Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Sadly, an Honest Creationist
SecularHumanism.org ^ | Richard Dawkins

Posted on 12/29/2001 5:05:05 PM PST by cantfindagoodscreenname

Sadly, an Honest Creationist

by Richard Dawkins


The following article is from Free Inquiry magazine, Volume 21, Number 4.


Creation “scientists” have more need than most of us to parade their degrees and qualifications, but it pays to look closely at the institutions that awarded them and the subjects in which they were taken. Those vaunted Ph.D.s tend to be in subjects such as marine engineering or gas kinetics rather than in relevant disciplines like zoology or geology. And often they are earned not at real universities, but at little-known Bible colleges deep in Bush country.

There are, however, a few shining exceptions. Kurt Wise now makes his living at Bryan College (motto “Christ Above All”) located in Dayton, Tennessee, home of the famed Scopes trial. And yet, he originally obtained an authentic degree in geophysics from the University of Chicago, followed by a Ph.D. in geology from Harvard, no less, where he studied under (the name is milked for all it is worth in creationist propaganda) Stephen Jay Gould.

Kurt Wise is a contributor to In Six Days: Why 50 Scientists Choose to Believe in Creation, a compendium edited by John F. Ashton (Ph.D., of course). I recommend this book. It is a revelation. I would not have believed such wishful thinking and self-deception possible. At least some of the authors seem to be sincere, and they don’t water down their beliefs. Much of their fire is aimed at weaker brethren who think God works through evolution, or who clutch at the feeble hope that one “day” in Genesis might mean not twenty-four hours but a hundred million years. These are hard-core “young earth creationists” who believe that the universe and all of life came into existence within one week, less than 10,000 years ago. And Wise—flying valiantly in the face of reason, evidence, and education—is among them. If there were a prize for Virtuoso Believing (it is surely only a matter of time before the Templeton Foundation awards one) Kurt Wise, B.A. (Chicago), Ph.D. (Harvard), would have to be a prime candidate.

Wise stands out among young earth creationists not only for his impeccable education, but because he displays a modicum of scientific honesty and integrity. I have seen a published letter in which he comments on alleged “human bones” in Carboniferous coal deposits. If authenticated as human, these “bones” would blow the theory of evolution out of the water (incidentally giving lie to the canard that evolution is unfalsifiable and therefore unscientific: J. B. S. Haldane, asked by an overzealous Popperian what empirical finding might falsify evolution, famously growled, “Fossil rabbits in the Precambrian!”). Most creationists would not go out of their way to debunk a promising story of human remains in the Pennsylvanian Coal Measures. Yet Wise patiently and seriously examined the specimens as a trained paleontologist, and concluded unequivocally that they were “inorganically precipitated iron siderite nodules and not fossil material at all.” Unusually among the motley denizens of the “big tent” of creationism and intelligent design, he seems to accept that God needs no help from false witness.

All the more interesting, then, to read his personal testimony in In Six Days. It is actually quite moving, in a pathetic kind of way. He begins with his childhood ambition. Where other boys wanted to be astronauts or firemen, the young Kurt touchingly dreamed of getting a Ph.D. from Harvard and teaching science at a major university. He achieved the first part of his goal, but became increasingly uneasy as his scientific learning conflicted with his religious faith. When he could bear the strain no longer, he clinched the matter with a Bible and a pair of scissors. He went right through from Genesis 1 to Revelations 22, literally cutting out every verse that would have to go if the scientific worldview were true. At the end of this exercise, there was so little left of his Bible that

. . . try as I might, and even with the benefit of intact margins throughout the pages of Scripture, I found it impossible to pick up the Bible without it being rent in two. I had to make a decision between evolution and Scripture. Either the Scripture was true and evolution was wrong or evolution was true and I must toss out the Bible. . . . It was there that night that I accepted the Word of God and rejected all that would ever counter it, including evolution. With that, in great sorrow, I tossed into the fire all my dreams and hopes in science.

See what I mean about pathetic? Most revealing of all is Wise’s concluding paragraph:

Although there are scientific reasons for accepting a young earth, I am a young-age creationist because that is my understanding of the Scripture. As I shared with my professors years ago when I was in college, 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.

See what I mean about honest? Understandably enough, creationists who aspire to be taken seriously as scientists don’t go out of their way to admit that Scripture—a local origin myth of a tribe of Middle-Eastern camel-herders—trumps evidence. The great evolutionist John Maynard Smith, who once publicly wiped the floor with Duane P. Gish (up until then a highly regarded creationist debater), did it by going on the offensive right from the outset and challenging him directly: “Do you seriously mean to tell me you believe that all life was created within one week?”

Kurt Wise doesn’t need the challenge; he volunteers that, even if all the evidence in the universe flatly contradicted Scripture, and even if he had reached the point of admitting this to himself, he would still take his stand on Scripture and deny the evidence. This leaves me, as a scientist, speechless. I cannot imagine what it must be like to have a mind capable of such doublethink. It reminds me of Winston Smith in 1984 struggling to believe that two plus two equals five if Big Brother said so. But that was fiction and, anyway, Winston was tortured into submission. Kurt Wise—and presumably others like him who are less candid—has suffered no such physical coercion. But, as I hinted at the end of my previous column, I do wonder whether childhood indoctrination could wreak a sufficiently powerful brainwashing effect to account for this bizarre phenomenon.

