Book Review - The Creationists (Numbers)
Danny Yee
http://www.anatomy.usyd.edu.au/danny/book-reviews/h/Creationists.html
along with more than 400 other reviews
title: The Creationists
by: Ronald L. Numbers
publisher: University of California Press 1992
subjects: religion, history of science
other: halftones, references, index, US$16.95
Much has been written for and against creationism, but its _history_ is
poorly documented -- and poorly understood by both critics and proponents.
In _The Creationists_ Numbers offers us an intellectual and institutional
history of creationism, or more accurately of "creationism" as it is
now understood. As he writes:
During the early decades of the twentieth century, few
creationists, even among hard-shell fundamentalists, insisted on
a young earth or a fossil-producing flood. Some naive readers of
the Bible no doubt assumed that the date 4004 B.C. found in the
margins of the first chapter referred to the original creation
of the earth, but except for the Adventist disciples of Ellen
G. White they almost never committed such beliefs to writing.
By applying the unquestionably orthodox day-age and gap theories
to Genesis 1, even the staunchest defenders of biblical inerrancy
could accommodate the claims of historical geology. But by the
end of the century ... the very word _creationism_ had come to
signify the recent appearance of life on earth and a geologically
significant deluge.
It is this story -- of an intellectual revolution in creationism -- that
Numbers tells, but he spends little time on "big picture" generalisations
(the quote above is from a brief conclusion). He concentrates instead
on the key individuals, on their backgrounds, their relationships with
one another (informal and organisational), the challenges they faced,
and the development of their beliefs.
This is not obviously exciting material: the people involved are often
obscure, and offer little drama -- no great tragedies and not much
in the way of comedy, either. Numbers also refuses to be lured by
high profile, public events such as the encounters with scientists and
anti-creationists in legal conflicts and public debates. There is no
blow-by-blow description of the Scopes Trial, for example; it is the
light that trial sheds on creationists such as Bryan and Price and on
their views of one other that interests Numbers.
Despite this he has produced a dramatic and readable volume, almost
novelistic in its feel. (It is also a solidly scholarly work, but
the ninety pages of detailed references are left to the endnotes.)
It achieves objectivity and even-handedness not with an artificial
detachment but with a powerful, all-embracing empathy. Numbers'
contagiously sympathetic understanding succeeds in making the ideas,
concerns, and lives of his subjects matter to the reader, despite the
large and changing "cast".
In the years immediately following publication of _The Origin of Species_,
evolution rapidly swept America. Many had qualms about an animal lineage
for man, but there was hardly "a scientist or cleric who rejected the
antiquity of the earth, denied the progressive nature of the fossil
record, or attached geological significance to the Noachian flood".
One notable early exception was the pastor George Frederick Wright.
Outside scholarly circles, anti-evolutionism was more widespread,
however; it was connected with the fundamentalist movement right from
the beginning. This popular support for creationism was illustrated by
William Jennings Bryan's anti-evolution crusade in the 20s.
Scientific credentials were far and few between amongst creationists,
and those they had were flaunted. But it was the self-taught Harry Rimmer
who reached the widest audience during the second quarter of the century.
The Seventh Day Adventist George McReady Price was the leading proponent
of flood geology during the first half of the century. His message fell
largely on barren ground, however, and the association of flood geology
with Adventism was to complicate creationist attempts at organisation.
The Religion and Science Association (RSA), set up in 1935, aimed to
be an elite group of trained scientists. Irreconcilable differences,
doctrinal and exegetical, between the organisation's officers lead to
its self-destruction within a few years. The founders of the Deluge
Geology Society tried to avoid the fate of the RSA by restricting
membership to believers in "six literal days" and "the Deluge as the
cause of the major geological changes since creation". Despite this,
the society was soon riven by disagreements (and personal animosities)
and lasted less than a decade. The key point of conflict was again
the age of the Earth, with Molleurus Couperus leading advocates for
"pre-Genesis time" and an old Earth.
