Monday, May 15, 2006 | Reason : In the News | print version

Sadly, an Honest Creationist

by Richard Dawkins

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.Ds tend to be in "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 in deep Bush Country. There are, however, a few shining exceptions. Kurt Wise, for all that he now makes his living at "Bryan College, Tennessee" (motto, "Christ Above All") did originally obtain an authentic degree in Geophysics at 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 (PhD 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 24 hours but a hundred million years. They 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 BA (Chicago), PhD (Harvard) would have to be a prime candidate.

Wise stands out among young-earth creationists not only for his impeccable education but for 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 the lie to the canard that it 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 world view 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 someone called Duane P Gish (up till 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 struggling to believe that two plus two equals five if Big Brother says 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, the 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 at the same time as accepting a salary, month after month, to teach science? Even at Bryan College, 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.

Add to del.icio.us Posted: Monday, May 15, 2006 | Permalink

Comments 1 - 50 of 129 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #46039 by Rajesh Agarwal on May 30, 2007 at 4:05 am

Dr Dawkins,
I think you are missing an opportunity here with a person like Kurt Wise. He is the ideal Trojan Horse in your(our) struggle against religion. The more data you present to him against creationism, the more he will have to acknowledge it, as he is honest. His reputation as a scientist on the other side will make people listen to him, as he accepts the pile of evidence against creationism. At least for the people sitting on the fence, his stance that though evidence is against creationism, he still stands by it due to his belief in the scriptures, will not stand with many except the extremely deluded. The attempt of most creationists has been to give creationism a facade of rationality by 'evidence' or 'assumed' holes in the theory of evolution.
I suggest that he be made a prime target for debates and presented with scientific data for evolution. His acceptance of the data will give a big boost to your cause. His overt rejection of it despite the evidence will bring in more converts.

Other Comments by Rajesh Agarwal

2. Comment #54266 by Lu Castro on July 6, 2007 at 7:44 am

Dr. Dawkin's quoted Wise as saying "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."

It is clear that this particular avenue is shut down. The purpose of this article is to give an example of how extreme the brainwashing of religion can be. I'm sure that there is little evidence that Wise has not seen, and he was lucid enough to pick through his bible, cut out discrepancies and make a decision. Despite the evidence, he chose the God in his head over logic and reason.

I find the article depressing, but it certainly gives us reason to push for proper education before children are completely hooked on "Gerin Oil". The first step should be to show "Cosmos" to children beginning in 3rd grade. Or perhaps Dr. Dawkins could remake the show with updated data?

I suppose that's wishful thinking!

Other Comments by Lu Castro

3. Comment #54271 by pewkatchoo on July 6, 2007 at 8:06 am

I disagree professor. I think he is incredibly dishonest. He says that he went through an exercise where he chopped up the bible, leaving aside that he has been instrumental in wreacking destruction on 'the word of god', and turned his back on all his training is total intellectual dishonesty.

And all this on the premise of a book that was written by people he has never met, has no record of who they were nor what motivated them. If that is honesty then I think I will start a career in shoplifting.

Other Comments by pewkatchoo

4. Comment #54273 by pewkatchoo on July 6, 2007 at 8:11 am

There is actually only one solution. You will have to build a time-machine and take all these idiots back to the dawn of creation and show them what really happened! Then fast forward and show them what a charlatan moses was and that jesus was born normally, etc. No angels or wise men or anything else. Then do a medical on John to show he suffered from epilepsy or whatever and then maybe, just maybe, they will get it.

Other Comments by pewkatchoo

5. Comment #54282 by Dr Benway on July 6, 2007 at 9:05 am

I'm with pewkatchoo. I'm skeptical of Dr. Wise's character. The scissors story rings a false note to my ear.

It's not easy cutting sentences out of the middle of a piece of paper using scissors. Starting the hole neatly is impossible. An X-Acto knife is a better tool for this, but book binding complicates the effort. You've got to fold the book so the page is isolated, so you can put it over a piece of wood or something like that. Thus you do some violence to the binding.

One would have to be a patient craftsman to chop up a Bible as Wise describes. Most Bibles are printed on thin paper which tears easily. Tiny burrs at the corners of excised windows in the page would likely catch cut-out areas on neighboring pages.

After wasting a Saturday morning on a half dozen pages or so, I know I'd be giving up.

The better solution is obvious: use a highlighter. You can buy markers that aren't so dark they bleed through the page, yet are dark enough to remind you that the marked text is to be omitted.

But with the highlighter method, you can't decorate your return to Jesus story with the particularly poignant image of a Bible falling to pieces in your hands.

In conclusion: let's see this Bible so described. The story must stand as complete bullshit otherwise.

Other Comments by Dr Benway

6. Comment #54297 by Graeme on July 6, 2007 at 9:46 am

." 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."

Looks like he burned the evidence!!
(or am I taking that a bit too litarally?)

Other Comments by Graeme

7. Comment #54303 by steveroot on July 6, 2007 at 10:13 am

I'm guessing he used that edition of the bible that's printed on only one side of each page. ;-)
Steve

Other Comments by steveroot

8. Comment #54306 by liberalartist on July 6, 2007 at 10:32 am

I'm not a scientist but I have never had difficulty understanding the general concept of evolution and I have recently had the opportunity to gain an even better understanding of it thru a variety of books. Science is fun!

