Creationism - National Center for Science Education
Creationism - National Center for Science Education Creationism - National Center for Science Education
At the present time there is dire need for all Church and school authorities to drive this vile “doctrines of devils” (I Tim. 4:1) out of all pulpits and classrooms, and to purge our fair land from this vileness. Let all lovers of truth and youth unite in a holy crusade for the restoration of the Bible to its rightful place of honor in the schools and colleges of the nation, and for the eradication of this loathsome mental leprosy which has recently become a world calamity. Only in Christ is there healing for this deadly disease. [1924:226] Baptist preacher J. Frank Norris of Texas called evolution “the most damnable doctrine that has come out of the bottomless pit”; and vowed, in testimony before the Texas legislature when it was considering a bill banning the teaching of evolution, to resist “that hell-born, Bible-destroying, deity-of-Christ-denying, German rationalism known as evolution,” and to “drive the theory of evolution out of church and public schools in all states” (quoted in Shipley 1927:171-172,177). The anti-evolutionist fundamentalists were not engaged as much in a “war against modern science” as Shipley and others have supposed, but they definitely felt they were waging a war against something. Shipley’s War on Modern Science (1927), and, before that, Andrew White’s History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom (1896) and John Draper’s History of the Conflict Between Religion and Science (1875), exaggerated the warfare motif in more ways than one, since many theologians and religious believers had always tried to accommodate their religion to scientific doctrines, and even the fundamentalists considered themselves advocates of “true science” (though they did oppose much of modern scientific theory). But in any case, the fundamentalists themselves insisted on militant metaphors of warfare and battles to the death against evolution and other Satanic threats to religion and society. Meanwhile, throughout the decades which saw the spectacular rise of fundamentalist influence and activism, George McCready Price, with his insistence on literal, recent creationism and his re-invention of Flood Geology, was providing a plausible-sounding basis for a “scientific” strict creationism.
CHAPTER 2 ORIGINS OF MODERN “SCIENTIFIC” CREATIONISM: 1900-1960 GEORGE McCREADY PRICE George McCready Price strove throughout the first half of this century to convince the world that strict, recent creation was a fact required by both the Bible and by science. Price, a Seventh-day Adventist, took seriously Adventist prophetess Ellen G. White’s insistence on strict creationism. White, whose writings are considered divinely inspired by Adventists, strongly emphasizes a recent, literal six-day Creation and the world-wide Flood of Noah. In Patriarchs and Prophets (1958:28; originally 1890) White wrote that the biblical account of creation: is so clearly stated that there is no occasion for erroneous conclusions. God created man in His own image. Here is no mystery. There is no ground for the supposition that man was evolved by slow degrees of development from the lower forms of animal or vegetable life. Such teaching lowers the great work of the Creator to the level of man’s narrow, earthly conceptions. Men are so intent upon excluding God from the sovereignty of the universe that they degrade man and defraud him of the dignity of his origin. The Creation Week consisted of seven literal days; its commemoration in our ordinary week, and observance of the Sabbath—the Seventh Day—is of utmost concern to White. To assume that these creation days could be long ages is to deny the Fourth Commandment in which God gave us our week and our Sabbath directly from Creation Week. “The sophistry in regard to the world’s being created in an indefinite period is one of Satan’s falsehoods.” White was implacably opposed to the teaching of evolution. Principles of True Science: or Creation in the Light of Revelation, a collection of excerpts from her writings, contains these warnings: Evolution and its kindred errors are taught in schools of every grade... Thus the study of science, which should impart a knowledge of God, is so mingled with the speculations and theories of men that it tends to infidelity. [1986:166-167] We need to guard continually against those books which contain sophistry in regard to geology and other branches of science... [T]hey need to be carefully sifted from every trace of infidel suggestions… It is a mistake to put into the hands of the youth books that perplex and confuse them. [1986:227] White also emphasized that earth history could only be properly interpreted by reference to the worldwide Flood of Noah. She simply rejected the findings of modern geology, insisting instead that geological features must have been formed as a result of the Flood. The earth was created exceedingly beautiful and bounteous, but it began to deteriorate as a result of Adam’s Fall. It was completely devastated by the Flood, and much remains desolate even today: “The entire surface of the earth was changed at the flood.” The fossils found by geologists which appear to deny the Mosaic chronology are of immense and fantastic antediluvian creatures, all buried by the Flood. Geology cannot tell us the age of such fossils; only the Bible can. Violent winds and currents buried the remains of the pre-Flood inhabitants; mountains were heaped up; minerals useful to man
- 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: Therefore it becomes painfully nece
- 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
At the present time there is dire need <strong>for</strong> all Church and school authorities to drive this vile “doctrines of<br />
devils” (I Tim. 4:1) out of all pulpits and classrooms, and to purge our fair land from this vileness. Let all<br />
lovers of truth and youth unite in a holy crusade <strong>for</strong> the restoration of the Bible to its rightful place of honor<br />
in the schools and colleges of the nation, and <strong>for</strong> the eradication of this loathsome mental leprosy which has<br />
recently become a world calamity. Only in Christ is there healing <strong>for</strong> this deadly disease. [1924:226]<br />
Baptist preacher J. Frank Norris of Texas called evolution “the most damnable<br />
doctrine that has come out of the bottomless pit”; and vowed, in testimony be<strong>for</strong>e the<br />
Texas legislature when it was considering a bill banning the teaching of evolution, to<br />
resist “that hell-born, Bible-destroying, deity-of-Christ-denying, German rationalism<br />
known as evolution,” and to “drive the theory of evolution out of church and public<br />
schools in all states” (quoted in Shipley 1927:171-172,177).<br />
The anti-evolutionist fundamentalists were not engaged as much in a “war against<br />
modern science” as Shipley and others have supposed, but they definitely felt they were<br />
waging a war against something. Shipley’s War on Modern <strong>Science</strong> (1927), and, be<strong>for</strong>e<br />
that, Andrew White’s History of the Warfare of <strong>Science</strong> with Theology in Christendom<br />
(1896) and John Draper’s History of the Conflict Between Religion and <strong>Science</strong> (1875),<br />
exaggerated the warfare motif in more ways than one, since many theologians and<br />
religious believers had always tried to accommodate their religion to scientific doctrines,<br />
and even the fundamentalists considered themselves advocates of “true science” (though<br />
they did oppose much of modern scientific theory). But in any case, the fundamentalists<br />
themselves insisted on militant metaphors of warfare and battles to the death against<br />
evolution and other Satanic threats to religion and society.<br />
Meanwhile, throughout the decades which saw the spectacular rise of<br />
fundamentalist influence and activism, George McCready Price, with his insistence on<br />
literal, recent creationism and his re-invention of Flood Geology, was providing a<br />
plausible-sounding basis <strong>for</strong> a “scientific” strict creationism.