Talk:A. E. Wilder-Smith

NPOV tag.
Duncharris, the NPOV tag incorporates text that says, "See discussion on the talk page". But there's no discussion. Can you elaborate, please? I don't see anything particularly non-neutral here. I agree that Wilder-Smith's views are controversial. But the article seems quite careful to neither agree nor disagree with those views. In what way is the article biased, in your view?

Perhaps I should have simply removed the NPOV tag, but I'm curious to find out what the problem is. ACW 20:39, 27 September 2005 (UTC)


 * The NPOV tag stays into the problems are sorted out.


 * Basically there are two issues, the first of NPOV and the second that the article is a load of drivel.


 * The article does not try to explain what Wilder-Smith's alternative to the ToE might be, though from a cursory glance around the web, it's just the usual claptrap. The article then fails to mention explicitly that such nonsense it is rejected as pseudoscience.


 * Instead, the article goes straight into the first appeal to authority based on credentials. It then goes straight into a second appeal to authority based on a quote from a "professor" at a "small private academy in Germany".


 * Now, if he was a significant player in the anti-evolution movement he would have created controversy. I have not heard of him, (and I lurk at talk.origins and so I've heard of most of them).


 * We have not established his importance, and it is possible that he is just another Internet kook. So what are his affiliations (AiG? ICR? Discovery Institute?) where is his publicity material, etc. Dunc|&#9786; 23:38, 27 September 2005 (UTC)


 * So the article is not neutral because you think he is a kook and that creation science is drivel? It sounds like you are the evolutionist-extremist here who is ultra-biased. The article is fine. Stupid putting the tag on IMHO. Oh well.


 * The above paragraph was inserted, not by me, a week or so after I responded to Dunc in the following paragraph. It was unattributed, and might be mistakenly read to be part of my response.  It was not, and I wish the author of the previous paragraph had made that clearer.  I do not think Dunc is an extremist, biased, or stupid.  ACW 16:39, 8 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the quick response. I just wanted to make sure that the discussion page had some justification for the tag. ACW 13:44, 28 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, Wilder Smith dates back to the fifties, so he is definitely not an "Internet kook". I heard his name from creationists a few times. I actually did once read a book written by him, and it is drivel, but not as bad as the average creationist drivel. I'll try to improve the article soon. --Hob Gadling 12:01, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

I read one of his books about twenty years ago- heard him give a lecture somewhere in Houston, Texas. He was well-spoken, but seemed to me (an evolutionist) to have nothing new to say. Nevertheless, the article seems accurate to me. Whether he was as "famous" as some other creationists is hard to say; though that seems beside the point from what I understand of Wikipedia.--JohnRodgers 04:52, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

The problem is that for many evolutionist there is nothing real new, because in their opinion, everything is already said - evolution is a fact, only the details have to be discussed/discovered. That is a great mistake. By the way, Wilder Smith was not a kind of scientist whose books or lectures had the kind of "nothing new", he killed evolution just at the root - and this is surely one fact why people do not want to know him.--Sebastian Hirsch (alias Seppel) 21:21, 5 February 2006


 * I'm pretty sure that among this community of people of good will, we can come up with a description of this guy that (a) sticks to facts; (b) is informative; and (c) satisfies both evolution-supporters and evolution-skeptics as to neutrality. Can we give it a try?  I remind evolution-supporters that merely describing someone's opinions does not mean that we agree with them; I remind evolution-skeptics that describing those opinions as out of the scientific mainstream does not mean we disagree with them.  ACW 21:40, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

NPOV cleanup
Article edited as part of work on the NPOV backlog. Since the article appears non-controversial and the discussion here seems to reflect that, and since there has been no discussion in a long time suggesting further disagreement, the tag is removed. If you disagree with this, please re-tag the article with and post to Talk. -- Steve Hart 17:41, 3 August 2006 (UTC) Steve Hart 19:07, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

A little more POV discussion
I'm on the pro-evolution side, but I agree with Steve Hart's action. Having said that, I'd like to point out some things in this article that raise my hackles a little bit. This hackle-raising is not of a sufficient level to make my NPOV-finger itch; it's just slightly annoying, and I wonder if I could get the cooperation of an evolution-skeptic or even a creationist to come up with wordings that would increase our total comfort with this article.

