Kurt Wise: Dawkins' Honest Creationist

Did you see the video? Here is the link once again:

As I said before, I’m not interested enough to watch an hour-long video.

If the video is like much of what I’ve read from Dr. Wise, he could easily be misunderstood to be saying that what God has revealed in the Bible is trustworthy but what God has revealed in his Creation is NOT trustworthy. I find that both illogical and unbiblical.

(Of course, the tiresome argument which claims “The scientific evidence is subject to the fallible interpretation of sinful humans.” fails to admit that the scriptures are also subject to fallible interpretations by sinful humans. Indeed, that is why even so many Bible-believing Christians strongly disagree in their interpretations of a great many scriptures!)


Take a look for yourself. Wise is not one to blabber scientific nonsense just to fit his view. In fact, if you watch this you will see how Wise borrows directly from resources by stephen jay gould on details about the fossil record which are exactly opposite of evolution expectation.

I dont expect folks to want to view this incredibly packed resourse by a top notched paleontologist that is loaded with detail in the fossil record who are only interested to stand on naturalism. But for the rest of us interested in pursuing truth which includes intelligence as one of the possibilities, this is an incredible resource.

If it’s an incredible resource, you should be able to pick out a few bits to discuss here. What, in your opinion, is his most compelling argument?


I’d be interested in hearing about one of the examples by Gould that Wise discusses. Can you elaborate on this particular point?

1 Like

I don’t stand on “naturalism”. I stand on what is revealed in both the created world and in the scriptures. Dr. Wise has clearly stated that even if the scientific evidence is overwhelming, he will still adamantly cling to his brand of Young Earth Creationist interpretations of Genesis—despite the obvious contradictions. Everything I’ve read by Dr. Wise appears to refuse to make any allowances for alternative Hebrew exegesis and interpretations. Not only does Dr. Wise reject the scientific evidence, he automatically rejects all scripture-based evidence which threatens his position.

Greg, is tradition the ultimate authority? Or should Christ-followers accept the truths which God has revealed in his creation as well in his scriptures? This isn’t at all about the “naturalism” boogeyman. It is about the evidence—interpreting the evidence in creation and in the scriptures.

1 Like

I watched the part of the video with Wise talking about the completeness of the fossil record. Sure enough, he repeats the same lie you posted from his AIG article. Wise claims a 1968 study shows 70% of extant European mammals are found in the European fossil record. Problem is the book ( B. Kurtén, Pleistocene Mammals of Europe ) doesn’t say that. It says most extant European mammals have their ancestral forms in the European fossil record i.e the extant species mostly evolved in Europe.

Wise slips these little lies into his presentation while smiling and waving his hands knowing his lay audience will swallow them in big gulps without chewing.


I cant give highly scientific semantic that would arouse your curiousity. It is really worth an hour of your time. What i can say is that Gould found “high disparity and low diversity” in arthropods in lower levels of the fossil record. Evolution expects low diversity and high disparity. When Gould approached academia on this, he was not given much respect at first bc how it goes against conventional evolutionary thinking.

I remember wise speaking of 21 species of a certain arthropod in the lowest level of fossil record where there are only 4 today. ( I may not be explaining that right. ) so i wish you check out the scientific language directly fr wise.

I dont claim that any of this points to the exact model i subscribe to. I do believe that where darwin threw out a hook and sinker of subjective naturalistic theory of evolution that the scientific world bit into but the rocks tell a better tale and as far as i am learning from Wise, whom i trust, seems to debunk darwin. Meanwhile, Behe seems to have ample evidence on a biological side that also debunks darwin. So far, these misc pieces seem to fit creationism and not naturalistic universal common decent evolution.

It sounds like you are unable to critically evaluate his arguments. You seem to trust his conclusions anyway because his interpretation of Genesis 1-3 matches yours, not because of compelling scientific evidence.


But you are straining gnats and swallowing camels. Wise agrees as i do that thousands of yrs of adaptation produces altered forms of the same kinds. At about the 30 min mark he speaks of research gould produced about high disparity and low diversity of species low in the fossil record…the oppisite of what is expected. He names a dozen or so categories about the fossil record that better match creation w worldwide fload better than conventional evolutiinary model. All i can do is trust what he suggests until i hear a rebuttle.

Wise got caught in a flat out lie. What more do you need?

Wise didn’t claim “altered forms of the same kinds” were in the fossil record. He said 70% of extant species are found in the fossil record. Do you not know what the world “extant” means?

1 Like

Everyone has their expertise. I love to learn on zillions of topics including theology, philosophy, stats, various science etc. And i am pretty good at sniffing political/profit motive in propositions…that is why i emailed wise months ago about my frustration with some of the flakey science in creationists teaching. This is not to say that these groups are bad, but it is to say that there can be stretches in the science…he agreed with me! We both will stick to the most Biblical theology no matter what. But I dont expect wise to just produce bad science to prove himself. I do expect to hear from him nuggets of information that will cause us to scratch our heads about how legit the conventional theories that we have trusted for so long really are

Why do you think Dawkins calls him an honest creationist @Timothy_Horton?

Reference please.


1 Like

Looks like Dawkins is saying he finds Wise mostly honest, more so than other professional YECs.

Dawkins: Wise stands out among young earth creationists not only for his impeccable education, but because he displays a modicum of scientific honesty and integrity.

That doesn’t mean Wise doesn’t slip the occasional porkie into his work as seen above.


Of course i do. Im pretty sure wise is privy. You are still straining at gnats over semantics. The level of information relayed in an hour is not going to allow for detailed handling of every issue. The principles that he gives surface info on are fascinatingly confronting the validity of accepted theories.

Technically, what you and Wise stick to are the most literalistic interpretation of the Bible, not the most Biblical theology. If there is no amount of scientific evidence that would alter your conclusion, then why do you feel it is important to dialogue with scientists that believe otherwise (no pun intended)?


Give credit where credit is due.