Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site uwmacc.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois From: dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Risky Rat) Newsgroups: net.origins,net.religion Subject: Re: Creation-science vs. Christianity Message-ID: <1395@uwmacc.UUCP> Date: Mon, 12-Aug-85 09:17:43 EDT Article-I.D.: uwmacc.1395 Posted: Mon Aug 12 09:17:43 1985 Date-Received: Wed, 14-Aug-85 01:37:22 EDT References: <111@gargoyle.UUCP> Organization: Mousetrap Records Lines: 29 Xref: linus net.origins:2098 net.religion:6959 > [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. |