The article itself avoids stating an opinion about Wilder-Smith, because all the opinions that it contains are safely placed in the mouths of others, either explicitly (as in the extensive quote from Professor von Stockhausen), or implicitly ("widely recognized by creationists as ..."). If any of these opinions were espoused by the article itself, that would be clear NPOV; as it stands, neutrality is preserved at least in principle.

Notice that the article gives no disapproving opinions of Wilder-Smith, nor any links to sites critical of his opinions. The closest it comes is to note that Wilder-Smith's team lost a debate on votes. I should go find some countervailing quotes; I think about a hundred words on the other side would do a great deal to relieve the vague (vague, I said!) sense of bias that I still get from this article.

(Also ... that Stockhausen is really windy. Do we need all of it?)

ACW 21:29, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, as I'm sure you know, WP cite sources, she has no opinion on her own. But I agree this article needs work. If you have some ideas, why don't you give it a try? -- Steve Hart 02:13, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

If anyone wants to add a criticism section...
This may be of utility if anyone wants to add some "criticism" section or something like it. A quite disgusting citation from one of his books:
 * ''"We know of no intermediate stages between invertebrate octopus and squid types and genuine vertebrates."

Which cannot be said to be a lie, since there are no such intermediates, but is surely dishonest, or at least, being overly optimistic, a signal of hardly believable incompentence from someone with his resumé (just in case someone does not understands why, read the text in the link I gave; shortly, this specific intermediate is not predicted by evolutionary theories, but could be for creationisms, ironically). I think that we may found even creationist criticism against this sort of blatant dishonesty, more or less like AiG's site with "arguments we think creationists should not use". --Extremophile 04:28, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

POV based sentences
I moved the following paragraph to here. It claims that the tracks had been forged by creationists, but the reference for the forgery is only talking about the origin of a tooth, which was found near the footprints. I haven't read the other reference yet, but until this is sorted out and correctly formulated, it shouldn't be in the article. A possible misinterpretation is not a forgery. And just trusting and citing the researchers that might have misinterpreted the evidences is not worthy to be mentioned as a criticism about A. E. Wilder-Smith. If there is something about Wilder-Smith's own research then this is a good base for criticism in this article (e.g. about the pre-evolutionary origin from simple atoms/molecules to molecule systems, which can reproduce itself with variations).

''He was criticized by scientists over his claims that dinosaur and human footprints existed at Paluxy River in Dinosaur Valley State Park. These supposed tracks were later discovered to have been forged by creationists who tried to claim humans and dinosaurs lived together. ''

Also the next sentence is not correct. The NCSE did not examine the work of Wilder-Smith in general, but only a review of one book. This book was primarily focused on the pre-evolution phase (biogenesis, origin of life) as also stated on the referenced site. But the scientific criticism only targets on the evolution criticism and how evolution is represented in this book, which was 17 years old at the time of the NCSE examination.

''According to the National Center for Science Education, Wilder-Smith's work contains a variety of falsehoods and errors. '' --77.132.185.204 (talk) 13:11, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Do not remove citations. Yes, it is a book review so what? Yes, he was criticized for claims he put forth (dinosaur tracks) after visiting the site in 1965. Paper45tee (talk) 02:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Wilder-Smith did visit Paluxy river and apparently photographed the alleged tracks in 1965 or thereabouts. He did so in conjunction with Dr. Burdick and from all available evidence was not involved in the research at the river bed except peripherally as a visitor or witness. His CV puts him in Illinois as a professor of pharmacology during this time period, not as a geologist or paleontologist in Texas. His German writings put him in contact with Dr. Burdick and perhaps Taylor both of whom held that the foot prints were human. Further, the criticism in the NCSE's publication is dated some 33 years after Dr. Wilder-Smith visited Paluxy and began promoting these claims. The work to show that these were indeed dinosaur footprints wasn't published till the early '80s. Since this is the only criticism of his promotion of this claim to the exclusion of everything else he claimed in regards to creationism the wording of the article needs to be changed to put into perspective that he was promoting another's claim and that it was done a considerable length of time prior to the NCSE writeup or the research that showed the footprints to be saurian. Otherwise these citations would be taking a non-neutral point of view.Kellnerp (talk) 04:28, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Dubious
The article contains the statement, sourced to his CV, that he was a "NATO three-star general". However his biography (on the same site as his CV) makes no mention of military service (and how do you get to be a "three-star general" without extensive military service?). I suspect that the claim is hoax. I think this also calls into question the reliability of his CV as a source. HrafnTalkStalk 09:32, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * (i) His CV in Fulfilled Journey is very detailed and includes an entry regarding his rank as a 3-star General in the U.S. NATO forces. After he created a post-graduate program in pharmacology at Hacetteppe University in Ankara, Turkey he took the rank of 3-star General in the drug abuse program as a consultant and drug advisor during the period 1970-1977. During this time he also provided drug instruction to the general staff of the Swiss Armed Forces, Police, and Teacher's Seminaries. He was given this rank as a result of his being called to help deal with the drug problem among U.S. soldiers serving in Turkey during the early 70's.
 * (ii) The CV as a source is no longer in question as the rank of 3-star General has been satisfactorily explained in his memoirs. The most complete CV is in his memoirs, Fulfilled Journey . Kellnerp (talk) 15:13, 13 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Not necessarily. In many armies, specialists are appointed in a military rank, even though they have no military experience or combat duty. This is mainly a matter of salary/payment and seniority. In an actual combat situation, such a specialist officer would be outranked by *any* officer around. Pbech (talk) 17:31, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

