Creationism - National Center for Science Education
Creationism - National Center for Science Education Creationism - National Center for Science Education
which he presents Gap Theory creationism; in 1981 these were published in English as a book, The Mystery of Creation. 32 One interesting sub-category of creationism is the theory that the written characters of the Chinese language retain depictions of the story of Creation, Adam and Eve, and the Flood of Genesis, based on the fundamentalist premise that all peoples and nations are descended from Noah a few thousand years ago. This theory was first elaborated in Genesis and the Chinese (1950) by Khang Kiat Tien. Khang was born a Catholic in Singapore, but later became a Seventh-day Adventist missionary in China. In his book (available in a 1985 reprint by an Adventist publisher), Khang analyzes many Chinese characters related to the Genesis story and uncovers their original Christian origins. These ancient Chinese certainly seemed to know the creation story more thoroughly than we do, though we have the Bible record. yet how few believe it! They choose rather to place credence in evolutionary theories which certainly require more faith to believe than the Bible testimony. (Khang 1950:97] Ethel Nelson, at the time a medical pathologist at a Massachusetts hospital who had formerly lived in Thailand, continued Khang’s research (she spells his name “Kang”) in The Discovery of Genesis: How the Truths of Genesis Were Found Hidden in the Chinese Language (Kang and Nelson 1979), which has a Foreword by Lutheran creationist Paul Zimmerman. Nelson’s technique is to select various characters from ancient oracular bone inscriptions and bronzeware, later seal inscriptions, and more modern hieroglyphic forms, and to show how these depict the elements of the story of Creation and the Flood. Various radicals, for instance, are interpreted as depicting the Trinity, God creating man out of the earth, the Garden of Eden, Noah’s Ark, the creation of Eve from Adam, etc. Nelson further developed this idea in Mysteries Confucius Couldn’t Solve: Analysis of Ancient Facts Shared with Hebrew Scripture (Nelson and Broadberry 1986), co-authored with a medical lab specialist in Taiwan who is fluent in Chinese. Kinji Imanishi, a Japanese biologist and also a renowned explorer, is Japan’s most popular writer on evolution. “Indeed, it would not be unreasonable to say that in Japan the average intelligent layman’s understanding of evolution stems in great measure from the writings and innumerable interviews given by Imanishi” (Halstead 1985: 587). Halstead says that many Japanese consider him as important as Darwin. In Imanishi’s view, which self-consciously reflects Japanese culture, the group—not the individual—is the important unit of evolution. He stresses the underlying harmony in nature rather than struggle. Though an evolutionist, Imanishi is strongly anti-Darwinian. He maintains that Darwinism is based on Western European culture and religion. He rejects any notion of ‘survival of the fittest.’ Not only is intraspecific competition non-existent, interspecific competition does not exist either. Species “choose” to seek new habitats, and then diverge. Halstead notes that the crude selectionism which Imanishi has always opposed was also espoused by the militaristic and authoritarian rulers of Japan at the turn of the century (1985:588). Rivista di Biologia is an anti-Darwinian (though not creationist) Italian journal edited by Giuseppe Sermonti. Søren Løvtrup, a macro-mutationist, is a vice-director; the 32 Nee founded the Local Church movement, now led by Witness Lee of Anaheim, California, with 130,000 members in Taiwan and the U.S.
