Ship of Fools: Dr A E Wilder-Smith

Thread: Dr A E Wilder-Smith Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=026221

Posted by NJA (# 13022) on :

Did anyone ever meet him?

He is well spoken of.

In this clip he says he's getting on for his 90s but Wiki says he died aged 80, can anyone confirm?

Posted by chive (# 208) on :

Being well spoken off by anti science nut jobs is hardly something to be proud of.

Posted by Wesley J (# 6075) on :

I met him once or twice in the late 80ies/early 1990ies. I found him quite pleasant and well-reasoned to talk to, which unfortunately couldn't really be said of Chive's "anti science nut jobs" who swarmed around him.

Other than that, can't say much.

And yes, according to http://www.wildersmith.org/, he's dead, Jim.

Posted by Wesley J (# 6075) on :

quote:
Originally posted by NJA:
[...] In this clip he says he's getting on for his 90s [...]

Nope, he doesn't. He says "I'm not quite 95", but may need a break later "for a moment pause in the jaw work." That's his sense of humour. Which he had, again quite unlike some of his more eager followers.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

There's no doubt that he was a well-regarded scientist in his day but he seems to have lost the plot at some point - which is reflected in his own copyrighted "curriculum" which has a couple of oddities, most notably that he was a "NATO three-star general".

It is a fact that he was one of the four participants in the 1986 Huxley Memorial Debate at the Oxford Union. The motion was "That the Doctrine of Creation is more valid than the Theory of Evolution". Wilder-Smith spoke for the motion with Edgar Andrew - sometime president of the Biblical Creation Society; opposing the motion were Richard Dawkins and Professor John Maynard Smith.

The motion was defeated by 198 to 115 votes.

Oddly, Wilder-Smith prefers to mention this on his CV as "Presented the 1986 Huxley Memorial Lecture at the invitation of the University of Oxford" which is untrue - the University of Oxford doesn't have a regular Huxley Memorial Lecture. [The annual Huxley Memorial Lecture is given under the auspices of the Royal Anthropological Institute and in 1986 was delivered by Lewis Binford.]

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

L'organist wrote

quote:
There's no doubt that he was a well-regarded scientist in his day but he seems to have lost the plot at some point - which is reflected in his own copyrighted "curriculum" which has a couple of oddities, most notably that he was a "NATO three-star general".

Possibly even odder is the line entry stating he is "deceased", which claims to have been copyrighted by himself in 2002.

The 3-star general thing may be legit. Some NATO countries will assign a temporary rank to you if you are doing some sort of work for them. It's more an honorary thing I think. Three star rank is Lt. Gen. or equivalent in most forces.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by NJA:

He is well spoken of.

By Duane Gish? You're taking the piss! [Killing me]

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:

The 3-star general thing may be legit. Some NATO countries will assign a temporary rank to you if you are doing some sort of work for them. It's more an honorary thing I think. Three star rank is Lt. Gen. or equivalent in most forces.

I know times change but three-star generals are rare birds, eg, Monty was a three-star general in Africa. What is strange though is that he doesn't appear to have any rank in any nation's armed forces, just "NATO", making it as difficult to disprove as it is to prove. How odd for a Yeccie.

I reckon he was a good scientist who went off the rails late on. Not so very unusual. Dawkins isn't so very different in that respect.

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

Sioni Sais wrote

quote:
I know times change but three-star generals are rare birds, eg, Monty was a three-star general in Africa. What is strange though is that he doesn't appear to have any rank in any nation's armed forces, just "NATO", making it as difficult to disprove as it is to prove. How odd for a Yeccie.

Yes, it's meaningless on its own without knowing who might have bestowed the rank. It's difficult to know at this distance whether such a claim was made by him or is due to a naive acolyte. His website has obviously been edited.

Posted by Wesley J (# 6075) on :

The only source I've found for "A E Wilder-Smith NATO general" is German-language Wikipedia, which claims he was a NATO advisor on drugs (drug abuse within NATO forces, that is) from 1970 to 1977, with said rank. He appears to have developed drug rehab programmes, given lectures and all that. Could make sense, I reckon, seeing he was a pharmacologist.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

It was nothing to do with the UK - we don't give honorary military rank to anyone other than honorary regimental colonels, usually royalty.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

AIUI civilians on attachment to or doing work for the forces are or were sometimes given an equivalent rank to allow them to use particular messes and ease any questions of seniority in respect of their forces colleagues - am I right? Ex-service shipmates may know.
But even if I'm correct about this, I've never heard of this being continued after the job has ended- even if the job required an equivalent rank as exalted as Lieutenant-General.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0