The oldest anti-evolution organisation in Great Britain was the
Victoria Institute, founded in 1865. Over time most of its members
had moved towards theistic evolution, leading anti-evolutionists such
as Douglas Dewar and Lewis Merson Davies to set up the harder-line
Evolution Protest Movement in the early 30s. This never gained much
credibility amongst evangelicals, however. In the United States the
American Scientific Affiliation, founded in 1941, was turned against flood
geology by the criticisms of J. Laurence Kulp, and towards progressive
creation or theistic evolution by Russell L. Mixter and J. Frank Cassel.
This contributed to the broader fundamentalist-evangelical split.
After decades in the wilderness, a turning point for flood geology and
young-earth creationism came with the publication in 1961 of John C.
Whitcomb and Henry M. Morris' _The Genesis Flood_. Another key event was
the setting up by Walter E. Lammerts and others of a Creation Research
Advisory Committee, which was to evolve into the Creation Research
Society (CRS). The CRS didn't require the acceptance of flood geology
or a young earth by members, but was eventually, after some conflicts,
dominated by those holding such beliefs.
One consequence of the struggle to get creationism into schools was a
shift towards a "scientific creationism" in which religion was downplayed.
Some of the pitfalls facing creationist attempts to do science research
can be seen in the career of Clifford L. Burdick, who was considered
a bit of a loose cannon even by his fellow creationists. (His career
was also notable for claims of discrimination and censorship by the
scientific establishment.) The CRS looked long and hard for "Ph. D.'s in
geology who take Genesis 6-9 seriously", with several apparently promising
candidates defecting. Two creationist research institutes were set up,
the Institute for Creation Research and the less well known Adventist
Geoscience Research Institute; both faced similar problems to earlier
creationist organisations.
There may be relatively few creationist scientists, but creationism can
draw on a broad base of support amongst the wider community. Numbers
compares its influence and standing amongst Lutherans, Pentecostals,
Mormons, and other denominations and religions. He concludes with a
brief account of the spread of creationism outside the United States.
--
Disclaimer: I requested and received a review copy of _The Creationists_
from the University of California Press, but I have no stake, financial
or otherwise, in its success.
--
%T The Creationists
%S The Evolution of Scientific Creationism
%A Ronald L. Numbers
%I University of California Press
%C Berkeley
%D 1992
%O paperback, references, index
%G ISBN 0-520-08393-8
%P xvii,458pp,16pp halftones
%U http://www.ucpress.edu/books/pages/2575.html
%K religion, history of science, evolution, geology
22 August 1998
---------------------------------------------------
Copyright (c) 1998 Danny Yee (da...@cs.usyd.edu.au)
http://www.anatomy.usyd.edu.au/danny/book-reviews/
---------------------------------------------------
wf...@enter.netxx
wrote:
>An HTML version of this book review can be found at
>http://www.anatomy.usyd.edu.au/danny/book-reviews/h/Creationists.html
>along with more than 400 other reviews
>
> title: The Creationists
> by: Ronald L. Numbers
> publisher: University of California Press 1992
> subjects: religion, history of science
> other: halftones, references, index, US$16.95
>
i just got the book last week...fascinating study of an american
phenomenon. numbers says in his introduction that he himself was once
a creationist and was solicited by both sides in the 'edwards vs
aguillard' case where the creationism law in LA was struck down by the
US supreme court
>
>This is not obviously exciting material: the people involved are often
>obscure, and offer little drama
this is true but it's interesting from the viewpoint of how the far
right in america has come to hold so much power.
>
>One consequence of the struggle to get creationism into schools was a
>shift towards a "scientific creationism" in which religion was downplayed
yes, a decision forced by court decisions. creationists find
themselves being in the unique position of holding 'scientific' views
that are determined by the court rather than by scientific evidence
..
>
>There may be relatively few creationist scientists, but creationism can
>draw on a broad base of support amongst the wider community.
EWTN reported last nite on its 'newslink' program that 45% of
americans call themselves creationists and another 40% think god
guided the process of evolution so that humans evolved.
nice review
Paul Gallagher
What I'm thinking of is the very last person to hold a university
or museum appointment, to publish in professional journals, who
advocates special creation, and who didn't pick it up second hand,
like the creationists with university appointments today, but learned
it from their teachers. I'll ask the same question with Lamarckism,
orthogenesis, etc. Creationism seems to have been still around in the
1920's, and Lamarckism into the 1970's.
