Honest creationist Kurt Wise on transitional fossils

Honest creationist? Isn't that an oxymoron, like jumbo shrimp, or Swiss cheese? In Bushese I guess he might be called honestish.

Matt, Kurt Wise is definitely an honest creationist. I've never seen him use any severely out of context quote mines and he has modified arguments in the past based on feedback.

Dawkins considers Wise honest because Wise does not try to distort or deny the evidence. Wise instead makes the blanket claim that no amount of evidence can possibly make any difference. So long as we all understand that science isn't studying God's Reality but rather playing games in the sandbox of illusion and imagination, no doctrinal insult arises from freely admitting the resounding complex yet consistent nature of that illusion.

So Wise takes the position that scripture refutes reality, scripture is God's Word, thus perceived reality is in some "higher" sense not real at all. Scientists (and Wise really is one) are like math wonks amusing themselves concocting self-consistent but otherwise useless geometries. An entertaining conceit, but irrelevant to God's Truth which He dictated to us in Genesis.

Hi all,

Yes, Kurt Wise is an honest creationist in the sense that he doesn't try to lie, or to misrepresent, or to pull morally unethical stunts of the kind we've come to expect from Bill Dembski. He's also extremely sharp - I speak from personal experience - and I am still amazed that someone as bright as he is did turn towards the "dark side".

Best,

John

P. S. Nick's latest contribution emerged out of a private online discussion we were having with someone fighting with creos overseas. Am surprised he's been able to post this so quickly.

If, as Flint says, "no amount of evidence can possibly make any difference" to Wise, why would Wise need, as Joshua says, to modify his arguments? If arguments are based on no evidence whatsoever, then why would they need modification (other than as rhetoric)? And isn't Scripture a part of Reality, even if it doesn't reflect reality? Unlike Descartes, Wise isn't starting from nothing, right?

Slightly OT to Matt G.,

Why is Swiss cheese an oxymoron?

Other favorite oxymorons:

Jumbo shrimp (kudos to Gorge Carlin)

Athletic scholarship

Pretty ugly

Civil war

Non-dairy creamer

Politically correct

Real psychic

Supernatural explanation

Legal brief

Standard option

Old news

Functional illiterate

Self-help group

Digital modem (apologies to non-geeks)

Matt G said: If, as Flint says, "no amount of evidence can possibly make any difference" to Wise, why would Wise need, as Joshua says, to modify his arguments?

I can only say that that must be a very odd mental state to live in.

Flint said: Dawkins considers Wise honest because Wise does not try to distort or deny the evidence. Wise instead makes the blanket claim that no amount of evidence can possibly make any difference. So long as we all understand that science isn't studying God's Reality but rather playing games in the sandbox of illusion and imagination, no doctrinal insult arises from freely admitting the resounding complex yet consistent nature of that illusion. So Wise takes the position that scripture refutes reality, scripture is God's Word, thus perceived reality is in some "higher" sense not real at all. Scientists (and Wise really is one) are like math wonks amusing themselves concocting self-consistent but otherwise useless geometries. An entertaining conceit, but irrelevant to God's Truth which He dictated to us in Genesis.

I wonder why he believes that bibles exist, let alone that they contain reliable information?

Well, but isn’t this fine? As long as he uses the scientific method (incl. publishing in journals, etc…) and supports the teaching of the best available science findings, what more do we really want to ask? His position sounds close enough to methodological naturalism to me. The whole point of methodological naturalism could be summed up as the “honest” matters more than the “creationist.” Or is there something unacceptable about the way he does science that I’m missing?

It's fine for Wise -- I mean, I think his position is silly, but it's a free country. But my point is that virtually all other creationists/ID supporters (a) know less than Wise and yet (b) confidently assert that there are too few/no transitional fossils and that this is a huge problem for evolution. Yet the creationists' own leading expert agrees with us!

Maybe Wise is himself transitional between the two sides? ;)

Bill Gascoyne said: Slightly OT to Matt G., Why is Swiss cheese an oxymoron?

Personal Failure said: I can only say that that must be a very odd mental state to live in.

After reading the article, one can’t help saying, “Why don’t you just GIVE UP already!!”

— Nick Matzke

If, as Flint says, “no amount of evidence can possibly make any difference” to Wise, why would Wise need, as Joshua says, to modify his arguments?

If arguments are based on no evidence whatsoever, then why would they need modification (other than as rhetoric)?

And isn’t Scripture a part of Reality, even if it doesn’t reflect reality?

Kurt Wise wrote: Of Darwinism’s four stratomorphic intermediate expectations, that of the commonness of inter-specific stratomorphic intermediates has been the most disappointing for classical Darwinists. The current lack of any certain inter-specific stratomorphic intermediates has, of course, led to the development and increased acceptance of punctuated equilibrium theory.

Flint wrote:

"Wise was faced with a devastating dilemma - either his faith was false, or his senses and intellect were being tricked in some monstrous incomprehensible fashion (and everyone else’s were being tricked the same way)."

Not much of a decision really. If the only way your faith in God can be valid is if God is a lying, deceitful bastard, then what good would faith in such a God be anyway? Really, who else could perpetrate such a hoax and why would you worship such a hoaxter?

If you can't trust reality or your senses, doesn't that mean that you are some type of insane? How could you function in a world like that? Why would you want to? Most of all, why would you want to be a scientist if you really believed that reality could not be trusted? Wouldn't it be easier to simply question your interpertation of the Bible?

"Substantial supporting evidence of macroevolutionary theory can be found in the fossil record of stratomorphic intermediates. Additionally, the creation model is not well enough developed at present to properly evaluate this evidence or to develop an adequate alternative scenario or explanation." Kurt Wise (1995)

"However, in the light of the creation model's incomplete development, its non-inconsiderable success at explaining that record is exciting and promising indeed. There is little doubt in this author's mind that with the maturity of the creation model will come an explanation of stratomorphic intermediates superior to that of macroevolutionary theory."

