Contributions to Creationism by George McCready Price

George McCready Price (1870-1963) was the leading young-life creationist of the first half of the twentieth century. Largely self-taught, Price shared his creationist views in more than two dozen books and more than 800 articles—mostly intended for the lay believer. Price argued that true science involves deriving absolute truths by inductive syllogism from known truths. Price believed the Creation Week was 144 consecutive hours in length, six or seven thousand years ago, and everything on the earth was created in that Creation Week. Price believed the creation was created in the state of perfection and that natural evil entered the world at the Fall of man. Price believed the only natural group of organisms, the created kind (what he called the ‘natural species’ when he was being careful), was at about the taxonomic level of genus or family, and could be identified by successful hybridization. Except in the high altitudes, Price believed the entire pre-Flood world enjoyed a sub-tropical climate and supported a biota of much greater size and beauty than the biota of the present world. Price believed the Genesis Flood was global and was caused by some sort of upheaval of the oceans—possibly the sloshing back and forth of the oceans as the earth sustained a sudden, axis-changing astronomical impact. Price believed that all Phanerozoic sediments were formed in the Flood, and organisms were buried close to their pre-Flood habitation. Price believed that the global biostratigraphic column was artificially arranged according to organismal development, reversals of that order are due to normal sedimentation (not post-depositional thrust faults), and most so-called ‘extinct’ organisms are actually identical to modern organisms. Price believed that a sudden freeze was somehow associated with the Flood (to explain frozen mammoths), and the warm pre-Flood ocean water in inland seas caused a regional ice age in the years following the Flood. Price believed created kinds diversified largely by splitting and differentiation following the Flood. Price believed the post-Flood Cro-Magnon people are the oldest humans from which we have evidence, and all other hominoids (fossil and living, ape and human) are degenerate humans. Price also believed that God created languages and races and gave them to different people groups spreading out from Babel. Finally, Price believed that human civilization has degenerated from its highest form in Eden. Price’s geological ideas formed the core of the geological arguments of Whitcomb and Morris’s The Genesis Flood, but without appropriate citation. Many of the discussions of modern creationism are similar to ideas Price shared a century or more ago. Although many of current creationist discussions are likely to be derived from Price, not only is this not obvious, but much valuable discussion has been lost. Creationists should reconstruct their intellectual history and thus enrich current discussions. A host of Price’s claims are echoed in modern creationist discussions. Many of those discussions may turn out to be derived from Price’s ideas and this intellectual heritage should be studied in detail. Price’s philosophy of science, for example, seems to be echoed in such things as the creationist tendency to present anti-evolutionary arguments rather than build models, the preference of quantitative over non-quantitative research approaches, and the adoption of positivist definitions of science. Price’s climatology seems to be echoed in such things as adherence to the canopy model, associations of warm climate with large body size, and discussions about the nature and timing of the ice age. Price’s biology seems to be echoed in such things as creationists’ use of Mayr’s biological species definition, references to ‘natural limits to variation’ and ‘living fossils’, and post-Flood diversification by segregation of genetic information. Price’s geology seems to be echoed in such things as the rejection of the biostratigraphic column and disputes about the location of the Flood/post-Flood boundary in the stratigraphic record

Uncovering the Protological Hermeneutics of George McCready Price and Benjamin Warfield

Problem The problem this dissertation addresses is the protological hermeneutical impasse between George McCready Price and Benjamin Warfield over whether biblical protology should be interpreted literally or symbolically in response to the evolutionary theory. Method To identify, compare, and contrast the protological hermeneutics of George McCready Price and Benjamin Warfield, this dissertation adopts an interdisciplinary methodology that seeks to integrate historical theology, systematic theology, and exegetical-biblical theology. Conclusions The protological hermeneutical impasse between George McCready Price and Benjamin Warfield over the interpretation of biblical protology was caused by how they applied their views on epistemology. On the hermeneutical level (where ontology, metaphysics, and epistemology inform interpretation), Price held to the meaning of the biblical text interpreted through Scripture alone, and not based on external sources of protological knowledge. While Warfield held that Scripture is “the end of all strife,” he held to an interpretation of the biblical text contingent on the interpretations of nature by mainstream science. This research indicates many similarities between these two thinkers, bringing to an end a two-decades-long misconception that Warfield’s views on science were superior to Price’s views on science. In fact, they held similar views on science (i.e., its definition, task, etc.). In addition, they both agreed that: God is not timeless and he communicates with humankind through reason; “the heavens and the earth” (i.e., the entire galactic universe) might have been created more than six thousand years ago; Genesis 1:2a is a description of the condition of the earth after the creation of inorganic matter and prior to the beginning of the creation week; the seventh day of the creation week is the foundation of the Sabbath (they disagreed on the actual day of observance––Saturday vs. Sunday); and they both understood the biblical flood in Genesis 6-8 as a historical event. This research also challenged the claim that Price is the founder of modern Scientific Creationism. This idea was popularized by two historians who wanted to link Price to Fundamentalism––a term generally used pejoratively––to delegitimize Price’s contribution to theology and to science, and to uplift Warfield. However, this research showed that neither Price nor Warfield are Fundamentalists. The research also showed that the current categorization of the Creationist Movement in the West is obsolete and needs to be updated. The Old Earth vs. Young Earth can no longer account for the views of proponents of biblical protology. The Undated Earth Creation Movement must be included in a landmark publication. Altogether, these findings can facilitate a renewed dialogue about the relationship between theology and science in the writings of Price and Warfield, their interpretations of biblical protology, the history of the Creationist Movement in the West, and the contributions of their protological hermeneutics to contemporary Christian theology