Paul
may...@andrews.edu
Louis Agassiz and Richard Owen (from the late 19th century) were probably the
last respectable creationists; Lamarckism doesn't seem to have come back into
fashion after the Darwinian revolution; people were experimenting with things
like saltationism and (especially among paleontologists) "directed" evolution
before the Neo-darwinian synthesis, though (about 1900 to 1930).
--vince
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
David Iain Greig
>In article <6rno4r$k...@panix2.panix.com>,
> p...@panix.com (Paul Gallagher) wrote:
>> I'm curious when creationism ended among professional biologists.
>> What I'm thinking of is the very last person to hold a university
>> or museum appointment, to publish in professional journals, who
>> advocates special creation, and who didn't pick it up second hand,
>> like the creationists with university appointments today, but learned
>> it from their teachers. I'll ask the same question with Lamarckism,
>> orthogenesis, etc. Creationism seems to have been still around in the
>> 1920's, and Lamarckism into the 1970's.
>
>Louis Agassiz and Richard Owen (from the late 19th century) were probably the
>last respectable creationists; Lamarckism doesn't seem to have come back into
>fashion after the Darwinian revolution; people were experimenting with things
>like saltationism and (especially among paleontologists) "directed" evolution
>before the Neo-darwinian synthesis, though (about 1900 to 1930).
Lamarckism was still popular in France (for assorted reasons) well
into the mid-20th century.
Source: that compendium by Mayr and co -- The Evolutionary Synthesis (I think)
based on 2 symposia from the 1970s.
may...@andrews.edu
gr...@ediacara.org wrote:
> may...@andrews.edu <may...@andrews.edu> wrote:
> >In article <6rno4r$k...@panix2.panix.com>,
> > p...@panix.com (Paul Gallagher) wrote:
> >> I'm curious when creationism ended among professional biologists.
> >> What I'm thinking of is the very last person to hold a university
> >> or museum appointment, to publish in professional journals, who
> >> advocates special creation, and who didn't pick it up second hand,
> >> like the creationists with university appointments today, but learned
> >> it from their teachers. I'll ask the same question with Lamarckism,
> >> orthogenesis, etc. Creationism seems to have been still around in the
> >> 1920's, and Lamarckism into the 1970's.
> >
> >Louis Agassiz and Richard Owen (from the late 19th century) were probably the
> >last respectable creationists; Lamarckism doesn't seem to have come back into
> >fashion after the Darwinian revolution; people were experimenting with things
> >like saltationism and (especially among paleontologists) "directed" evolution
> >before the Neo-darwinian synthesis, though (about 1900 to 1930).
>
> Lamarckism was still popular in France (for assorted reasons) well
> into the mid-20th century.
>
> Source: that compendium by Mayr and co -- The Evolutionary Synthesis (I
think)
> based on 2 symposia from the 1970s.
What reasons were these? Was Lamarck French? How did they deal with the lack
of evidence for inheritance of acquired characteristics? Or were they among
those fringe sorts who are always coming to believe they've found a new
"evidence" that acquired characteristics can be inherited?
Danny Yee
>Lamarckism was still popular in France (for assorted reasons) well
>into the mid-20th century.
>
>Source: that compendium by Mayr and co -- The Evolutionary Synthesis (I think)
>based on 2 symposia from the 1970s.
%T The Evolutionary Synthesis
%S Perspectives on the Unification of Biology
%E Ernst Mayr
%E William B. Provine
%I Harvard University Press
%C Cambridge
%D 1998
%O paperback, references, index
%G ISBN 0-674-27226-9
Oddly enough, that was the previous book I reviewed here.
http://www.anatomy.usyd.edu.au/danny/book-reviews/h/Evolutionary_Synthesis.html
People might like to check out two dozen reviews on matters evolutionary at:
http://www.anatomy.usyd.edu.au/danny/book-reviews/s/evolution.html
Danny.
Pete Dunkelberg
This is a very nice contribution to t.o - it's good information for
all sides.
Does the book say anything about the influence of the Glen Rose -
Paluxy river fossil footprints? These footprints were first written up
by Prof Roland Bird, in the December, 1949 issue of _Natural History_
( I think ). He also mentioned a fake 'manprint' and a fake dinosaur
print that he found on sale. In fact, these had led him to the real
dinosaur prints, which he recognized at once. The locals had made a
little money selling fossil footprints to tourists during the
Depression, and when they ran out, they decided to make their own.
