The Creationists: From Scientific Creationism to Intelligent Design

[Daniel_Cheung]

The Creationists: From Scientific Creationism to Intelligent Design (http://www.amazon.com/Creationists-Scientific-Creationism-Intelligent-Expanded/dp/0674023390/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/002-4589120-8624001?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1180059988&sr=8-1)

請問有沒有人看過這本書？聞說是十分中肯和嚴謹的歷史研究，探討七日創造論的興起。按我看別人的簡短評論，在該書裡，雖然作者對基督教有同情，但他認為七日創造論只是晚近的新興思想，並不是甚麼明顯的聖經真理。

該書出版已有大約十年的時間，且被哈佛大學出版社買下了，能歷久不衰，越發暢銷，可印證它的內容的確不俗。只是該書有六百多頁，有點令人卻步。:o

[wilson]

多謝你的介紹, 我會嘗試於暑期看這本書, 因為最近在研讀John Collins對創一至四章的詮釋.

有興趣的, 可參考: C. John Collins, Genesis 1-4: A Linguistic, Literary, And Theological Commentary, P & R Pubishing, 2006. 318 pages, ISBN: 0875526195.

Collins不認為這世界是神於六日創造的.

[Daniel_Cheung]

此書其實是我在閱讀 Mark Noll (http://www.s-h-c.org/forum/showthread.php?t=2642) 時看到的， Noll 對這本書的評價十分之高，並且認為可以成為他批評美國福音派反智的助證。

[Daniel_Cheung]

其實這樣的書應該要翻譯成中文，讓華人信徒有多點反思。不知有沒有人有興趣？有沒有出版商肯支持？

不過，這書太厚，始終是一個憂慮。

[el244]

A review (http://www.leaderu.com/ftissues/ft9304/reviews/noll.html) of the book by Mark Noll:

"Numbers notes that creationists embody some of the widespread resentment toward America's self-appointed knowledge elites. As such, they are part of a natural reaction to the intellectual imperialism so regularly practiced by a number of scholars at the nation's best-known universities. A world in which a physicist like Cornell's Carl Sagan becomes a guru concerning All Things, or a paleontologist like Harvard's Stephen Jay Gould presumes to define the theoretical limits of "science," is a world primed for an ancient languages expert like Whitcomb and an engineer like Morris to offer their own counter- pontifications about How The World Is."

"To observe that creationism is primarily religion, and then secondarily politics, does not disqualify it from a place in the public square... It means, rather, that responses to creationism must try to assess it for what it is. Numbers' volume is indispensable for that task."

[Daniel_Cheung]

對，這書有趣之處是，它既大力撻伐七日創造為非教會傳統觀點（"Despite a widespread impression to the contrary, "creationism" was not a traditional belief of nineteenth-century conservative Protestants or even of early-twentieth-century fundamentalists."），但另一方面，他又坦言教外人士對這事的偏見（"Numbers suggests that the intrusion of the national government into local educational concerns has politicized all the topics that are seen to lie on the borders between science and religion. "）。


Finally, Numbers' book shows that what goes around comes around. It is sad to note how little progress has been made over the last century in framing questions concerning the relationship between God and the physical world. (And no one should claim that, even where clearer understanding exists on how to frame the issues, spectacular breakthroughs have occurred.) In his 1933 biography of Thomas Aquinas, G. K. Chesterton wrote words he intended as a retrospective but which are just as descriptive of the 1990s as of the 1860s. They could serve as a summation for Ronald Numbers' extraordinarily helpful book: "Private theories about what the Bible ought to mean, and premature theories about what the world ought to mean, have met in loud and widely advertised controversy, especially in the Victorian time; and this clumsy collision of two very impatient forms of ignorance was known as the quarrel of Science and Religion."

[dso]

此書其實是我在閱讀 Mark Noll (http://www.s-h-c.org/forum/showthread.php?t=2642) 時看到的， Noll 對這本書的評價十分之高，並且認為可以成為他批評美國福音派反智的助證。

Did Mark Noll write a similar book himself--addressing the history of Creationism?

[Daniel_Cheung]

Did Mark Noll write a similar book himself--addressing the history of Creationism?

在google 找不到，大概是沒有。

這網頁幾有趣，是懷疑論者做的七日創造論書目，http://www.csicop.org/bibliography/home.cgi/creationism

[Daniel_Cheung]

美「創造博物館」引發基督徒對生物起源的討論 (http://www.gospelherald.com.hk/news/tec_203.htm)

[Daniel_Cheung]

Introduction to the Expanded Edition

The first edition of this book reported that, according to a 1991 Gallup poll, 47 percent of Americans, including a quarter of college graduates, believed that "God created man pretty much in his present form at one time within the last 10,000 years." Fourteen years later, in 2005, the same organization, asking a slightly revised question, found that 53 percent of Americans affirmed that "God created human beings in their present form exactly the way the Bible describes it." Nearly two-thirds (65.5 percent) of those polled regarded "creationism" as definitely or probably true. Other surveys discovered similar or higher levels of support for creationism, however defined. In 2005 Newsweek revealed that 80 percent of Americans believed "that God created the universe," and the Pew Research Center found that "nearly two-thirds of Americans say that creationism should be taught alongside evolution in public schools." Most surprising of all was the discovery that large numbers of high-school biology teachers - from 30 percent in Illinois and 38 percent in Ohio to a whopping 69 percent of Kentucky - supported the teaching of creationism...