tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post3567839128468090135..comments2023-12-22T08:29:29.230-08:00Comments on WHAT IS TRUTH: The CreationistKent Brandenburghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13419354741455959191noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-77489851042342212022007-06-25T09:46:00.000-07:002007-06-25T09:46:00.000-07:00Granted that modern science finds its roots in the...Granted that modern science finds its roots in the scholarship of Christendom, which certainly held to a literalist view of creation, but the author is not misleading to say that today's scientific creationism is a recent phenomenon. Creationism as we know it today is a reaction to Darwinism specifically and theological liberalism in general. This gives modern creationism a color that was not present before Darwin and liberalism. <BR/><BR/>I've personally been wrestling with whether to embrace the framework hypothesis, but am continually brought back to the danger of denying in any way the 24 hour nature of the creation account. When God himself writes "with his own finger" in the fourth commandment that he created the heavens and the earth in six days, I have a hard time of explaining away a young earth created in six 24 hour days as a literary device, no matter how appealing the theory is to me. I checked out Wright on Wikipedia to get a grasp of who it is your quote is dealing with, and I find sympathy with him, in light of what I just described about my own personal struggle with the 24 hour creation. The only reason I struggle is the seemingly less than persuasive efforts of today's "scientific creationists." Perhaps it's improving over time, I don't know. But I do know that regardless of how well we do at the science of it, it's hard to get away from believing that the Bible reveals a special creation in six 24 hour days.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com