Is God a Creationist? The Religious Case against Creation-Science Edited by Roland Mushat Frye

1985 ◽  
Vol 28 (3) ◽  
pp. 477-479
Author(s):  
Rivers Singleton
Keyword(s):  
Creation Science

scholarly journals Revisiting the Scopes Trial: Young-Earth Creationism, Creation Science, and the Evangelical Denial of Climate Change

Religions ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 133
Author(s):  
K. L. Marshall
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
Social Issues ◽  
Anthropogenic Climate Change ◽  
Environmental Crisis ◽  
Biblical Authority ◽  
Scopes Trial ◽  
Creation Science ◽  
Imminent Threat ◽  
Young Earth Creationism ◽  
American Evangelicalism

In the century since the Scopes Trial, one of the most influential dogmas to shape American evangelicalism has been that of young-earth creationism. This article explains why, with its arm of “creation science,” young-earth creationism is a significant factor in evangelicals’ widespread denial of anthropogenic climate change. Young-earth creationism has become closely intertwined with doctrines such as the Bible’s divine authority and the Imago Dei, as well as with social issues such as abortion and euthanasia. Addressing this aspect of the environmental crisis among evangelicals will require a re-orientation of biblical authority so as to approach social issues through a hermeneutic that is able to acknowledge the reality and imminent threat of climate change.

Arguing from the Evidence

2010 ◽  
Vol 41 (4) ◽  
pp. 495-534 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brian A. Thomasson
Keyword(s):  
Public Schools ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Intelligent Design ◽  
Religion And Science ◽  
Creation Science ◽  
Federal Case ◽  
The Creation

In Kitzmiller v. Dover (2005), the only U.S. federal case on teaching Intelligent Design in public schools, the plaintiffs used the same argument as in the creation-science trials of the 1980s: Intelligent Design is religion, not science, because it invokes the supernatural; thus teaching it violates the Constitution. Although the plaintiffs won, this strategy is unwise because it is based on problematic definitions of religion and science, leads to multiple truths in society, and is unlikely to succeed before the present right-leaning Supreme Court. I suggest discarding past approaches in favor of arguing solely from the evidence for evolution.

Interlude: Helium, Argon, and Creationism

2010 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Fisher
Keyword(s):  
Time Span ◽  
The Other ◽  
Presbyterian Church ◽  
Fort Lauderdale ◽  
The Bible ◽  
Creation Science ◽  
Strict Interpretation ◽  
History Of ◽  
Scientific Creationism ◽  
The Subject

Henry M. Morris, widely regarded as the founder of the modern creationist movement, died February 25, 2006, at the age of eighty-seven. His 1961 book The Genesis Flood, subtitled, The Biblical Record and Its Scientific Implications, was a cornerstone of the movement. Many more books followed, including Scientific Creationism; What Is Creation Science?; Men of Science; Men of God; History of Modern Creationism; The Long War Against God; and Biblical Creationism. In 1970 he founded the Institute for Creation Research, which continues to be a leading creationist force, now headed by his sons, John and Henry III. In 1982 I debated the subject with him at the Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church in Fort Lauderdale in front of a sellout crowd of several thousand. He had emphasized in our initial contacts that the debate would be based on science, not religion, but when he opened his remarks with this same statement and the audience responded with loud cries of “Amen!” and “Praise Jesus!” I knew I was in for a long night. Both of us steered away from the biological arguments, I because I’m not a biologist and he presumably because the Biblical side of that is so evidently silly—if he had tried to describe how Noah brought two mosquitoes or two fleas aboard he might have got away with it, but the whole panoply of billions of species of submicroscopic creatures was obviously a problem. Instead he concentrated on the physical side, in particular on the age of the earth, and that was fine with me. As noted in the previous chapters, the earth’s age is central to Darwin’s argument. A strict interpretation of the Bible gives a limit of thousands of years, which is clearly not enough time for evolution to take place. Radioactive dating, on the other hand, gives Darwin his needed time span of billions of years, and so a cornerstone of the creationist argument is its necessary destruction. Morris was a wonderful motivational speaker, and spent a long introduction wandering through the Bible to show how wonderfully reasonable it is.

Creation Science

2018 ◽  
pp. 799-800
Author(s):  
Roger J. R. Levesque
Keyword(s):  
Creation Science

Evolution-Science Versus Creation-Science

Evolution ◽  
1981 ◽  
Vol 35 (4) ◽  
pp. 822
Author(s):  
William Guest ◽  
Frances E. Clayton
Keyword(s):  
Creation Science
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document