I just don't understand people who have an education and yet still believe in the Bible. How can people put so much faith and belief in a book written by primitive nomads who had less knowledge about the world than today's average 7 year old? It really is pathetic that a man who is vastly more educated than I am in the sciences, clings so desperately to an ancient belief system. Religion really is brainwashing.

Other Comments by liberalartist

9. Comment #54320 by Dr Benway on July 6, 2007 at 11:06 am

Googling Kurt Wise brought me to this page: http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4044/

Dawkins places the cut-up Bible story after the PhD. But the essay from the above web-site places it much earlier.

Wise begins the 8th grade looking forward to a science fair event that happens at the end of that year. He devotes the entire school year to an ambitious display illustrating the theory of evolution, with a little help from his dad and his pal Carl. He finishes the grand production a day before the fair opens, and so finds a few minutes to reflect:

Since that day was set aside for last minute corrections and setup, I had nothing to do. So, while the bustle of other students whirred about us, I admitted to my friend Carl (who had joined me in the project in lieu of his own) that I had a problem. When he asked what the problem was I told him that I could not reconcile what I had learned in the project with the claims of the Bible. When Carl asked for clarification, I took out a Bible and read Genesis 1 aloud to him.

Kurt works an entire school year on his evolution project, yet somehow fails to notice the Bible vs. evolution conflict that's divided the US for a hundred years until the day before the fair.

At the end, and after I had explained that the millions of years of evolution did not seem to comport well with the six days of creation, Carl agreed that it did seem like a real problem. As I struggled with this, I hit upon what I thought was an ingenious (and original!) solution to the problem. I said to Carl, "What if the days were millions of years long?" After discussing this for some time, Carl seemed to be satisfied. I was not�at least not completely.

Carl may be a useful plot device, but he's not necessary and he's very stupid. Perhaps he exists to highlight Kurt's superior reasoning skills.

Finally, one day in my sophomore year of high school, when I thought I could stand it no longer, I determined to resolve the issue. After lights were out, under my covers with flashlight in hand I took a newly purchased Bible and a pair of scissors and set to work. Beginning at Genesis 1:1, I determined to cut out every verse in the Bible which would have to be taken out to believe in evolution. Wanting this to be as fair as possible, and giving the benefit of the doubt to evolution, I determined to read all the verses on both sides of a page and cut out every other verse, being careful not to cut the margin of the page, but to poke the page in the midst of the verse and cut the verse out around that.

Wise's pains to take this project seriously contradicts the obvious error he's introducing by cutting out scripture that ought to stay but has to go merely because it's on the reverse of the page being cut.

And why must this heart-wrenching effort happen under the bed sheets by flashlight? Sophomores are generally savvy enough to find privacy someplace with reasonable lighting. The impracticality of managing flashlight, sheets, scissors, and Bible seems another contradiction to the stated dire significance of the task.

In this fashion, night after night, for weeks and months, I set about the task of systematically going through the entire Bible from cover to cover. Although the end of the matter seemed obvious pretty early on, I persevered. I continued for two reasons. First, I am obsessive compulsive. Second, I dreaded the impending end. As much as my life was wrapped up in nature at age eight and in science in eighth grade, it was even more wrapped up in science and nature at this point in my life. All that I loved to do was involved with some aspect of science. At the same time, evolution was part of that science and many times was taught as an indispensable part of science. That is exactly what I thought�that science couldn't be without evolution. For me to reject evolution would be for me to reject all of science and to reject everything I loved and dreamed of doing.

Over-dramatized inner conflict is the hallmark of crap writing. And Emo.

The day came when I took the scissors to the very last verse�nearly the very last verse of the Bible. It was Revelation 22:19: "If any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book." It was with trembling hands that I cut out this verse, I can assure you! With the task complete, I was now forced to make the decision I had dreaded for so long.

Now we know why parts of the Bible had to be literally cut out with scissors: to give the phrase "taketh away from the words of the book" a spooky impact. Quite a long walk for a punch line, if you ask me.

With the cover of the Bible taken off, I attempted to physically lift the Bible from the bed between two fingers. Yet, 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.

He spent months hacking away at the book, and suddenly it's too fragile to move?

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. However, at that moment I thought back to seven or so years before when a Bible was pushed to a position in front of me and I had come to know Jesus Christ. I had in those years come to know Him. I had become familiar with His love and His concern for me. He had become a real friend to me. He was the reason I was even alive both physically and spiritually. I could not reject Him. Yet, I had come to know Him through His Word. I could not reject that either. 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.

Wait a minute. He's a high school kid tossing away his dream of a career in science. But then he gets a BA in geology, followed by a PhD in paleontology. That "toss into the fire" was tossing of a different sort --the sort with little to no effect upon the world.

Dawkins: Your title for this article is overly generous. I wouldn't shed any tears for Dr. Wise. He's a con and worse: a truly horrible writer of the purple prose sort. Ugh!

Harvard seems to attract the type, and a few apparently are clever enough to sneak their way into those hallowed halls.

