|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member Posts: 3945 From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior) Joined: Member Rating: 10.0 |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Kurt Wise - A YAC and an old earth evolutionist? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Minnemooseus Member Posts: 3945 From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior) Joined: Member Rating: 10.0 |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Minnemooseus Member Posts: 3945 From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior) Joined: Member Rating: 10.0 |
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.
Kurt Wise, as quoted in message 1, writes: "I am a young-age creationist because the Bible indicates the universe is young. Given what we currently think we understand about the world, the majority of the scientific evidence favors an old earth and universe, not a young one. I would therefore say that anyone who claims that the earth is young for scientific evidence alone is scientifically ignorant." 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 5054 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
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: This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 02-17-2006 07:09 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Garrett Member (Idle past 6187 days) Posts: 111 From: Dallas, TX Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Garrett Member (Idle past 6187 days) Posts: 111 From: Dallas, TX Joined: |
Since when were wackos precluded from holding positions of authority :-)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3665 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4920 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
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. ....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. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Minnemooseus Member Posts: 3945 From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior) Joined: Member Rating: 10.0 |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Christian Member (Idle past 6277 days) Posts: 157 Joined: |
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.'
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9003 From: Canada Joined: |
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 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Trump won  Suspended Member (Idle past 1261 days) Posts: 1928 Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Minnemooseus Member Posts: 3945 From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior) Joined: Member Rating: 10.0 |
An "In The News" type message. Quoted in its entirety below:
Seminary Appoints Creationist to Head Theology & Science Ctr - Christian News Headlines
quote: Moose
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1276 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
There are a few fascinating things in that article, if it is accurate.
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." 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.
Wise says he hopes to "focus more on the Christian world and how Christians should respond to the entire issue of origins." 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 5054 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
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: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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024