The Creationist Revival after 1961
For a century after the publication of Charles Darwins
Origin of Species (1859) antievolutionists were united
almost solely by their antipathy to evolution, not by agreement
on the mode of creation. Among Christian Fundamentalists in the
twentieth century, three interpretations of Genesis 1 vied for
acceptance: (1) the gap theory, which held that the first chapter
of Genesis described two creations, the first "in the beginning,"
at some unspecified time in the distant past, the second about
6,000 years ago, when God created Adam and Eve in the Garden of
Eden; (2) the day-age theory, which equated the "days"
of Genesis 1 with vast geological ages; and (3) the theory of
flood geology, advocated by George McCready Price, which allowed
for no life on earth before the Edenic creation and which assigned
most of the fossil-bearing rocks to the catastrophic work of Noahs
flood. Until the early 1960s the vast majority of American Fundamentalists
who left any record of their views on Genesis embraced either
the gap or day-age schemes. Support for flood geology was limited
largely to the small Seventh-day Adventist church, of which Price
was a member.
This division of loyalties began to change dramatically with
the publication in 1961 of The Genesis Flood by John C.
Whitcomb, Jr., and Henry M. Morris, and the formation two years
later of the Creation Research Society (CRS). Whitcomb, an Old
Testament scholar, and Morris, a civil engineer, collaborated
on an up-to-date presentation of Prices flood geology that
attracted considerable attention in conservative Christian circles.
Their argument that science should accommodate revelation rather
than vice versa resonated with the sentiments of many concerned
Christians, who followed Whitcomb and Morris in jettisoning the
gap and day-age theories as unholy compromises with naturalistic
science.
In 1963 Morris joined nine other creationists with scientific
training to form the CRS, an organization committed to the propagation
of young-earth creationism. In the 1920s antievolutionists had
lacked a single scientist with so much as a masters degree
in science Their most impressive scientific authorities were a
successful Canadian surgeon, a homeopathic medical-school dropout
turned Presbyterian minister, a Seventh-day Adventist college
instructor without an earned bachelors degree whose most
advanced exposure to science had come in a course for elementary-school
teachers, and a science professor at a small Fundamentalist college
whose highest degree was a masters awarded for a thesis
on the teaching of penmanship in the public schools of two Midwestern
towns. In contrast, five of the ten founding members of the CRS
had earned Ph.D.s in the biological sciences at reputable
universities, and a sixth held a doctorate in biochemistry. Not
all of the founders, however, possessed legitimate credentials.
The only geologist in the group fraudulently claimed to have received
a masters degree.
About 1970, in an effort to sell their views as science and
gain entry to public-school classrooms, these young-earth creationists
renamed their beliefs creation science and dropped the label flood
geology. Although two states, Arkansas and Louisiana, eventually
passed laws mandating the teaching of creation science whenever
evolution science was taught, the U. S. Supreme Court in 1987
ruled that such laws violated the First Amendment to the Constitution,
requiring the separation of church and state. Despite this setback,
the creation scientists flourished to the point that they virtually
co-opted the term creationism for the formerly marginal ideas
of Price. Public-opinion polls in the 1990s, though failing to
distinguish young- from old-earth creationists, showed that forty-seven
percent of Americans, including a quarter of college graduates,
professed belief in the recent special creation of the first humans
within the past 10,000 years. A hundred and forty years of evolution
had left many Americans unconvinced.
Email
link | Printer-friendly | Feedback
| Contributed by: Dr. Ron Numbers
|