Other Comments by Dr Benway

10. Comment #57560 by RedneckfromIdaho on July 19, 2007 at 9:49 pm

I find Kurt Wise far more honest and rational than the average evolutionist. Wise is forthcoming about his assumptions regarding the nature of truth. The evolutionist often pretends he has come to his conclusions based purely on the evidence at hand and fails to acknowledge his own presuppositions. For example, most evolutionists accept only a materialist/naturalist worldview, but they do this without any evidence to support such an assumption. When Wise says that he will hold to what he believes is the truth regardless of evidence to the contrary, he is no different than dozens of atheists I have heard (or read) who make similar statements when faced with the mounting evidence against evolution ("These findings propose something of a puzzle at the moment, but we are confident that we will resolve the apparent contradictions with further research.") The difference: Wise admits he acts on faith; the evolutionist pretends he does not.

Other Comments by RedneckfromIdaho

11. Comment #57561 by 10 on July 19, 2007 at 10:27 pm

RedneckfromID-
Out of curiosity, do you presuppose Moroni the LDS angel is/was real?

if so based on what evidence?
if not then what evidence have you found in the contrary?

You might find that you have a common ground with atheists in your views on such fruitful topics as:
how important is it to leave milk out for sprites at dusk ?
and
spreading the word on the best way to avoid dijinn attacks ...should it be a faith based program?

Other Comments by 10

12. Comment #57567 by Lauregon on July 19, 2007 at 11:31 pm

#10 Wise admits he acts on faith; the evolutionist pretends he does not. - RedneckfromIdaho

The huge difference: When believers speak of their "faith," it refers to their firm belief in certain doctrinal supernatural phenomena and beings.

Other Comments by Lauregon

13. Comment #57573 by Goldy on July 20, 2007 at 1:17 am

Redneck, I hope you aren't a policeman. "This man is guilty - I have no proof other thana gut feeling. Evidence be damned!"
Now, read this line again
"These findings propose something of a puzzle at the moment, but we are confident that we will resolve the apparent contradictions with further research."
Does this not suggest that further research into an unknown will get to an answer whether it shows a presumption is correct OR INCORRECT (my capitals)? Or is assuming one knows the answer and not bothering with the research a better solution?

Other Comments by Goldy

14. Comment #57574 by Enlightenme.. on July 20, 2007 at 1:22 am

We obviously don't crack the time machine, or else some future IDologist would (will?) have craftily planted some rabbits in the precambrian.

Other Comments by Enlightenme..

15. Comment #93497 by sparrowsfall on December 3, 2007 at 9:33 am

A sad parallel to Wise is James L. Kugel, in his _How to Read the Bible: A Guide to Scripture, Then and Now_. (It actually only discusses the Old Testament, though with frequent references to the interpretations of the OT in the New Testament and by Christians in general.)

Kugel, a practicing orthodox Jew living in Jerusalem, spends the bulk of the book detailing in fascinating detail the fascinating discoveries of modern Bible scholarship. As he shows throughout the book (and bemoans somewhat plaintively) that scholarship definitively shows that the common understanding of the Bible (notably its divine origin) is completely at odds with the facts that we know about its creation, emendation, and original import.

What we think of today as "The Bible"--the whole body of notions, assumptions, beliefs, and narratives surrounding the text--is largely a creation of several centuries of later interpreters, who skewed the original meanings for their own purposes. Kugel is unequivocal (and utterly convincing) in asserting and demonstrating this.

So what's a poor orthodox Jew to do? In the final chapter he lays out his solution. In short, punt. He desperately wants to accept and embrace the whole body of beliefs and biblical accretions that form his faith and his tradition. So he simply chooses to do so.

Seeing Wise and Kugel's minds collapse so abjectly (even though they do it so admirably, without equivocation) inevitably leads me to think of Ophelia, speaking of Hamlet:

O what a noble mind is here o'erthrown!
The courtier's, soldier's, scholar's, eye, tongue, sword,
Th'expectation and rose of the fair state,
The glass of fashion, and the mold of form,
Th'observ'd of all observers, quite quite down,
...
Now see that noble and most sovereign reason
Like sweet bells jangled out of tune, and harsh,
That unmatched form and stature of blown youth
Blasted with ecstasy, O woe is me.

Other Comments by sparrowsfall

16. Comment #106527 by PlagioClase on January 3, 2008 at 4:50 am

I'm tired of evolutionists accusing creationists of being dishonest. That's a crass political trick of someone who is not interested in the facts but wants to impress a following.

I'm sure Richard understands the concept of scientific paradigm. He works within a paradigm and claims he is honest. It's hypocritical to accuse a creationist of lying for doing the same thing he is doing.

For example, no one knows, after 150 years of trying, how a mixture of lifeless chemicals could form itself into a living, reproducing cell. Neither has anyone ever seen it happen. But Richard still says, against the observational scientific evidence, that it did. Should we accuse him of being dishonest? Perhaps he should have a talk to ex-atheist Antony Flew, an honest atheist who now says, 'There is a God', because of the scientific discoveries of the last 50 years.

Other Comments by PlagioClase

17. Comment #106528 by irate_atheist on January 3, 2008 at 4:53 am

16. Comment #106527 by PlagioClase -

So what made your God?

