The Genesis Flood: Perbedaan antara revisi
Konten dihapus Konten ditambahkan
k Clean up, replaced: metoda → metode using AWB |
k Bot: Perubahan kosmetika |
||
Baris 49:
== Tanggapan ==
Sejumlah majalah [[Kristen]] mengulas buku ini dan umumnya memuji pembelaan darinya atas kisah [[Air bah (Nuh)|air bah]] menurut kitab suci, meskipun sedikit yang nampaknya memahami bahwa dengan menerima argumen Whitcomb dan Morris berarti menolak teori hari-era dan teori gap. ''[[Christianity Today]]'', majalah Kristen evangelikal terpenting pada periode itu menerbitkan suatu ulasan ringan yang tidak banyak menyinggung topik-topik dalam buku melainkan juga memberi kritik kepada pengarang karena menggunakan sumber-sumber sekunder dan mengambil argumen di luar konteks.<ref>Numbers(2006) 230; Donald C. Boardman, "Review," ''Christianity Today'' (September 11, 1961), 39-40</ref> [[American Scientific Affiliation]] menayangkan dua ulasan menentang, dan pada tahun 1969, ASA ''Journal'' menerbitkan suatu komentar yang sangat kritis oleh J. R. van der Fliert, seorang geologis dari [[Dutch Reformed]] di [[Free University of Amsterdam]], yang menyebut Whitcomb dan Morris sarjana pura-pura dengan metode "pseudo-scientific" (pseudo-ilmiah).<!-- "To ensure that no readers missed his point," the journal "ran boldfaced sidebars by evangelical geologists applauding van de Fliert's bare-knuckled approach."--><ref>Numbers(2006) 231-33; J. R. van de Fliert, "Fundamentalism and the Fundamentals of Geology," ''Journal of the American Scientific Affiliation'', 21 (September 1969): 69-81.</ref>
<!--
Outside conservative religious circles, ''The Genesis Flood'' created "hardly a ripple of recognition."<ref>Numbers(2006) 235.</ref> It was ignored by mainstream geology journals; less accountably, it also remained unreviewed in any of the dozens of periodicals covered by ''Book Review Digest''. At a talk given to the large Houston Geological Society, Morris was ridiculed by the president in his introduction, and Morris's call for questions at the conclusion produced none, because as one member said, the audience was "too stunned to speak."<ref>Numbers(2006) 236. When mainstream scientists did eventually critique Whitcomb and Morris, they usually wrote for quite a different audience. For instance, Joel Cracraft, "Systematics, Comparative Biology and the Case Against Creationism," in Laurie R. Godfrey, ''Scientists Confront Creationism'' (New York: Norton, 1983) attacked the Whitcomb and Morris theory of a quick dispersal of animals from [[Noah's Ark|the Ark]] with the following sentence: "During the last decade biogeographers have come to realize that when the postulated phylogenetic relationships of organisms—both plants and animals—are examined relative to their distributions, many highly congruent, nonrandom patterns emerge."</ref> Nevertheless, the [[National Center for Science Education]] criticized the ''The Genesis Flood'' for misquoting scientists and taking their remarks out of context.<ref>Brian Witzke, "''The Genesis Flood'', review" in ''Reviews of Creationist Books'', ed. Liz Rank Hughes, [[National Center for Science Education]], 1992), 131-132. ISBN 0-939873-52-4.</ref>
| |||