The problems with that would be: In summation this appears to be most likely a misreading of Wilder-Smith's account of the influence of this general as him being the general, that has spread as an 'urban myth' over the internet. HrafnTalkStalk 18:09, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Appointing specialists at a rank of general would be at least fairly unusual (and quite possibly unheard of).
 * 2) NATO doesn't appoint generals at all, they are appointed by members' national armies and seconded to NATO.
 * 3) The British Army (being the only NATO country that Wilder-Smith is mentioned as having worked in) does not have "three star generals" as their ranks do not use star insignia -- and refer to that rank by its official title, Lieutenant General.
 * 4) There is in fact no mention of Wilder-Smith having served in the army at all. The closest connection is mention of a recently retired general in the British-Indian army who was an influence on Wilder-Smith as a young man.

From Oxford Atheist to Leading Creationist (which is the most comprehensive biography I've come across to date) makes frequent mention of this 'influential retired general' but none of any stint in the army by Wilder-Smith. On the basis of this, I'm removing the "NATO three-star general" claim, and tagging the CV as an unreliable source for making it. HrafnTalkStalk 18:22, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying it's all particularly likely, but it's not quite impossible. I agree that the rank of "three-star general" is rather high: the Surgeon General of the United States Army is a Lieutenant General, and it seems unlikely that Wilder-Smith was in that kind of position, or that specialists from outside the armed forces would be appointed in that position, indeed. I don't know what would constitute a trustworthy source in this case, and I agree that the claim seems somewhat overblown (although your theory of how it appeared strikes me as somewhat unlikely). Since the Dutch article (my home wiki) claims that he was with NATO in 1970-1977, I'm going to try and find a book or an article by him from that time, to see whether any mention is made of his being in the rank of Lt Gen. If I can't come up with anything, I suppose the claim should be deleted. As you already did. Well, I suppose we can always put it back if it is substantiated. Pbech (talk) 18:30, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I have something here: . There are four books that mention his being a consultant to American NATO forces in Europe, and two mention his being a "general", one rather vaguely, the other explicitly mentions "(equivalent Lieutenant General)". I'm not sure if it's enough, but we cannot dismiss it out of hand. Pbech (talk) 18:58, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * This makes even less sense. You do not make a foreign civilian consultant a "three star general" -- particularly not for a "Consultant on drug abuse". Are you sure you weren't over-interpreting an isolated snippet? The closest I can find is "Consultant on Drug Abuse, NATO Forces, Europe & Middle East (equivalent Lieutenant General);" which does not seem to imply that he actually had military rank, only seniority equivalent to it. HrafnTalkStalk 19:21, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The internet hits I've found are always for "NATO three-star general" (or some reordering thereof), never for "Lieutenant General" or for a specific army -- which is part of what made me suspicious. There is apparently a good biographical source: "For biographical information, see Beate Wilder-Smith, "Lebenslauf von Professor Dr.Dr.Dr. A. E. Wilder-Smith, F.R.I.C.," Factum (January 1986): 22, which appeared in a special issue of the magazine celebrating Wilder-Smith's seventieth birthday." (The Creationists p545n38) However I can't find any information on this periodical online. Hope this helps. HrafnTalkStalk 19:06, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * It is possible that this book I found with Google Books is a vanity publication (there is one of the same (rather generic) title by the International Biographical Center), which would then make it difficult to assess the credibility of the source. Anyway, the book has no preview on Google Books, but by cunningly using keywords, I can reconstruct the following (ellipses where I didn't manage ;-). This is silly...):

