Creationism - National Center for Science Education

More documents

Recommendations

Info

subject of establishing closer ties between the Cosmonomic and Creationist movements, but Wolfe notes that they were able to elicit little interest in the Cosmonomic movement in this country. Wolfe praises Rushdoony for successfully combining them. Ouweneel’s philosophical anthropology also owes much to Dooyeweerd’s attempts to found a “Christian anthropology.”
CONCLUSIONS Because the main assumption underlying creationism—that of biblical inerrancy —is absolute and not subject to skepticism or revision, as is also the core concept of creationism itself—supernatural creation as opposed to natural descent from common ancestral forms—it is easy to suppose that creationism is an immutable idea, a single doctrine. It isn’t. Many different types of creationism have been proposed, promoted and argued. The most obvious division is between the young-earth creationists and the oldearthers. Prior to the rise of modern geology in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, it had been easy for Christian believers to suppose that the earth was as young as implied by a plain, straightforward reading of Genesis—that it did not significantly predate the creation of man, which the Bible indicated was mere thousands of years ago. The science of geology made this view increasingly difficult to hold. Some opted for condemnations of this new science as anti-biblical, but most others attempted. to reinterpret Genesis so as to accommodate these new scientific conclusions regarding the age of the earth (and later, of mankind). Thus, various forms of old-earth creationism were formulated. The Gap Theory, which quickly became the favored old-earth theory in Britain, permitted retention of a literal six-day creation by recasting this creation as a “re-creation” following long pre- Adamic ages. The Day-Age theory, which had antecedents in liberal and symbolic (less literal) religious interpretations of Genesis, was meanwhile favored in Continental Europe, and eventually attained popularity in Britain and America also. Originally (before the acceptance of evolution by science), both of these theories were liberal approaches reconciling the conclusions of science with Genesis, but, after Darwin, these old-earth creationist views have generally become only somewhat less conservative (if at all) than young-earth creationism, due to their continuing denial of evolution. Day-Age and Gap Theory creationism both remain very popular, and have spawned many variants and hybrids. Day-Age creationism is the more concordist or harmonizing approach as it attempts to show that science and Genesis really say the same thing, while the Gap Theory, which tends to be favored by the more conservative and literally-minded of the old-earthers, employs a purely ad hoc exegetical hypothesis to assert that the Bible is silent regarding these ages, all of which exist between the very first two verses of-the Bible. Gappers criticize Day-Agers for abandoning the literal days of Genesis and for claiming much more of a correspondence than actually exists (there are obvious and serious discrepancies) between the chronology shown by geology and paleontology and that described in the six day/ages of Genesis. Day-Agers, for their part, criticize Gappers for positing a whopping extra-biblical assumption: i.e., the gap between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 itself—a gap which would never otherwise be posited were it not felt to be required by the long ages demonstrated by geology. Day-Agers have hypothesized many different and ingenious harmonization schemes between the Six Days and modern scientific cosmology, earth science and paleontology. More recent variants have equated the initial creation with Big Bang cosmology, and many have proposed that events such as the separation of light from darkness, of land from sea, and of the “waters above” from the “waters below,” refer to processes of galactic and stellar evolution—e.g., condensation of cosmic material into
Page 1 and 2:
Creationism Intellectual Origins, C
Page 3 and 4:
INTRODUCTION TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. F