Other Comments by irate_atheist

18. Comment #106531 by Steve Zara on January 3, 2008 at 5:08 am

For example, no one knows, after 150 years of trying, how a mixture of lifeless chemicals could form itself into a living, reproducing cell. Neither has anyone ever seen it happen. But Richard still says, against the observational scientific evidence, that it did. Should we accuse him of being dishonest?

1000 BC: No-one knows, how, after millenia of trying, thunder and lightning arise. Against all evidence, Richard refuses to accept that it is due to Thor. Should we call him dishonest?

1800 AD: No-one knows, after millenia of observation, how the complexity of life forms arises. However, Richard refuses to accept that God makes all species. Should we call him dishonest?

2008...

Hmm... seems to me there is a trend here.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

19. Comment #106537 by Tyler Durden on January 3, 2008 at 5:28 am

Comment #106527 by PlagioClase:

For example, no one knows, after 150 years of trying, how a mixture of lifeless chemicals could form itself into a living, reproducing cell

Please tell me you're not confusing abiogenesis ("the formation of life from non-living matter") with evolution by natural selection.

an honest atheist who now says, 'There is a God', because of the scientific discoveries of the last 50 years.

And which one of these discoveries, pray tell, proved 'There is a God'?? Hmmm, well?

Other Comments by Tyler Durden

20. Comment #106539 by ianmkz on January 3, 2008 at 5:42 am

Shows you what a PhD is worth.

Other Comments by ianmkz

21. Comment #106543 by epeeist on January 3, 2008 at 5:47 am

Comment #106527 by PlagioClase

Should we accuse him of being dishonest? Perhaps he should have a talk to ex-atheist Antony Flew, an honest atheist who now says, 'There is a God', because of the scientific discoveries of the last 50 years.

I would recommend that you go and read what actually happened in terms of Anthony Flew's "conversion". Examine the evidence and see whether you still think that he personally wrote "There Is a God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind" or whether most of the material came from Roy Varghese. You might want to try and determine whether Flew is suffering from dementia and if so, when it started.

Other Comments by epeeist

22. Comment #106548 by _J_ on January 3, 2008 at 6:02 am

Hello, PlagioClase. Thank you for sharing your views and opening an exchange of opinions.

You say:

I'm sure Richard understands the concept of scientific paradigm. He works within a paradigm and claims he is honest. It's hypocritical to accuse a creationist of lying for doing the same thing he is doing.

It looks like you are accidentally equivocating a bit, between 'paradigm within science' and 'paradigm that is science'.

First, for my own comfort, lets get rid of that word 'paradigm', because I'm slightly jargon intolerant. I'm going to go for 'model' or 'framework'.

Science is itself such a model, or framework. It consists of the scientific method and its working application by scientists. Without going into too much detail, the model that is science includes such characteristics as seeking observable evidence, and regarding repeatability as falsifiability important means of determining factual truth.

The purpose of science is that it is the model of investigation we use to determine factual truths about the nature of reality. It is not the only way in which we think about such matters, of course - many fields of intellectual enquiry are metaphysical - but it is the one we use when we really want to find with a high degree of confidence how things work and what is true. That's we we don't let philosophers design aeroplanes, or professors of English research treatments for cancer.

Science itself contains various models or frameworks, in the form of various laws, theories and hypotheses. These can themselves be challenged, altered and even abandoned without affecting the greater framework of science itself. (Indeed, it is part of the framework of science that these inner models should be challenged, and tested, and abandoned where they prove incorrect.)

Now, creationism is also a model, or framework, as you say. And it is indeed a different one from evolution, or from geology, or from cosmology. All of these fields of science (and more) conflict directly with creationism.

But there's more! Creationism, whilst a framework of thought, is not one that fits within the larger framework of science (like evolution, geology and cosmology do). It doesn't operate by the rules of science in its handling of evidence and its application of reason. Instead, it operates within a framework of religious thinking, which uses very different ways of attempting to determinine truth.

Dawkins is noting in this article that it is dishonest to regard creationism as a scientific theory, or as compatible with science. It isn't. It is contradictory to science not only in its claims, but in its methods. Dawkins recognises Kurt Wise's honesty in acknowledging that whilst his creationist beliefs held him in a powerful grip, these were not scientific beliefs, but were totally contradictory to all of his scientific training and understanding. Recognising this, he took the difficult but honest course of abandoning his commitment to science.

Dawkins notes the sad truth that there are many others who don't do this, but who instead strive to persuade themselves and others that this incompatibility doesn't exist, and that creationism is as valid a theory as evolution.

It isn't. Evolution is a long-standing and increasingly well evidenced theory which is derived entirely within the framework of science. Creationism operates in completely different, unscientific, ways. Anyone who claims the sort of respect given to scientific discoveries for the creationism (for we don't let theologians design aeroplanes, either) is either being dishonest or making a mistake.

Other Comments by _J_

23. Comment #106553 by epeeist on January 3, 2008 at 6:11 am

Comment #106531 by Steve Zara

Hmm... seems to me there is a trend here.