''WILDER SMITH, Arthur Ernest, b. 22 Dec. 1915. Reading, England. Professor of Pharmacology; Consultant, m. Beate Gottwaldt, 1950. 3 sons. 1 daughter. Education: PhD, Organic Chemistry, University of Reading 1941 ; FRIC, London 1946; DSc. Geneva, Switzerland 1965; Confed Tech. University Zurich, 1964; [...] Consultant on Drug Abuse, NATO Forces, Europe & Middle East (equivalent Lieutenant General); Consultant on Drug Abuse, Switzerland 1971 Publications include: "Die Erschaffung des Lebens" [...]''.
 * I agree it doesn't state his position as a rank, only as equivalent to that rank, and it seems rather unlikely he was actually appointed in that rank. I'm definitely not going to put his "three-star general" rank back into the article based on this, don't worry. I think I'll leave it at this, and remove the claim on the Dutch Wikipedia as well. Pbech (talk) 19:39, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Policy violations in Fred8888's edits
HrafnTalkStalk(P) 03:49, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) WP:COPYVIO of http://www.creationsafaris.com/wgcs_5.htm
 * 2) Factual inaccuracy -- Wilder-Smith is not a "NATO three-star general" (see above)
 * POV: e.g. "He was ... a gifted teacher and popular public speaker."


 * If Fred8888 wants to wholesale remove the citations he MUST explain them here. BBiiis08 (talk) 16:33, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree. I just don't want to get dragged into an edit war, so after reverting a couple of times, I tend to template/tag + comment on talk. Thereafter either (i) somebody else comes along to revert or (ii) if no justification/response on talk I revert again after a day or so. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 16:50, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


 * (2) Wilder-Smith was a 3-star General as noted above. Further research uncovered the connection and is noted elsewhere here. The use of the word "is" is misrepresentation as he is dead.
 * (3) His memoirs note a very aggressive schedule of public speaking from 1975 on till the end of his life. I found comments by people who attended these lectures and comments made about him that lend credence to the comment. In addition he founded Pro Universitate which engaged in presenting seminars throughout Europe on the topic of Creationism and in which he frequently lectured. He also won more than one Golden Apple award.  The POV question can be dealt with by saying, "some considered him a gifted and popular speaker".

Kellnerp (talk) 04:00, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

A.E. Wilder-Smith
people listen!!! you are ripping apart a great guy, why do you care so much about this so much all you doing is hurting people —Preceding unsigned comment added by Godlover32795 (talk • contribs) 19:51, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * because this site is dedicated to facts and the fact is, Wilder-Smith is show to spew falsehoods.
 * Because you're dealing with a sensitive religious worldview held on WP, and Wilder-Smith has blasphemed against it. 76.179.130.102 (talk) 20:59, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

blocked user
I've blocked for a week for repeatedly copy-pasting material from http://www.wildersmith.org/ to this article. Gabbe (talk) 13:53, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Plagiarism?
This edit appears to be a direct copy of this page marked © 2002 Dr. Wilder-Smith. All Rights Reserved. TheresaWilson (talk) 10:08, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

A complaint
I am very disappointed in this article. Like many others articles in Wikipedia there seems to be a bias toward those who challenge the modern evolutionary synthesis whether they be creationist or ID theorist. The article seems to be preoccupied with the fact that he believed there were human tracks in the Paluxy river area, as well as referencing others in the scientific community who disagree but are given the benefit of doubt in having the final word. Wikipedia says that "Wilder-Smith's 1981 work The Natural Sciences Know Nothing of Evolution contains a variety of falsehoods and errors" but this only based on the opinion of Kenneth Christiansen, and Wikipedia makes no attempt to point out any of these so called factual errors.

