Theology journals

[juliod]

I don't know much about theology. But I do know that there is a field of academic, high-end, serious journals for that subject.

Why don't creationists publish there?

They certainly could. Any evidence that reveals something about god, the creator, or whatever, would certianly be welcome there. Creationism, properly considered, is a sub-field of theology.

So why don't they do it?

My personal suspicion is that the only thing creationists know less about than science is theology. Is suspect that they get an even greater whipping than they do in science when they try to infiltrate theological circles.

DanZ

[juliod]

So there have been 58 views of this thread and no one has any input on why creationists don't publish in theological journals? That's quite suprising.

Is there any substance to creationism is any context?

Or is it the case (this is becoming my view) that creationism flourishes only among those who lack understanding of both science and theology?

DanZ

[nikolayevich]

So there have been 58 views of this thread and no one has any input on why creationists don't publish in theological journals? That's quite suprising.

That no one responds to your post? Well, I'll give you that it's an interesting form of self-flattery you've subscribed to

Is there any substance to creationism is any context?

Creationism or design is the only logical counterpart to evolution. Its substance is immediately recognizable as the singular alternative. Whether you believe it is another thing. However, we either accidentally/coincidentally arrived on this earth, or we were put here.

Or is it the case (this is becoming my view) that creationism flourishes only among those who lack understanding of both science and theology?

I suspect this is possible, however, I would say exactly the same thing is true with evolutionism. You see, some are taught creationism, but ALL are taught evolution. So evolution abounds, and do you honestly think that the average Joe truly understands science and theology enough to defend or reject evolutionism? Hardly. It's just what they know.

As for theological journals rejecting creationism, it hardly makes sense. Yes, some theologians have reasoned reason out of the Bible and logic, but even theological journals and sites reference creationist papers and resources. See American Theological Library Association as an example: http://www.atla.com/atlahome.html

It hardly needs to be pointed out but those who are qualified to "publish" in theological journals are generally theologians- those who are trained in theological seminaries. If you read the doctrinal statements of seminaries you will often see mention of the veracity of the Bible and the creation account. Who then would apply the whipping?

[NGR]

So there have been 58 views of this thread and no one has any input on why creationists don't publish in theological journals? That's quite suprising.

Is there any substance to creationism is any context?

Or is it the case (this is becoming my view) that creationism flourishes only among those who lack understanding of both science and theology?

I don't know a great deal about this but from my readings concerning the Intelligent Design proponents it appears that they are undertaking an act of deception by endeavouring to promote theology in a scientific context in order to combat evolution on an equal footing. They have had little luck so far with the camouflage but publishing material in a theological journal would be a dead giveaway that their intent was theological and not scientifically based. Not good for the campaign I would think.

[nikolayevich]

I don't know a great deal about this but from my readings concerning the Intelligent Design proponents it appears that they are undertaking an act of deception by endeavouring to promote theology in a scientific context in order to combat evolution on an equal footing. They have had little luck so far with the camouflage but publishing material in a theological journal would be a dead giveaway that their intent was theological and not scientifically based. Not good for the campaign I would think.

Surely you can see that both design and evolution have theological implications. That design or evoloution proponents would publish in a theological publication would say nothing of the veracity of either position. The same type of propagandist arguments can be made of evolutionary papers in support of far worse things than theology. Eugenics would be one obvious example. Is evolution made false by the fact we can see that some eugenicists have published evolutionary papers in support of their ideals? Of course not. As much as I think it is important that eugenics has been justified in the past by evolution, it has only been so by a minority of scientists so we can't accuse them all of dishonesty in this regard.

[McCulloch]

The proponents of ID would like to have us believe that it can be shown to be true without appealing to theology. Then, once ID is shown to be true, they can bring out the theological implications. Since they have had such a difficult time with the first step, it would be premature to move to the second. In fact, it would probably undermine the effort.

[NGR]

Surely you can see that both design and evolution have theological implications. That design or evoloution proponents would publish in a theological publication would say nothing of the veracity of either position. The same type of propagandist arguments can be made of evolutionary papers in support of far worse things than theology. Eugenics would be one obvious example. Is evolution made false by the fact we can see that some eugenicists have published evolutionary papers in support of their ideals? Of course not. As much as I think it is important that eugenics has been justified in the past by evolution, it has only been so by a minority of scientists so we can't accuse them all of dishonesty in this regard.