oard of advisors includes Gunther Stent 33 of UC Berkeley and Mae-Wan Ho of The Open University in England. Another vice-director is Atuhiro Sibatani, a Japanese biologist who once criticized Imanishi’s views, but later converted to them. LEADERS, FOLLOWERS, AND MID-LEVEL ACTIVISTS Henry. Morris and Duane Gish (ICR president and chief theoretician, and ICR vice president and chief debater, respectively) are very well known to friend and foe alike; there are a few other creationists with national reputations, but none so widely recognized. So prominent are Morris and Gish that many people, again on both sides, are tempted to equate them with the creationist movement. Though they have been by far the most effective leaders in the popularization and dramatic upsurge of creation-science, they did not create it out of nothing. It is important to remember that if Morris and Gish did not exist, there would still be many people ready to take up arms against evolution, and a deep reservoir of anti-evolutionist sentiment among the public ready to be tapped and exploited. Also well known (at the other end of the spectrum) are various measurements of the public’s acceptance of creationism and distrust of evolution. Two widely-reported polls conducted during the California textbook controversies in the 1970s have already been mentioned. The Seventh-day Adventists of Crescent City conducted one poll for the Del Norte County Unified School District in the northwestern corner of the state in 1973. To the question “Should evolution be taught in public schools?,” 58% responded Yes, and 34% said No. To the question “Should creation be taught in public schools?,” 89% said Yes, and 8% said No. Another poll, in Cupertino Union School District near San Jose and high-tech Silicon Valley, was conducted by the Citizens for Scientific Creation, who surveyed 2,000 random households. 84.3% responded Yes to the question “Should scientific evidence for creation be presented along with evolution?”; 7.8% said No. A 1981 AP/NBC poll indicated that 86% of the public nationwide favored the inclusion of creationism in public schools. A 1982 Gallup poll showed that 44% of Americans believed in recent creation. Other polls have fairly consistently confirmed that from about 70% to well over 80% agree that creationism should be presented in schools as well as evolution. It seems clear from these results that not only do fundamentalist creationists constitute a sizable segment of the population, but also that a great many other Americans —a large majority, in fact—are impressed by the “equal time” or “balanced treatment” arguments: that it is only “fair” to present the minority “scientific” view as well as the established scientific theory. More recently, questionnaires were sent to 400 randomlyselected biology teachers nationwide; of the 200 who responded, 30% said they would teach divine creation rather than evolution if they had to choose, and 19% thought that humans co-existed with dinosaurs (“Biology Teachers’ Responses Stun Pollsters,” 1988). Without underrating the importance of highly visible leaders such as Morris and Gish, and the obvious significance of the widespread acceptance of creationism among the public, there is another level which is much less reported on or analyzed, yet of great 33 Stent opposes “hyper-evolutionism”—the insistence that all evolved features and traits must be the result of natural selection. In “Scientific Creationism: Nemesis of Sociobiology” (1984), he expresses the hope that creationism and sociobiology will wipe each other out.
- Page 115 and 116: lawful process. This “lawful” o
- Page 117 and 118: used Gillespie’s argument to argu
- Page 119 and 120: The Bible, says Van Til, as God’s
- Page 121 and 122: make it conform to this straightfor
- Page 123 and 124: If the Bible and Christ and Christi
- Page 125 and 126: Jesus was either a “lunatic or th
- Page 127 and 128: EVOLUTION AS MAN’S ESCAPE FROM GO
- Page 129 and 130: Design, according to fundamentalist
- Page 131 and 132: disease, death, and decay all origi
- Page 133 and 134: “If God had not given each specie
- Page 135 and 136: In a book on astronomy, John Whitco
- Page 137 and 138: Pentecostalists typically affirm be
- Page 139 and 140: member. In the 1920s, Aimee Semple
- Page 141 and 142: James Kennedy, pastor of Coral Ridg
- Page 143 and 144: ook, calling it ‘a fairy tale,’
- Page 145 and 146: In the second half of his book O’
- Page 147 and 148: any species from another species. I
- Page 149 and 150: never heard of Marra before, but I
- Page 151 and 152: accuse him, as already noted, of fo
- Page 153 and 154: Jay Sekulow is a lawyer who represe
- Page 155 and 156: to “internal” evidence, Islamic
- Page 157 and 158: What initially strikes the reader c
- Page 159 and 160: Journal of the Victoria Institute,
- Page 161 and 162: (all of ICR and/or CRS), and Malcol
- Page 163 and 164: Creationism in South Africa is infl
- Page 165: also includes other Bible-science i
- Page 169 and 170: Evolution on Trial (1985), one of s
- Page 171 and 172: sponsored by UCLA, and partly funde
- Page 173 and 174: Christianity, then emigrated to Can
- Page 175 and 176: R.G. Elmendorf, the whimsical Catho
- Page 177 and 178: YOUNG-EARTH CREATIONISM CHAPTER 6 D
- Page 179 and 180: attacking evolution. Of the three,
- Page 181 and 182: (1970), arguing for the Gap Theory.
- Page 183 and 184: “These extinct animals and vegeta
- Page 185 and 186: Prior to Darwin the Gap Theory was
- Page 187 and 188: survived the catastrophic judgment
- Page 189 and 190: ut it did at least welcome all such
- Page 191 and 192: Convinced of the geological ages an
- Page 193 and 194: Science (1862), by Mrs. George J.C.
