Re: ICR, February 2006

From: George L. <>
Date: Wed Feb 01 2006 - 15:22:09 EST

Burgy's post with the link to Morris' review of Michael Ruse's new book
> prompted me to add my own points about Ruse's book.
> Here is one of the main points Henry Morris makes, responding to Ruse's new
> book:
> This supposed relationship of creationism to premillennialism comes up
> frequently in his book. However, although John Whitcomb and I are convinced
> premillennialists, the publishers of our book, The Genesis Flood (which many
> say catalyzed modern creationism), normally publish only amillennial and
> postmillennial books. There are in fact quite a few creationists who are
> post-millennialists and probably even more who are amillennialists. The
> common ground of almost all Christian creationists is simply that they
> believe in God and the Bible, not a particular understanding of
> eschatology.
> My comment would be identical. I also have reviewed this book recently,
> though b/c the review is not out yet I won't paste it into this post. My
> review will appear one of these days in Isis, the journal of the History of
> Science Society. I made the very same point as Morris makes above. Ruse's
> new intepretive brush, seeing both evolution and antievolution as competing
> eschatologies, is clever as far as it goes; but it doesn't go very far at
> all. I had very little space for my review, so I couldn't elaborate this
> and other objections very much; but Morris is entirely right, IMO, about
> this major flaw with Ruse's book.

Virtually all conservative Lutheran anti-evolutionists, including some involved with the formation of the Creation Research Society, have been amillennialists - as Article 17 of the the Augsburg Confession has generally been held to teach.

George L. Murphy
Received on Wed Feb 1 15:24:11 2006

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Feb 01 2006 - 15:24:11 EST