Kurt Wise - A YAC and an old earth evolutionist?

Kurt Wise seems to be truly bipolar on the creationism versus evolution issue.He maintains a personal Biblical literalistic faith in Young Age Creationism (the "fact" of creationism), but at the same time recognizes that there is little or no world evidence to support "young age-ism".He recognizes that the worldly (and "universal") evidence is very strongly in support of the mainstream science viewpoint of a c. 13 by universe and a 4.5 by earth. Seemingly, but perhaps not, this recognition would extend to include that the worldly evidence does indeed support the reality of both the fact and theory of organic evolution.So, is the answer to the title question "YES"? Probably not. Does Kurt Wise think that the worldly evidence is some sort of illusion? So it would seem.Moose

This topic seems to, to some degree, connect up to the When is a belief system a Mental Disorder? and Should a Creationist be allowed to hold a position of Authority? topics. Please also see the messages between message 1 and this one.Somewhere back in that second topic, there is a message from Jar (it might be easy to find if it had a good subtitle ) that said something to the effect of "To hold a position of authority, it's OK to have a belief by faith that the Earth is young, if you recognise that the worldly evidence indicates that it indeed very old".So, where does that place Kurt Wise, on the "wacko scale" and as being a candidate to hold a position of authority?Moose

I t is possible that Wise is simply using the difference of versimultude and probability and that his notion of “opposite” depends on how he thinks ”hybrids’ have opposite”” DNA combined. That is giving him the benefit of the doubt. He did go to Harvard and not ”Delta Knew’.

quote:

---

--Introduction to Logic--by I. Kant This is a critical chapter for Kant. He will have explained that in discussing logic he could not present it how he wanted but had to add things for the benefit of the reader. Whatever “logically” is to be meant by ”opposite’ the thought cognized, the cognition, can be divided according to Kant, in the Appendix that follows among “practical”, “speculative” , and “theoretical”. If Wise did not cut out the appendix then his apparent wako level prima facie might have in truth been mediated DISTRIBUTING opposite DNA divisions of species claimed as baramins among his mind in terms of speculative and theoretical differences while leaving the practical to his religious side for some consistency. It is more likely that he might have juggled all three if he had not had a vestige of a thought on versimultude.

---

This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 02-17-2006 07:09 AM

It's quite simple from a biblical perspective....there was no death before the Fall. Since there is cancer in the fossil record all the way back to the dinosaurs, the evolutionary timeline is incompatible with the Bible. I'm not asking you to believe the Bible over science, simply pointing out that it isn't illogical to state that the Bible and science can't be justified together. Dawkins made the same statement.

Since when were wackos precluded from holding positions of authority :-)

I sometimes play in precisely this area in my own faith. There's nothing odd about it at all in my mind (but perhaps I am sufficiently wacko to not notice)The idea is simply that the reality we see is an illusion, or a change, or even a different time-line, a la Back to the Future II type mentality. It is an entirely personal faith-based position. Why should the world be this way? Who knows. Perhaps God did it, perhaps something else.To me, Genesis 1-2 depicts an utterly alien environment. In my mind, either this is pictoral allegory, or it is depicting a real setting but confused by translating it into (dare I say...) "post-fall" reality. Should it be the latter, I cannot but believe that the Eden setting and the Heaven and Earth of Genesis do not truly correspond to what we call phsyical reality of the past xxxx years since then, if measuring time since then even makes sense.My ideas here are quite closely tied to Randman's (IMO) but differ in that I do not expect to see evidence of this in physical reality today.Do I really believe this? Depends what day of the week it is. I think all kinds of crazy things. But on every other monday, I'm with Wise

It's sort of odd for someone that holds to so many similar beliefs to be so vehement in opposing them.......but maybe you'll come around.The difference, as you state, is I think it is possible to see the mechanisms for such changes, global or otherwise, in the universe itself. You think that touches on something only God could see, but God is within us as well, and so here in the universe as well as "outside of it", if outside is even the right term.But thanks for acknowledging some similarities in belief....maybe there is more similarities than we think actually, as I am drawn more to physics than biology and such. The problem is I don't really want to go back to school to study math for 30 years....maybe that's what it will take to show these ideas....but then again, I have a lot of other things in life going on.This message has been edited by randman, 02-17-2006 07:06 PM

In message 1, I made the comment that Kurt Wise "seems to have kept a pretty low profile".Well, there is a new topic that directly involves Dr. Wise. It is the schizochroal eye (of trilobites): evidence of design.Just flagging this situation for future reference.Moose

I think his answer right here was pretty good:
As someone trained in science at Harvard”one of the world's leading universities”how does Dr Wise respond to evolutionists who might accuse him of starting scientific investigations within the constraints of his belief in the Bible? Shouldn't science follow truth wherever it may lead?

​

'Well,' he responds, 'science has never been closed to people who had ideas they wouldn't change. Every scientist has a set of presuppositions and assumptions that he never questions.'

​

For evolutionists, he says, one of these is the conventional evolutionary assumption that all living things are descended from a common ancestor. Such beliefs are non-negotiable for the evolutionist. 'I would say that if you investigated any scientists in any field you would find issues they assume at the beginning that are unchangeable for them.'

