Posted on 02/13/2009 8:34:41 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
Sane?
Sorry, couldn't resist. Depends on what they do believe. It's hard to come up with a name for someone based on what they don't believe.
when you disparage creationists
I try not to disparage creationists as a class. I don't really care what kind of wacky stuff people choose to believe. I will disparage arguments based on deceit or falsehoods, though, and if it's accurate to refer to the person making the argument as a "creationist," I might do that.
This Creationist does not. What is your argument with me here? At this point you’re becoming somewhat incoherent and I can’t tell anymore.
Your argument was that I was misusing the word Creationist and/or using it as an epithet.
Seeings as how the accepted and dictionary definitions are identical to the meaning I wished to convey I would say it was you whose argument is incoherent.
Certainly not Thomas Aquinas, Saint and Doctor of the Church. Indeed, methinks he resisted such an idea for the reason that science could deal only with secondary causes in nature; but cannot fathom the primary cause which makes science possible in the first place, which is moreover the logical, reasonable touchstone that must be invoked to validate (or invalidate) the findings from secondary causes.
Science does not give you "truth." It gives you descriptions of plausible accounts of reality as conjured up by human minds. Those truths are only as good as their measure against a universally obtaining, objective standard lets them to be. And that objective standard is not material, physical, nor developed by means of any evolutionary dynamics of nature. Methinks it is the Logos of God....
And Saint Thomas, I feel pretty sure, was definitely of that mind. I mean, probably it was from him that I got this idea in the first place — that is, from Aquinas, but also notably from two other great saints and doctors of the Church as well — i.e., Augustine and Anselm.
I can't recall anything that any of these great thinkers ever said that could be interpreted as even remotely disparaging of the natural sciences, or which sought to hinder their progress in any way.
One would like to think that "organized science" would have the sheer graciousness to return the favor, in the spirit in which it was intended....
Fortunately, I've decided not to "hold my breath" until this issue can be resolved. :^)
Thanks ever so much for your insightful and provocative essay-post, dear metmom!
Yes, it is allegorical. “Made” and “said” can be taken allegorically.
My philosophy is quite liberal (liberty loving) but when accused of being a “liberal” for the sole reason of my confidence in the scientific method I don’t quibble over the meaning of the word; I know they mean it as an epithet.
OH MY! You've got it about as bad as it gets! It's just not the conservative position to side with the godless NEA, it's just not.
For your purpose, certainly.
”I think you misread him.[allmendream]
I don’t think so.
”belief in the Biblical God implies a belief in the act of creation, so there'd be no need for a special term for it.”
Oh, it does more than implies. It downright specifies it (see Genesis and other books of the Bible). There are any number of ‘special’ terms for Creationist ideas: Young Earth Creationism; Old Earth Creationism; Day-Age Creationism; Gap Creationism; something called Evolution Creationism; Intelligent Design. When you attempt to stigmatize the generic term with your own array of implications, don’t pretend you aren’t destroying the norms and conventions of meaning for the purpose of calumny and malicious aspersions.
”Yes they do. Some are just pretending they don't, for their own reasons.”
No they don’t. Some are just pretending they do, for their own reasons. (huh. Seems to work just as well one way and it does the other)
”I have no interest in political domination.”
You don’t?! You’re indifferent to the amount of public funds that are allocated to Science and Science Education, and to the policy turbulence that naturally accompanies public support? Forgive me. I do not wish to be insulting, but I have a very difficult time granting your declaration credibility.
”I just get annoyed when people disingenuously pretend that they don't know the common definition of a term.”
Then you should understand my annoyance with people who pretend innocence when they corrupt the norms and conventions of meaning for ideological objectives. I have presented you with an assortment of instances where the generic term is modified by other terms (and I cannot claim the list to be exhaustive), making your intent very clear. You wish to stigmatize all Creationists in the public mind by attempting to associate them with undesirable traits (‘Kook’, ‘fanatic’ and the like). I don’t propose to stop you from your scandalmongering, but I damn well can name it for what it is.
”I will take your word that you haven't used that term, and I apologize for implying you did.”
Apologies are not necessary. Since you have, I hope my recollection is accurate.
”That particular part of my post was more about the other person it was addressed to.”
That being the case, I guess you should have also pinged her to #214
Maybe they should call themselves “Young Earth” Creationists, if I can rely on the picture you downloaded to provide me with enough info to know. The exhibits of the Museum should make it readily apparent enough that they are ‘Young Earth.’ If you have a quarrel with those folks, take it up with them.
Speaking of info, you have a number of outstanding items left unanswered:
You sent me a picture of Page 8 – Jesus and the Dinosaurs, from the Beginner’s Bible Coloring Book. So I can get a feel for what the book is like, do you have page 7 and page 9 you can send? (or a website where I can peruse the entire book)
Besides the above, do you have a source for the other fascinating pictures you sent to me (second request)?
