I have been off-line for some weeks and so have not been able to take part
previously in this discussion, although I have watched it with interest.
The connection between YEC and Price is no figment of Ron Number's imagination.
Whitcomb and Morris mention Price with approval (in particular Price's 1926
"Evolutionary Geology and the New Catastrophism) on pages 184, 185, 189, and
211of "The Genesis Flood.
In "A History of Modern Creationism" Morris also wrote, while carefully
distancing himself from SDA doctrine on eschatology, revelation and soteriology:
"...they are closer to the truth than the "liberals" among the "mainstream"
denominations. Although I never met George McCready Price, his tremendous breath
of knowledge of science and Scripture,, his careful logic, and his beautiful
writing style made aprofound impression on me... I did engage in a fruitful
correspondence with him over a period of some 15 years... He was certainly far
better educated, in the true sense, then 90% of the Ph.D's and Th.D's..."
(p80-81)
With respect to Number's book, Henry Morris wrote this endorsement for the dust
jacket:
"For those interested in the background of the modern revival of creationism,
whether evolutionists creationists, this book is a rich mine of information and
historical insights."
YEC detractors of Numbers' book (such as Ken Ham) and those who attempt to deny
the truth could do worse than ponder the writings of Henry Morris (at least on
this subject).
Jon
Ted Davis wrote:
> The claim that YEC as we know it today is derivative from SDA prophetess
> Ellen White, via Canadian schoolteacher and self-proclaimed "geologist"
> George McCready Price, is very well supported by the evidence--pulled
> together by former SDA scholar Ronald Numbers in The Creationists, with
> additional comments in several other Numbers writings. I've had numerous
> conversations with Ron over the years and, if memory serves me correctly--I
> trust Ron's scholarship better than my memory--his particular point can be
> expressed like this: the *combination of* "flood geology" (the idea that
> most or all fossiliferous rocks were produced by the biblical flood, roughly
> 4300 years ago) and "young earth" (the living things on the earth were
> created separately, in a literal creation week, about 6000 years ago, do
> derive from SDA sources. Some comments are in order, and I invite Allen Roy
> and others to comment further.
>
> First, Price himself (I don't know enough about White to bring her in also)
> was not bothered by an "old" universe; what concerned him was the age of
> living things on the earth, and the solar system itself, both of which had
> to be confined to the traditional biblical chronology. Contemporary YECs
> are, of course, greatly disturbed by the idea of any physical object having
> an actual age more than 5 days older than Adam, though they share entirely
> with Price the view that the earth and all it contains is younger than
> 10,000 years.
>
> Second, both ideas (young earth and flood geology) predate Ellen White, who
> almost certainly drew on the "biblical geologists" of the mid-19th century
> in her writings. But learned evangelical writers did not follow the
> "biblical geologists" in the latter part of the 19th century. Rather they
> followed some of the leading American and English geologists and teachers of
> geology (the former cateogory would include Hitchcock, Dana, and Buckland;
> the latter category Silliman and Jameson), who had found various ways to
> "reconcile" an historical early Genesis with an "old" earth. The "day age"
> and "gap" views were mainly used. But after ca. 1830, no reputable
> geologist appealed to the biblical flood to explain fossils: the evidence
> against this hypothesis was seen as overwhelming; a "young" earth had become
> untenable some decades before that.
>
> Third, note that I said nothing above about "young" humans. OECs of the
> 19th century by and large assumed/accepted the traditional chronology for
> human history, taking Adam and Eve as historical persons and the progenitors
> of all modern persons. In the latter part of the 19th century, however, it
> became clear that hominids who looked like us, buried their dead, made art,
> and made, kept, and used tools, had existed for tens of thousands of years.
> This caused a number of evangelical scholars, including BB Warfield, to
> "push the envelope" on the Genesis chronology and geneology. This gave
> consternation to even highly learned, careful scholars like George Frederick
> Wright, who had a faith crisis over this issue owing to his commitment to
> something like inerrancy. My own view is that, even if we completely
> disregard all evolutionary claims and assume the whole theory is hogwash,
> then the issue of human antiquity is sufficient by itself to call into
> question the historicity of early Genesis. This is one of several reasons
> why I am not an OEC, though I have great respect for aspects of the position
> and (as similar sayings go), "many of my friends are OECs".
>
> Ted Davis
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Sep 14 2001 - 08:21:44 EDT