Subject: Re: Creationism (was Re: "With All That You Acquire, Acquire
Understanding")
Date: 31 Jan 2000 23:28:12 GMT
From:  (Ken Smith)
Newsgroups: aus.religion.christian

Following up my own post - to provide some quotations to encourage
people to have a look at the book I mentioned.

 (Ken Smith) writes:

>Chris Ho-Stuart <> writes:

>>Darren R Middleton <> wrote:
>>[snip]
>>> Try reading J.F Ashton PhD "In Six Days: Why 50 Scientists Choose To
>>> Believe In Creation"
>>> BTW, all have a PhD.

[deletions]

>>I would like to propose a better book for this issue, that should
>>be accessible and acceptable to a wide range of readers.

>>"The Creationists"
>>Ronald L Numbers
>>(published by Alfred A Knoff, Inc, 1992)
>>ISBM 0-679-40104-0

>>This book has been widely recommended from both sides of the divide.
>>The author does not seek to refute or defend the arguements, but
>>rather traces the history and the persons in the area of creationism.
>>I strongly recommend this book to anyone, evolutionist or creationist,
>>who wants to know about the people behind the creationist movement
>>without getting bogged down in polemic.

>Since Numbers started compiling the book a new variety of creationism
>has appeared, using the words "intelligent design" or "irreducible
>complexity".  And there has been the proliferation of books by Phillip
>Johnson, a lawyer, starting with "Darwin on Trial".
>A recent book which presents the background to these new creationist
>ideas, and criticises their philosophical basis. is

>Robert T. Pennock
>Tower of Babel: The Evidence Against the New Creationism
>(published by MIT Press 1999)
>ISBN 0-262-16180-X

>This updates the history of the creationist movement, and gives an
>insight into more recent manoeuvres within that group.
>It's slightly more polemical than Numbers, but doesn't get bogged
>down.
>I'll dig out a few phrases from the book and post them, for those
>interested.

In chapter 5, "Chariots of the Gods", Pennock writes on page 275:

Were the new creationists to hold their views explicitly as
matters of faith, though we might still consider such
religious views false, there would be no worry of their
importing their views into science classrooms.  But as we have
seen, intelligent-design theory is disingenuous or at least
extremely misguided in its claim of religious independence.
In this regard it is nothing more than the old creationism now
dressed up in designer clothes.

The remark about "no worry of their importing their views into science
classrooms" refers to the American scene, where religion cannot,
legally, be brought into state supported schools.

The concluding paragraph of the book, on page 377, reads:

Agnes Meyer wrote in _Education for a New Morality_ that "From
the nineteenth-century view of science as a god, the twentieth
century has begun to see it as a devil.  It behooves us now to
understand that science is neither one nor the other."  Meyer
had a different set of issues in mind, but her good advice is
relevant and perhaps even more apropos to the controversy that
has been the topic of this book.  Science is neither God nor
devil, but profoundly human.  It is not infallible.  It
cannot answer every question.  It reveals nothing of possible
supernatural realms.  It is simply the best method that we
evolved, natural creatures have yet discovered for finding our
way around this natural world.

[rest deleted]

Ken Smith