TH said: What a great quote from the Conclusion, though, to make the average creationist's head spin:

"Substantial supporting evidence of macroevolutionary theory can be found in the fossil record of stratomorphic intermediates. Additionally, the creation model is not well enough developed at present to properly evaluate this evidence or to develop an adequate alternative scenario or explanation." Kurt Wise (1995)

Continuing:

"However, in the light of the creation model's incomplete development, its non-inconsiderable success at explaining that record is exciting and promising indeed. There is little doubt in this author's mind that with the maturity of the creation model will come an explanation of stratomorphic intermediates superior to that of macroevolutionary theory."

Reading that latter part, I conclude that Kurt Wise believes reality is real, not an illusion, just that the BEST explanation for it all has not yet been found. And he has faith it will prove to be a creationist one.

Honest or not, I can’t say I understand how this helps creationism’s case.

— KP

I can’t wait to make and show a slide of one of their own conceding transitional forms in the fossil record.

— KP

TH said: Continuing:

"However, in the light of the creation model's incomplete development, its non-inconsiderable success at explaining that record is exciting and promising indeed. There is little doubt in this author's mind that with the maturity of the creation model will come an explanation of stratomorphic intermediates superior to that of macroevolutionary theory."

Reading that latter part, I conclude that Kurt Wise believes reality is real, not an illusion, just that the BEST explanation for it all has not yet been found. And he has faith it will prove to be a creationist one.

Frank J said: Make sure you're prepared for one of the more savvy creationists who might state Behe's claim that the fossil record is "irrelevant."

To explain all this I would like to propose the existence of an extensive floating forest biome in the pre-Flood world. Its association with otherwise marine fauna of the Paleozoic suggests it floated atop ocean water. The huge volume of Paleozoic plants (e.g. the Carboniferous coals) suggests that the biome was huge – perhaps subcontinent to continent-sized. The highly disruptive waters of the Flood would be expected to destroy such an ecosystem from the outermost portions inward, explaining the sequence of Paleozoic plants we see in the fossil record as well as the exclusively marine nature of the first enclosing sediments and then the fact that later fossils are often interbedded with marine fauna and sediments. Post-Flood catastrophism would also explain both why the ecosystem never developed after the Flood and why most of the Paleozoic plants are extinct and the remainder are found only in low diversity in relict localities…. Living among the flora of the floating forest was an associated fauna. This fauna would have ranged from fish which lived in the pools in the forest floor, to amphibians which inhabited the aquatic/terrestrial interface, to insects and small animals which lived in the terrestrial environment of the understory and canopy. The permanent destruction of the floating forest biome would explain why virtually all Paleozoic ‘land’ animals are extinct. It would also provide a reasonable explanation for the stratigraphic position, the environment, and the morphology of the animals which appear to be fully functional morphological intermediates between fish and amphibians (e.g. Ichthyostega). (Wise 2003, p. 376)

Normally a massive flood would mix all the plant and animal remains into a random heap, sorting out only those that remained afloat in the water. Since the fossil record is highly ordered (but not with respect to the floatability of carcasses), Wise proposed a series of unlikely events to account for the observed order. Recognizing that this model still has difficulty explaining the order of fossil zones, Wood and Murray (2003, p. 188; see also Wise 2002, pp. 172–175) went further by offering another creative proposal: Because the zones have little overlap between them, we infer that the organization of the pre-Flood organismal geography was much stricter than it is today. After the Flood, when all organisms were thrust together and then re-distributed, the geographical patterns that emerged display a great deal of gradation between ecological zones. In contrast, the pre-Flood zonation appears to have been much more well-defined, with very limited regions of ecological gradation

Strangely missing from the Flood-deposited strata were most of the mammals, birds, and angiosperms, and all evidence of human life. From their nearly complete absence, we can infer that these organisms probably occupied the same biological zone before the Flood. The few birds and mammals found in the Secondary strata suggest that the mammal/bird/human zone was probably adjacent to the dinosaur/gymnosperm zone. Even more exciting in this regard is the presence or morphological intermediate organisms, such as the mammal-like reptiles found in South Africa and the Archaeopteryx from a single deposit in Germany. If the border region between the mammal and dinosaur zones was a sharp ecological transition, it is possible that the intermediates long interpreted as evidence for evolution are actually evidence for an ecological transition…. When the Flood began, large portions of the crust that formed the ocean floor began to slide underneath the crust that formed the continents. Creationist geologists believe that this process, called subduction, was the primary driving force for the Flood. Because the subduction occurred so quickly (destroying thousands of kilometers of ocean crust in months), the subduction zone would have been a site of violent geological upheaval. If the mammal zone bordered on one of these subduction zones, it is possible that all remnants of the pre-Flood people (and mammals and birds) were annihilated in the subduction zone.

Now, to answer your question: although there has been very little discussion of the geological context of the Devonian tetrapods in the creationist literature, I’m aware of two papers that attempt to address the issue – from different perspectives. Unfortunately neither is available on the web, so I can only summarise here. One is a paper given by Kurt Wise at the Fifth International Conference on Creationism (2003) and available in the published Proceedings. Entitled ‘The Pre-Flood Floating Forest: A Study in Paleontological Pattern Recognition’, it is an attempt to reconstruct a pre-Flood environment. The first appearances of higher plant taxa in the fossil record occur in an order which correlates strongly with the order of evolutionary branching predicted from published cladograms. However, Kurt points out that it also strongly correlates with increased terrestriality of the taxa. Kurt proposed that the destruction of a pre-Flood floating forest biome during the Flood might explain this trend. He envisaged a pre-Flood forest growing out over the ocean through an ecological succession of plants of steadily increasing size – in a fashion analogous to the plants of modern quaking bogs. Also living in the floating forest would be a succession of Palaeozoic animals, including the aquatic Devonian tetrapods. Residual catastrophism after the Flood may have prevented the floating forest becoming re-established and resulted in the extinction of most of the Palaeozoic plants and tetrapods. The second paper is entitled ‘From Fins to Feet: Did Fish Evolve Into Tetrapods’ and was written by Paul Garner. It is available as a Genesis Agendum Occasional Paper (see http://www.genesisagendum.org.uk/publications.html). It looks at the Upper Devonian tetrapods through the lens of the post-Flood recolonisation model. It proposes that aquatic tetrapods may have survived the Flood as adults, larvae, or eggs outside the Ark – which is why they appear earlier in the fossil record than the more terrestrial vertebrates of the Upper Palaeozoic and Mesozoic. Moreover, the Devonian tetrapods are already widely dispersed at their first appearance in the fossil record, because they were not repopulating the earth from a single location. Their first appearance is regarded as coinciding with the post-Flood spread of vegetation around the margins of the Palaeozoic continents – coastal swamps and lagoons that provided an ideal habitat for the predatory lobe-fins and aquatic tetrapods. I’m not wanting to claim that either is a fully-worked out solution – simply to point out that some creationists at least are grappling with the relevant issues.