Indeed - could I start my quotations for 2008 with one from Robert Heinlein: "One could write a history of science in reverse by assembling the solemn pronouncements of highest authority about what could not be done and could never happen."

Other Comments by epeeist

24. Comment #106733 by Galactor on January 3, 2008 at 11:08 am

In response to comment #106527 by PlagioClase.

What irony. It ventures to suggest hypocracy from those criticising creationists yet reading it through a number of times you can see how riddled it is with hypocracy.

I'm tired of evolutionists accusing creationists of being dishonest.

Well, I'm certainly tired of having to tell creationists they're dishonest but it's hardly unfair, is it? The creationist method - and it's certainly not scientific - is one of distorting truth and pissing on the the scientific methodology. Wouldn't it just be great if biological science didn't have to fight a rearguard action and there was no pressure to get creationism taught as science? It wouldn't be necessary to tell creationists that they're dishonest for one thing, and you wouldn't get so tired.

It's hypocritical to accuse a creationist of lying for doing the same thing he [Dawkins] is doing.

It would be hypocritical if it were what Dawkins is doing in the article but he clearly isn't. Science - what Dawkins stands for - is a reasonable way of trying to understand how nature works. Creationism isn't at all reasonable - it's all about making facts fit certain beliefs. This requires perversion of truth, distortion, dishonesty.

For example, no one knows, after 150 years of trying, how a mixture of lifeless chemicals could form itself into a living, reproducing cell. Neither has anyone ever seen it happen.

This is a supreme example of exactly what creationist dishonesty (and therefore in this case hypocracy) - or is it just incompetence - is all about. Misunderstanding and misrepresentation skulking hand in hand with irrelevance. Dishonest or at best incompetent. Firstly, no-one has been trying for 150 years - this is gross misrepresentation on your part - to demonstrate abiogenesis. In relation to the work done on many areas of scientific research, work on abiogenesis is in its infancy. It is not - as you try to intimate - something which scientists have been struggling for years and years, getting nowhere, scratching their heads trying to come to terms with. Secondly, your statement about the transition from "lifeless chemical to cell" is devoid of congruency and the stock in trade of the creationist. No evolutionary scientist claims that this is what occurred! The hypothesis is that a replicator was once formed (abiogenesis) which, well, replicated, sometimes mutated, was subject to natural selection and survived in relation to its fitness (evolution). Only after billions of replications with minor mutations do we eventually arrive at cells. What you have done is misrepresent what evolution is and you disgrace yourself in doing so when you accuse others of hypocracy. And thirdly, the old "no-one saw it happen" card. So what? So fucking what? Do you expect ever to be taken seriously here with this kind of tripe? It wouldn't be so bad but you have the temerity to call others hypocritical.

But Richard still says, against the observational scientific evidence, that it did.

Against the observational scientific evidence? Against the observational scientific evidence? Are you saying that there is observational scientific evidence (whatever that is) suggesting that the abiogensis hypotheses are not supportable? This is just another creationist style strawman but it's based upon a false premise (found in the utter drivel of you notions of abiogenesis and evolution) which is that Dawkins [wholeheartedly] supports conclusions which are unfounded just to fit his own "beliefs". Scientists don't do this. Creationists, on the other hand, do so each day before they've had breakfast.

An honest atheist. An honest atheist? Say it again and weigh the bagage that comes along with these words. Firstly, atheism has nothing to do with honesty nor dishonesty. Nothing whatsoever. Atheism is just a conclusion made by (presumably) honest and dishonest people alike. And what has atheism got to do with doing good science or not? Are we supposed to conclude that this "honest" atheist is honest because he has made a conclusion that you agree with or should I say he was dishonest because he renounced his atheism? There are "honest" theists that abandon their religious belief or would you call them "dishonest" for doing so? What's the point? It's all so irrelevant and incongruent.

And what scientific discoveries of the last 50 years are you talking about?

Do you really find it any wonder that creationists are told they're dishonest?

Other Comments by Galactor

25. Comment #106738 by Roger Stanyard on January 3, 2008 at 11:33 am

PlagioClase: "I'm tired of evolutionists accusing creationists of being dishonest."

Then quit lying. The creatonists have told the courts time and time again that creation science is justified by scince alone. Under srutiny the claim proves to be fraudulent. That's why, time and time again you lose in the courts and never win.

What the heck are we supposed to believe when Judge Jones opnly stated that the creationist defence during Dover "lied" (his word) under oath.

How the heck do you explain that after the 1987 Supreme court decision that stated creationism was religion and not scinece that the term "creationism" in Of Pandas and People was replaced 186 times with Intelligent Design.

What the heck are we supposed to believe following the disclosure of the Wedge document?

What the heck are we supposed to believe after Wooter has posted up a pack of creationist lies about the Coelacanth in this forum?

What the heck are we supposed to believe when creationists always refuse to answer the questions we put to them.

I'll ask again: What is the scientific theory of creationism and how to we test it using the scientific method?

If you have an alternative scientific explanation of the differences between species, show it or stop telling porkies that creation science stacks up.

Message to the rest of the group: This one is just pushing the standard creationist bleating. Its the standard martyrdom and persecution complex. They've spent year lying to the world that scientists are deluded atheists running a scam and deceiving everyone for nefarious purposes.

