Last evening I attended a presentation by ICR geologist Bill Hoesch, who
gave the best creationist talk I can recall hearing, on the topic of Mt St
Helens. Several times I could guess what was about to come next in the
talk, such as when he examined surface formations produced quickly by steam
venting and suggested that other formations, similar in appearance, in other
places might also have been formed "quickly" rather than slowly by erosion
over many years; or when he claimed (I can't evaluate the accuracy of this
type of thing, since I am not a geologist myself) that some secular
geologists were now coming to think that the Grand Canyon may have been
formed very quickly, when a large lake near its head suddenly broke free
(sounds like a glacial dam but he didn't say that), and that this was not
too different from thinking that the flood did it; or when he noted the many
dead trees, floating vertically in Spirit Lake, and suddenly jumped to an
"explanation" of the vertical forests in Yellowstone Park, with a passing
comment about how a sign with the traditional scientific explanation of this
(that 27 forests had grown up in succession, roughly 50 Ma) had recently
disappeared from the park (one wonders why) after creationists had
challenged this, and that it has not been replaced b/c it is now "known" to
be "wrong". Much of the presentation was entertaining, with many slides of
the mountain before, during, and after the explosion--simply good
photography, with interesting narrative that was factual except when
describing the state of scientific opinion.
At the end of his talk, Hoesch held up several books he was offering for
sale. I bought one that I want to comment on. According to Hoesch, this
book has recently led a leading conservative theologian, R.C. Sproul (whom I
have heard many times), to become a YEC. I can't verify this, though if
true it would be one more PCA person to go in that direction, the first
prominent one being D James Kennedy many years ago with several others in
recent years following the lead of various conservative layity in that
denomination, which does seem to have more than its fair share of
geocentrists and theonomists.
The book itself is quite interesting and provocative. I am copying Roman
Miller (editor of PSCF) on this message, simply to suggest to him as well as
to the listserve that it might be worth a formal discussion. We might think
of a few theologians/biblical scholars in the ASA to respond to it in a
little symposium in PSCF, and ask the author to join in also. The details
are, Creation and Change: Genesis 1.1-2.4 in the light of changing
scientific paradigms (Fearn, UK: Mentor, 1997), by Douglas F. Kelly, prof of
systematic theology at Reformed Theological Seminary (Charlotte, NC). The
back cover advertises a forthcoming study guide and provides an ISBN for
that, but I have not seen this as yet.
The book has "blurbs" promoting it by, among others, Nigel Cameron of
Trinity International University (though very well known in mainstream
American evangelicalism, Nigel is a Scottish creationist--he's even
mentioned in Ron Numbers' book), who (I am guessing) perhaps facilitated
publication with an English press; and Frederick Skiff, assoc prof of
physics at the Univ of Maryland. I haven't seen Dr Skiff's name before, I
gather he's a creationist from what he says about this book.
Having not yet read this book except in a few places randomly chosen, I
can't summarize its arguments. I will say, however, that the author has
read widely on this issue, though I dare say his judgement is more than a
bit clouded. For example, he calls the gap view of Chalmers (which, nearly
all admit today, was a failed enterprise) "an exegesis of desperation". I
think I've read a lot more early 19th century geologists than Kelly has--he
shows no evidence of having read (say) Edward Hitchcock, the leading
American exponent of this view, or John Pye Smith, the English theologian
who recommended Hitchcock on the other side of the pond--and I would never
describe this view as given to despair. Frankly, they *knew* the earth was
a lot older than human beings (this is of course what Kelly means by
"desperation") and they did what made sense: they took another look at the
interpretation of Genesis One. Granted, their approach is probably weak on
exegetical grounds (much weaker, IMO, than the "day-age" approach) and
certainly pointless today on scientific grounds (since it utterly denies
evolution), but it made good sense to good minds at the time, for good
reasons.
Enough of this for now. Has anyone else seen this book? If so, do they
share my view that this one is worth responding to?
Ted Davis
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Sep 05 2001 - 09:01:46 EDT