Author Topic: The half-way house of creationism  (Read 296 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline cassini

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1768
  • Reputation: +992/-120
  • Gender: Male
The half-way house of creationism
« on: June 24, 2014, 05:20:07 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Recently on holiday, I reread Walter van der Kamp's booklet THE COSMOS, EINSTEIN and TRUTH, and apart from the odd Protestant ommission or ignorance of the Catholic position, is probably the greatest book on CREATION ever written. It was he who coined the title of this thread and I should like to take up where Walter left off.

    Some years ago I had a chat with Jerry Kean (RIP) about his upcoming book CREATION REVISITED. He had sent me a preview copy and when I read the chapter on Galileo I told him that someday the standard Catholic apologist version will be shown to be in error and that it will be enough to discredit the rest of his book. He replied that he was aware of the 'geocentrist' position but that even if he were to give it any credibility in his book that would definitely discredit the creationism he was defending in his book.

    As it so happened I also brought with me on holiday a past edition of Daylight, origin science for Catholics edition No 42 October 2011. On the front page is a picture of the sun and planets with the earth plonked in position number three. inside was an excellent article written by the editor entitled THE EARTH - CREATED FOR MAN. The problem for me however was that this perfect earth, unique in the known cosmos, is presented as one of 8 planets that just happens to be in the right place.

    Now I am also aware of other creationist groups who wouldn't touch the geocentrist earth of all the peoples of the world, all the Fathers of the Catholic Church, and all the popes of the Church, until 1741 that is.

    We see then that as far as I can tell, every creationist group in the world, Protestant or Catholic, either reject a geocentric creation or even if in doubt still would not include it in their teachings.

    Creationist associations, and there must be 150 or so of them worldwide, profess to be defenders of a literal reading of the first chapter of Genesis. When it comes to this defence however they cheat a bit, for in fact, as Walter said, out of creation week they think days three, five and six will do the trick. A literal reading of creation days one, two and four is conceded to the Big Bang heliocentric, scientific interpretations. What they fail to realise that days one, two and four hold the key to any hope of convincing the greater number that days three, five and six cannot have an evolutionary interpretation.

    Getting back to those who are aware of the 'possibility' of the geocentric position but are afraid it will backfire on them, let me ask them to take an OATH of creationism that would go like this:

    "I swear to tell the truth, THE WHOLE TRUTH and nothing but the truth, so help me God."

    Unless creationist associations adopt the literal position of the full six days of creation they are not addressing in chronological order, the initial attacks that caused the Bible to be considered by the vast majority in the world as an ancient book of myths and fables with no connection to thruths (supposedly) discovered by science.

     

    Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16