Ted Davis wrote in part:
>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.
Ted,
I got the book a couple of years ago. It has been promoted in my church
(PCA) and several others that I know of. I believe the Lee Irons
critiqued this book in PSCF about a year ago. That critique, if I rememer
right, emphasized what Irons saw as misrepresentations of the framework
interpretation that he and Kline have been promoting for a number of years
and so only dealt with exegetical questions. I have heard many people
claim this book is the best theological defense of a young earth although I
would think that James Jordan book might be a more vigourous defense in
that area.
The book really does try to cover the exegetical questions while addressing
scientific questions. This is where the greatest weakness of the book
lies. Kelly, admits right up front that he doesn't know much science and
clearly he clearly relies on one main source for all his scientific
considerations - Walter Brown. Almost every single claim in the book is
directly out of Brown's "In the Beginning" He barely acknowledges Davis
(Calvin College) and clearly has not personally read much of the literature
as he falls into the typical fitfalls. The science content is extremely
poorly edited (citation errors, wrong names etc.. all over the place)
suggesting that the people he had edit the text where not all that familiar
with the scientific content as well.
What bothers me about the book is that many people in the PCA are holding
the book up as not only theological defense of 6-day creation but as a book
to read to understand the scientific questions. It seems to be simply
perpetuating poor scientific argumentation and many people has simply
referred me to the book as if all my questions will be answered there.
Just a few thoughts for the moment, I'm off to class.
Joel
PS. rented Momento last night - one of the best films I have seen in a long
time!
>
>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
>
>
*******************************************
Dr. R. Joel Duff, Assistant Professor
Dept. of Biology, ASEC 185
Campus Mail 3908
University of Akron
Akron, OH 44325-3908
Office: 330-972-6077
e-mail: rjduff@uakron.edu
http://www.uakron.edu/biology/duff/duff.htm
*******************************************
"The irony of the Information Age is that it has given new respectability
to uninformed opinion."
Reporter John Lawton speaking to the American Association of Broadcast
Journalists in 1995
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Sep 05 2001 - 09:42:21 EDT