Creationism - National Center for Science Education
Creationism - National Center for Science Education Creationism - National Center for Science Education
compromise this interpretation and must be firmly rejected; the only alternative, therefore, is the complete and deliberate re-interpretation of all science and history. Among organizations most obviously influenced by Reconstructionism is the Coalition on Revival, a Dominion group that promotes fulfillment of the biblical inerrantist view in all aspects of life: the arts, society, political science—everything. Directors of COR include several prominent Reconstructionists (but also many premills). COR has engaged in flamboyant public presentations, at the Capitol in Washington, of its manifestoes demanding acceptance of a Christian worldview. Its “sphere” documents are charters for this total biblical restructuring of society. The Science and Technology “sphere” is chaired by Duane Gish of ICR. COR’s Science and Technology “Sphere Document” (Gish and Cunningham 1986) is of course explicitly biblical and emphatically creationist. Some excerpts: We affirm that each biological life form was specially created by God as a definite kind, and that all natural variations in life forms have been and are limited to variations within that kind (Genesis 1:11,12,21,24,25; 1 Corinthians 15:38,39). We deny that life arose from non-life through any evolutionary process, and that the various basic types of plants and animals have arisen from a common ancestor (Psalm 104:30; Acts 17:25)… We affirm that Adam and Eve were specially created by God and were the first human beings... We deny that mankind arose from apelike ancestors through any evolutionary process... We affirm that the Biblical record of history in Genesis 1-11 (including the creation of the universe and its inhabitants in the six days of the Creation Week, the Fall of man, the worldwide flood of Noah’s time, and the origin of languages and the dispersal of mankind from the Tower of Babel) is an accurate and historical account... We affirm that the Genesis flood was a worldwide aqueous catastrophe that overflowed the entire world... We affirm that the genealogical histories recorded in the Bible, as well as many physical time clocks, indicate that the earth is young. [1986:6-7] It denies that mankind can be saved through science or any merely human endeavor, and declares that science must be biblically centered. (It also supports military spending, and rejects UCLA historian of science Lynn White’s theory (1967) that the ecological crisis was precipitated by an exploitative attitude fostered by the Genesis Mandate commanding man to “take dominion” over the earth. Maranatha Campus Ministries, sponsor of the 1988 Creation Conference and of the Society for Creation Science, is another aggressively Dominion-oriented group, and is praised by Reconstructionists. (See, e.g., Broocks’ Change the Campus, Change the World! [1985] and his keynote address “The Battle Has Just Begun” to the 1987 National Creation Conference.) The Providence Foundation of Virginia, which has close ties with Maranatha, says that “Christianity must permeate every aspect of life in a nation if that nation desires to be free,” and urges that Christianity be brought into public affairs in order to extend the kingdom of God on earth. Televangelist D. James Kennedy is strongly influenced by Reconstructionism, and has featured Reconstructionists on his TV programs. His Coral Ridge Ministries is listed in Gary DeMar’s God and Government (1982) as a “Christian reconstruction” organization dedicated to advancing the kingdom of Christ. Francis Schaeffer has also been strongly influenced by Reconstructionism; his A Christian Manifesto (1981) is largely based on Reconstructionist ideas. Other Reconstructionist organizations (all of them strongly creationist) are Gary North’s Institute for Christian Economics in Texas, Gary DeMar’s American Vision, the
Plymouth.Rock Foundation of New Hampshire, Pat Robertson’s Freedom Council, John Whitehead’s Rutherford Institute, and several others. Gary North, editor of the premiere J. Christian Reconstruction which was devoted to creationism, is Rushdoony’s son-in-law (though they have had a rift over doctrinal matters). North insists, in Unholy Spirits: Occultism and New Age Humanism (1986), that humanism, which includes evolution, is based on irrationalism as much as on rationalism, and is fundamentally the same as occultism and Satanism. “Thus, as the West has become increasingly atheistic and Darwinian, it has become vulnerable to antirational social philosophies and practices.” Not that North disputes the reality of the occult: on the contrary, he presents massively documented chapters asserting the reality of the paranormal and the occult, including the most