Dawkins vs. Real Science
In 1989, Wise earned a Ph.D. in Geology from Harvard University where he studied under the supervision of Stephen Jay Gould. In addition, he has an M.A. in Geology from Harvard University and a B.A. Geology from the University of Chicago. In 1998, Robert Schadewald described Wise as influential on "modern creationism as it is practiced at its higher levels."

Wise has written that "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."

Richard Dawkins comments in his book The God Delusion, "Kurt Wise doesn’t need the challenge; he volunteers that, even if all the evidence in the universe flatly contradicted Scripture, and even if he had reached the point of admitting this to himself, he would still take his stand on Scripture and deny the evidence. This leaves me, as a scientist, speechless."

Note: I find this amusing since Dawkins consistently refuses to debate creationists or even acknowledge that there is a load of evidence against macro-evolution. Dawkins continues:

"We have it on the authority of a man who may well be creationism’s most highly qualified and most intelligent scientist that no evidence, no matter how overwhelming, no matter how all-embracing, no matter how devastatingly convincing, can ever make any difference."
(Wikipedia)

Because Dawkins believes that he bases all of his belief on observational science (it is clear he doesn't when he will not even enter a debate with creationists), he himself will not tolerate or acknowledge ANY evidence against his own beloved god: evolution. And yet Wise will allow all the temporary evidences to go against creation (even though they don't), because he rests on a stronger foundation: the Word of God.

But let's back up. For more than 200 years, there was absolutely NO evidence that Newton's laws of motion would ever be falsified in relation to planetary motion. (I wonder if there were Newtonian disciples as committed as Dawkins then?) Then Einstein came along. There was no evidence at all in favor of general relativity, that is until Einstein first proposed it. But can we really compare this to creationism? No, I don't believe we can. Newton's laws still work to some extent, in real, observational science. Can we say the same for macro-evolution? Not at all.

The theory of macro-evolution is HISTORICAL science, not observational science, like Newton's theories of planetary motion. We cannot come up with a good testable scientific theory (as we can with planetary motion) for origins, because we cannot test things in the past. We can only make assumptions about clues in the present. Is that REAL scientific evidence? I don't think so. However good our theories get, we can never prove history through observational science. That is why we have history class and not just science class. So here is my advice: let us keep real observational science, with all its technological advances, and throw out the historical junk science of Dawkins. Let us turn to the Bible for our history of origins.