SteveF said: Nick, This is Wise's (and Todd Wood's) explanation of the fossil record and transitional fossils. It's ad hoc to the extreme. The references are: Wise KP (2003) The pre-Flood floating forest: a study in paleontological pattern recognition. In: Ivey RL Jr (ed) Proceedings of the fifth international conference on creationism. Creation Science Fellowship, Pittsburgh, pp 371–382 Wood TC, Murray KJ (2003) Understanding the pattern of life: origins and organization of the species. Broadman & Holman, Nashville I took it from: Heaton, T.H. (2008) Recent Developments in Young-Earth Creationist Geology. Science and Education, DOI 10.1007/s11191-008-9162-6.

To explain all this I would like to propose the existence of an extensive floating forest biome in the pre-Flood world. Its association with otherwise marine fauna of the Paleozoic suggests it floated atop ocean water. The huge volume of Paleozoic plants (e.g. the Carboniferous coals) suggests that the biome was huge – perhaps subcontinent to continent-sized. The highly disruptive waters of the Flood would be expected to destroy such an ecosystem from the outermost portions inward, explaining the sequence of Paleozoic plants we see in the fossil record as well as the exclusively marine nature of the first enclosing sediments and then the fact that later fossils are often interbedded with marine fauna and sediments. Post-Flood catastrophism would also explain both why the ecosystem never developed after the Flood and why most of the Paleozoic plants are extinct and the remainder are found only in low diversity in relict localities…. Living among the flora of the floating forest was an associated fauna. This fauna would have ranged from fish which lived in the pools in the forest floor, to amphibians which inhabited the aquatic/terrestrial interface, to insects and small animals which lived in the terrestrial environment of the understory and canopy. The permanent destruction of the floating forest biome would explain why virtually all Paleozoic ‘land’ animals are extinct. It would also provide a reasonable explanation for the stratigraphic position, the environment, and the morphology of the animals which appear to be fully functional morphological intermediates between fish and amphibians (e.g. Ichthyostega). (Wise 2003, p. 376)

Heaton then interjects with:

Normally a massive flood would mix all the plant and animal remains into a random heap, sorting out only those that remained afloat in the water. Since the fossil record is highly ordered (but not with respect to the floatability of carcasses), Wise proposed a series of unlikely events to account for the observed order. Recognizing that this model still has difficulty explaining the order of fossil zones, Wood and Murray (2003, p. 188; see also Wise 2002, pp. 172–175) went further by offering another creative proposal: Because the zones have little overlap between them, we infer that the organization of the pre-Flood organismal geography was much stricter than it is today. After the Flood, when all organisms were thrust together and then re-distributed, the geographical patterns that emerged display a great deal of gradation between ecological zones. In contrast, the pre-Flood zonation appears to have been much more well-defined, with very limited regions of ecological gradation

Now we have more on transitional fossils and the lack of humans:

Strangely missing from the Flood-deposited strata were most of the mammals, birds, and angiosperms, and all evidence of human life. From their nearly complete absence, we can infer that these organisms probably occupied the same biological zone before the Flood. The few birds and mammals found in the Secondary strata suggest that the mammal/bird/human zone was probably adjacent to the dinosaur/gymnosperm zone. Even more exciting in this regard is the presence or morphological intermediate organisms, such as the mammal-like reptiles found in South Africa and the Archaeopteryx from a single deposit in Germany. If the border region between the mammal and dinosaur zones was a sharp ecological transition, it is possible that the intermediates long interpreted as evidence for evolution are actually evidence for an ecological transition…. When the Flood began, large portions of the crust that formed the ocean floor began to slide underneath the crust that formed the continents. Creationist geologists believe that this process, called subduction, was the primary driving force for the Flood. Because the subduction occurred so quickly (destroying thousands of kilometers of ocean crust in months), the subduction zone would have been a site of violent geological upheaval. If the mammal zone bordered on one of these subduction zones, it is possible that all remnants of the pre-Flood people (and mammals and birds) were annihilated in the subduction zone.

A YEC associated with this lot summarised with:

Now, to answer your question: although there has been very little discussion of the geological context of the Devonian tetrapods in the creationist literature, I’m aware of two papers that attempt to address the issue – from different perspectives. Unfortunately neither is available on the web, so I can only summarise here. One is a paper given by Kurt Wise at the Fifth International Conference on Creationism (2003) and available in the published Proceedings. Entitled ‘The Pre-Flood Floating Forest: A Study in Paleontological Pattern Recognition’, it is an attempt to reconstruct a pre-Flood environment. The first appearances of higher plant taxa in the fossil record occur in an order which correlates strongly with the order of evolutionary branching predicted from published cladograms. However, Kurt points out that it also strongly correlates with increased terrestriality of the taxa. Kurt proposed that the destruction of a pre-Flood floating forest biome during the Flood might explain this trend. He envisaged a pre-Flood forest growing out over the ocean through an ecological succession of plants of steadily increasing size – in a fashion analogous to the plants of modern quaking bogs. Also living in the floating forest would be a succession of Palaeozoic animals, including the aquatic Devonian tetrapods. Residual catastrophism after the Flood may have prevented the floating forest becoming re-established and resulted in the extinction of most of the Palaeozoic plants and tetrapods. The second paper is entitled ‘From Fins to Feet: Did Fish Evolve Into Tetrapods’ and was written by Paul Garner. It is available as a Genesis Agendum Occasional Paper (see http://www.genesisagendum.org.uk/publications.html). It looks at the Upper Devonian tetrapods through the lens of the post-Flood recolonisation model. It proposes that aquatic tetrapods may have survived the Flood as adults, larvae, or eggs outside the Ark – which is why they appear earlier in the fossil record than the more terrestrial vertebrates of the Upper Palaeozoic and Mesozoic. Moreover, the Devonian tetrapods are already widely dispersed at their first appearance in the fossil record, because they were not repopulating the earth from a single location. Their first appearance is regarded as coinciding with the post-Flood spread of vegetation around the margins of the Palaeozoic continents – coastal swamps and lagoons that provided an ideal habitat for the predatory lobe-fins and aquatic tetrapods. I’m not wanting to claim that either is a fully-worked out solution – simply to point out that some creationists at least are grappling with the relevant issues.

