A good historical resource on the McLean Vs. Arkansas Trial

I found a website linked to the Wikipdia article on the McLean Vs. Arkansas trial that was trying to ensure that the (surviving) testimony given at that trial was preserved and disseminated.

The link is below:

http://ift.tt/1GI1uDX

This exchange during the testimony of Dr Langdon Gilkey (Who later wrote a book on his experiences entitled "Creationism on Trial: Evolution and God at Little Rock") is priceless:

Quote:

Q: I will ask you if you will please read that. A: "Creation science does propose the existence of a creator to the same degree that evolution science presupposes the existence of no creator." I would dispute that, but that is neither here nor there. "As used in the context of creation-science as defined by Section 4 of Act 590, the terms or concepts of `creation' and `creator' are not inherently religious terms or concepts. In this sense, the term `creator' means only some entity with power, intelligence and a sense of design." "Creation science does not require a creator who has a personality, who has the attributes of love, compassion, justice and so on which are ordinarily attributed to a deity. Indeed, the creation-science model does not require that the creator still be in existence." Q: Doctor Gilkey, I would like to ask you, as a theologian, are you aware of a concept—As a religious premise, are you aware of the concept of a creator-deity who was not also not loving, compassionate and just? A: There are a number of them, of course. In many— Q: If I might, sir, in Christianity particularly. A: Right. Well, I was going to back up just a moment. That is to say, there are a number of polytheistic faiths which have spoken of a creator deity, who may or may not be the deity who saves. In a monotheistic faith, of course, this is impossible. Actually, it is interesting to me that this conception of a creator being who is not the god who saves—I would say the creator being is inevitably a deity—but a creator being who is not the god who saves has appeared within Christian history as its first and most dangerous major heresy. Now, I am hoping that was intended by counsel here, but this was the Marcionic heresy and the Gnostic heresy, which the church with great vehemence reacted against in the first two centuries.

That's right, to defend the 'inerrant' Bible Creationists were willing to dump the Council of Nicea and the Apostles Creed and go straight to good old fashioned heresy, and if I remember Gilkeys book, they had no idea that's what they'd done.

via International Skeptics Forum http://ift.tt/1Ie1BcN