Creationist Kurt Wise critiques secular science on program

Baptist Press ^ | march 7, 2008 | David Roach

[balch3]

“If it’s true that there was a creation, then you realize that means there’s someone in control,” Wise said on the broadcast hosted daily by Southern Seminary’s president. “And if there was a flood -- in other words, a creator who actually judged this creation -- that means we’re in big trouble. So I think there’s every reason why an evolutionist would be very frightened of creationists advocating creationism.” -------- Bingo.

[uptoolate]

Thanks for the post.

[GSlob]

"professor of theology and science"
Hmm... As a chemistry PhD, I could teach chemistry, and could probably spice the teachings with a few entertaining alchemy bits and pieces here and there for historic and entertainment purposes, but to teach alchemy I cannot. Ditto for the astronomy/astrology pair. Thus I strongly suspect that this Kurt Wise is either an unbeliever [re theology] or an ignoramus [re science]. Maybe both.

[King Prout]

this might become amusing.

[presently no screen name]

ONE BIG TRUTH BUMP!!

[voltaires_zit]

If your holy books contradict well founded observations in science, one of 3 things is true:

1) You misunderstand your holy books.
2) Your holy books are wrong.
3) Both (1) and (2)

[brannon]

4) your definition of "well founded observations in science"

[LiteKeeper]

Bingo

[presently no screen name]

voltaires_zit- A mere mortal speaks!!

Dead Darwin, dumb dawkins and all the little darwinettes and dawkinettes VS. God's Word.

God wins - EVERYTIME, ALL THE TIME!!

God created........and there was evening and there was morning, the second day. Not too hard to understand UNLESS you want/need to.

[GSlob]

All gods WERE immortal.

[voltaires_zit]

> Dead Darwin, dumb dawkins and all the little darwinettes
> and dawkinettes VS. God's Word.

The record of scientists versus the record of those who were sure they understood what God said with respect to the physical universe is clear and unmistakeable.

The religiously clad idiocracy is 0 for many, many 100s.

[voltaires_zit]

> 4) your definition of "well founded observations in science"

Some examples that religious folk have had trouble with over the years:

The earth moves.
Germs cause disease.
The earth is quite old.

[highlander_UW]

The earth is quite old.

It just looks old because it's lead a rough life.

[blowfish]

God created........and there was evening and there was morning, the second day.

...posts the creationist, using his computer, taking his medicine, driving his car.
All the fruits of scientists who (thankfully) didn't share his petrified, stunted imagination and curiosity.

[Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus]

4) Your science is incomplete and/or wrong

[Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus]

I'm a chemist as well, and frankly, I find the whole evolutionist line about "amino acids polymerising (via a condensation reaction) in the early earth's ocean" to be so astounding I wonder if they even think before they speak.

[Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus]

...posts the creationist, using his computer, taking his medicine, driving his car. All the fruits of scientists who (thankfully) didn't share his petrified, stunted imagination and curiosity. You see, it's ignorant, bigoted, and frankly empty-headed talk like that that causes me to have no respect for evolutionists. You realise that the foundations of modern science were lain by "creationists", right? You realise that evolution has virtually no impact on like 90% of our science, even much of the biotechnology fields, eh? Further, there's a good argument to be made that the reason biological sciences lagged behind the physical sciences (being called "the retarded child of the sciences" by Michael Crichton back in the '70s) is because they were hobbled by an overreliance on evolution - mainly because bioscientists tended to force everything through the lens of evolution instead of simply letting the observable, empirical science speak for itself.

[voltaires_zit]

> 4) Your science is incomplete and/or wrong

While theoretically possible (as is a pan of water freezing when placed over an open flame), is such a low order of probability that it has never been observed.

[GSlob]

They do think. You see, the natural selection process prunes a combinatorial tree at each iteration, and thus probabilistic calculations, as commonly performed, do not apply. The tree is much less fluffy and luxuriant than it could have been imagined otherwise.

[Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus]

I'm sure the guys who believed in the ether thought the same thing,VZ....