[ ran out temporarily - new ones erode into sight regularly ]
I've read somewhere that Bird's articles ( the second in Jan 1950 )
led to the creation of the story that man and dinosaurs lived at the
same time, and this in turn helped the creation of 'scientific'
creationism.
Pete
Paul Gallagher
>>
>>Louis Agassiz and Richard Owen (from the late 19th century) were probably the
>>last respectable creationists; Lamarckism doesn't seem to have come back into
>>fashion after the Darwinian revolution; people were experimenting with things
>>like saltationism and (especially among paleontologists) "directed" evolution
>>before the Neo-darwinian synthesis, though (about 1900 to 1930).
>Lamarckism was still popular in France (for assorted reasons) well
>into the mid-20th century.
>Source: that compendium by Mayr and co -- The Evolutionary Synthesis (I think)
>based on 2 symposia from the 1970s.
>
Ernst Mayr was a Lamarckian, as were most of his colleagues, when he was
a young man. He talks about this in the Scientific American article on him
last year or so.
The 1920's creationist I was thinking about was French, and had a prominent
scholarly post -according to an essay in the book, Philosophy of Biology,
edited by Ayala and Dobzhansky. Lamarckian ideas, apparently far beyond
the idea that acquired characteristics can be inherited, persisted for
a long time. There was the prominent British embryologist MacBride, for
example, who was a Lamarckian in the middle of the century.
I'm interested when the creationist lineage died out (and the Lamarckian and
orthogenetic and Mendelist) - their advocates need not be as prominent as
Agassiz, but just professionals carrying on the ideas of their teachers.
Maybe the lineages aren't extinct? All it would take for, say, Behe, to
have one creationist professor, and he another, and very quickly we'd be back
in the nineteenth century...
Paul
Ken Smith
>An HTML version of this book review can be found at
>http://www.anatomy.usyd.edu.au/danny/book-reviews/h/Creationists.html
>along with more than 400 other reviews
> title: The Creationists
> by: Ronald L. Numbers
> publisher: University of California Press 1992
> subjects: religion, history of science
> other: halftones, references, index, US$16.95
[text of review deleted]
A very good, and pretty comprehensive, review, Danny.
One point you could have mentioned is Numbers' personal history,
recounted in the Preface (or is it entitled "Foreword" ?)
He started out following the usual Seventh-day Advenmtist line, but
was convinced by scientific evidence that it was wrong.
Even if people don't want to read through the whole book (after all,
it's over 450 pages long), it is worth getting out (or just readin)
from your nearest library, and reading the Preface. With, perhaps, a
bit of browsing to indicate that Morris and his followers are simply
repeating, in scientific-sounding language, the religious views of
Ellen G. White.
>%T The Creationists
>%S The Evolution of Scientific Creationism
>%A Ronald L. Numbers
>%I University of California Press
>%C Berkeley
>%D 1992
>%O paperback, references, index
>%G ISBN 0-520-08393-8
>%P xvii,458pp,16pp halftones
>%U http://www.ucpress.edu/books/pages/2575.html
>%K religion, history of science, evolution, geology
>22 August 1998
> ---------------------------------------------------
> Copyright (c) 1998 Danny Yee (da...@cs.usyd.edu.au)
> http://www.anatomy.usyd.edu.au/danny/book-reviews/
> ---------------------------------------------------
Ken Smith
--
Dr Ken Smith <k...@maths.uq.oz.au> | "God, we know you are in charge, but why
Department of Mathematics, | don't you make it slightly more obvious?"
The University of Queensland, | Archbishop Desmond Tutu, 1990
St Lucia, Qld. 4072. Australia. | (address to students at at West Point)
Danny Yee
>One point you could have mentioned is Numbers' personal history,
>recounted in the Preface (or is it entitled "Foreword" ?)
>He started out following the usual Seventh-day Advenmtist line, but
>was convinced by scientific evidence that it was wrong.
