Home » Creationism » From Atheist to Creationist: Nuclear Chemist Jay Wile

From Atheist to Creationist: Nuclear Chemist Jay Wile

Dr. Jay Wile is a signatory of the Discovery Institute’s Scientific Dissent from Darwinism. Wile is a prolific writer, and I’m surprised I only ran across his blog Proslogion recently.

Here is a sample:

Early in my high school years, I was a proud atheist….

All that changed when a young lady who I wanted to date (but who didn’t want to date me) suggested that we go to a debate between atheism and Christianity. I didn’t really want to go to the debate, but I did want to spend time with her, so I went. I was shocked to learn that both debaters were scientists. The atheist was a professor of biology, while the Christian was a professor of physics. Both of them taught at what I thought were very prestigious universities. I don’t really remember much from the debate. Partly, I really was in shock over the fact that a modern scientist was a Christian.

the Christian offered a challenge that did stick with me. He said that a scientist’s job is to look at all the facts in an unbiased way and draw the most logical conclusion based on those facts. He then looked out into the audience and said that he challenged anyone out there who claimed to be a rational person to investigate all the facts. He was confident that anyone who did so would believe in Christianity.

I decided to accept that challenge. I sought out books that were written by scientists who believed in God. These books discussed all sorts of data that I was never taught in school, and those data pointed strongly towards the fact that the universe and everything in it was designed. As a result, I became a creationist, but not a young-earth creationist

Now contrast Dr. Jay Wile, a scientist,

to Rebecca Watson: Poster Child of Anti-Creationism who is not a scientist but a — well kind of hard to describe what she is.

Between the two, who makes the more compelling case for their claims?

  • Delicious
  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • RSS Feed

15 Responses to From Atheist to Creationist: Nuclear Chemist Jay Wile

  1. Ah, yes, she’s the deeply confused feminist (?) nerd who posed nude for a calendar and then complained about men sexualizing her.

    What is she? IMHO, a very stupid person.

  2. Barb,
    Whatever her failings it just goes to show she’s a human being just like the rest of us.

  3. I have nothing personal against Ms. Watson, if anything I feel very sorry for her as it appears her life is going down the tubes. I pray she will find the right path…

    Nevertheless, my point was to show, going from atheist to creationist doesn’t imply someone has lost their mind. The two individuals are contrasted to bring home that point.

    Real science can liberate a mind, as it did for Dr. Wile.

  4. For a moment I thought this was some kind of wind up and that photograph of Ms.Watson was a computer generated mix between Woody Allen and stephen Hawkings.

    Obviously not though, but it did have me fooled ;)

  5. I sought out books that were written by scientists who believed in God. These books discussed all sorts of data that I was never taught in school, and those data pointed strongly towards the fact that the universe and everything in it was designed.

    I had a similar experience, however, the first book I read concerning this discussion I did not seek out; although it was recommended by a friend who does believe in God. The author of that book, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, Michael Denton, is a scientist, but as best I can tell he is an agnostic.

    I was shocked! This book discussed all sorts of data that I was never taught in school. (Michael Behe had the same reaction upon reading Denton’s book.)

    It immediately became clear to me that I had lived my atheistic/materialistic life in an ivory-tower, Darwinian-indoctrination cocoon — a cocoon in which all true Darwinian believers are (benevolently, of course) isolated from contradictory evidence and logic that might cause them to apostatize from The One True Religion and its creation story of random mutations filtered by natural selection.

    This utter nonsense is promoted as the greatest idea anyone ever had, but it is, in fact, the most ridiculous idea ever promoted in the name of science.

    P.S.: Shameless promo. I’m giving this stuff away for free, so don’t diss me. I’m just an unapologetic apologist for classical music. Try it; you might like it.

  6. 6

    Creationist are more persuasive when the case comes down to merits of evidence.
    As to character it is a open fact those creationists who can or do reach audiences tend to be of higher quality in character then the opponents who reach audiences.
    Not rank and file mostly.

    Creationists are the attackers at the moment and so a wrong idea would have a higher mean of character from the attackers.
    While the idea being attacked would tend to draw more extreme elements to the initial defence.
    The evolutionists of fame seem more unkind and nasty as opposed to the creationists of fame.
    As the evolutionists feel more danger to maintaining their cause I predict better types of them will start appearing.

  7. Real science can liberate a mind, as it did for Dr. Wile.

    Very cool. Real science has also edified my views.

    However, Dr Wile did say:

    As a result, I became a creationist, but not a young-earth creationist.

    hmmm… there’s still a little more paradigm shifting to be done. :D

    Maybe, some nonfigurative reading of scripture, and a little booster shot from some littel known science will do the job:
    http://www.icr.org/article/4465/258/

  8. Sal,
    Wiles blog link (‘Proslogion’?) in the op appears to not be linked correctly.

    JGuy

  9. JGuy,

    I repaired the link. Let me know if it works. Thanks for the corrective feedback.

    Sal

  10. Sal,
    Thanks. It works now.

    JGuy

  11. @(myself) :)

    As a result, I became a creationist, but not a young-earth creationist.

    hmmm… there’s still a little more paradigm shifting to be done.

    Maybe, some nonfigurative reading of scripture, and a little booster shot from some littel known science will do the job:
    http://www.icr.org/article/4465/258/

    It appears I spoke too soon! Reading in his blog, I find that he is a young earth creationist, now.

    I guess his point in the above post quote was that he did not start out that way first when he became a creationist.

    That is actually how I started too. Former old earth creationist.

    So, score another for YEC! ;)

    JGuy

  12. lpadron writes, “Barb, Whatever her failings it just goes to show she’s a human being just like the rest of us.”

    Of course she’s a human being like the rest of us. However, the rest of us don’t raise the derp level to 11 by doing something (posing nude) contradictory to what we actually state we believe (that women are overly sexualized in today’s society).

    I’m beginning to wonder if she has a point to make and if I care enough to hear what it is.

  13. 14

    YEC here as well.

    It boggles my mind the way some people avoid YEC’s (or having any relationship/connection to them) like the plague, especially when there is still so little known about the universe to declare its age as a fact.

  14. @Blue_Savannah.
    It’s not too baffling. The secular world dominates public opinion, and the popular opinion is that old ages are an obvious fact. And who would oppose an obvious fact, other than say the young earth “cretins”.

    “There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact.”
    ? A. Conan Doyle, The Boscombe Valley Mystery

    There is one subtle advantage to YEC model. Especially, in the prevailing debate climate. It is the most unique model, and provides risky predictions. If it becomes more widely vindicated, it will be one of the top physical evidence pointing to Christianity. Since no other established world view out there has a young earth.

    However, I do have to wonder fi such vindication will happen. Since the helium leak rate paper I linked above, if reviewed carefully, shows arobust non-nuclear clock that screams young earth. Meanwhile, the uniformitarians seem oddly content with the stacked tolerances in radioisotope clocks.

    Time will tell (no pun).

    JGuy

Leave a Reply