tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15453937.post5656595061234129695..comments2024-01-10T17:36:15.040-07:00Comments on The Lippard Blog: Creationist finances: Creation Research SocietyLippardhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16826768452963498005noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15453937.post-11880090070047147632009-03-13T11:53:00.000-07:002009-03-13T11:53:00.000-07:00By the way Jim, are you aware of this latest contr...By the way Jim, are you aware of this latest controversy with AiG:<BR/><BR/>http://www.beyondcreationscience.com/index.php?pr=Why_Doesnt_Answers_in_Genesis_Tell_You_the_Truth<BR/><BR/>BTW - how about an update on creationist ministry finances - loved your last one!Tim Hhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01947210264290364219noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15453937.post-50438765984162751692009-03-13T11:50:00.000-07:002009-03-13T11:50:00.000-07:00"Numbers' book implies that YEC began with Seventh..."Numbers' book implies that YEC began with Seventh Day Adventists like G.M. Price, ignoring that it was almost unanimous among the Church Fathers including Basil the Great and Augustine, medieval Church Doctors including Thomas Aquinas, and the Reformers, as well as the early 19th-century Scriptural Geologists."<BR/><BR/>That is true, but by the end of the 19th century, almost all well-known Christian apologists had accepted that the earth was old and adhered to either the gap or day age theories. YEC had very low visibility. It was Price and subsequent followers such as Morris that revived YEC and its attendant flood geology.Tim Hhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01947210264290364219noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15453937.post-12976692226097399702009-03-11T21:44:00.000-07:002009-03-11T21:44:00.000-07:00Numbers' book implies that YEC began with Seventh ...Numbers' book implies that YEC began with Seventh Day Adventists like G.M. Price, ignoring that it was <A HREF="http://creation.com/article/417" REL="nofollow">almost unanimous</A> among the Church Fathers including <A HREF="http://creation.com/article/906" REL="nofollow">Basil the Great</A> and <A HREF="http://creation.com/article/2895#augustine" REL="nofollow">Augustine</A>, medieval Church Doctors including <A HREF="http://creation.com/article/6048#aquinas" REL="nofollow">Thomas Aquinas</A>, and the <A HREF="http://creation.com/article/236" REL="nofollow">Reformers</A>, as well as the early 19th-century <A HREF="http://creation.com/article/3324/" REL="nofollow">Scriptural Geologists</A>.Ktisophiloshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16718156076583190052noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15453937.post-1646390048927677962009-03-10T19:10:00.000-07:002009-03-10T19:10:00.000-07:00Kristine: I think you're right--dropping things d...Kristine: I think you're right--dropping things down the memory hole is advantageous if you're going to be repeating the same mistakes over and over, or if the history of your position undermines it, which I think are both the case for creationism. Ronald Numbers' _The Creationists: The Evolution of Scientific Creationism_ is a great compilation of the history of young-earth creationism, and is fun to read alongside Henry M. Morris's _A History of Modern Creationism_.Lippardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16826768452963498005noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15453937.post-67987383575096791742009-03-06T21:56:00.000-07:002009-03-06T21:56:00.000-07:00Wow, Jim, I haven't been to your blog for a while,...Wow, Jim, I haven't been to your blog for a while, and I stumbled upon this gem while exploring a question (provoked by some readings for grad school) as to where the personal papers of creationists, and the administrative/business papers of creationist societies, end up, if in archives or the trash bin. And here you've done all this work!<BR/><BR/>My readings for class talked of the mandate for archivists "giving voice to the voiceless" of those not archived, and spoke of archives as "power. It's my belief that silence can be power too, particularly in the creationist movement. When the public is not aware that each "new" creationist idea is just repackaged superstition, they are going to be more credulous than if they had the means to place modern-day intelligent design in context with Duane Gish's creation science and the Institute for Creation Research, Henry Morris's Deluge science and the Creation Research Science Center, and so on.<BR/><BR/>Creationism, not being a real science, does not build upon its past "scholarship" but relies on the short memories of Americans to forget its past "achievements." Thanks for contributing to the long memory. I'm going to have to check out your other posts on the other organizations.Kristinehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04350976542988396333noreply@blogger.com