I'm a chemist as well, and frankly, I find the whole evolutionist line about "amino acids polymerising (via a condensation reaction) in the early earth's ocean" to be so astounding I wonder if they even think before they speak.
> 4) Your science is incomplete and/or wrong
While theoretically possible (as is a pan of water freezing when placed over an open flame), is such a low order of probability that it has never been observed.
I'm sure the guys who believed in the ether thought the same thing,VZ....