nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
Talk:Immanuel Velikovsky (view source)
Revision as of 09:34, February 16, 2009
, 09:34, February 16, 2009→Creationists: Questioning reversion.
==Creationists==
==Creationists==
An anti-creationist systemetically looked through the creationist literature expectibg to find praise or support for V. He found zero support. (his goal was to ridicule creationists by showing they liked this crackpot Velikovsky.) William D. Stansfield "Creationism, Catastrophism, and Velikovsky: Catastrophism Is a Tenet of Biblical Fundamentalism (Creationism). Immanuel Velikovsky (Author of Worlds in Collision) Was a Neocatastrophist. What Use Did Creationism Make of His Theories?." ''Skeptical Inquirer''. Volume: 32. Issue: 1. Publication Date: January-February 2008. pp 46+ [http://www.questia.com/read/5028587178?title=Creationism%2c%20Catastrophism%2c%20and%20Velikovsky%3a%20Catastrophism%20Is%20a%20Tenet%20of%20Biblical%20Fundamentalism%20(Creationism).%20Immanuel%20Velikovsky%20(Author%20of%20Worlds%20in%20Collision)%20Was%20a%20Neocatastrophist.%20What%20Use%20Did%20Creationism%20Make%20of%20His%20Theories%3f online edition]. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 23:23, 15 February 2009 (EST)
An anti-creationist systemetically looked through the creationist literature expectibg to find praise or support for V. He found zero support. (his goal was to ridicule creationists by showing they liked this crackpot Velikovsky.) William D. Stansfield "Creationism, Catastrophism, and Velikovsky: Catastrophism Is a Tenet of Biblical Fundamentalism (Creationism). Immanuel Velikovsky (Author of Worlds in Collision) Was a Neocatastrophist. What Use Did Creationism Make of His Theories?." ''Skeptical Inquirer''. Volume: 32. Issue: 1. Publication Date: January-February 2008. pp 46+ [http://www.questia.com/read/5028587178?title=Creationism%2c%20Catastrophism%2c%20and%20Velikovsky%3a%20Catastrophism%20Is%20a%20Tenet%20of%20Biblical%20Fundamentalism%20(Creationism).%20Immanuel%20Velikovsky%20(Author%20of%20Worlds%20in%20Collision)%20Was%20a%20Neocatastrophist.%20What%20Use%20Did%20Creationism%20Make%20of%20His%20Theories%3f online edition]. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 23:23, 15 February 2009 (EST)
: I can't read that without signing up, which I'd rather not do. I'd be interested to see exactly what they were looking for and found. I've seen creationists quote favourably his redating of Egyptian history (without necessarily accepting his interpretation), although I agree that beyond that they don't use his ideas. It just seems odd to have the article saying "Creationists rejected [Velikovsky's ideas] as incompatible with the Bible" then quoting Don DeYoung saying "His proposal of a recent Ice Age is shared with creationists, as are his challenges to "the doctrine of uniformity". I realise that the complete quote is hardly a ringing endorsement, but the "rejection" statement seems a bit too black-and-white.
: So why did you revert to "''Religious'' Creationists"?
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:34, 16 February 2009 (EST)