I thought about mentioning that, but Numbers himself downplays the
importance of his own beliefs. (And certainly there's no reason for
creationists to avoid the book on the grounds that it will treat their
heroes unfairly.)
Danny.
may...@andrews.edu
k...@maths.uq.edu.au (Ken Smith) wrote:
> da...@staff.cs.su.oz.au (Danny Yee) writes:
>
> >An HTML version of this book review can be found at
> >http://www.anatomy.usyd.edu.au/danny/book-reviews/h/Creationists.html
> >along with more than 400 other reviews
>
> > title: The Creationists
> > by: Ronald L. Numbers
> > publisher: University of California Press 1992
> > subjects: religion, history of science
> > other: halftones, references, index, US$16.95
>
>
> A very good, and pretty comprehensive, review, Danny.
>
> recounted in the Preface (or is it entitled "Foreword" ?)
> He started out following the usual Seventh-day Advenmtist line, but
> was convinced by scientific evidence that it was wrong.
>
> it's over 450 pages long), it is worth getting out (or just readin)
> from your nearest library, and reading the Preface. With, perhaps, a
> bit of browsing to indicate that Morris and his followers are simply
> repeating, in scientific-sounding language, the religious views of
> Ellen G. White.
Apparently, Numbers is an "apostasized" Adventist, yes. His biography of
Ellen White, called _Prophetess of Health_, is probably the most objective
one available, given the claims that surrounded this woman, and the sorts of
people that generally write biographies about her. But the claims of
creationism are not specifically traceable to Ellen White's writings; I see
no reason to think that they could not have arisen independently, even if
there was some historical connection between the unwavering Biblical
literalism of the Adventists (due to their respect for their prophet) and the
modern resurgence of that kind of literalism. But I doubt such a connection
would be causal; non- Adventist creationists have always been wary of the
Adventist ones, and vice versa. It's not as if they're unaware of these
issues.
Thomas Scharle
[...snip...]
|> I'm interested when the creationist lineage died out (and the Lamarckian and
|> orthogenetic and Mendelist) - their advocates need not be as prominent as
|> Agassiz, but just professionals carrying on the ideas of their teachers.
|> Maybe the lineages aren't extinct? All it would take for, say, Behe, to
|> have one creationist professor, and he another, and very quickly we'd be back
|> in the nineteenth century...
Probably the last of the holdouts against evolution was
Professor Fleischmann of Erlangen. He is occasionally quoted
as saying that "it has in the realms of nature not a single
fact to confirm it. It is not the result of scientific research,
but purely the product of the imagination."
Unfortunately, I've lost the information on Fleischmann, but
as I recall, as late as the 1920s he was planning on publishing
a book against evolution.
--
Tom Scharle scha...@nd.edu "standard disclaimer"
Ken Smith
may...@andrews.edu writes:
>In article <6rtgn2$cgb$1...@bunyip.cc.uq.edu.au>,
> k...@maths.uq.edu.au (Ken Smith) wrote:
>> da...@staff.cs.su.oz.au (Danny Yee) writes:
>>
>> >An HTML version of this book review can be found at
>> >http://www.anatomy.usyd.edu.au/danny/book-reviews/h/Creationists.html
>> >along with more than 400 other reviews
>>
>> > title: The Creationists
>> > by: Ronald L. Numbers
>> > publisher: University of California Press 1992
>> > subjects: religion, history of science
>> > other: halftones, references, index, US$16.95
>>
>> [text of review deleted]
>>
>> A very good, and pretty comprehensive, review, Danny.
>>
>> One point you could have mentioned is Numbers' personal history,
>> recounted in the Preface (or is it entitled "Foreword" ?)
>> He started out following the usual Seventh-day Advenmtist line, but
>> was convinced by scientific evidence that it was wrong.
>>
>> Even if people don't want to read through the whole book (after all,
>> it's over 450 pages long), it is worth getting out (or just readin)
>> from your nearest library, and reading the Preface. With, perhaps, a
>> bit of browsing to indicate that Morris and his followers are simply
>> repeating, in scientific-sounding language, the religious views of
>> Ellen G. White.