There is one, right off the bt, that he is wrong about.All that I know is said is that, so far, ALL the data that we have is just what we would expect if there was a single common ancestor.However, (somewhere I can never remember) I read an article that mentioned the possiblity that some other lineages may exist but we haven't uncovered them. That is, some bacteria or virus like organisms that clearly share no common ancestor or at least split off before the LUCA of all the rest of life that we have examined so far. One challenge is to guess where to look for them and what to look for. If they are there we will most likely (if lucky) stumble over them by accident when we are doing a lot of wholesale gene sequencing or find something with life like chemistry that doesn't use our DNA or RNA.One might say that the existance of them is unlikely. I think that we have only so recently (decade or two) started exploring in a way that could find them that we can't comment on that yet. If nothing is uncovered in a decade or two more than one might make the single tree of life a "dogmatic" presupposition.It is not a fixed presupposition. It is simply the only thing that the evidence supports right now and supports it more solidly in the last decade or two then ever before.If he means multicellular organisms, especially anything as complex as a worm and more then it is very nearly (but not yet) a done deal as far as a tested idea. It is sure looking like the only explanation that one can devise.

that was posted 3 years ago. Can't say I'm defending those guys anymore. I'd have to read through the thread to even remember who Kurt Wise is.This message has been edited by Chris Porteus, 03-08-2006 06:49 PM

Another problem is that lateral gene transfer may have been extremely important in the evolution of the first life. That is, the phylogenic tree, instead of the upper branches converging onto a single trunk, may, at the bottom, diverge into many roots (representing different lineages coming together by sharing genes), and quite a tangled root mass, too.In fact, the lateral gene transfer may have been so important that it would be meaningless to talk about individual lineages.

---

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

An "In The News" type message. Quoted in its entirety below:Seminary Appoints Creationist to Head Theology & Science Ctr - Christian News Headlines

quote:

---

Seminary Appoints Creationist to Head Theology & Science Ctr
Jim Brown
AgapePress

​

(AgapePress) - A Young Earth creationist will be replacing a leading intelligent design (ID) proponent as director of the Center for Theology and Science at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky.

​

The new center will be led by Dr. Kurt Wise, who recently directed the Center for Origins Research at Bryan College, a school located in Dayton, Tennessee, home of the famous Scopes evolution trial in 1925. The new director of the Center for Theology and Science at SBTS says he intends to take a different approach than that of his predecessor, leading ID theorist Dr. William Dembski.

​

While Dembski was an outspoken participant in the debate between the religious and secular scientific communities over evolution and a vocal promoter of ID in opposition to mainstream Darwinist theories, Wise says he hopes to "focus more on the Christian world and how Christians should respond to the entire issue of origins."

​

As a creationist who holds a master's degree and a doctorate in paleontology, Wise contends that scripture provides what is by far the best evidence for creation. "I'm very interested in the specific claims the Bible makes about science," he notes, "and I'm less interested in the secular world's response to those things."

​

Interestingly, the new head of the Center for Theology and Science received his doctoral degree in paleontology at Harvard under the advisement of famous evolutionist Dr. Stephen Jay Gould. Yet while the creationist scholar personally believes in the biblical account of the origins of life, he does not feel Christians should be trying to get either creationism or intelligent design taught in public schools at this time.

​

Public schools today need far more than the introduction of ID or creation science into their curricula, the theology and science scholar suggests. "I think we need to change all of science education," he says. "We need to teach what science really is."

​

In actuality, Wise asserts, science is not a product and should never have come to be understood as being "the answers," collectively, to the questions people ask. "Science is the way we find the answers to the questions people are asking," he insists. "It's a process."

​

And until science is taught that way in the classroom -- as a process rather than a finite product, the Christian paleontologist adds, "I don't think we have any business being in there or trying to get a creationist or an ID theory in there."

​

Dr. Wise is looking forward to leading Southern Baptist Theological Seminary's Center for Theology and Science. However, he acknowledges that his appointment as director is likely to cause consternation within even the Christian community, as Young Earth creationism is a minority position in the church.

​

© C2006 AgapePress

---

Moose

There are a few fascinating things in that article, if it is accurate. In one sense, he is wrong, in that, in popular meaning, "science" refers to both the process and the product. But, on a deeper level, I largely agree with him. Certainly there must be some instruction on the basics of the things that science has established, but I tend to think that if more emphasis were placed on teaching the processes of science, it would be all to the good. Wise might not like the results, as I suspect it would result in broader acceptance of evolution and rejection of any form of creationism, at least as a scientific proposition. But for a very long time I have been distressed at the state of scientific instruction. Science is exciting. Science as taught in schools is boring. If by this he is saying they should spend less time trying to argue about science, I say, "hurray!"

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin

There are both reflective and determinative process in creating what technologically are the products of doing science. The reflective product does exist (mentally and psychologically) and there is some overlap in that, between thought on science and (teleology vs theology) so Wise must only be speaking about the determinatve production of scientists. In that I would agree. Gould got around this discriminatory praxis by construction of his notion of 1-10 worms and Cornintian columns vs Phanoric bricks but Wolfram's use of homeobox's might easily segement Gould's process into a product that would be outside science but result from a creation wise process, IF INSTITUTED. It will be interesting to see if Wise can do other than Dembski who never resolved my issue with probability as on EVC.There are both reflective and determinative process in creating what technologically are the products of doing science. The reflective product does exist (mentally and psychologically) and there is some overlap in that, between thought on science and (teleology vs theology) so Wise must only be speaking about the determinatve production of scientists. In that I would agree. Gould got around this discriminatory praxis by construction of his notion of 1-10 worms and Cornintian columns vs Phanoric bricks but Wolfram's use of homeobox's might easily segement Gould's process into a product that would be outside science but result from a creation wise process, IF INSTITUTED. It will be interesting to see if Wise can do other than Dembski who never resolved my issue with probability as on EVC.You said,

quote:

---

I tend to think that if more emphasis were placed on teaching the processes of science, it would be all to the good. Wise might not like the results, as I suspect it would result in broader acceptance of evolution and rejection of any form of creationism, at least as a scientific proposition.

---

but I think Wise would recognize that reflection creates for both science as process and religion as a product of social life a product that might or might not create the intelligence necessary to the design that might THEN be segmented out to science or religion.Edited by Brad McFall, : extra words.