Page 5 and 6:
Creationism: Intellectual Origins,
Page 7 and 8:
sharp divisions within the creation
Page 9 and 10:
PRE-MILLENNIALISM CHAPTER 1 FUNDAME
Page 11 and 12:
Jackson is a Church of Christ minis
Page 13 and 14:
Scottish professors. Rejecting the
Page 15 and 16:
Bacon’s scientific method “to r
Page 17 and 18:
Randall Hedtke, in his 1983 book Th
Page 19 and 20:
Price wrote that he always tried
Page 21 and 22:
Morris, like most creation-scientis
Page 23 and 24:
Was there any way by which all desi
Page 25 and 26:
example), but these changes are all
Page 27 and 28:
stating the fact that at this parti
Page 29 and 30:
all coming to pass, calculated by m
Page 31 and 32:
course insist on a literal interpre
Page 33 and 34:
adhering to true biblical principle
Page 35 and 36:
similar to Orr’s. He tried to all
Page 37 and 38:
In the final chapter of God—or Go
Page 39 and 40:
the students. That is probably the
Page 41 and 42:
Therefore it becomes painfully nece
Page 43 and 44:
CHAPTER 2 ORIGINS OF MODERN “SCIE
Page 45 and 46:
Creation by demonstrating the falsi
Page 47 and 48:
nurture their young, and sent them
Page 49 and 50:
explanation of these wonders.” Th
Page 51 and 52:
We feel the public are being deceiv
Page 53 and 54:
Genesis should be kept out of publi
Page 55 and 56:
“ontogeny repeats phylogeny”—
Page 57 and 58:
scientist is the authority of the f
Page 59 and 60:
A study of the Flood would therefor
Page 61 and 62:
Evolution is purely speculation. It
Page 63 and 64:
Fleming’s Modern Anthropology ver
Page 65 and 66:
graduate school to study hydraulic
Page 67 and 68:
eligious and biblical “moral” (
Page 69 and 70:
produces various different types of
Page 71 and 72:
instance, features Lammerts; it con
Page 73 and 74:
early ASA members were strict creat
Page 75 and 76:
egan in 1965. Biology: A Search for
Page 77 and 78:
THE BIBLE-SCIENCE ASSOCIATION The B
Page 79 and 80:
space technology, and a member of t
Page 81 and 82:
California Public Schools (Segraves
Page 83 and 84:
Henry Morris had a successful caree
Page 85 and 86:
the protestors objected to, but the
Page 87 and 88:
and creationist thought. Interestin
Page 89 and 90:
Lubenow and said, “You’re a Chr
Page 91 and 92:
Among the attendees at the Summer I
Page 93 and 94:
educes his bigoted evolutionist pro
Page 95 and 96:
CHAPTER 4 THEORETICAL ISSUES: SCIEN
Page 97 and 98:
eality, nor is it intended to be. (
Page 99 and 100:
Assuming that present-day scientifi
Page 101 and 102:
devotes much of his book to the mor
Page 103 and 104:
Hitchcock. Their completely unfound
Page 105 and 106:
in the series did. Rev. Henry Beach
Page 107 and 108:
Materialism and Evolution (1932) is
Page 109 and 110:
(1984), he says: “The Bible is in
Page 111 and 112:
Faith, he says, is not dependent on
Page 113 and 114:
“Each creation command in Genesis
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 and 166:
also includes other Bible-science i
Page 167 and 168:
oard of advisors includes Gunther S
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
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 and 242: The basis of evolutionary theories
Page 243 and 244: Plymouth.Rock Foundation of New Ham
Page 245 and 246: ights of Christian students, though
Page 247 and 248: Charles Magne cites Rushdoony appro
Page 249: Materialists have been repeating ov
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] .......
Page 293 and 294: .......1946 That You Might Believe.
Page 295 and 296: Munk, Eli .......1974 The Seven Day
Page 297 and 298: .......N.d. [ca. 1912] “Evolution
Page 299 and 300: .......1906 Illogical Geology: The
Page 301 and 302:
.......1984 [1981] Man—Ape or Ima
Page 303 and 304:
Russell, Bertrand .......1935 Relig
Page 305 and 306:
Setterfield, Barry, and Trevor G. N
Page 307 and 308:
.......1969 [1958] Science Speaks:
Page 309 and 310:
Toulmin, Stephen, and June Goodfiel
Page 311 and 312:
Waisgerber, William, George F. Howe
Page 313 and 314:
Whitehead, John W. .......1977 The
Page 315 and 316:
Wolthuis, Enno .......1963 Science,
show all

Creationism - National Center for Science Education

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?