Even if Wilder was wrong about this the Paluxy river tracks, scientist being wrong sometimes is not uncommon for scientist in general. Even great ones like Einstein, Hawkings and lesser ones like biologist Kenneth Miller have been wrong from time to time, but Wikipedia does not dwell on these examples as they do when they write what are akin to hit pieces by those who are considered creationist whacko's by many in the neo Darwinist vein. Wilder Smith was not a whacko. He was a man who was loved and admired by many, and greatly respected even by many of his own adversaries. I think its not only a diservice to those who seek information using Wikipedia, but it's just unprofessional in terms of this publications bias towards certain individuals. Wikipedia could have at least included his famous 1986 Oxford debate with Richard Dawkins where Dawkins pleaded with the audience not to vote for Wilder on the the debate. To whom it may concern, I would like to offer you the accomplishments of this man since Wikipedia has been derelict in its duties to do so.

A..E. Wilder-Smith studied natural sciences at Oxford, England. He received his first doctorate in Physical Organic Chemistry at Reading University, England, 1941. During World War II, he joined the Research department of ICI in England. After the war, he became Countess of Lisburne Memorial Fellow at the University of London. Subsequently, Dr. Wilder-Smith was appointed Director of Research for a Swiss pharmaceutical company. Later he was elected to teach Chemotherapy and Pharmacology at the Medical School of the University of Geneva for which position he received his "habitation" (the senior examination required for professorial appointments to European continental universities). At Geneva, he earned his second doctorate, followed by a third doctorate from the ETH (a senior university in Switzerland) in Zurich. In 1957-1958 Wilder-Smith was Visiting Assistant Professor at the Medical Centre of the University of Illinois, 1959-1961 Visting Full Professor of Pharmacology of the University of Bergen Medical School in Norway. After a further two years at the University of Geneva, he was appointed Full Professor of Pharmacology at the University of Illinois Medical Centre. Here he received in three succeeding years - three ``Golden Apple Awards" for the best course of lectures, together with four senior lecturer awards for the best series of year lectures. Dr. Wilder-Smith's last Golden Apple award was inscribed, ``He made us not only better scientists, but also better men." End. From his own biography at http://www.wildersmith.org/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by BENNY BALLEJO (talk • contribs) 05:20, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

BENNY BALLEJO: HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:18, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Wikipedia gives WP:DUE weight to the scientific consensus, which is that creationist (including ID creationist) claims are without merit. See also WP:FRINGE & WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE.
 * 2) Per WP:DUE, if reliable third party sources discuss Wilder-Smith mainly in the context of Paluxy, then Wikipedia will do likewise.
 * 3) *As Wilder-Smith's qualifications are completely unrelated to paleontology (or evolution), he is not speaking as a "scientist" on these subjects, but simply as a common, garden-variety "whacko".
 * 4) "Wikipedia could have at least included" ... and does include that "in 1986, Wilder-Smith and creationist physicist Edgar Andrews (President of the Biblical Creation Society) debated biologists Richard Dawkins and John Maynard Smith at the Oxford Union."
 * 5) Per WP:PSTS it is Wikipedia policy for articles to be predominately cited to WP:SECONDARY sources, and places severe limitations on the use of self-published sources for information WP:ABOUTSELF.


 * This is a biography, not a article on creationism/evolution. As such auto-biographical publications should be no problem especially if there are no biographies available. I will be adding some of theses things from his memoirs. Also, wildersmith.org is not traceable to A.E. Wilder-Smith as he died prior to this domain name being created (2002). I have not been able to trace it back to it's authors and the web site is maintained by a service bureau. So it doesn't exactly fit the bill for self-published. At best it can be said to be published by anonymous.

Kellnerp (talk) 04:43, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Surprised
I read some of A.E. Wilder Smith's books years ago (70s). The argument I remember him for was not Paluxy River. I don't believe he did anything original there and I didn't take him for an anthropologist, geologist or archaeologist. If he did mention it I suspect he was quoting others and not a primary source. I took him for an organic chemist working for a pharmaceutical company because that is what he said his qualifications were in the book. His major argument regarding evolution was in his field and regarded the probability of reversible reactions leading to the molecules that evolution implies where needed to arrive at things like DNA. His conclusion was that there was not enough time or matter in the universe to allow for even simple organic precursors for life to form based on probability. I saw no mention of that in the article on him. To not mention his major claim, but rather to mention a claim that he most likely was quoting as true because the investigation on the topic was not completed at the time is certainly biased. He certainly raised some valid questions in the debate that people have been trying to answer for years.