So there you go.

Kurt Wise has forthrightly stated that his adherence to Biblical literalism comes first, and if the physical evidence is against creationism, so much the worse for the evidence.

Dale Husband said:

Kurt Wise has forthrightly stated that his adherence to Biblical literalism comes first, and if the physical evidence is against creationism, so much the worse for the evidence.

I think that would make Wise a coward, not honest.

http://www.care2.com/c2c/groups/disc.html?gpp=2192&pst=668443 The inserted numbers refer to my notes in response to Dr. Wise's nonsense. http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/313.asp?vPrint=1 The evidence from Scripture is by far the best evidence for creation. No better evidence can be imagined than that provided from Him who is not only the only eyewitness observer, but who also is the embodiment of all truth. (1) All Christians should be content in His claims for creation. (2) There are those, however, who reject the authority of the Scriptures. (3) I believe that the best extra-biblical evidence for creation would come from the design of organisms past and present. The schizochroal compound eye of the trilobite (a horseshoe crab-like organism of the past), for example, contains the only known lens in the biological world which corrects for focusing problems that result from using non-flexible lenses. (4) The designs of the schizochroal lenses, in fact, are the very same designs that man himself has developed to correct for the same problems. Furthermore, the design of the schizochroal eye combines this optimum focusing capability with the optimum sensitivity to motion provided by the compound eye as well as the stereoscopic (3-D) vision provided by closely spaced eyes. The design of the schizochroal eye makes it unique among eyes; perhaps even to the point of being the best optical system known in the biological world. (5) This design, in fact, seems to far exceed the needs of the trilobite. (6) The origin of the design of the schizochroal eye is not understood by means of any known natural cause. Rather, it is best understood as being due to an intelligent (design-creating) cause, through a process involving remarkably high manipulative ability. (7) Among available hypotheses, creation by God is the most reasonable hypothesis for the origin of the complexity of the trilobite’s schizochroal eye. (8) 1. Actually, the "evidence" in the Book of Genesis, written by authors thousands of years after the events it claims to describe, is hearsay. Thus it would be inadmissible in any American court of law, because it could be faked. 2. What about Jews, Muslims, Buddhists and others? 3. Because of finding errors in the Scriptures that fundamenalists then attempt to explain away with all sorts of unfounded speculations and even outright lies. 4. If trilobite eyes are so amazingly designed, why did their Creator allow the trilobites to become extinct later? 5. Better than the eyes of man, who is supposed to be the one made in the image of God? 6. This is not a fact, but an assumption based on no evidence. 7. Science says, "We don't know yet, maybe we will find out later." The attempts of religion to fill the gaps of our knowledge with unproven acts of God creates a God whose existence becomes less and less important as scientific knowledge expands. 8. It's amazing how often you see opponents of evolution underestimating the ability of natural selection to improve parts of organisms over millions of years. Didn't Darwin write at length about the eye and its possible evolution in the Origin of Species?

Flint said: I think Wise draws a very sharp distinction between the realities of science and scripture. Wise (again, honestly) according to his own testimony went through his bible line by line, physically cutting out every semantic block that could not be true IF science is indeed investigating objective reality. When he had finished this task, so little was left of his bible that he couldn't even pick it up. Wise testifies (witnesses?) that he realized at that point that either the Bible is almost entirely fabrications, OR the evidence available to our senses, however internally consistent, is an illusion. Wise was faced with a devastating dilemma - either his faith was false, or his senses and intellect were being tricked in some monstrous incomprehensible fashion (and everyone else's were being tricked the same way). Finally, Wise decided his faith couldn't possibly be false, therefore reality must be false. And because reality is false, there's no good reason to misrepresent it. It's all an illusion anyway.

John Kwok said: I won't disagree with your assessment, Dale, but you might wish to read that section in Dawkins' "The God Delusion" which recounts Wise's faithful Faustian choice between science and religion (It would be a tragic segment in an episode of "Masterpiece Theatre".):

Dale Husband said:

Kurt Wise has forthrightly stated that his adherence to Biblical literalism comes first, and if the physical evidence is against creationism, so much the worse for the evidence.

I think that would make Wise a coward, not honest.

Dale,

Dawkins recounts Wise's tragic life-changing decision in Chapter Eight. As I noted in my Amazon review of "The God Delusion":

"In a later chapter, Chapter 8 'What's Wrong With Religion? Why Be So Hostile?' Dawkins clearly explains the difference between an evolutionary biologist such as himself who 'accepts' evolution, and a fundamentalist Protestant Christian creationist who doesn't. Dawkins acknowledges that some may view his passion for evolution as an example of his own 'fundamentalist belief', but that's due to his recognition that the evidence for evolution is so strong, firmly 'buttressed' by ample data supporting it. He cites the regrettable example of one American creationist, Kurt Wise - who earned a Ph. D. degree in paleontology from Harvard University as a student of Stephen Jay Gould's and a brilliant scientist with much potential - 'who tossed out science, evidence and reason, along with all his dreams and hopes.' Instead Wise chose to embrace 'Young Earth Creationism', simply because of his strong faith and belief in what Scripture said about the age of Planet Earth. Dawkins admits that he is hostile to religion because of what it did to Kurt Wise, by subverting his acceptance of science, evidence and reason, and replacing it with a blind adherence to faith. He notes that what Wise did to himself was self-inflicted, simply because Wise could have followed theologians like Bonhoeffer in embracing an allegorical interpretation of the Bible without forsaking the promise of a potentially bright career in science (The same path taken by many eminent American scientists of which two of the most notable examples include evolutionary ecologist Michael Rosenzweig - an observant Conservative Jew - and cell biologist Kenneth Miller - a devout Roman Catholic; the latter's book, 'Finding Darwin's God', receives enthusiastic praise from Dawkins, who notes that he has recommended it to those taken in by Behe's mendacious intellectual pornography.)."

