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 it’s true that there was a creation, then you realize that means there’s someone in control,” Wise said on the broadcast hosted daily by Southern Seminary’s president. “And if there was a flood -- in other words, a creator who actually judged this creation -- that means we’re in big trouble. So I think there’s 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 that’s why you are on the program today,” Mohler said. “It’s because you have so boldly set out the case. Richard Dawkins can’t 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. “I’ll 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 Bible’s 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 who’s 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 wasn’t 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. “They’ve 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 couldn’t 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. “They’re 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 can’t 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 Bible’s 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 that’s why I hold to a young earth.”
Wise agreed.
“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 it’s a choice between God’s clear Word and humans’ reason, then I’m going to take God’s Word.”
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.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.