The Flood of Antievolutionism

In 1963, American historian Richard Hofstadter wrote that today the evolutionary controversy seems as remote as the Homeric era.\u27\u27 The Biological Sciences Curriculum Study Project, supported in part by federal funds, was preparing secondary school texts that openly presented evolution as the foundation of biology. And George McCready Price, an outspoken leader of the protest against evolution in the days of the Scopes monkey trial and author of numerous antievolutionary tomes, including The Phantom of Organic Evolution (1924), A History of Some Scientific Blunders (1930), The Modern Flood Theory of Geology (1935), and Genesis Vindicated (1941), died at the age of 92. But 1963 was also the year that the Creation Research Society - and with it, organized scientific creationism\u27\u27 - was born

TODAY - May 25, 2011

Inside this issue: -- Loma Linda University prepares to graduate more than 1,300 students-- \u27Loma Linda 360\u27 nominated for eight Emmys-- Connection between mental and physical health suggested by Biopsychosocial Religion and Health Study-- First annual medical simulation conference-- Counseling and family sciences department conducts study for Housing Authority-- Loma Linda University Medical Center announces administrative reorganization-- Large crowd attends Women\u27s Works at LLU Heart & Surgical Hospital-- LLUMC East Campus Hospital administrator transitions to active retirement-- Child life seminar looks to hospitalized children and their unique needs-- New director comes to Loma Linda University Lifestyle Medical Institute-- Pepperdine professor speaks on George McCready Price and creationism-- Doctors and friends celebrated during School of Nursing brunch-- Public health student teaches kids about bullying prevention-- Five-year constituency report brings Loma Linda\u27s vision to life-- Two senior officers appointed by LLU Adventist Health Sciences Centerhttps://scholarsrepository.llu.edu/today/1061/thumbnail.jp

The Nineteenth Century Engagement Between Geological and Adventist Thought and its Bearing on the Twentieth Century Flood Geology Movement

The Seventh-day Adventist Church has from the early years of its existence reacted to the perceived challenge of geological thought to their nascent theology. In particular, the Sabbath of the fourth Commandment in Genesis 2 and the catastrophic global Flood described in Genesis 7 and 8 were targeted. The nineteenth century Adventist response has been one of shifting focus, changing strategies, and increasing intensity. Ellen White, the church’s co-founder and prophetess, was one of the first to sound a warning on theological implications of geology. Her perception of geology contained many pre-nineteenth century concepts disconnected from contemporary geological thinking. Long-time editor Uriah Smith used external documents, notably Presbyterian writings to guide the Adventist congregation with ways of responding to geological thought as it impacted on their faith. The first authentic Adventist evaluation of geology and its perceived link with evolution by Alonzo Jones took place in the mid-1880s. With his spirited response, Jones criticised geological stratigraphic concepts in order to neutralise the threat of burgeoning theistic evolutionary thought. His searching in the geological literature involved the use of contextomy. George McCready Price next ventured to nullify the established stratigraphic principles of geology in order to justify a single, global flood-based hypothesis to explain all fossiliferous sedimentary formations. To achieve this, he presented from established scientists selected citations out of their intended context. A special case is presented on Price’s questionable use of the reports of American field geologists McConnell and Willis on thrust faults in the Rocky Mountains. Price modified diagrams and failed to convey unmistakable evidence of a dynamic cause of complex stratigraphy to present his case for the global existence of reverse sequences of rock strata. He argued that since the geologists’ evidence for a fossil sequence of life in the rock stratigraphy is so greatly flawed, there must have been a single catastrophic event that better explained this. Adventist engagement with geological thought during this period saw a noticeable increase in the disregard of intellectual integrity. This study argues that intellectual dishonesty is not a valid way to support a preconceived interpretation of the scriptural narrative. History provides several examples where skewed accounts of events due to questionable intellectual sincerity have eventually been corrected. This research provides access points for interested persons to further investigate the historical aspects of the nineteenth century geology and Adventist thought engagement

The Nineteenth Century Engagement Between Geological and Adventist Thought and its Bearing on the Twentieth Century Flood Geology Movement