- Page 195 and 196: evidence for evolution, even in its
- Page 197 and 198: P.J. Wiseman, a British air commodo
- Page 199 and 200: ut he also criticizes “hyper-orth
- Page 201 and 202: espect, except in this one, that th
- Page 203 and 204: Men complain, however, that God wou
- Page 205 and 206: Davidheiser does not speculate whet
- Page 207 and 208: Paul Johnson, in Creation (1938), a
- Page 209 and 210: “fundamentalist groups-.called sc
- Page 211 and 212: God precipitated by shifting the ea
- Page 213 and 214: Heavenlies (1984). This book gives
- Page 215 and 216: contemptuous of academics, scientis
which he presents Gap Theory creationism; in 1981 these were published in English as a<br />
book, The Mystery of Creation. 32<br />
One interesting sub-category of creationism is the theory that the written<br />
characters of the Chinese language retain depictions of the story of Creation, Adam and<br />
Eve, and the Flood of Genesis, based on the fundamentalist premise that all peoples and<br />
nations are descended from Noah a few thousand years ago. This theory was first<br />
elaborated in Genesis and the Chinese (1950) by Khang Kiat Tien. Khang was born a<br />
Catholic in Singapore, but later became a Seventh-day Adventist missionary in China. In<br />
his book (available in a 1985 reprint by an Adventist publisher), Khang analyzes many<br />
Chinese characters related to the Genesis story and uncovers their original Christian<br />
origins.<br />
These ancient Chinese certainly seemed to know the creation story more thoroughly than we do, though we<br />
have the Bible record. yet how few believe it! They choose rather to place credence in evolutionary<br />
theories which certainly require more faith to believe than the Bible testimony. (Khang 1950:97]<br />
Ethel Nelson, at the time a medical pathologist at a Massachusetts hospital who had<br />
<strong>for</strong>merly lived in Thailand, continued Khang’s research (she spells his name “Kang”) in<br />
The Discovery of Genesis: How the Truths of Genesis Were Found Hidden in the Chinese<br />
Language (Kang and Nelson 1979), which has a Foreword by Lutheran creationist Paul<br />
Zimmerman. Nelson’s technique is to select various characters from ancient oracular<br />
bone inscriptions and bronzeware, later seal inscriptions, and more modern hieroglyphic<br />
<strong>for</strong>ms, and to show how these depict the elements of the story of Creation and the Flood.<br />
Various radicals, <strong>for</strong> instance, are interpreted as depicting the Trinity, God creating man<br />
out of the earth, the Garden of Eden, Noah’s Ark, the creation of Eve from Adam, etc.<br />
Nelson further developed this idea in Mysteries Confucius Couldn’t Solve: Analysis of<br />
Ancient Facts Shared with Hebrew Scripture (Nelson and Broadberry 1986), co-authored<br />
with a medical lab specialist in Taiwan who is fluent in Chinese.<br />
Kinji Imanishi, a Japanese biologist and also a renowned explorer, is Japan’s most<br />
popular writer on evolution. “Indeed, it would not be unreasonable to say that in Japan<br />
the average intelligent layman’s understanding of evolution stems in great measure from<br />
the writings and innumerable interviews given by Imanishi” (Halstead 1985: 587).<br />
Halstead says that many Japanese consider him as important as Darwin. In Imanishi’s<br />
view, which self-consciously reflects Japanese culture, the group—not the individual—is<br />
the important unit of evolution. He stresses the underlying harmony in nature rather than<br />
struggle. Though an evolutionist, Imanishi is strongly anti-Darwinian. He maintains that<br />
Darwinism is based on Western European culture and religion. He rejects any notion of<br />
‘survival of the fittest.’ Not only is intraspecific competition non-existent, interspecific<br />
competition does not exist either. Species “choose” to seek new habitats, and then<br />
diverge. Halstead notes that the crude selectionism which Imanishi has always opposed<br />
was also espoused by the militaristic and authoritarian rulers of Japan at the turn of the<br />
century (1985:588).<br />
Rivista di Biologia is an anti-Darwinian (though not creationist) Italian journal<br />
edited by Giuseppe Sermonti. Søren Løvtrup, a macro-mutationist, is a vice-director; the<br />
32 Nee founded the Local Church movement, now led by Witness Lee of Anaheim, Cali<strong>for</strong>nia, with<br />
130,000 members in Taiwan and the U.S.