Gordie Simons forwarded your response to my comments on Noll and Creationism.
Thank you for your contribution to the discussion.
I hope you did not think I was questioning your accuracy in representing Mark
Noll's views in his book The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind. Rather I was,
as one trained as a historian, trying to be clear about my source of
information, namely, that I had not read Noll but only your review of his
book. I apologize if I gave the wrong impression.
Your quotation of Noll (page 193) is helpful: "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." You
do not believe that here Noll is denying any intellectual foundation for
creationism (I prefer the term "young-earth theory".). Rather, Noll is
"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."
You could very well be right. I'll have to read Noll's book. But I must
observe that the old-earth theory also offers a powerful intuitive appeal to
many evangelicals who are neither theologians nor scientists.
I am delighted to hear that not all articles in the American Scientific
Affiliation's journal entitled "Perspectives on Science & Christian Faith"
use the negatively-flavored term "fundamentalist" when referring to the
young-earth theory. Unfortunately, the first three articles I have read do
use this term as well as other disrespectful language in reference to the
theory and its advocates: Seung-Hun Yang, "Radiocarbon Dating and American
Evangelical Christians," Dec 1993; Mark A. Kalthoff, "The Chronicle of a
Curious Hijacking," Dec 1993; and the Clouser article. I admit this is not a
wide-enough sample, and my condemnation of the journal was too sweeping.
Please direct me to articles that are more careful and respectful in their
language.
By the way, I equally object to the inflamatory language of most young-earth
proponents when they talk about their old-earth opponents.
A final comment on Noll's use of the term "simple" in association with the
young-earth theory. William of Occam, a late medieval philosopher, developed
an intellectual rule-of-thumb that became known as Occam's razor. His
principle was that in the absence of decisive evidence or argument, the
simpler theory is more likely to be correct. Copernicus and Kepler derived
from Occam's razor encouragement to question the geocentric theory of the
universe. So far in my inquiries, I would have to say that in Biblical
interpretation Occam's razor cuts in favor of the young-earth theory, but
apparently cuts against in interpretation of the universe.
Again, I'm grateful for your input.
Warmly,
Howard (Killion)