Regards,

John

Flint said: Wise (again, honestly) according to his own testimony went through his bible line by line, physically cutting out every semantic block that could not be true IF science is indeed investigating objective reality.

386sx said:

Flint said: Wise (again, honestly) according to his own testimony went through his bible line by line, physically cutting out every semantic block that could not be true IF science is indeed investigating objective reality.

Am I the only one who has a hard time believing that story? I think he's fulla baloney. Call me cynical, I guess.

It is a Very Good Evolutionary Argument Of Darwinism’s four stratomorphic intermediate expectations, that of the commonness of inter-specific stratomorphic intermediates has been the most disappointing for classical Darwinists.

John Kwok said: That's the sad tale which Dawkins recounts poignantly in Chapter Eight of his "The God Delusion":

Bill Gascoyne said: Slightly OT to Matt G., Why is Swiss cheese an oxymoron? Other favorite oxymorons:
Jumbo shrimp (kudos to Gorge Carlin)
Athletic scholarship
Pretty ugly
Civil war
Non-dairy creamer
Politically correct
Real psychic
Supernatural explanation
Legal brief
Standard option
Old news
Functional illiterate
Self-help group
Digital modem (apologies to non-geeks)

386sx said:

John Kwok said: That's the sad tale which Dawkins recounts poignantly in Chapter Eight of his "The God Delusion":

Yeah I know. I'm just saying I don't buy it. I think he's full of crapola.

As an educator at an evangelical institution, Wood & Wise are very useful to me. I can assign them as readings from a YEC perspective to my classes, and then sit back and watch the wheels fall off for students committed to that view. It's far more effective than merely presenting my own TE views.

If you like this one by Wise, there's even one by him from 1992 where he proposes death before the fall as the necessary consequence of certain pre-Cambrian fossils. I nearly fell over when I read it - a YEC admitting to death before Adam sinned? The contortions required are simply amazing. I can't wait to point it out in my next debate.

The gem in my set of honest YEC papers is Todd Wood's "The Chimpanzee Genome and the Problem of Biological Similarity." I assigned that one in an upper-level course last term. Simply brilliant. Don't read Wood's stuff on AiG - they would never let anything even hinting of controversy on there.

If Christian students are going to buy into YEC, they might as well know what they're getting themselves into...

Don't forget that he helped design displays at the Creation Museum and appears in several of the videos shown there including the one that claims dinosaurs are the reason for dragon folklore.

He may attempt to be honest with others, but he is lying to himself.

John Kwok said: I won't disagree with your assessment, Dale, but you might wish to read that section in Dawkins' "The God Delusion" which recounts Wise's faithful Faustian choice between science and religion (It would be a tragic segment in an episode of "Masterpiece Theatre".):

Dale Husband said:

Kurt Wise has forthrightly stated that his adherence to Biblical literalism comes first, and if the physical evidence is against creationism, so much the worse for the evidence.

I think that would make Wise a coward, not honest.

John Kwok said: Trust me, he buys it and to him, it's not "crapola". I remember how serious he is from my occasional correspondence and even - if my memory is correct - one meeting and phone conversation (I also remember talking about him with his undergraduate advisor, when I was visiting a friend who was a graduate student in invertebrate paleontology at the University of Chicago. Wise even wrote a fine paper with his undergraduate advisor, which was published in the journal Paleobiology.):

A remarkable document that should be of great interest to psychologists and perhaps neurologists. This is not the compartmentalised thinking that characterises those few creationists who are not simply ignorant of the facts, or are in denial of them. Wise knows the facts, doesn't deny them, and is trying (desperately) to accommodate them.

He can't, of course. Even he must be aware that his contorted inventions are ridiculous. He even goes so far as to admit it, with his "not wanting to claim that (his explanations are) a fully worked-out solution". What interests me is that he thinks it is overwhelmingly necessary to attempt them.

What is it about the God-in-a-book that these guys worship that has the power to unhinge them like this? Think of it: they are willing to discard as wrong, irrelevant or illusory practically all the evidence about the Universe that has been collected and repeatedly confirmed over the last two centuries. And for what? For a notion that doesn't even appear in their Book: that everything in it is literal fact.

That idea is relatively recent, easily refuted by a casual glance at the book itself (and the more the subject is studied, the more it becomes obvious), and contradicted by most Christian theology itself. Yet to them, its power is overwhelming.

God must have done it this way. God must have informed every writer of that book. God must have instructed every redactor (and there were many), every editor, every selector of text, every translator (of whatever version is preferred), every copyist. All of them, every one, did exactly as they were told by God, without possibility of error. None of them could ever have been wrong, mistaken, ignorant, malicious, foolish, or politically motivated. None of them could possibly have been simply telling a good story that we misunderstand as factual. No, no, if we interpret it as literal fact, it must be literal fact. God wouldn't permit it, otherwise.

The fragility and unreason of this notion is obvious to anyone outside the cult. Its circularity is blatant. The arbitrary demands it places on the Almighty are glaring. So is its overwheening spiritual pride: we, alone, interpret God aright, which is to say that we alone know His purposes and methods. We can demand as many miracles as we need, and God will provide them. So much for Jesus' reply to Satan in the wilderness.

Why is it necessary to them to think like this? How has it come to this, that a single intellectually shoddy, theologically repugnant and factually groundless notion has been assimilated into their very personhood to such an extent that they will literally deny Heaven and Earth to retain it?