Kellnerp (talk) 15:56, 27 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Paluxy is the main claim of his that's mentioned in The Creationists. Can you cite any reliable WP:SECONDARY source demonstrating noteworthiness for his Abiogenesis argument? HrafnTalkStalk(P) 16:42, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I will be looking at The Creationists shortly. Regarding the Paluxy River footprints I find the wording of the article misleading. That article states, "In 1965 he published a book which promoted discredited claims that dinosaur and human footprints existed together at Paluxy River." However, in looking for evidence of the discrediting of these claims I came across DINOSAUR TRACKS AND GIANT MEN by Berny Neufeld and The Taylor Site "Man Tracks" by Glen J. Kuban. They were published in 1975 and 1986 respectively. The wording of the sentence makes it appear that he intentionally supported claims that were known by him to be discredited. In Neufeld's work he attributes the "man tracks" to the possibility that "...tracks were both excavated and carved as a source of income during the depression years. Both of these collections may well be carvings from that period." Kuban does not address the source of the carved tracks, just stating that he found one. Further, Wilder-Smith was not a paleontologist and was likely just parroting what was apparently a widely held view of the time without the benefit of the further studies that would take place later.

Further there is some dispute about the current condition of the tracks and the possibility that they have been changed by evolutionists or by rapid erosion. Kuban claimed to have done compression analysis of the tracks. The Creation Evidence Museum explains the carved tracks and states that human-like tracks have been found that do show compression of underlying layers leaving this line of dispute in a controversial state.

There are primary sources for his abiogenesis argument such as lecture audio. In reading some of the evolution sites, those arguments don't rightly fit into the evolutionist's definition of evolution because they state that evolution does not purport to explain where the first cells originated. Somehow it appears that evolutionists are moving away from the primordial soup kitchen.

There are numerous publications and original works by A.E. Wilder-Smith from his days as an organic chemist. There is no mention of those.

Kellnerp (talk) 17:46, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


 * (i) Given that the tracks date back to the 1930s, it seems likely that they were already discredited by the time Wilder came to write about them. (ii) There is probably no mention of them because there is no significant (any?) WP:SECONDARY coverage of them. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 02:04, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

(i)Ronnie Hastings wrote a detailed history of the Paluxy river mantracks. He puts the original discovery of the site back as far as 1917 (Schuler, 1917). He makes the following statement, "The scientific investigations of the mantrack claims, which began as early as 1980 and which culminated in strict "young-earth" creationists "backing off 'from their claims in 1986,...". Wilder-Smith places himself at the Paluxy River site in 1965 as shown in photograph along with others. The 5th edition which contains these pictures was printed in 1980, about the time the scientific investigations began. From the text he was in communication with Burdick and Taylor who were the, then, experts on this site. Wilder-Smith mentions "new and original pictures" of footprints and a human tooth were added to the 1994 edition of Herkunft und Zukunft des Menschen. But this was at the very end of his life. He had a head operation in 1994 and died in 1995. All this is to say that the way the article is written makes it appear that A.E. Wilder-Smith could have known the claims others to be false when he wrote which is patently untrue. In a similar vein the other references to his work being false or not up to date were written ten or more years after he published. This suggests a not quite NPOV but rather that there is an axe to grind regarding his creationist views. (ii)After reading Hastings history of Paluxy I get the impression that academia would not directly acknowledge his abiogenesis arguments directly. However there is mention of him critiquing Kenyon. Wilder-Smith also notes that it appears that at least some of what he did in academic circles regarding creation have been censored. He uses the Huxley lectures as one example.