>Apparently, Numbers is an "apostasized" Adventist, yes. His biography of
>Ellen White, called _Prophetess of Health_, is probably the most objective
>one available, given the claims that surrounded this woman, and the sorts of
>people that generally write biographies about her. But the claims of
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>creationism are not specifically traceable to Ellen White's writings; I see
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>no reason to think that they could not have arisen independently, even if
>there was some historical connection between the unwavering Biblical
>literalism of the Adventists (due to their respect for their prophet) and the
>modern resurgence of that kind of literalism. But I doubt such a connection
>would be causal; non- Adventist creationists have always been wary of the
>Adventist ones, and vice versa. It's not as if they're unaware of these
>issues.
The book which started modern creationism off was Whitcomb and Morris
"The Genesis Flood" - which is still being reprinted, unchanged, after
first appearing in 1961. I know of no other book which attempts to
write about geology which has not been drastically revised in the
light of plate tectonics, which developed in the 1960s.
Whitcomb and Morris make a few references to George McCready Price's
"The New Geology", published in 1923. In his book "A History of
Modern Creationism" Morris admits that it was largely Price who
started him off on creationism, and much of "The Genesis Flood" is
simply Price re-edited for a non-Seventh-day Adventist constituency.
Price was a Seventh-day Adventist, and various other histories have
recounted how he kept his faith by reading Ellen G. White, and his
writings are largely expositions of some of the things she wrote in
the mid-nineteenth century.
I admit that this is not proof, in the absolute sense.
But it is sufficient to convince me, and various others who have read
a lot of Morris, and compared it with Price, that very little of what
comes from Morris was original with him.
>--vince
ad...@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca
sch...@ubiquity.cc.nd.edu (Thomas Scharle) wrote:
> In article <6rslaa$6...@panix2.panix.com>, p...@panix.com (Paul Gallagher)
writes:
> [...snip...]
> |> I'm interested when the creationist lineage died out (and the Lamarckian
and
> |> orthogenetic and Mendelist) - their advocates need not be as prominent as
> |> Agassiz, but just professionals carrying on the ideas of their teachers.
> |> Maybe the lineages aren't extinct? All it would take for, say, Behe, to
> |> have one creationist professor, and he another, and very quickly we'd be
back
> |> in the nineteenth century...
>
> Probably the last of the holdouts against evolution was
> Professor Fleischmann of Erlangen. He is occasionally quoted
> as saying that "it has in the realms of nature not a single
> fact to confirm it. It is not the result of scientific research,
> but purely the product of the imagination."
Hans-Friedrich Tamke wrote:
Professor Louis Agassiz of Harvard was a creationary theorist who never did
accept Darwinism. The question is, "Why not?" Albert Fleischmann was a
creationary biologist and he also did not accept Darwinism. Again, "Why not?"
Were their minds blinded by their creationary thinking to such a degree that
they could not accept the purported truth of evolution? Or just maybe they
were sophisticated enough to know that Darwinian theory was weak in actually
supporting its many claims by credible evidence?
> Unfortunately, I've lost the information on Fleischmann, but
> as I recall, as late as the 1920s he was planning on publishing
> a book against evolution.
>
> --
> Tom Scharle scha...@nd.edu "standard disclaimer"
>
>
--
creationary/evolutionary
<http://www.geocities.com/capecanaveral/lab/5985/creation.html>
John Wilkins
No, you got it right the first time, although in Agassiz's case he was
more blinded by his Platonism. Towards the end of his life he wavered in
his opposition to transmutation, in large part because he attempted to
retrace the Beagle journey to South America, and found that his objections
were not so well founded. His son did accept transmutation and even, I
think, some form of Darwinism.
|
|> Unfortunately, I've lost the information on Fleischmann, but
|> as I recall, as late as the 1920s he was planning on publishing
|> a book against evolution.
|>
|> --
|> Tom Scharle scha...@nd.edu "standard disclaimer"
|>
|>
|
|
|--
|creationary/evolutionary
|<http://www.geocities.com/capecanaveral/lab/5985/creation.html>
|
|-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
|http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
--
John Wilkins, Head, Graphic Production
The Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research
Melbourne, Australia
<mailto:wil...@WEHI.EDU.AU><http://www.wehi.edu.au/~wilkins>
Homo homini aut deus aut lupus - Erasmus of Rotterdam
may...@andrews.edu
k...@maths.uq.edu.au (Ken Smith) wrote:
> A comment about the evolution of modern creationism.