The Seventh-day Adventist Church has from the early years of its existence reacted to the perceived challenge of geological thought to their nascent theology. In particular, the Sabbath of the fourth Commandment in Genesis 2 and the catastrophic global Flood described in Genesis 7 and 8 were targeted. The nineteenth century Adventist response has been one of shifting focus, changing strategies, and increasing intensity. Ellen White, the church’s co-founder and prophetess, was one of the first to sound a warning on theological implications of geology. Her perception of geology contained many pre-nineteenth century concepts disconnected from contemporary geological thinking. Long-time editor Uriah Smith used external documents, notably Presbyterian writings to guide the Adventist congregation with ways of responding to geological thought as it impacted on their faith. The first authentic Adventist evaluation of geology and its perceived link with evolution by Alonzo Jones took place in the mid-1880s. With his spirited response, Jones criticised geological stratigraphic concepts in order to neutralise the threat of burgeoning theistic evolutionary thought. His searching in the geological literature involved the use of contextomy. George McCready Price next ventured to nullify the established stratigraphic principles of geology in order to justify a single, global flood-based hypothesis to explain all fossiliferous sedimentary formations. To achieve this, he presented from established scientists selected citations out of their intended context. A special case is presented on Price’s questionable use of the reports of American field geologists McConnell and Willis on thrust faults in the Rocky Mountains. Price modified diagrams and failed to convey unmistakable evidence of a dynamic cause of complex stratigraphy to present his case for the global existence of reverse sequences of rock strata. He argued that since the geologists’ evidence for a fossil sequence of life in the rock stratigraphy is so greatly flawed, there must have been a single catastrophic event that better explained this. Adventist engagement with geological thought during this period saw a noticeable increase in the disregard of intellectual integrity. This study argues that intellectual dishonesty is not a valid way to support a preconceived interpretation of the scriptural narrative. History provides several examples where skewed accounts of events due to questionable intellectual sincerity have eventually been corrected. This research provides access points for interested persons to further investigate the historical aspects of the nineteenth century geology and Adventist thought engagement

Beliefs About the Creation of the World Among Teachers in Adventist Schools in Australia and the Solomon Islands

This chapter reports on what teachers in Seventh-day Adventist Schools in Australia and the Solomon Islands believe about creation. It begins by considering the information that the teachers will have received from church sources. Creation and creationism have been of keen interest to Seventh-day Adventists. The most prominent exponent of creationism among Seventh-day Adventists, George McCready Price (1870—1963), was influential both within and without the Adventist Church. He attacked the concept of the geological column, and attributed the phenomena found in the various strata to the Flood. In 1958 the General Conference of the Seventh-day Adventist Church established the Geoscience Research Institute. The chapter reports on its activities, and notes the dates, academic degree and specialization of the directors of the institute. The chapter goes on to outline the contributions made by Leonard Brand, and then outlines the reasons why the current statement on creation is found in the 28 Fundamental Beliefs of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. The last part of the chapter reports on the responses of the teachers to five survey questions relating to the doctrine of creation. It was noted that there was near unanimity from both teachers in the Australian Union Conference (AUC) and the Solomon Islands Mission (SIM) that God created the world. It also noted that there were statistically significant differences between the AUC and SIM teachers in their understanding of the age of the earth. The chapter considers possible reasons for the similarities and differences between the responses of the AUC and SIM teachers

Infidel Geologists! The Cultural Context of Ellen White\u27s Statements on Geological Science

Ellen White’s repeated and strident denunciations of ‘infidel geologists’ and theirideas in her 1864 monograph “Spiritual Gifts” are well known. This early originsmaterial was invoked from time to time in her subsequent articles for Churchperiodicals, would be re-worked and expanded in her “Spirit of Prophecy” (1870)and was to see its final denouement in “Patriarchs and Prophets” (1890) withother associated material appearing in the “Great Controversy” (1888). Becauseof her accepted prophetic status Ellen White’s writings in this area have provedto be enduringly authoritative for the Seventh-day Adventist Church. Further,they were enormously formative for George McCready Price and, through him,hugely influential for the world-wide recent creationism movement, beginning inthe 1960s. This paper explores the historical and theological contexts of White’spronouncements on geological themes, explores possible provocations and sources behind some of her ideas and notes differences in the manner in which she re-used this material in later publications. This study indicates that her statements on geological matters represented ideas which, while once commonly held, were no longer accepted by professionals involved with the rapid scientific progression of nineteenth century geology

Commencement Program 1909

CONTENTS 2 | Graduates Nurses\u27 Class Christine Campbell Lulu Darnell Ellen Garnsey Charles E. Garnsey Ellen Gertrude Johnston* Genevieve Lindahl Mabel Striplin Frankie Stout Leo [Dora] Yost* Gospel Workers\u27 Class Edith Moody Mabelle McMoran Anna Nelson Edith Runnels 3 | Program 4 | Facultyhttps://scholarsrepository.llu.edu/commencement-programs/1086/thumbnail.jp