I now have found his full CV in his memoirs. He accomplished much more than lecture and write books on creationism. I would say he was publishing papers on chemotherapy of tuberculosis, leprosy and other diseases from the mid 1940s to the mid 1960s after which he took to teaching and lecturing. In the 1970s he took to working on drug abuse problems which is when he received the rank of 3-star General for U.S. NATO forces in Europe as a Consultant and Drug Abuse Advisor. It appears that in the mid 1970s and on he began in earnest his lecturing and speaking on drug abuse and creationism world wide although it appears that during his stint at the University of Illinois he would have traveled to Texas. In the 1980s and 1990s he appears to have done nothing but speak and carry a very aggressive lecture schedule till his death.Kellnerp (talk) 06:53, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

/* Bibliography */
Completing the bibliography to include all of his writings (or as many as I can find). Publications and writings from his early years were missing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kellnerp (talk • contribs) 16:23, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Should probably add filmography and audiography here too. Kellnerp (talk) 04:45, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Name guidelines
Dr. A.E. Wilder-Smith's name should conform to WP:NAMES.

In one place it is written Professor Dr. Dr. Dr. Arthur Wilder-Smith . However, it would be more informative and complete to write it as follows as he holds three doctorates and was a fellow of the Royal Society of Chemists. Professor Arthur Edward "A.E." Wilder-Smith Ph.D. (Physical Organic Chemistry), Dr. es Science (Chemotherapy), D. Sc.(Natural Sciences), P.D., F.R.S.C. following the CV published in his memoirs. This title alone would satisfy the notability requirements found in WP:ACADEMIC because of the P.D. and F.R.S.C. titles., however, the long list of published papers would do the same. Kellnerp (talk) 05:34, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Is he dead?
It says he 'was' an ......,......,..... I'm changing it to 'is'. If he's dead, then change it lol. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crzyclarks (talk • contribs) 02:00, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

The question of his death was answered with references to published works previously in talk. 1995 is the year I believe. You raised him from the dead in 2012. Good trick. 124.197.155.15 (talk) 08:12, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on A. E. Wilder-Smith. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100907215249/http://richarddawkins.net:80/audio/721-1986-oxford-union-debate to http://richarddawkins.net/audio/721-1986-oxford-union-debate

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 05:17, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on A. E. Wilder-Smith. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100706155848/http://www.creationresearch.org/creation_matters/pdf/2003/cm08_04_rp.PDF to http://www.creationresearch.org/creation_matters/pdf/2003/cm08_04_rp.PDF

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:47, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Scientific perspective
The responses of the scientific community to Wilder-Smith's controversial views have not been given their due weight in this article. I've tagged it with "not all points of view" for now. Karlpoppery (talk) 00:18, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, much as I hate tags. Have made some improvements, see if you think the tag's still justified. . . dave souza, talk 06:55, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Being that this is a biography, not a discussion of the Creationism/Evolution debate, I find it disappointing that there is little discussion or information regarding: 1. Dr. Wilder-Smith's scientific work in his field of pharmacology and organic chemistry. 2. Dr. Wilder-Smith's scientific original scientific work in response to problems he had with evolution that arose from his knowledge within his specialty. 3. The response of the scientific pro-evolution community to the problems Dr. Wilder-Smith raised even if the scientific community didn't directly acknowledge they were answering those problems. I agree with Karlpoppery on this if he meant the original arguments within his field that Dr. Wilder-Smith is known for. 3. Dr. Wilder-Smith's application of his scientific work to humanitarian causes.Kellnerp (talk) 04:24, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on A. E. Wilder-Smith. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20120729035206/http://www.designinference.com/documents/2005.02.Reply_to_Henry_Morris.htm to http://www.designinference.com/documents/2005.02.Reply_to_Henry_Morris.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:18, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Postal address in Geneva
In 1965, as a child, my parents sublet an apartment at 18 Chemin de Lilas Blanc in Chêne-Bourg, a suburb of Geneva. I was always curious about the man that we rented from. The Sign on the apartment door said "Prof. Dr. A. E. Wilder-Smith, MS, PhD, PhD, PhD" (there was a masters' degree, I may be wrong to remember it as MS). The long list of PhDs and the fact that he listed all that on his apartment door always intrigued me. Now, thanks to Wikipedia, I know who we rented from, and now, you know his former Geneva address. Douglas W. Jones (talk) 21:02, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

big gaps?
why these big gaps? nothing about his family background (parents, how come he was atheist in his youth? siblings?), as well as his time during WWII? How come he got in touch with gen. Frost and so on? These details are not to be neglected.

effects on completing oral contraception?
how far was the effect of Wilder-Smiths works on estrogen on the completion of the oral contraception? thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.108.129.198 (talk) 12:42, 16 June 2021 (UTC)