Does this sound like a scientist to you?

Question

The Creationists' most famous "scientist" - the one they trot out for the kleig lights because he once "studied under Stephan J. Gould", geologist Kurt Wise says:

" ... 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."

Answer 1

No, it sounds like a religious believer to me. That's OK, we all know that creationism / ID is a religious belief so nothing new there.

Answer 2

Yes, unfortunately, just because a man adheres to a point of view irrationally, doesn’t deprive him of his status as a scientist. The crucial thing here is that he admits to the wrongness of his views PUBLICLY when confronted with evidence that contradicts his belief. That is the essential aspect of science. As long as a scientist is willing to admit to the weakness of his theory when evidence is adduced contradicting his perspective, then he can still be called a scientist.

But you might wonder, how can he call himself a scientist when he admits to the falsity of Creationism if evidence is provided against it, and yet not abdicate his affiliation with Creationism? Well, there, I believe is a distinction being made here between personal beliefs and those that exist in reality. I know that sounds odd to most rational secular people, but in the minds of many religious people, such a dichotomy can exist between ones personal beliefs and the profession one holds to be true.

That is why a devout Catholic can recite the creeds about the infallibility of Church teaching, and yet vote for politicians that are ostensibly pro-choice, something that the Catholic Church is adamantly adverse to.

So Kurt can, in a manner of speaking, state that if evidence reveals Creationism to be false, and evolution to be true, and yet still subscribe to Creationism in his PRIVATE affairs. However, if he still tries to promote Creationism as valid SCIENTIFIC theory in the PUBLIC sector, then he ceases to be a scientist, and has devolved into a charlatan.

Answer 3

There can be no conflict between the revealed truths of God and the findings of legitimate reason and science, because the author of them is the same|

Now there are some claims that *appear* to contradict divine revelation| Darwin's theory is one of them| Now evolution is a good theory because it is the usual way of God to delegate His work to lower causes| But natural selection is merely one of many possible mechanisms that could have caused evolution (that is, from a pure academic stand-point)| But notice that none of these are considered but natural selection| Years ago, Scientific American magazine proposed that the DNA of living things could have had a type of "molecular drive" (suggesting intelligent programming within it), that drove the emergence of new species in the evolutionary process, but you never hear of that any more| Scientists who do propose alternate mechanisms are vehemently persecuted by their peers| So there goes objectivity and transparency in the mainstream scientific community| Today, mainstream science is not driven by the thirst to find the ultimate truth of things, but by an agenda| For if natural selection is true, then that disproves God. That explains the huge push to get Darwin into our public schools and to shut out any alternatives|




---

Answer 4

I read about that too. The guy _was_ highly educated and a very promising man but the childhood indoctrination got to him.

At some point, he examined the bible critically, cutting out with scissors everything that was cast in doubt by a critical scientific eye. He ended up with near nothing.

And what did he do? He tossed out evolution and rationality.

It is kind of sad, really.

Answer 5

Pseudoscientist

Answer 6

There is a fine line between science and philosophy. He would seem to be more of a philosopher than an actual bona fide scientist.

PS to Randy: It is only an "effing abyss" to someone who understands neither.

Answer 7

Sounds like fear, pure and simple! Doesn't matter how smart a person is....those who can deal with their fears are most able in this world. Voters should look up apologist and then think denial is more like it.

Answer 8

It sounds like a scientist who holds religious beliefs. Are you saying that to be a scientist you have to be an atheist? So you kind of stack the deck in favor of your own arguements by claiming the only legitimate sources are those that share your point of view, then claiming all legitimate sources share your point of view. Genius.

Answer 9

It sounds like a man who can't quite make up his mind or speak honestly about his thoughts. He's a bit of a double-talker, isn't he? He would admit that "creation" is a failed issue and yet he would still believe it....???? What kind of a jerk thinks like that? (Can you say, Christian?)

[][][] r u randy? [][][]
.
Post Script to banana_re...: The difference between Science and Philosophy is not a fine line... it is an effing abyss. Think again, cowboy.

Answer 10

do you feel that way because he does not say what you want to hear?Is that what makes him not a Scientist because he states he is a creationist? Well I don't agree with you, yet I don't say that you are not a person for that reason.