Ted,
For starters see
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1998/PSCF12-98Irons.html, an essay
review by OPC minister and defender of Meredith Kline's framework
view, Lee Irons, that appeared in PSCF.
As I see it, aside from the opening chapter that starts with a
discussion of Johnson, Behe, and some others in the contemporary
discussion, Kelly's book is simply rehashed YEC, both exegetically
and scientifically. If it's true about Sproul, I can't see what he
found so convincing (perhaps other than the political climate in the
PCA.)
TG
>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
>
-- _________________ Terry M. Gray, Ph.D., Computer Support Scientist Chemistry Department, Colorado State University Fort Collins, Colorado 80523 grayt@lamar.colostate.edu http://www.chm.colostate.edu/~grayt/ phone: 970-491-7003 fax: 970-491-1801
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Sep 05 2001 - 09:39:47 EDT