As you will note from the message I sent to the reflector and copied to
you, I suggested people copy you on responses to Howard's comments.
Perhaps I should have had them copy Howard as well or instead of you. Let
me know if you prefer a different arrangement.
Howard said
>As a relative newcomer to the debate between old- and young-earth
>evangelicals, I find name-calling instead of respectful dialogue the
>common practice. Noll does not make a positive contribution at this
>point. Bill Hamilton says that "Noll attributes the popularity of
>creation science to the intuitive belief of many evangelicals that it
>embodied the simple teachings of Scripture...." This is not acceptable
>language. The young-earth interpretation of Scripture is not merely
>intuitive. In making this claim Noll is echoing the unhelpful assertion of
>the American Scientific Affiliation and other old-earth advocates that the
>young-earth position is by definition unscientific, anti-intellectual, and
>fundamentalist.
My first question on reading Howard's note was whether the quotation he
attributes to me is a fair rendition of what Noll actually said. It turns
out to be close to a direct quote. On page 193 Noll writes
"Creationism exploded as a public force among evangelicals, first, because
of the intuitive belief of many evangelicals that it embodied the simple
teachings of Scripture."
I don't believe Noll is claiming that there is no intellectual basis for
creationism. He's simply pointing out that for the vast majority of people
in the evangelical community, who are neither theologians nor scientists, a
view that "settles" some science v. faith issues has powerful appeal.
As a member of the American Scientific Affiliation I'm also somewhat
puzzled by Howard's reference to "the unhelpful assertion of
>the American Scientific Affiliation and other old-earth advocates that the
>young-earth position is by definition unscientific, anti-intellectual, and
>fundamentalist". The ASA takes no position on the age of the earth or on
>evolution, and its membership includes young-earth creationists. ASA is
>committed to being an open forum in which controversial science-faith
>issues can be debated. I read Clouser's paper, and I'm sure many ASA
>members were as perturbed by it as Howard was. His view of the creation
>of Adam for example made me very uncomfortable. That's what happens when
>you commit to an open forum.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill and Linda Hamilton
1346 W. Fairview Lane
Rochester, MI 48306
(810) 652 4148