Kurt Wise - A YAC and an old earth evolutionist?

From the interview with Wise :

quote:

---

At one stage he even took a pair of scissors to a Bible, and started cutting out the sections which would have to be discarded if evolution was true, with its long ages for the earth. He found that there wouldn't be enough of the Bible left for it to hold together.

​

'To accept the entire evolutionary model would mean one would have to reject Scripture. And because I came to know Christ through Scripture I couldn't reject it.' At that point he decided his only option was to reject evolutionary theory.

---

That is absolutely the most preposterous thing I've ever read. This man is quite simply insane.I'm no believer, but I can't imagine how evolutionary theory, the notion of common descent, could even conceivably force someone to discard a mature faith. Scientists like Terry Gray and Kenneth Miller seem to reconcile the two quite easily. The image of science ripping the Bible apart with scissors is a sick, paranoid fundamentalist fantasy.And the fact that Wise concludes that his "only option" was to reject evolutionary theory shows how sorely lacking his imagination truly is. He couldn't, for example, stop reading scripture with such a materialistic outlook? He couldn't, perhaps, have come to understand the more spiritual meaning of his faith?------------------
The bear thought his son could talk in space about the time matter has to rotate but twisted heaven instead.
-Brad McFall

I'm not even sure he's a scientist. Did you see how he says that "creation is not a theory, it's a fact"? I guess his definition of 'theory' follows the usual creationist line: 'a wild guess that's as good as any other.'This line is priceless too:

quote:

---

[Wise] is pleased to see the trend towards a presuppositional approach to the presentation of creationism (as opposed to the 'evidential' approach).

---

So he's pleased that creationists are now abandoning any hope of competing with conventional science in the only arena that counts, namely the lab. He'd rather they merely assert that the 'foundational assumption' that Scripture should be used as a science book is just as valid as the one that depends on a large body of hard-won knowledge gained through centuries of honest investigation.It's because of this that science has to be based on methodological naturalism in the first place: you want to limit the amount of influence that people's foundational assumptions have on the process of empirical evidential inquiry. Ideally, the process should be neutral enough to allow people with a wide range of philosophical prejudices to arrive at the same conclusions.------------------
The bear thought his son could talk in space about the time matter has to rotate but twisted heaven instead.
-Brad McFall