carnes@gargoyle.UUCP (Richard Carnes) (08/08/85)
Most of the debates about creation/evolution focus on the incompatibility between "creation-science" and real science. However, a book I came across recently, *Is God a Creationist? The Religious Case Against Creation-Science*, ed. R. M. Frye, makes the case that 20th-century creationists' ignorance of their own religious and theological tradition is at least as profound as their ignorance of science. Having had some exposure to Christian theology in the past, I tend to agree. The book is a collection of articles by various theologians and scholars (and a Pope), and looks very good so far. All of the contributors accept the Christian doctrine of creation, BTW. Richard Carnes, ihnp4!gargoyle!carnes
bill@utastro.UUCP (William H. Jefferys) (08/11/85)
> Most of the debates about creation/evolution focus on the > incompatibility between "creation-science" and real science. > However, a book I came across recently, *Is God a Creationist? The > Religious Case Against Creation-Science*, ed. R. M. Frye, makes the > case that 20th-century creationists' ignorance of their own religious > and theological tradition is at least as profound as their ignorance > of science. I agree. Another recent book of interest in this context is *The Meaning of Creation: Genesis and Modern Science*, by Conrad Hyers (John Knox Press, Atlanta, 1984). Hyers is a Professor of Religion at Gustavus Adolphus College. I found it a very provocative book. -- "Men never do evil so cheerfully and so completely as when they do so from religious conviction." -- Blaise Pascal Bill Jefferys 8-% Astronomy Dept, University of Texas, Austin TX 78712 (USnail) {allegra,ihnp4}!{ut-sally,noao}!utastro!bill (uucp) bill%utastro.UTEXAS@ut-sally.ARPA (ARPANET)
dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Risky Rat) (08/12/85)
> [Richard Carnes] > Most of the debates about creation/evolution focus on the > incompatibility between "creation-science" and real science. > However, a book I came across recently, *Is God a Creationist? The > Religious Case Against Creation-Science*, ed. R. M. Frye, makes the > case that 20th-century creationists' ignorance of their own religious > and theological tradition is at least as profound as their ignorance > of science. Having had some exposure to Christian theology in the > past, I tend to agree. The book is a collection of articles by > various theologians and scholars (and a Pope), and looks very good so > far. All of the contributors accept the Christian doctrine of > creation, BTW. "The" Christian doctrine of creation? Evolutionists tell us too often that the fundamentalists endorse only one very narrow view of Genesis and that most denonimations (or schools of thought, or [insert your own concept used for dividing Christians into categories for classificatory purposes]) have long ago made their peace with Darwin (as the phrase usually goes). So what is "the" doctrine? Kehoe makes somewhat the same point (Godfrey, _Scientists Confront Creationism_). So does Aulie (_American Biology Teacher_, Apr and May 1972, v34). There's also an article in Zetterberg's book, and one in Montagu's book, both of which make the same point. -- | Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois --+-- | Ritual and Ceremony: Life Itself. |
carnes@gargoyle.UUCP (Richard Carnes) (08/16/85)
In article <1395@uwmacc.UUCP> dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Risky Rat) writes: > "The" Christian doctrine of creation? Evolutionists tell us too often > that the fundamentalists endorse only one very narrow view of Genesis > and that most denonimations (or schools of thought, or [insert your > own concept used for dividing Christians into categories for > classificatory purposes]) have long ago made their peace with Darwin > (as the phrase usually goes). So what is "the" doctrine? By the Christian doctrine of creation, I mean "I believe in one God, the Father almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all things visible and invisible." Of course, as Paul implies, there are different interpretations and understandings of this teaching. One modern interpretation (Tillich's) holds that the doctrine is the basic description of the relation of God to the world, and to man in particular. The interpretation of Biblical literalism holds that it describes an event that took place on a certain date, or rather during a certain week. You pays your money and you takes your choice. The sad thing about Biblical literalism, to me, is its perversion of the Christian tradition that in our time has produced such splendid men and women as Bonhoeffer, Dr. King, John XXIII, John Paul II, Mother Theresa, and some of the South African churchmen. Instead, literalism has produced, hmmm, let's see, Jerry Falwell and Oral Roberts (the man who saw a 900-foot Jesus); Francis Schaeffer, a pseudophilosopher; pathetic humbugs like Gish, Morris, and A. Ray Miller; and an infantile belief-system in which all the hard questions have prepackaged answers, just look 'em up in the Book -- and whose hermeneutic principles for interpreting the Book are contradictory and inconsistent, as Charles Blair recently pointed out. Small wonder that much of the strongest opposition to creationism comes, not from atheistic communist scientists, but from the pillars of the Christian churches. Richard Carnes, ihnp4!gargoyle!carnes "So that, upon the whole, we may conclude, that the Christian Religion not only was at first attended with miracles, but even at this day cannot be believed by any reasonable person without one." --Hume
charli@cylixd.UUCP (Charli Phillips) (08/21/85)
In article <155@gargoyle.UUCP> carnes@gargoyle.UUCP (Richard Carnes) writes: >By the Christian doctrine of creation, I mean "I believe in one God, >the Father almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all things visible >and invisible." Which explains why I am both a creationist and an evolutionist. (Flames from both sides, please.)
padraig@utastro.UUCP (Padraig Houlahan) (08/25/85)
> In article <155@gargoyle.UUCP> carnes@gargoyle.UUCP (Richard Carnes) writes: > >By the Christian doctrine of creation, I mean "I believe in one God, > >the Father almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all things visible > >and invisible." > > Which explains why I am both a creationist and an evolutionist. > > (Flames from both sides, please.) I think the point of this news group is to interact with creationists in the "creation science" sense. Your statement is one of religion, not science. Padraig Houlahan.
bill@utastro.UUCP (William H. Jefferys) (08/25/85)
> In article <155@gargoyle.UUCP> carnes@gargoyle.UUCP (Richard Carnes) writes: > >By the Christian doctrine of creation, I mean "I believe in one God, > >the Father almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all things visible > >and invisible." > > Which explains why I am both a creationist and an evolutionist. > > (Flames from both sides, please.) No need for flames. What you describe is properly called Theological Evolutionism. It's not a lot different from my own position, and is held by a large number of scientists. The term Creationism is usually reserved for the sort of thing your previous article defined as: >(Of course, that depends on how you define "creationist". If a >creationist is one who beleves the universe was created in >accordance with Bishop Usher's calculations, they aren't creationists. Except for some fudging on the age of the Earth, this describes the Young-Earth, Separate Creation of Ape and Man Creationism that is advocated by the ICR, the CRS and similar groups. By the way, the contempt such Creationists have for atheistic evolutionists is surpassed only by that which they hold for Theological Evolutionists . -- "Men never do evil so cheerfully and so completely as when they do so from religious conviction." -- Blaise Pascal Bill Jefferys 8-% Astronomy Dept, University of Texas, Austin TX 78712 (USnail) {allegra,ihnp4}!{ut-sally,noao}!utastro!bill (uucp) bill%utastro.UTEXAS@ut-sally.ARPA (ARPANET)