Other Comments by Roger Stanyard

26. Comment #106744 by al-rawandi on January 3, 2008 at 11:41 am

PlagioClase,

For example, no one knows, after 150 years of trying, how a mixture of lifeless chemicals could form itself into a living, reproducing cell. Neither has anyone ever seen it happen

You have never heard of the Yuri/Miller experiment. Two scientists at U of Chicago put lifeless chemicals into a sealed area (hydrogen, oxygen, and several others). They added an electric current (see how electricity works). The result was organic material (on a small scale).

So your assertion is false (unless I am wrong about the experiment).

So please provide some evidence for your god. You have my word that I will weigh it fairly against my views and RD's published opinions.

The difference between logic and religious dogma.

Logic: Take evidence and change conclusions to make them fit the evidence. No a priori.

Religious Dogma: Take conlcusions and manipulate evidence to fit the an a priori that was arrived at with no evidence.

Other Comments by al-rawandi

27. Comment #106746 by Galactor on January 3, 2008 at 11:47 am

In response to Roger Stanyard. This is where the next creationist battleground can be found, namely the martyrdom that you point out. ID was an attempt to fit creationism into science but now that this has been found out in a court of law, the next step is to try to move the boundaries of science to encompass whackoism and fruitloopery. You can observe this movement in that ridiculous film "Expelled" where attempts are being made to paint science with the brush of a rigid dogma unwilling to allow for creativity.

Other Comments by Galactor

28. Comment #106750 by Roger Stanyard on January 3, 2008 at 11:52 am

Redneckfrom Idaho: "I find Kurt Wise far more honest and rational than the average evolutionist. Wise is forthcoming about his assumptions regarding the nature of truth. The evolutionist often pretends he has come to his conclusions based purely on the evidence at hand and fails to acknowledge his own presuppositions. For example, most evolutionists accept only a materialist/naturalist worldview, but they do this without any evidence to support such an assumption. When Wise says that he will hold to what he believes is the truth regardless of evidence to the contrary, he is no different than dozens of atheists I have heard (or read) who make similar statements when faced with the mounting evidence against evolution ("These findings propose something of a puzzle at the moment, but we are confident that we will resolve the apparent contradictions with further research.") The difference: Wise admits he acts on faith; the evolutionist pretends he does not."

Well if Kurt Wise is claiming that creation science is valid, let him show it. So far he has not produced one single peer reviewed scientific paper on creationism.

Methinks you are lying. Everything I have ever read about Wise, including his own words, suggests that scientists believe he is acting on faith. He certainly ain't on acting on sound science.

So where is this mounting evidencne against evolution? Common, cough up - where is the scientific theory of creationism and how can it be tested with the scientific method?

Um. where are the creation science peer reviewed papers?

Or are you just another fundamentalist bullshitter?

Just in the biologcal amd medical scinces over the last two decades, there has been some 1 million peer reviewed papers. The number of creation science peer reviewed papers is exactly zero.

Strewth, the cretinists haven't said anything new for thirty years. All they can do is pick holes and endless repeat tired and long debunked crap from the likes of Answers in Genesis's web site.

"The evolutionist often pretends he has come to his conclusions based purely on the evidence at hand and fails to acknowledge his own presuppositions."

What is this utter drivel. The scientists who provide the evidence that damns creationism are from a whole range of displines - geology, paleontology, biology, archeology, chemistry, astronomy, cosmology, physics, meterology....Most of them are not evolutionary biologists. Or aren't you aware that the term evolutionist is not used in science? That's because science has no need for it as creation science is hot air and fraud.

cosmology.

Other Comments by Roger Stanyard

29. Comment #106759 by Galactor on January 3, 2008 at 12:18 pm

RedneckfromIdaho

Can you please explain to me what an "evolutionist" is? I can never understand its usage in discussion about religion and science and I would hate to make assumptions. Is an evolutionist different from a gravitationist or a electromagneticist? In the sense that you compare honesty and rationality with average evolutionists, have you in your travels been able to compare these qualities in gravitationists and do you find them to be less or more honest and rational than say an evolutionist (whatever that may be)?

Can you explain to me what is meant by

most evolutionists accept only a materialist/naturalist worldview, but they do this without any evidence to support such an assumption

as I am at present unable to understand it? Can you elucidate on the relevance of a "worldview" of materialism and/or naturalism on the ability to be honest or rational and are you of the opinion that it is necessary to be spiritual and believe in the supernatural to hold these qualities? Could you tell me what worldview would be necessary to be able to conclude that alchemy has merits?

You mention a

the mounting evidence against evolution

.

Staggering. I was never aware of such evidence. Can you provide me with one simple grain of evidence in this supposed mounting (is it mountainous yet) evidence?

Other Comments by Galactor

30. Comment #106762 by al-rawandi on January 3, 2008 at 12:23 pm

Galactor,

You can't ask for evidence. That is like asking for proof.

Other Comments by al-rawandi

31. Comment #106775 by Tyler Durden on January 3, 2008 at 12:47 pm

#10 Comment #57560 by RedneckfromIdaho:

I find Kurt Wise far more honest and rational than the average evolutionist...

