Talk:Kurt Wise

August 18 of 2008
It says that the sources cited were retrieved in August of 2008. Since that time has not yet come, I assume this is a misprint.Professor Davies (talk) 02:23, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Mischaracterization
William Dembski would completely disagree with the characterization of "Intelligent Design Creationist" in fact, such an "insult" (as haters would believe) is typical to those who hate Kurt Wise's science. Why are Neo-Darwinists writing this entry? Why do they have their hands in ANY biographical entry about Creationists/Intelligent Design Theorists when it doesn't pertain to them? I'm going to edit it out for the reason stated above...the person that it refers to would completely disagree. Such language has it's root in the Intelligent Design controversy itself, which this article really has nothing to do with.

-Garrett —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.94.72.159 (talk) 23:36, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Intelligent design is considered creationism by not only scientists and some ID supporters, but by the federal court. Dembski can be "insulted" all he wants, but the facts are clear. Agg56tt (talk) 00:34, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Do court cases decide the definition of terms used? Agg56tt, I think you can agree that it isn't fair to label Dembski an "Intelligent Design Creationist".  It is propaganda to push the issue that he truly is a creationist when he denies this claim, and his philosophy on the matter is clearly not creationistic.
 * The judicial branch of government is responsible for interpreting the laws which have been written. Yes, court cases do decide the definitions of terms used. Intelligent Design is creationism. I'll agree with you that it's unfair to label him an Intelligent Design Creationist. He's honest about his fundamentalist views and doesn't need to hide behind the deception of Intelligent Design in an attempt to sneak his religion past the First Amendment. Saying just that he's a creationist would be less derogatory, less redundant, and more accurate. 76.185.61.24 (talk) 11:25, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Also, why are these articles always written in a derogatory tone? Are you unable to present Kurt Wise's position with out having to put in check most of what is said about what he does by random references to those with another view on the matter? It's incredibly biased and not fair to the person that the article is about to write it in such a negative tone. - JorgeK —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.133.211.107 (talk) 05:39, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Because creationism is not science, the correct view according to the established scientific consensus is presented whenever Kurt Wise's position differs. Pointing out the mistakes in someone's argument is not a derogatory tone. Or should we not "teach the controversy" as it were? 76.185.61.24 (talk) 11:31, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Mostly Negative Tone
I have reread the article in its entirety and I really think the whole thing needs to be reedited. Almost the entire article is full of criticisms and the one "positive" comment is one that makes an ad hominem against creationists...characterizing them as "propagandists." Again, I wonder why people who are so interested in discrediting this man are writing this article. Unfortunately I don't have the time to fix any of it other than by deletion. I guess a good suggestion would be to have a "criticisms" section?

-Garrett —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.94.72.159 (talk) 23:50, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


 * It needs improved, but keep in mind WP:NPOV on science. As creationism is not considered science, the article must represent this. Agg56tt (talk) 00:36, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I fixed a quote that was cut short, it made it sounds like the guy decided to stop altogether with his questioning things and choose ignorance (which he may have at a later time, I am not one to say, I do not know enough about the guy, though it seems odd that he is a Harvard geologist rejecting an old earth). The quote seemed odd to me so I checked it out by checking the source and it was indeed incomplete (IMO), maybe the WP editor will disagree but I highly doubt it. "What nagged me was that even if the days were long periods of time, the order was still out of whack. After all, science said the sun came before the earth—or at least at the same time—and the Bible said that the earth came three days before the sun. Whereas science said that the sea creatures came before plants and the land creatures came before flying creatures, the Bible indicated that plants preceded sea creatures and flying creatures preceded land creatures. On the other hand, making the days millions of years long seemed to take away most of the conflict. I thus determined to shelve these problems in the back recesses of my mind. It didn’t work. Over the next couple of years, the conflict of order nagged me."

I added the last two sentences. I also agree that it the article appears not NPO enough and that this "error" is evidence supporting that.

I also realized a source for a quote of Wise was from a Dawkins book when it was also quoted from a Wise source that was in the article already, so I just changed the ref. It was odd that a quote for Wise was from a known opponents book, so it did make me weary of it, but it does check out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.48.76.224 (talk) 01:50, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

oops....left out something

 * a standalone criticism section...not one that includes his views with criticism.

-Garrett —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.94.72.159 (talk) 23:54, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Feel free to add to it. Agg56tt (talk) 00:36, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

John F. Ashton (AFD)
Per WP:SUMMARY I have copied the detailed analysis of In Six Days to its editor's article. There is some contention about the notability of this and related material in the AFD and it would be appropriate for editors to consider both articles as a main-summary pair, assuming that Ashton is retained. Sad to say, but it's still being fought for deletion after 65+ sources have been found. JJB 15:44, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * In Six Days has been deleted as a source even though several grafs are quoted from it. Usually we include significant articles in biblios even if edited by another. I have no intent to revert at this time because three of my adds to Ashton were reverted, but a watchlister may have a comment. JJB 18:53, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It was listed under books, but it is only a book chapter. In addition, as you say, it's in the list of references. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 18:58, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but because of WP:PRESERVE the recommended edit is usually change "Books" to "Bibliography". JJB 19:25, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Most people I know (myself included) don't even list book chapters on their CVs, because it is so easy to get them published. It's different in the humanities, but in the life sciences, only undergrads think that a book chapter is a big deal. Listing a mere chapter as one of this persons "important publications" borders on the insulting. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 20:42, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Your argument is simply WP:Complete bollocks and your edit WP:Disruptive editing. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 18:58, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:SUMMARY does not apply here.
 * 1) This article contains no "detailed analysis of In Six Days" --.
 * 2) To "consider both articles as a main-summary pair" is patently idiotic.
 * 3) "65+" crap sources do not add any notability.
 * 4) The fact that material on Wise was cited to Ashton's book, does not make this material relevant to Ashton.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kurt Wise. 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/20140413145602/http://www.truett.edu/article-list/428-creation-research-center-established-at-tmc.html to http://www.truett.edu/article-list/428-creation-research-center-established-at-tmc.html

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) 14:59, 16 January 2018 (UTC)