sensational reports, but he attributes them to the powers of Satan and his demons. In Is the World Running Down? (1988), North vigorously promotes biblical creationism. Scientific creationists are wrong, he says, in appealing to the entropy argument. Appealing himself to post-millennialist eschatology and biblical presuppositionalism, he declares that the world is not running down. He accuses the “scientific creationists” of paying too much attention to the Fall (entropy), and not enough to the Resurrection, and of relying on evidentialist apologetics. “What I present in this book is a Bible-based case against the prevailing apologetic approach of most scientifically trained six-day creationists” (1988:x). North praises creation-scientists for attacking evolution, but says they have not gone far enough. What I want to do in this book is strengthen the case for six-day creationism. I have become convinced that the Scientific Creationists have been much too soft and academically gracious in their dealings with Godhating Darwinian scientists. These defenders of the faith have not “gone for the jugular” of their opponents, for they have accepted too many of their opponents’ illegitimate ground rules in the debate. This insight regarding the proper starting point in all debate has been forcefully argued by Cornelius Van and the unwillingness of the Creation Science movement to understand his point and adopt his apologetic method has crippled their own efforts as surely as their debate points have crippled their Darwinist opponents. [1988:xii] North accuses Scientific Creationists of supposing, like evolutionists, that man’s autonomous mind can judge God’s Truth, instead of realizing they must “go to the Bible for their source of scientific knowledge.” Half a dozen of the most forensically skilled of the Scientific Creationists have been tactically successful in many brief public debates with Darwinists, but only because of the weak scientific case for Darwinism and the weak debaters who foolishly agreed to show up. [N]evertheless, Scientific Creationists-.have not yet begun to offer a systematic, comprehensive alternative worldview to the dominant Darwinian paradigm. They have failed to recognize clearly that the heart of Darwinism’s hold on the thinking of the modern world is not the evolutionists’ scientific case, which has been remarkably weak from the beginning, but rather the very worldview of Darwinism, for it conforms to the primary long-term goal of autonomous man: to escape from God’s judgements, historical and final. By narrowing the focus of their chosen intellectual battleground, Scientific Creationists have not yet successfully attacked the soft underbelly of Darwinism: historical despair. Scientific Creationists, by proclaiming the sovereignty of the entropy process, have also immersed their own worldview in historical despair. They can offer Darwinists and their followers only an escape from history: Jesus’ second coming. Historical escape is exactly what New Age mystics offer them, but without asking them to give up the fundamental principle of their Darwinian religion: an escape from God’s judgments. Which, if either, of these escapist religious appeals should we expect to win the hearts of Darwinian humanists, New Age
- 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
- Page 217 and 218: may be closer to the actual intent
- Page 219 and 220: addressed to Christian students fac
- Page 221 and 222: Despite disclaiming any direct link
- Page 223 and 224: life are so infinitesimally small t
- Page 225 and 226: an article which originally appeare
- Page 227 and 228: standard creationist arguments as t
- Page 229 and 230: Noah and the animals left the ark w
- Page 231 and 232: The Duke of Argyll, in Primeval Man
- Page 233 and 234: science from UC Berkeley; his other
- Page 235 and 236: “true” science, was based on th
- Page 237 and 238: and Eve. The most vigorous attack o
- Page 239 and 240: millennialism which has been a main
- Page 241: The basis of evolutionary theories
- Page 245 and 246: ights of Christian students, though
- Page 247 and 248: Charles Magne cites Rushdoony appro
- Page 249 and 250: Materialists have been repeating ov
- Page 251 and 252: CONCLUSIONS Because the main assump
- Page 253 and 254: Historical and cultural conditions
- Page 255 and 256: the standard proofs of evolution. E
- Page 257 and 258: Barnes proposed an exponential decr
- Page 259 and 260: 1973 Our Awesome Universe. Pasadena
- Page 261 and 262: .......1975 Adam and the Ape: A Chr
- Page 263 and 264: Bowler, Peter .......1984 Evolution
- Page 265 and 266: .......1976 The Ark. Chino CA: Chic
- Page 267 and 268: .......1971 The Exodus Problem and
- Page 269 and 270: .......1979 [1975] The First Genesi
- Page 271 and 272: Dewar, Douglas, and H.S. Shelton ..