RedneckfromIdaho: thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you!! I haven't had such a laugh in ages. Seriously. Are you a professional comedian, or just totally inept at understanding science?

Would you think Kurt Wise "far more honest and rational" if he held the same viewpoint with regard to Newton's theory of gravitation?

Anyway, keep up the comedy gold, we all enjoy a good laugh around here!!

Other Comments by Tyler Durden

32. Comment #106780 by al-rawandi on January 3, 2008 at 12:53 pm

Tyler,

Bozo the clown takes on evolution. OOooooh squeeze his nose! Squeeze his nose.

Other Comments by al-rawandi

33. Comment #106801 by robert s on January 3, 2008 at 1:33 pm

Maybe Josh could add something, to either the thread page or the comment box to indicate that a six-month old thread has been brought back from the dead?

I'm not advocating closing threads, but it's weird having people arguing with posts from people who are clearly long gone.

Other Comments by robert s

34. Comment #106807 by Roger Stanyard on January 3, 2008 at 1:53 pm

galactor, Ill explain what Redneckfrom Idaho means to your question "Can you explain to me what is meant by

most evolutionists accept only a materialist/naturalist worldview, but they do this without any evidence to support such an assumption
as I am at present unable"

Fundamentalists think the world is divided into two sorts of people - fundies and evilutionists. Most of them are either too arrogant or too dense to realise that most religious believers accept science and that many think creationism is heresy and a deeply immoral outlook.

What the fundies are are a group of Protestant zealots who take seriously flaky theology in the form of Sola Scriptura to an extreme and think it applies to all Christianity. Most of them look down their noses at Cristians that don't accept their crapola but they never tell you this.

None of them recognise that their extremism brings the whole of religion into disrepute. There's nothing new about this. In 404 AD St Augustine wrote that a literal interprestation of the Bible, when it comes to science, would make Christians a laughing stock. Plus ca change when it comes to fundies. However, St Augustine was a Catholic and the fundies spit venom at Catholicism.

RedneckfromIdaho is a particularly extreme version of cretinist who trolls out the materialistic crapola.

Other Comments by Roger Stanyard

35. Comment #106817 by Steve Zara on January 3, 2008 at 2:08 pm

Wise admits he acts on faith; the evolutionist pretends he does not.

It took a bit of time for the strangeness of this statement to sink in.

To claim that someone else is pretending to act on evidence when they are reality acting on faith is a very strange claim indeed. It suggests that you not only don't believe the evidence, but you know that someone else doesn't believe it either. That is quite a thing to know, and suggests a quite extraordinary skill in psychology or telepathy.

A more sensible claim would be that the evidence is wrong, and therefore anyone who believes it is mistaken. Of course, that is an easy claim to back up. Research all the evidence, and publish a detailed review putting forward why you believe it is wrong, and your alternative interpretation that has more explanatory power. Good scientists love seeing things shown to be wrong, especially the work of competitors, so it should not be too hard to publish.

This is yet more evidence that Creationists really don't think very much before they speak.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

36. Comment #106821 by al-rawandi on January 3, 2008 at 2:11 pm

Steve,

I think these creationists missed the Yuri-Miller experiment at Chicago. I believe they proved, before the eye, that life can come from not-life.

I think that makes their creator superfluous.

Other Comments by al-rawandi

37. Comment #106826 by Steve Zara on January 3, 2008 at 2:19 pm

I think these creationists missed the Yuri-Miller experiment at Chicago. I believe they proved, before the eye, that life can come from not-life.

No, I am afraid not. That experiment only showed that the precursors of life could arise from a simple reducing atmosphere with the right energy inputs (such as lightning). And, it also now looks like the atmospheric conditions that were assumed in that experiment where unlike the early atmosphere. That is largely irrelevant anyway, it has since been discovered that such precursors turn up all over the place anyway. They are found in comets and meteors.

The real problem for at least some theories of life is the polymerisation of these compounds into polynucleotides and proteins. This is not something that is likely to happen spontaneously in a liquid solution of the compounds, as the tendency would be for the polymers to degrade, not form.

Fortunately there are now many other, far more plausible, ideas of abiogenesis, such as the "iron sulphur world".

Other Comments by Steve Zara

38. Comment #106828 by al-rawandi on January 3, 2008 at 2:21 pm

Steve,

Where can I read up on these other ideas of abiogenesis?

Other Comments by al-rawandi

39. Comment #106829 by Steve Zara on January 3, 2008 at 2:22 pm

Where can I read up on these other ideas of abiogenesis?

Wikipedia has a good write-up on some. There was a review in Scientific American a while back - may be available on their website.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

40. Comment #106845 by Veronique on January 3, 2008 at 3:08 pm

I suspect that PlagioClase and RedneckfromIdaho will be on post wonders. These posts are their first on this site.

You have chased them away:-) Goody, goody.

