Silly Creationist

[Statler Waldorf]

---

I found a creationist who seems almost halfway sane. Kurt Wise, a former student of Stephen Jay Gould. He admits that creationism doesn't have much scientific evidence going for it. Unfortunately, he still holds onto the hope something might happen to support the belief he has in god. Ah well.

"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." - Dr. Kurt Wise, PhD, Geology, Harvard.

"Halfway" seems to be extending a bit too much to Dr. Wise.

---

Dr. Wise's pre-commitment to scripture is no different than your side's pre-commitment to materialism...

"We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.
It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. "

- Professor Richard Lewontin

You know very well that even if all the evidence pointed to a supernatural creation (which I believe it does) you would still be a materialist.

---

I didn't know we were specifically dealing with "young-earth" creationists. I thought we were talking merely of Dawkins debating creationists, which ID proponents are, even if in veiled fashion.

As for the serious scientific academic journals, what major hoaxes have they promoted? I'm curious.

Dawkins was saying he would not debate creationists even before he debated those ID guys.

I do not accept your assertion that ID is synonymous with creationism. I'd have more respect for the movement if it were. There are ID proponents that believe in panspermia, which is hardly creationism.
Some instances of fraud in secular journals include, the Piltdown man hoax, Hwang Woo-suk’s falsified data relating to embryonic stem cell/cloning research, “stone age” relics found by German anthropologist Professor Reiner Protsch von Zieten, and a series of papers on superconductivity by Jan Hendrik Schön published in Nature. Not too mention the loads of excellent research turned down by these journals. It’s a corrupt system.