Psychologists, fire away.

Dale Husband said: 1. Actually, the "evidence" in the Book of Genesis, written by authors thousands of years after the events it claims to describe, is hearsay. Thus it would be inadmissible in any American court of law, because it could be faked.

386sx said:

Flint said: Wise (again, honestly) according to his own testimony went through his bible line by line, physically cutting out every semantic block that could not be true IF science is indeed investigating objective reality.

Am I the only one who has a hard time believing that story? I think he's fulla baloney. Call me cynical, I guess.

Does it occur to anyone that you can't ONLY cut out sections from a bible with one criterion (things contrary to science)? Everything you cut out means excising also whatever is on the reverse of that page--which may be something that shouldn't be cut out. Then when you flip to that already-butchered page, you'll have to cut out anything ELSE that you don't like--which means doing even more undeserved violence to the previous page. Seems to me like about half of what was excised was unnecessary--but it makes the destroyed bible that much more dramatic!

I think "cut out" could be understood metaphorically, like Genesis. It might mean using a blue pencil rather than a razor.

Finally, Wise decided his faith couldn’t possibly be false, therefore reality must be false. And because reality is false, there’s no good reason to misrepresent it. It’s all an illusion anyway.

I find Wise strangely reassuring. creationists are so unsettled by the evidence of evolution, but simply saying "look, YOU are the one that thinks god is totally unconstrained by the laws of physics. why do you care about evidence? from your viewpoint, evolution science is a consistent DESCRIPTION of how things look" is often enough to settle them down. this seems to be the context that wise has adopted, even if he is hoping to invent a few just so stories. the christians that look at things this way might still have a somewhat benighted philosophy in our view, but they don't seem to be the ones fighting to suppress inconvenient evidence

it's also nice to see that, apparently, co-existing with Gould teaches you to work from the facts, instead of just making stuff up

So what's the definition of stubborn, again?

I think “cut out” could be understood metaphorically, like Genesis. It might mean using a blue pencil rather than a razor.

Trust me, he buys it and to him, it’s not “crapola”. I remember how serious he is from my occasional correspondence and even - if my memory is correct - one meeting and phone conversation (I also remember talking about him with his undergraduate advisor, when I was visiting a friend who was a graduate student in invertebrate paleontology at the University of Chicago. Wise even wrote a fine paper with his undergraduate advisor, which was published in the journal Paleobiology.)

— John Kwok

KP said:

Dale Husband said: 1. Actually, the "evidence" in the Book of Genesis, written by authors thousands of years after the events it claims to describe, is hearsay. Thus it would be inadmissible in any American court of law, because it could be faked.

Not to mention that Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 give different sequences of events.

One difficulty that I have with understanding the point of view that the Bible says that evolution is false, is that the Bible doesn't say that. The Bible has nothing to say about evolution, for the very good reason that nobody thought about evolutionary ideas, one way or the other, in Biblical times. There is nothing in the Bible about fixity of species (or any other category of living things) or about variation of species. There are the ages of the patriarchs which could be added up, that I will allow. But there are certainly other things in the Bible which much more assuredly conflict with things like the earth being a moving globe, which exceedingly few people have any trouble in reconciling with.

Dave wrote:

"Why is it necessary to them to think like this? How has it come to this, that a single intellectually shoddy, theologically repugnant and factually groundless notion has been assimilated into their very personhood to such an extent that they will literally deny Heaven and Earth to retain it?"

Simple, they are afraid to die. Only if there is a caring, loving God who will take them to heaven can they avoid death. Only if they absolutely know what God wants can they find favor and obtain their reward. This is the appeal of almost every religion. Frankly, only fear is powerful enough to evoke such irrational behavior.

Pointing out to them that the Bible may have meaning in some sense other than just literal doesn't help. They must believe in a real heaven or live in constant fear of death. Unfortuantely, that appears to mean that everyone else must be forced to believe exactly the same thing, that's probably just insecurity. So evidence either has to be ignored, denied or rationalized into oblivion. You can't challenge their beliefs without threatening their immortal souls. Even more unfortunately, denying reality and refusing to accept the findings of science actually has the opposite effect on mortality.

But there are certainly other things in the Bible which much more assuredly conflict with things like the earth being a moving globe, which exceedingly few people have any trouble in reconciling with.

— TomS

To explain all this I would like to propose the existence of an extensive floating forest biome in the pre-Flood world.

I am quite baffled as to how Kurt Wise can believe this still, especially when his Ph. D. advisor was none other than Stephen Jay Gould, and I am willing to guess that he probably had had some interaction with the likes of Richard Lewontin, E. O. Wilson, and even, Ernst Mayr:

John, Wise is an addict, and, being an addict, his denial and ability to compartmentalize are unlimited.

About a year and a half ago, a young man by the name of Marcus Ross "earned" a PhD in geology at URI (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/12/science/12geologist.html?scp=1&sq=marcus%20ross&st=cse). His thesis was on the Cretaceous era, and it was praised by his adviser - but he's a YEC and doesn't actually believe any of it! He rationalizes it by claiming to regard science as a "paradigm". He's at Liberty U now, teaching his students about the "gaping holes" in evolutionary and cosmological theories. He's stated publicly that, although he doesn't feel there is sufficient evidence to corroborate evolutionary theory, even if such evidence existed, he'd still refuse to believe it, as it contradicts the Bible. For that reason alone, his professors at URI had absolutely no business giving him the degree; it's a betrayal of the most fundamental principles of science, and cheapens the degree for those who come after.

Which brings me to my reason for mentioning this - I understand there were those at Harvard who didn't want to give Wise the degree, but Gould argued in his favor. I imagine he felt he was displaying an integrity lacking among creationists, or didn't want to give them an excuse to cry "discrimination", but I feel it was very possibly the worst mistake he ever made. As I say, it lessens the inherent value of the degree, and these characters then take the degrees and use them to validate the Christian cracker factories for which they go to work afterward.

Stephen said:

I think “cut out” could be understood metaphorically, like Genesis. It might mean using a blue pencil rather than a razor.