Its all about perception. ID is not science it is old theology with a new coat of paint. The major players in the Centre for the Renewal of Science & Culture, the institute that drives ID, are Christians and their mission is theological not scientific. The major goals listed in the institutes "Wedge" document that recently surfaced are as follows:-

To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies.

To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God.

Smells a lot more like theology than science to me. Science is all about finding the truth all they seem to be focussing on is their truth.

ID tries to be science but does not appear to do any research. Its main endeavour seems to surround the sowing of uncertainty and doubt about Evolution particularly in the eyes of the public and its aim in recent times appears to centre around efforts to have ID taught in US public schools. Of course trying to teach religion in a science class raises constitutional issues and they seem to be running into difficulty with their mission. Now while most people see through their act quite easily it would seem to me that frequently publishing papers in theology journals and failing to have any science journal publishing's would provide an even clearer picture of where ID stands and would appear to be counter productive to their goals.

[Jose]

The same type of propagandist arguments can be made of evolutionary papers in support of far worse things than theology. Eugenics would be one obvious example.

It is true that eugenecists have used evolution as logical support for their proposals, but I think that it is actually not evolution that is the relevant part. It's genetics. If you want your population to be composed entirely of blondes, you use only blondes as the parents. If you want to keep your a purebred line of labrador retrievers, you don't go around bringing in other breeds to complicate the gene pool.

If we look at it this way, then there's little reason to think of evolution as good or bad. Everyone needs to know about genetics, because it is intensely relevant to the health of their children. Almost everyone accepts it because the evidence is overwhelming (except for the occasional poster here who has said it's all a fake).

The curious thing is how people seem to link evolution to those things you've alluded to by "or worse." These links are based entirely on misrepresentation of scripture and of science. Since there is no foundation for any of it except rampageous imagination, these notions aren't acceptable to theology journals any more than to science journals. They are pretty much restricted to the pamphlets of their believers.

ID tries to be science but does not appear to do any research. Its main endeavour seems to surround the sowing of uncertainty and doubt about Evolution particularly in the eyes of the public and its aim in recent times appears to centre around efforts to have ID taught in US public schools.

This is accurate. Of course, they can't do science on ID itself, because it is simply not possible to prove or disprove the existence of a god (at least, it has been impossible thus far, despite great effort). We can easily see that their campaign is aimed at uncertainty and doubt because they explicitly attack an incorrect evolutionary model. If they really wanted to present ID scientifically, and not by deception, they would address the real theory of evolution, and not their caricature of it.

[juliod]

Creationism or design is the only logical counterpart to evolution. Its substance is immediately recognizable as the singular alternative. Whether you believe it is another thing. However, we either accidentally/coincidentally arrived on this earth, or we were put here.

It's amusing that your "only logical counterpart" is actually a known fallacy. It's just a statement of the False Dichotomy.

I'd say a position is pretty vacuous when it's flaws are so well known they have names.

So evolution abounds, and do you honestly think that the average Joe truly understands science and theology enough to defend or reject evolutionism?

The "average Joe" has about a 50/50 chance of believing creationism in the US. But 100% of real, active scientists accept evolution. And apparently all or almost all real, active theologians accept evolution too.

It seems that creationism is only prevalent with angry, ignorant right-wingers.

See American Theological Library Association as an example

I will look into that.

It hardly needs to be pointed out but those who are qualified to "publish" in theological journals are generally theologians- those who are trained in theological seminaries. If you read the doctrinal statements of seminaries you will often see mention of the veracity of the Bible and the creation account. Who then would apply the whipping?

They why don't creationists publish there? Why don't we see people here citing peer-reviewed, well-reasoned publications in serious theology journals in support of creationism? Why is it always a bunch of goof-ball web sites, and the same 'ol discredited arguments?

DanZ

[nikolayevich]

Its all about perception. ID is not science it is old theology with a new coat of paint. The major players in the Centre for the Renewal of Science & Culture, the institute that drives ID, are Christians and their mission is theological not scientific. The major goals listed in the institutes "Wedge" document...

Your post is all about motive. My point is, everyone has motive. You wish for evolution to be true (although perhaps you deny the motive it exists). Most people on our little planet seek out "evidence" that points to their beliefs. Yes, there are some who have had an objective outlook (and have still come to contrasting conclusions mind you!) but generally speaking everyone has a motive for everything. It says zero about the veracity of either evolution or design. Something out there is either true or false. If I were an evolutionist who desired to destroy creationism, would it make evolution false? I would have that motive after all. But no, it would not.