Keith
>
>On October 22, I heard Eugenie Scott of the National Center on
>Science Education give a paper in the Archbishop Ussher Symposium:
>Quantifying Earth History, at the annual meeting of the Geological
>Society of America. It was titled, Ussher, Young-Earth, and Old-Earth
>Creationism. She began by pointing out that there are creationists
>and there are creationists. One group believes that God created
>everything all at once and created all of the "kinds, whatever they
>are", separately. The other group is made up of evolutionists.
>
>She then went on to plot on a diagonal line, from upper left to lower
>right, a spectrum of views. These are:
> -Flat Earthers (who use the biblical "four corners" as a basis)
> -Geocentrists (who also use Bible passages as a basis)
> -Young-Earth Creationists (as described above)
> -Old-Earth Creationists
> (Day-age creationism)
> (Gap creationism)
> (Progressive creationism)
> (Intelligent Design Theory - citing books by Denton, Johnson,
> Kenyon, Behe)
> -Theistic Evolutionists
> -Materialists (distinguishing philosophical and
> methodological materialists)
>
>She said she was not a believer, but stressed that student should not
>be required to make a choice between creation and evolution (or
>between Christianity and science).
>
>Analysis:
>
>I totally agreed with her spectrum, except that some Theistic
>Evolutionists might prefer to be thought of as Old-Earth Creationists.
>Also, I have long been of the view that it is unfair and inappropriate
>to present to students that there are only two positions, with
>Young-Earth Creationism as the alternative to traditional science, as
>is so often pushed for in the public schools by Fundamentalist
>parents.
>
>Followup:
>
>In a discussion afterward, she noted that the National Science
>Teachers were preparing a credo about life, that had included a
>statement to the effect that life is meaningless, which is somewhat
>ambiguous. In response to letters from Plantinga (probably Alvin,
>rather than Neal) and another philosopher/theologian, they decided to
>rephrase this. They apparently are sensitive and are trying to
>accommodate.
>
>Personal observations:
>
>I have trouble understanding why people would want to force teachers
>to present a viewpoint that most would call extreme, being close to
>one end of the spectrum, and expect it to be presented
>dispassionately.
>
>As a Christian who is not a Young-Earth Creationist, I would not want
>my children or grandchildren to be taught that the YEC version and
>the traditional version of origins are the only two.
>
>I was surprised at the fair, balanced, and even-handed way that Scott
>presented her paper. I think it was a revelation for many who heard
>it. Likewise, the introduction of "Archbishop Ussher" in his clerical
>attire and the comments that the "Archbishop" made, presented
>information about what Ussher did and what Lightfoot did. The basis
>for their calculations was briefly explained, and "Ussher" closed
>with the observation that we are better able to calculate Earth's age
>than he was, and he hoped that our results stood up better after 150
>years than his have. I was suspicious that this would be an
>opportunity for ridicule, and turned out to be quite the opposite.
>
>Ken Van Dellen
Keith B. Miller
Department of Geology
Kansas State University
Manhattan, KS 66506
kbmill@ksu.ksu.edu
http://www-personal.ksu.edu/~kbmill/