No, the description quoted in "The God Delusion" makes it clear he is talking about actually cutting out pieces of the text.

Bill Gascoyne said:

Stephen said:

I think “cut out” could be understood metaphorically, like Genesis. It might mean using a blue pencil rather than a razor.

No, the description quoted in "The God Delusion" makes it clear he is talking about actually cutting out pieces of the text.

Perhaps he was using a copy printed on only one side of the paper... (Oh, intercourse the penguin!)

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.

Which brings me to my reason for mentioning this - I understand there were those at Harvard who didn’t want to give Wise the degree, but Gould argued in his favor. I imagine he felt he was displaying an integrity lacking among creationists, or didn’t want to give them an excuse to cry “discrimination”, but I feel it was very possibly the worst mistake he ever made.

Jeff Eyges said: I am quite baffled as to how Kurt Wise can believe this still, especially when his Ph. D. advisor was none other than Stephen Jay Gould, and I am willing to guess that he probably had had some interaction with the likes of Richard Lewontin, E. O. Wilson, and even, Ernst Mayr: John, Wise is an addict, and, being an addict, his denial and ability to compartmentalize are unlimited. About a year and a half ago, a young man by the name of Marcus Ross "earned" a PhD in geology at URI (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/12/science/12geologist.html?scp=1&sq=marcus%20ross&st=cse). His thesis was on the Cretaceous era, and it was praised by his adviser - but he's a YEC and doesn't actually believe any of it! He rationalizes it by claiming to regard science as a "paradigm". He's at Liberty U now, teaching his students about the "gaping holes" in evolutionary and cosmological theories. He's stated publicly that, although he doesn't feel there is sufficient evidence to corroborate evolutionary theory, even if such evidence existed, he'd still refuse to believe it, as it contradicts the Bible. For that reason alone, his professors at URI had absolutely no business giving him the degree; it's a betrayal of the most fundamental principles of science, and cheapens the degree for those who come after. Which brings me to my reason for mentioning this - I understand there were those at Harvard who didn't want to give Wise the degree, but Gould argued in his favor. I imagine he felt he was displaying an integrity lacking among creationists, or didn't want to give them an excuse to cry "discrimination", but I feel it was very possibly the worst mistake he ever made. As I say, it lessens the inherent value of the degree, and these characters then take the degrees and use them to validate the Christian cracker factories for which they go to work afterward.

About a year and a half ago, a young man by the name of Marcus Ross “earned” a PhD in geology at URI.... but he’s a YEC and doesn’t actually believe any of it!

Poor Dr. Kurt Wise I do despise For evolution He denies He writes about Trilobite eyes And for the Bible He cries I think he lies I can't explain him Otherwise.

About a year and a half ago, a young man by the name of Marcus Ross "earned" a PhD in geology at URI (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/12/science/12geologist.html?scp=1&sq=marcus%20ross&st=cse). His thesis was on the Cretaceous era, and it was praised by his adviser - but he's a YEC and doesn't actually believe any of it! He rationalizes it by claiming to regard science as a "paradigm". He's at Liberty U now, teaching his students about the "gaping holes" in evolutionary and cosmological theories. He's stated publicly that, although he doesn't feel there is sufficient evidence to corroborate evolutionary theory, even if such evidence existed, he'd still refuse to believe it, as it contradicts the Bible. For that reason alone, his professors at URI had absolutely no business giving him the degree; it's a betrayal of the most fundamental principles of science, and cheapens the degree for those who come after. Which brings me to my reason for mentioning this - I understand there were those at Harvard who didn't want to give Wise the degree, but Gould argued in his favor. I imagine he felt he was displaying an integrity lacking among creationists, or didn't want to give them an excuse to cry "discrimination", but I feel it was very possibly the worst mistake he ever made. As I say, it lessens the inherent value of the degree, and these characters then take the degrees and use them to validate the Christian cracker factories for which they go to work afterward.

The fossil record is nothing more than a snap shot of what inhabited the earth at the time of the world wide flood in Noah's Day.

Dale Husband said: Attacking Creationists via theological means rather than scientific ones will take us much farther, I beleive.

PC: I call Poe.

Stanton said:

Dale Husband said: Attacking Creationists via theological means rather than scientific ones will take us much farther, I beleive.

You'd think so, but, from my personal experience, the vast majority of Creationists simply don't care that they are blasphemers, and ignore those Hell-bound sinners who point this apparently useless fact out to them (after all, facts are useless to Creationists, ask FL).

John Kwok said: Jeff, what you described about Ross reminds me of Wise's rationale for assigning evolution labs to Gould's students in Gould's Harvard undergraduate history of life course for non science majors. It was virtually identical, if my memory is correct:

stevaroni said:

About a year and a half ago, a young man by the name of Marcus Ross “earned” a PhD in geology at URI.... but he’s a YEC and doesn’t actually believe any of it!

Um, am I the only one wondering why Ross decided to invest all that time, energy and money pursuing a degree based around scientific principals he chooses to ignore? I read the AIG page where he describes methodically taking an Xacto knofe to the bible, splitting it up line by line in to "keep" and "ignore" piles, and all the attendant mental anguish that came with all that. Once I add on all the work that comes with toiling through a graduate program, even in a subject one enjoys.... Gotta tell 'ya, young Mr Ross sounds like the kinda guy who's gonna be needing a lot of lithium someday.

Actually, I disagree. If a student actually understands what science is all about, he is legally entitled to a science degree or doctorate even if he is a Young Earth Creationist. What he is NOT entitled to do is then claim that he is really following the true teachings of whoever created the universe, because the Bible quotes God as saying "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor". I can honestly say that if I were the Creator and I knew that certain people were claiming that a certain book that was supposed to be my Word carried more weight in their hearts and minds than the study of the actual universe I created, I'd be preparing something like Hell for those people after they die. Why? Because they lied about me. That's what I meant earlier when I said Kurt Wise was a blasphemer. Attacking Creationists via theological means rather than scientific ones will take us much farther, I beleive.

Well, I suppose that if one can master the course work and successfully perform original research then one can earn a PhD in science, regardless of one's religious beliefs.