As you were
V
edit I only just realised this article was from May 2006. It got resurrected by someone. PlagioClase won't be and Redneck didn't:-)

Other Comments by Veronique

41. Comment #106886 by PlagioClase on January 3, 2008 at 4:29 pm

The origin of the first life is called chemical evolution. Then there's cosmic evolution, geologic evolution, biological evolution and human evolution. The whole naturalistic worldview uses evolution to try to explain how everything made itself without God. Finally there is heat death which means that everything is meaningless in the long run anyway. Evolution is a grand, motivating, uplifting, invigorating philosophy. All designed to remove God's claim on our lives.

The Miller-Urey experiment that has been referred to is actually evidence against abiogenesis. See http://www.creationontheweb.com/urey.

It's a big issue but there is a lot of information on the origin of life here. http://www.creationontheweb.com/origin

Other Comments by PlagioClase

42. Comment #106897 by Steve Zara on January 3, 2008 at 4:45 pm

The origin of the first life is called chemical evolution. Then there's cosmic evolution, geologic evolution, biological evolution and human evolution.

These are different uses of the word "evolution". Biological and human evolution are the same, the rest of those terms just use the word "evolution" to mean "change". Unless you are suggesting that stars and rocks breed?

The whole naturalistic worldview uses evolution to try to explain how everything made itself without God.

I am afraid not. Most of science uses the laws of physics and thermodynamics and chemistry to do that.

Finally there is heat death which means that everything is meaningless in the long run anyway.

If you want cheering up, read some Michio Kaku on the possible future of life. Not my cup of tea, but it may make you a bit less gloomy about what atheists can think of the future.

Evolution is a grand, motivating, uplifting, invigorating philosophy. All designed to remove God's claim on our lives.

Evolution isn't designed to do anything. It is a practical and powerful discovered explanation that is used every day in the biological science and related industries. Our understanding of evolution was no more "designed" than our understanding of gravity.

If research shows evidence that goes towards removing God's claim on our lives, then so be it. We are better off with an accurate understanding of the world around us than with myth.

And as for "www.creationontheweb.com", I think you may have a problem here. You don't get to present scientific arguments from a site which rejects science. That is kind of shooting yourself in the foot.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

43. Comment #106912 by PlagioClase on January 3, 2008 at 5:09 pm

If research shows evidence that goes towards removing God's claim on our lives, then so be it.

And if biological research shows evidence of incredible design, then so be it. Antony Flew said he is no longer an atheist because he followed where the scientific evidence led. How objectively scientific is it to deny a designer because of one's prior beliefs about God?

Other Comments by PlagioClase

44. Comment #106914 by Steve Zara on January 3, 2008 at 5:16 pm

And if biological research show evidence of incredible design, then so be it.

No such evidence has been found. If you can think of what that evidence could consist of, I would be interested. Let me save you the time: a sudoku puzzle encoded into a DNA strand would do it for me. (Especially if it was complete)

Antony Flew said he is no longer an atheist because he followed where the scientific evidence led.

I suggest you research Flew a bit more as Epeeist suggested.

How objectively scientific is it to deny a designer because of one's prior beliefs about God?

The prior belief in God is irrelevant one way or the other. In science one deals with evidence.

If you can suggest a scientifically falsifiable test for a designer, go ahead.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

45. Comment #106918 by Diacanu on January 3, 2008 at 5:19 pm

The banana fits in the hand!!

Other Comments by Diacanu

46. Comment #106922 by Richard Morgan on January 3, 2008 at 5:24 pm

PlagioClase

This sentence reminds me of another discussion here: what can happen to someone's mind when they give up masturbating without medical supervision.

Other Comments by Richard Morgan

47. Comment #106925 by Diacanu on January 3, 2008 at 5:27 pm

Richard Morgan-

Lol, classy one to follow my post with.

Other Comments by Diacanu

48. Comment #106931 by Downunder on January 3, 2008 at 5:44 pm

Diacanu

I appreciate your frequent and rapid fire posts in many threads but could you, just now&again, give us some positive comments & suggestions to give some idea of what motivates you.

BTW, I sent you a pm on Dec 24 at 16:08; have you read it? I am not aware of your reply.

Other Comments by Downunder

49. Comment #106954 by Diacanu on January 3, 2008 at 6:33 pm

Downunder-

now&again, give us some positive comments & suggestions to give some idea of what motivates you.

What in particular do you want to know?

BTW, I sent you a pm on Dec 24 at 16:08; have you read it? I am not aware of your reply.

Oh yeah, I got an e-mail notification of it, but I got busy with christmas and shit, I gotta get back to you on that.
Sorry.

Other Comments by Diacanu

50. Comment #106955 by PlagioClase on January 3, 2008 at 6:34 pm

If you can suggest a scientifically falsifiable test for a designer, go ahead.

Forensic investigation and archeology are sciences that both have criteria for detecting intelligent design. So does the SETI project. They are not based on proof, but on analogy and plausibility. Just apply the same scientific standards to biology. See 'Is the design argument legitimate'.

How about something from you, Steve. What evidence would you accept as evidence that there could be an intelligent designer? A biological wheel? A biological motor?

Or will you hide behind the fact that it is impossible to prove that something had to be designed, that it could not have formed by chance? Atheists tend to be impervious to design arguments. No matter what evidence is presented they always claim, by faith, that something formed naturalistically, even if it can't be demonstrated at the present. It is just that we don't know how it happened.

Other Comments by PlagioClase