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....
Great, except that you can't run water-producing condensation reactions in an ocean. Le Chatelier's, and all that.
I didn't say scientists were never wrong.
I said, in the case of a conflict between a well established observation and a religious text.
I have yet to see a single instance where scientists and religious folk duked it out over something and the religious folk were shown to be right.
It's never, not once, happened.
As if there is no phase boundary with the atmosphere, like on the pebbles and sand on the primeval shores. Besides the thermodynamics, there is the kinetic of hydrolysis, as well.
Do you understand the difference between equillibrium and non-equillibrium conditions? The thermodynamics and kinetics involved? Le Chatelier's Principle applies only under equillibrium conditions, but it does not prohibit a condensation reaction in aqueous conditions, nor does it make kinetic predictions.
--Rashi (11th century)
Darn it, you beat me by less than 2 minutes :)
The spirit [vapors] does hover over the [sur]face of [fire]water, and could be distilled from it. At atmospheric pressure it forms an azeotropic 190-proof mixture. At about 30 mm pressure the azeotrop becomes more spiritual, as it shifts to 199 proof spirit.
The problem for you is that, under the natural (i.e. non-laboratory, and therefore non-controlled) circumstances posited by the "early earth amino acid to proteins" scenario, the system operates under equilibrium conditions. Hence, in this scenario, Le Chatelier's DOES prevent this condensation reaction from occurring. And yes, evolutionists have tried all kinds of arguments - directing clays, thermal vents, etc. - to gett around this, but none have shown any experimental promise. I haven't even addressed the kinetics of the system, for the simple fact that you actually have to have an appreciable reaction before kinetics have any importance. BTW, the Le Chatelier's argument is only one of many empirical arguments that doom the traditional evolutionist theories about the naturalistic formation of life in an early earth scenario. We've not even discussed the effects of hard UV on amino acids (no oxygen = no ozone), or the problems with the racemicity of the product AAs.
Therein lies the rub, however. Evolution is not a "well-established observation". Evolution rests on circumstantial evidences from which it is deduced as an explanation. Neither evolution nor creation are, by their very nature, subject to empirical, verifiable, repeatable experimentation. To the extent that generational variation has occurred, it has been within type, not between type. We've simply no experimental evidence that fish become frogs become lizards.
I have yet to see a single instance where scientists and religious folk duked it out over something and the religious folk were shown to be right. It's never, not once, happened.
False, I've seen it happen. Back in the early 1990s, the hard-core, literal 7-day creationists like Duane Gish and Gary Parker were routinely engaged on university campuses across the country to debate with evolutionist professors, usually but not always on the university's staff. The creationists would crush the evolutionists most of the time. It happened here at the university where I got my degree (i.e. empirical observation). It was after several rounds of this that the evolutionists began the "we won't debate them because that will just given them undeserved credibility" line.
> Therein lies the rub, however. Evolution is not a "well-
> established observation".
The guys in the article at the top of this thread "think" the world is "young" "because God said so".
They're deranged morons.
So are most of their fellow travelers.
> Edison, Einstein...
Edison thought the notion of a "soul" was fiction and that a personal God was the fevered imagining of an inadequate man.
Einstein was born a Jew, and to the extent that he wasn't an outright atheist believed in Spinoza's nameless, faceless "First Cause". He thought personal gods were ridiculous.
So if God didn't create the universe, who did?
I don't think the idea that God didn't create the universe counts as a well established observation.
That it didn't occur within the last 10-20,000 years and, that there wasn't a recent global flood certainly do, though.
"Thus I strongly suspect that this Kurt Wise is either an unbeliever [re theology] or an ignoramus [re science]. Maybe both."
"Kurt Wise holds a Ph.D. in Geology from Harvard University, where Stephen Jay Gould was his advisor. Dr. Wise is currently Assistant Professor of Science and director of an origins research program at Bryan College in Dayton Tennessee."
Bryan College (Mission Statement):
The basic purpose of Bryan College is to educate students to become servants of Christ to make a difference in today's world. The College seeks to assist in the personal growth and development of qualified students by providing an education based upon an integrated understanding of the Bible and the liberal arts.
In 2006, Dr Wise has changed school affiliations. He is currently teaches at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary!
Ignoramus in science? PhD from Harvard.
Unbeliever in theology?:Formerly a faculty member at devoutly Christian college. Currently on the faculty at the seminary of one of the most traditionalist Christian groups.
"Thus I strongly suspect that this Kurt Wise is either an unbeliever [re theology] or an ignoramus [re science]. Maybe both."
An allegation born out of ignorance and arrogant suppositions. Yep, GSlob must be an evo.
Mans' interpretation of God's Word is highly fallible, as has been observed repeatedly.
"Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of the faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men.... Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by these who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion."
On the Literal Meaning of Genesis
Wise words from St. Augustine...thanks for that...
I said nothing about Christians in my post, only Creationists. There *is* a difference you know.
Then how do yeast cells turn non-aromatic compounds like sugars, air and water into aromatic compounds like Guanine? Must be a miracle!!
You really need to review your old biochemistry books...