However, it might prove difficult to base a research project on principles that one did not believe in, or to accept results that were contrary to one's faith. This is why almost no one remains a creationist after getting an actual degree in Biology. It is far easier to ignore the evidence if you remain ignorant of the evidence. Once you become aware of the4 evidence, then all sorts of mental contortions are required in order to deal with reality.

Still, the degree is Doctor of Philosophy. Why should the degree be granted to someone who doesn't actually believe in the philosophy of science? You might be able to get a BS or an MS degree without actually believing in the philosophy of science, but a PhD is not just about the course work or even the research. It would seem to me that you would have to be a complete two-faced lying hypocrite to try to trick someone into granting you a PhD in science if you really had nothing but comtempt for science and evidence. That would pretty much defeat the religious motivation aspect anyway.

This would be like someone trying to get Buddist monks to teach them Kung-fu so they could become a serial killer. If the monks found out your true motivation, they might not be too pleased.

Actually, this is more similar to a movie I once saw (can't remember the name). A student comes to an art professor about a grade. He says: "Why did you flunk me, I memorized all of the names of all of the paintings?" She replies: "Yes, but the title of the course is Art Appreciation and I saw no evidence of any appreciation on your part whatsoever."

"Father's [Sun Myung Moon's] words, my studies, and my prayers convinced me that I should devote my life to destroying Darwinism, just as many of my fellow Unificationists had already devoted their lives to destroying Marxism. When Father chose me (along with about a dozen other seminary graduates) to enter a Ph.D. program in 1978, I welcomed the opportunity to prepare myself for battle." --Jonathan Wells, Darwinism: Why I Went for a Second Ph.D.

Most creation science is garbage

... the material that's out there is—uh, I'll hold back and be nice—garbage. It's really atrocious

It would carry more weight if he actually changed his mind. All Wise is saying is that they need better apologetics.

Now, if we want to argue that when they go looking for real evidence and don't find any, then they'll change their minds - perhaps. But don't hold your breath.

James F said: I take some comfort that the "infiltration" strategy can backfire - if memory serves, Denis Lamoureux is an example of this. Think about it: even within the rare group of people with a mindset so stubborn that they pursue a doctorate in something in order to disprove it, the evidence is strong enough to make some of them change their minds.

Jeff Eyges said: John, btw, I said this to you a couple of weeks ago on Roger Ebert's blog, in the "Expelled" thread, but I don't think you noticed it - I admire the way you tackle creationists on Amazon. I haven't the stomach for it. If anyone I know is ever tempted to harbor any hope for the future of humanity, I direct them to the comments on Amazon. That cures them of it pretty quickly! In any case, you're a better man than I.

@Bill Gascoyne (#6):

Was that list supposed to be funny? Most of those are only seem to be oxymorons if you don't understand that English words can have more than one meaning. I thought that was a creationist failing.

John Marley said: @Bill Gascoyne (#6): Was that list supposed to be funny? Most of those are only seem to be oxymorons if you don't understand that English words can have more than one meaning. I thought that was a creationist failing.

Jeff Eyges said: John, btw, I said this to you a couple of weeks ago on Roger Ebert's blog, in the "Expelled" thread, but I don't think you noticed it - I admire the way you tackle creationists on Amazon. I haven't the stomach for it. If anyone I know is ever tempted to harbor any hope for the future of humanity, I direct them to the comments on Amazon. That cures them of it pretty quickly! In any case, you're a better man than I.

John Kwok said: Jeff, what you described about Ross reminds me of Wise's rationale for assigning evolution labs to Gould's students in Gould's Harvard undergraduate history of life course for non science majors. It was virtually identical, if my memory is correct:

Dave Luckett said:

Jeff Eyges said: John, btw, I said this to you a couple of weeks ago on Roger Ebert's blog, in the "Expelled" thread, but I don't think you noticed it - I admire the way you tackle creationists on Amazon. I haven't the stomach for it. If anyone I know is ever tempted to harbor any hope for the future of humanity, I direct them to the comments on Amazon. That cures them of it pretty quickly! In any case, you're a better man than I.

John Kwok said: Jeff, what you described about Ross reminds me of Wise's rationale for assigning evolution labs to Gould's students in Gould's Harvard undergraduate history of life course for non science majors. It was virtually identical, if my memory is correct:

Seconded, and passed by acclamation. Or, if you tire (or sicken) of the comments on Amazon, try plumbing the depths of YouTube. Oh, the humanity.

Why not give up?

Because the literal-mindedness that makes one a decent scientist is the same literal-mindedness that makes one a steadfast fundy.

To treat a work of ancient literary art with respect, the thinking goes, requires treating it like a lab report or a newspaper. Everything has to be literal fact: what, when, where, who, why. Treating a work of art like a newspaper article is the highest compliment the literal mind knows how to pay it. Metaphor, allusion, archetype, symbol, sophistication--what use are these to a thinking adult?

The problem is not always inadequate science education. Often it is inadequate humanities education.

Because the literal-mindedness that makes one a decent scientist is the same literal-mindedness that makes one a steadfast fundy.

Henry J said:

Because the literal-mindedness that makes one a decent scientist is the same literal-mindedness that makes one a steadfast fundy.

Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat????

Because the literal-mindedness that makes one a decent scientist is the same literal-mindedness that makes one a steadfast fundy.

Sorry for being late to the thread. I have been pretty much offline for the last couple weeks.

Todd Wood and Megan Murray in their 2003 Understanding the Pattern of Life use their "statistical baraminology" to conclude Hyracotherium and other commonly cited horse fossils are from the same "baramin."

(By the way,Amazon incorrectly lists Wise as an author and Murray as editor. It is the other way around. Wise was however a coauthor with Wood and D.P. Cavanaugh of the creationist paper the book cites.)

If you concede the fossil horse transitional series, you have pretty much given up the game as the Hyracotherium is quite a bit different from a modern horse -- we call it a "horse" because of many transitional creatures that connect it with modern horses.

Frank Lewis Marsh decades ago also put all the fossil horses into the same "baramin" as modern horses as Wood and Murray point out.