You cite a single home page as ‘proof’ that Creationists “almost invariably” reject HIV as the cause of AIDS. Is that all there is?
I’ve asked you before and not received a response: “Has anyone ever done a representative sampling of these two billion or so Christians, and in that sampling queried them on Christ riding a dinosaur, UFOs, Geocentricism, HIV/AIDS, who was responsible for 9/11, or any of your other etc, etc?”
All of the above are natural inquiries generated by your posts. A response would be appreciated.
Maybe you can tell the “Creationist Museum” that they are hijacking the lexicon and arbitrarily altering the meaning of the term “Creationist”.
Proof? Now you are just inventing things. I cited no such thing as “proof” and now you are trying to say I did; it doesn’t say much for your honesty.
Obviously a look at your posting history shows that you are presently engaged in more than one “I am an aggrieved Christian being bullied” thread.
Maybe you should grow thicker skin or refrain from engaging in debate that could so easily bruise your tender feelings.
My observation was about Creationists and their grab bag of kooky beliefs apparent just from FReepers who post on this board, not in reference to any “worldwide” polling, and not of Christians, many of whom are not “Creationists” by the most widely used definition.
Here on Free Republic we have Creationists who believe that...
Humans and dinosaurs coexisted.
HIV doesn't cause AIDS.
Islamic Jihadists are actually in love with Darwin.
UFO’s are somehow involved with God and Angels and such.
The Sun circles the Earth.
I didn't need a poll to find this out, all I need do is read the postings of FReeper Creationists.
[[Science does not give you “truth.” It gives you descriptions of plausible accounts of reality as conjured up by human minds.]]
I might add that it gives you evidences that establish ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ conclusions Especially when the evidences are followed and examined objectively.
A brief check on my posting history should answer your question. There’s no reason for you to be lost in a fog of confusion.
”Just letting you know what most people mean when they use the term in the U.S. today, and what most people will think you mean when you use it.”
And this is one time-traveler who really appreciates all your help. So much time spent assisting a stranger in a strange land goes far beyond the line of duty. Admirable.
I think I’ll just keep on letting you talk. The more you say, the closer you come to my understanding of the term Creationist. The emphasis seems to be more and more that there exists a generic meaning and then several variations that seem to require further specification (such as you quoted from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
Thanks for your reply.
Well mom, I’m swimming in a sea of definitions, but they do seem to becoming a little more standardized as we go along here.
Mystery piled upon mystery. Where, oh where, will it all end?
Yes, specifies without saying. That's what "imply" means: "to indicate or suggest without being explicitly stated...to involve as a necessary circumstance." The point is, if someone claims to be an adherent of one of the Biblical religions, it can be assumed that they mean they believe in a God responsible in some way for creation. You don't need another term to specify that belief.
don’t pretend you aren’t destroying the norms and conventions of meaning for the purpose of calumny and malicious aspersions.
I've shown with several sources that "the norms and conventions of meaning" for the word "creationist" are as I've said. You haven't given any contemporary examples of the word being used in a more general sense. Can you find a popular use of the term to mean, say, someone who believes God created a universe 13 billion years ago that through the inexorable operation of physical laws led to the evolution of human beings? If not, I don't think you have much support for your claim that there is such a generic use; the fact that the term is sometimes modified with adjectives does not prove there is such a use.
Besides, as has been pointed out several times, CREATIONISTS CALL THEMSELVES THAT!
You wish to stigmatize all Creationists in the public mind by attempting to associate them with undesirable traits (‘Kook’, ‘fanatic’ and the like).
Now it's my turn to invite you to look at my posting history. I think you'll have a hard time finding a place where I called creationists kooks or fanatics. I have called some of their ideas wacky, but I try to avoid characterizing the person.
That being the case, I guess you should have also pinged her to #214
Yeah, maybe. I wasn't sure what the etiquette called for, since I didn't actually mention her name. You pinged her to your post, and I'll ping her to this, and I hope the bases are covered.
I thought I bolded the part of the quote that read
The focus of this discussion is on a narrower sense of Creationism, the sense that one usually finds in popular writings (especially in America today). Here, Creationism means the taking of the Bible, particularly the early chapters of Genesis, as literally true guides to the history of the universe and to the history of life, including us humans, down here on earth.Are we talking about the sense one usually finds in America today, or some theoretical sense one rarely encounters?
Yes, it is allegorical. “Made” and “said” can be taken allegorically.
Or not.
Precisely!
Maybe nailing jello to a wall can occur. You will at least get little bits of the jello stuck under the nail.
I guess *creationist* means whatever an evo feels like it means at the moment and it’s up to us to guess what the evo had in mind for the particular use of the word at that particular moment in time.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.