- Page 273 and 274: .......1833 General View of the Geo
- Page 275 and 276: Gange, Robert A. .......1986 Origin
- Page 277 and 278: .......1967 “DNA Studies in Relat
- Page 279 and 280: Hefley, James C. .......1986 “Chr
- Page 281 and 282: .......1987 “Review of Glenn Mort
- Page 283 and 284: .......1978 The Social Consequences
- Page 285 and 286: .......1985 Evolution on Trial. Pri
- Page 287 and 288: .......1974a A Challenge to Educati
- Page 289 and 290: .......1986c “Report on Thomas J.
- Page 291 and 292: Martin, T[homas] T[heodore] .......
compromise this interpretation and must be firmly rejected; the only alternative,<br />
there<strong>for</strong>e, is the complete and deliberate re-interpretation of all science and history.<br />
Among organizations most obviously influenced by Reconstructionism is the<br />
Coalition on Revival, a Dominion group that promotes fulfillment of the biblical<br />
inerrantist view in all aspects of life: the arts, society, political science—everything.<br />
Directors of COR include several prominent Reconstructionists (but also many premills).<br />
COR has engaged in flamboyant public presentations, at the Capitol in<br />
Washington, of its manifestoes demanding acceptance of a Christian worldview. Its<br />
“sphere” documents are charters <strong>for</strong> this total biblical restructuring of society. The<br />
<strong>Science</strong> and Technology “sphere” is chaired by Duane Gish of ICR. COR’s <strong>Science</strong> and<br />
Technology “Sphere Document” (Gish and Cunningham 1986) is of course explicitly<br />
biblical and emphatically creationist. Some excerpts:<br />
We affirm that each biological life <strong>for</strong>m was specially created by God as a definite kind, and that all natural<br />
variations in life <strong>for</strong>ms have been and are limited to variations within that kind (Genesis 1:11,12,21,24,25;<br />
1 Corinthians 15:38,39).<br />
We deny that life arose from non-life through any evolutionary process, and that the various basic types<br />
of plants and animals have arisen from a common ancestor (Psalm 104:30; Acts 17:25)…<br />
We affirm that Adam and Eve were specially created by God and were the first human beings...<br />
We deny that mankind arose from apelike ancestors through any evolutionary process...<br />
We affirm that the Biblical record of history in Genesis 1-11 (including the creation of the universe and<br />
its inhabitants in the six days of the Creation Week, the Fall of man, the worldwide flood of Noah’s time,<br />
and the origin of languages and the dispersal of mankind from the Tower of Babel) is an accurate and<br />
historical account...<br />
We affirm that the Genesis flood was a worldwide aqueous catastrophe that overflowed the entire world...<br />
We affirm that the genealogical histories recorded in the Bible, as well as many physical time clocks,<br />
indicate that the earth is young. [1986:6-7]<br />
It denies that mankind can be saved through science or any merely human endeavor, and<br />
declares that science must be biblically centered. (It also supports military spending, and<br />
rejects UCLA historian of science Lynn White’s theory (1967) that the ecological crisis<br />
was precipitated by an exploitative attitude fostered by the Genesis Mandate<br />
commanding man to “take dominion” over the earth.<br />
Maranatha Campus Ministries, sponsor of the 1988 Creation Conference and of<br />
the Society <strong>for</strong> Creation <strong>Science</strong>, is another aggressively Dominion-oriented group, and is<br />
praised by Reconstructionists. (See, e.g., Broocks’ Change the Campus, Change the<br />
World! [1985] and his keynote address “The Battle Has Just Begun” to the 1987 <strong>National</strong><br />
Creation Conference.) The Providence Foundation of Virginia, which has close ties with<br />
Maranatha, says that “Christianity must permeate every aspect of life in a nation if that<br />
nation desires to be free,” and urges that Christianity be brought into public affairs in<br />
order to extend the kingdom of God on earth.<br />
Televangelist D. James Kennedy is strongly influenced by Reconstructionism,<br />
and has featured Reconstructionists on his TV programs. His Coral Ridge Ministries is<br />
listed in Gary DeMar’s God and Government (1982) as a “Christian reconstruction”<br />
organization dedicated to advancing the kingdom of Christ. Francis Schaeffer has also<br />
been strongly influenced by Reconstructionism; his A Christian Manifesto (1981) is<br />
largely based on Reconstructionist ideas.<br />
Other Reconstructionist organizations (all of them strongly creationist) are Gary<br />
North’s Institute <strong>for</strong> Christian Economics in Texas, Gary DeMar’s American Vision, the