>
> may...@andrews.edu writes:
>
> >In article <6rtgn2$cgb$1...@bunyip.cc.uq.edu.au>,
> > k...@maths.uq.edu.au (Ken Smith) wrote:
> >> da...@staff.cs.su.oz.au (Danny Yee) writes:
> >>
> >> >http://www.anatomy.usyd.edu.au/danny/book-reviews/h/Creationists.html
> >> >along with more than 400 other reviews
> >>
> >> > title: The Creationists
> >> > by: Ronald L. Numbers
> >> > publisher: University of California Press 1992
> >> > subjects: religion, history of science
> >> > other: halftones, references, index, US$16.95
> >>
Undoubtedly.
> - which is still being reprinted, unchanged, after
> first appearing in 1961. I know of no other book which attempts to
> write about geology which has not been drastically revised in the
> light of plate tectonics, which developed in the 1960s.
Sad.
> Whitcomb and Morris make a few references to George McCready Price's
> "The New Geology", published in 1923.
According to Numbers, there would have been more if they hadn't expunged a lot
of them to make the book more palatable.
>In his book "A History of
> Modern Creationism" Morris admits that it was largely Price who
> started him off on creationism, and much of "The Genesis Flood" is
> simply Price re-edited for a non-Seventh-day Adventist constituency.
> Price was a Seventh-day Adventist, and various other histories have
> recounted how he kept his faith by reading Ellen G. White, and his
> writings are largely expositions of some of the things she wrote in
> the mid-nineteenth century.
Morris and Whitcomb were indebted to Price; no question about that. But I
wonder, if Price had never existed, would the _Genesis Flood_ still have been
published? This is a complex historical issue, which I don't think has been
resolved; but I don't think we are going to resolve it as long as our
research remains superficial and we focus on trying to make YEC look bad
historically speaking, rather than trying to find out what actually happend.
In any case, I don't think we can say that YEC retains any sort of Adventist
"flavor," whatever its historical roots. Even George McReady Price's books
are pretty non- sectarian; the issues involved are primarily scientific and
rather far removed from SDA weirdness.
I think part of the problem is the idea that creationism is too kooky for
people to think up more than once; but I'm not sure how valid that idea is.
Certainly Biblical fundamentalism, which provides much of the raison d'etre
for YEC, can't be derived historically or theologically from Seventh-Day
Adventism.
> I admit that this is not proof, in the absolute sense.
> But it is sufficient to convince me, and various others who have read
> a lot of Morris, and compared it with Price, that very little of what
> comes from Morris was original with him.
That might be true of _The Genesis Flood_ itself, but it would hardly be an
accurate description of later creationism, which diverged significantly from
Price's original emphases and arguments. What specific similarities between
Price and Morris were you thinking of? Are you sure these are not outnumbered
by the differences?
--vince
Thomas Scharle
[...snip...]
|> Hans-Friedrich Tamke wrote:
|>
|> Professor Louis Agassiz of Harvard was a creationary theorist who never did
|> accept Darwinism. The question is, "Why not?" Albert Fleischmann was a
|> creationary biologist and he also did not accept Darwinism. Again, "Why not?"
|> Were their minds blinded by their creationary thinking to such a degree that
|> they could not accept the purported truth of evolution? Or just maybe they
|> were sophisticated enough to know that Darwinian theory was weak in actually
|> supporting its many claims by credible evidence?
You have changed the topic from "who was the last holdout against
evolutionary biology?" to "why did some people hold out?". That, of
course, is permitted. I don't intend, though, to speculate on the
private motivations of people long dead; let's rather talk about the
evidence.
Consider Agassiz and Fleischmann as "creationary theorist/
biologist". Perhaps you can tell us what their theories of creationism
were, and then we can compare the evidence.
Kenneth Fair
Danny Yee wrote:
[A review of Number's "The Creationists"]
Is there a review of this book on the Talk.Origins Archive? I don't believe
there is. If not, I think the Archive would profit from the inclusion of such
a review. Would you interested in lending your review to the Archive?
--
Kenneth Fair
University of Chicago School of Law ex-student
Now in Technicolor!