Whatever the underlying explanation, this example suggests a fascinating, if pessimistic, conclusion about human psychology. It implies that there is no sensible limit to what the human mind is capable of believing, against any amount of contrary evidence. Depending upon how many Kurt Wises are out there, it could mean that we are completely wasting our time arguing the case and presenting the evidence for evolution. We have it on the authority of a man who may well be creationism’s most highly qualified and most intelligent scientist that no evidence, no matter how overwhelming, no matter how all-embracing, no matter how devastatingly convincing, can ever make any difference.

Can you imagine believing that and at the same time accepting a salary, month after month, to teach science? Even at Bryan College in Dayton, Tennessee? I’m not sure that I could live with myself. And I think I would curse my God for leading me to such a pass.


Richard Dawkins is the Charles Simonyi Professor of Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University. An evolutionary biologist and prolific author and lecturer, his most recent book is Unweaving the Rainbow.


TOPICS: Editorial; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: crevolist; kurtwise; richarddawkins; stephenjaygould
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 341-359 next last
What do you think? This thread was posted earlier and deleted, but I have permission to post it again. I didn't see any of the discussion, but would love to see some back and forth on this. I'll just sit here quietly and watch. ;-)
1 posted on 12/29/2001 5:05:05 PM PST by cantfindagoodscreenname
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: cantfindagoodscreenname
Deja vu.
2 posted on 12/29/2001 5:07:53 PM PST by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe
Your thoughts?
3 posted on 12/29/2001 5:10:23 PM PST by cantfindagoodscreenname
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: cantfindagoodscreenname
I am DICE the god of chance, all ye who are evolutionists fall down and worship me!!!!

4 posted on 12/29/2001 5:10:53 PM PST by keithtoo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cantfindagoodscreenname
The writer makes the assumption that there is overwhelming evidence supporting evolution, which there is NOT!!! I took a class at the University of Tennessee from a Dr. William Bass who is an esteemed forensic anthropologist and also a devout christian. He won international university professor of the year (he truly was an inspiration). He left the final two classes souly for the purpose of explaining why he believed in God and creationism and also in evolution. Wonderful man, I wish you all could have taken his class.
5 posted on 12/29/2001 5:14:07 PM PST by volchef
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: keithtoo
Read up on quantum physics? It appears that God does in fact play dice with the universe. Makes sense to me, if I were an omnipotent deity, I'd be bored with a universe in which I knew everything that would happen; I'd want some randomness tossed in.
6 posted on 12/29/2001 5:15:33 PM PST by ThinkDifferent
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: cantfindagoodscreenname; *crevo_list
bump
7 posted on 12/29/2001 5:15:46 PM PST by Libertarianize the GOP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ThinkDifferent
I'd want some randomness tossed in.

Is there really such a thing as randomness? Or is randomness in the eye of the measurer?

8 posted on 12/29/2001 5:20:09 PM PST by cantfindagoodscreenname
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: keithtoo

9 posted on 12/29/2001 5:22:07 PM PST by Thinkin' Gal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Prodigal Daughter
bttt
10 posted on 12/29/2001 5:22:53 PM PST by Thinkin' Gal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ThinkDifferent
Such "dice" would have to be very smart indeed. Evolutionists dance and dance and dance around this point. In fact they are sometimes so brazen as to claim that the random-chance depiction of evolution is a strawman argument... then they pointedly ignore the implication of what they just said. Ah that's theism, and we don't care about that. We're SCIENTISTS.
11 posted on 12/29/2001 5:25:19 PM PST by HiTech RedNeck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Thinkin' Gal

12 posted on 12/29/2001 5:26:44 PM PST by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: cantfindagoodscreenname
Good question about randomness. I guess you could call it randomness everytime a new baby is created. Who knows what you'll get. No doubt, people and bodies do change. In fact many people are losing their incisors because we no longer have a need to rip and tear our meat as in the past. Thanks to a wonderful invention called the steak knife. People are also getting taller. However, this adaptation does not exclude a living and wonderful God who suits us exceptionally well for our environment so that we thrive and multiply.
13 posted on 12/29/2001 5:27:07 PM PST by volchef
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: vaderetro; longshadow; junior; jennyp; crevo_list
Bump.
14 posted on 12/29/2001 5:29:12 PM PST by PatrickHenry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: physicist; radioastronomer; ThinkPlease; OWK;
Bump.
15 posted on 12/29/2001 5:32:24 PM PST by PatrickHenry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe

16 posted on 12/29/2001 5:33:36 PM PST by Thinkin' Gal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Thinkin' Gal
You win.
17 posted on 12/29/2001 5:35:14 PM PST by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: RickyJ;medved;Cultural Jihad
Bump
18 posted on 12/29/2001 5:37:40 PM PST by HiTech RedNeck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
I keep hearing "dice". Organic molecules do not form via randomness! They follow a strict set of "rules" as they bond into complex hydrocarbons. So this randomness we keep hearing from the creation camp is totally bogus!
19 posted on 12/29/2001 5:38:27 PM PST by RadioAstronomer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: cantfindagoodscreenname
dawkins is one of the best. An interesting offhand comment concerning 'deep in bush country', though, does highlight a "problem" with the political party known as "REPUBLICAN"; namely -> the accepted wisdom that it is the party of old-time-religion... meaning unscientific type people. and that is a problem. sigh. sure would like to drop the 'bible-belt' label from the Repubs...and make 'conservative' stand for conservation of the ideals of this country, and not for the denial of a modern world, that is ruled by laws not 'discovered' by various 'chosen people' in a particular desert on a particular planet on a particular time... anyway. Dawkins is truly a good thinker, and mouth-piece for modern science...
20 posted on 12/29/2001 5:39:03 PM PST by colormebemused
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 341-359 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson