lmc@denelcor.UUCP (Lyle McElhaney) (11/25/84)
Speaking of pamphlets, I just got a copy of "Science & Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences" (NAS, 2101 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20418; $4.00). Its 28 pages long and discusses all the things we have been discussing here. In summary, "The Academy states unequivically that the tenets of 'creation science' are not supported by scientific evidence, that creationism has no place in a *science* curriculum at any level, and that its proposed teaching would be impossible in any constructive sense for well-informed and conscientious science teachers..." I also have to agree with a previous poster that it seems strange that the SOR phamphlets must trot out the same old arguments that have been discussed and dismissed by the local readership as well as much wiser and more experienced researchers in the fields under discussion (attack?). -- Lyle McElhaney (hao,brl-bmd,nbires,csu-cs,scgvaxd)!denelcor!lmc
cb@hlwpc.UUCP (Carl Blesch) (11/27/84)
>Speaking of pamphlets, I just got a copy of "Science & Creationism: A View >from the National Academy of Sciences" (NAS, 2101 Constitution Ave. NW, >Washington, DC 20418; $4.00). Its 28 pages long and discusses all the >things we have been discussing here. In summary, > "The Academy states unequivically that the tenets of 'creation >N science' are not supported by scientific evidence, that creationism > has no place in a *science* curriculum at any level, and that > its proposed teaching would be impossible in any constructive > sense for well-informed and conscientious science teachers..." I'll add another pamphlet to the war. It's by a theologian who studied the issue from a religious viewpoint. The author (sorry, don't have the pamphlet with me today and I don't remember the name -- I'll try to remember to dig the pamphlet up at home) says that the scientific establishment has done a good job in pointing out the scientific fallacies of creation science (see above), but that the Christian establishment has been remiss in pointing out the religious fallacies of creation science. The pamphlet is put out by the Center for Theological Inquiry, a newly established institution at the Princeton Theological Seminary with the charter to look into issues of joint importance to the scientific and religious communities. The author's thesis is that support for creation science is pretty much confined to the fundamentalist Christian movement, and that creation scientists lack solid theological training. He says that theologians from the established Christian faiths (protestant and Roman Catholic) do not believe that evolutionary theories are inconsistent or detrimental to Christian doctrine. It's an interesting piece. I'll try to summarize it in the future in this newsgroup, or at least post the address of the pamphlet's source. Carl Blesch
lab@qubix.UUCP (Q-Bick) (11/28/84)
> Carl Blesch > The pamphlet is put out by the Center for Theological Inquiry, > a newly established institution at the Princeton Theological Seminary > with the charter to look into issues of joint importance to the > scientific and religious communities. The author's thesis is that > support for creation science is pretty much confined to the fundamentalist > Christian movement, and that creation scientists lack solid theological > training. He says that theologians from the established Christian faiths > (protestant and Roman Catholic) do not believe that evolutionary > theories are inconsistent or detrimental to Christian doctrine. Sounds like narrow-mindedness on the part of the "liberals" - they would define "solid theological training" to their own fancy, excluding fundamentalism by definition. In _Evolution and Christian Faith_, Bolton Davidheiser (Ph.D. Johns Hopkins in Zoology) discusses the attempts to resolve evolution and the Bible. -- The Ice Floe of Larry Bickford {amd,decwrl,sun,idi,ittvax}!qubix!lab You can't settle the issue until you've settled how to settle the issue.