Posted on 06/09/2009 5:33:16 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
Now you’re off on a totally irrelevant issue ~ I used and/or. Covers everything.
Didn’t think you would.
Oh well.
Actually, there is a considerable variety of definitions to be found, exhibiting a wide spectrum of views and understandings:
(beginning with a selection from my own collection of dictionaries:
Creationism noun 1 the belief that the universe and living creatures were created by God in accordance with the account given in the Old Testament.
. . . . . Compact Oxford English Dictionary, revised edition 2003
Creationism n 1 In philosophy, the doctrine that matter and each new form was created by a direct exercise of the Divine power; opposed to evolution.
. . . . . Websters Universal Dictionary of the English Language, unabridged, 1937
The original 1828 Websters Dictionary doesnt show the word creationism or creationist but simply defines the word Creation as The act of creating; the act of causing to exist; and especially, the act of bringing this world into existence (emphasis mine). I include this last because it most closely reflects the understandings of the men who were key in the creation of The Constitution and The Bill Of Rights hence the First Amendment and was authored by a man who was a correspondent with many of these men and was himself an authority on The Constitution as well as the English language.)
And, following, see a selection of other ordinary and modern definitions:
n the belief that God created the universe
. . . . . Encarta® World English Dictionary, North American Edition
n a doctrine or theory holding that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by God out of nothing and usually in the way described in Genesis.
. . . . . Merriam-Webster's Dictionary, 11th Edition - no change since 1880
n 1. the doctrine that God creates a new soul for every human being born. n 2. the doctrine that ascribes the origin of matter, species, etc. to an act of creation by God, specif. to God's creation of the world as described in the Bible.
. . . . . Webster's New World College Dictionary, 4th Ed. 2005
n 1. the doctrine that the world, life, and matter were created out of nothing by an omnipotent god, rather than that they evolved from other forms. n 2. the theological doctrine that each human soul is created out of nothing for each individual born.
. . . . . The Wordsmyth English Dictionary
n Belief in the literal interpretation of the account of the creation of the universe and of all living things related in the Bible.
. . . . . The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition. 2000.
n 1. the doctrine that matter and all things were created, substantially as they now exist, by an omnipotent Creator, and not gradually evolved or developed. n 2. (sometimes cap.) the doctrine that the true story of the creation of the universe is as it is recounted in the Bible, esp. in the first chapter of Genesis. n 3. the doctrine that God immediately creates out of nothing a new human soul for each individual born. Cf. traducianism.
. . . . . Infoplease Dictionary - Random House Unabridged Dictionary, Copyright © 1997, by Random House, Inc., on Infoplease.
n The literal belief in the account of creation given in the Book of Genesis: creationism denies the theory of evolution of species.
. . . . . UltraLingua English Dictionary
n. The doctrine that a soul is specially created for each human being as soon as it is formed in the womb; -- opposed to traducianism.
. . . . . Webster's Revised Unabridged, 1913 Edition
Creationism (Latin creatio)
(1) In the widest sense, the doctrine that the material of the universe was created by God out of no pre-existing subject. It is thus opposed to all forms of Pantheism.
(2) Less widely, the doctrine that the various species of living beings were immediately and directly created or produced by God, and are not therefore the product of an evolutionary process. It is thus opposed to Transformism.
(3) In a restricted but more usual sense, the doctrine that the individual human soul is the immediate effect of God's creative act. It is thus opposed to Traducianism.
. . . . . CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA
It is more than a little presumptuous to reserve for yourself exclusivity in commanding the lexicon. You wish your meaning of Creationist to prevail, and for the ordinary meanings to disappear into the night. You know those who can dictate the meaning of terms in a discussion can attain political domination. For that reason alone you have to be contested.
There are a number of special terms for some Creationist ideas: Young Earth Creationism; Old Earth Creationism; Day-Age Creationism; Gap Creationism; Evolution Creationism (whatever that is); Intelligent Design (I do not represent the above as an exhaustive list). Any one of them, or others (or a combination), might suit your purpose in describing the philosophy you oppose, but you refuse to follow the norm. You wish to pillory all Creationists by attempting to associate them with dangerous, nay even heinous, traits. When you stigmatize the generic term with your array of vile implications, you are seeking to destroy the norms and conventions of meaning for the purpose of calumny, malicious aspersions, and political calculation.
When Jefferson and Adams spoke of the need for moral instruction in public education, what values do you suppose they had in mind composing the base of their moral instruction? And, more importantly, did not their narrative explicitly recognize that someones values would be included in education, public or private? Whose, then?
This struggle has nothing to do with the sanctity or the purity of Science. It is quite simply a fight over public money. You want control of that money without any say from the people you propose to take it from. It is impossible to teach any discipline (even geometry) absent values of some kind. You are, therefore, morally obliged to specify to some degree how you propose to see that money spent. Yet you refuse. When you challenge parents, demanding to know why they believe they have a right to enforce their values on other peoples children, then, whether your charge is true or not, you have no right to expect an answer unless you are willing to explain to those parents why its perfectly appropriate that values inimical to their beliefs should be enforced on their children. Weve had this conversation before. At the time I remarked that, at bottom, I thought that was a conversation with those parents you didnt want to have. You fled that discussion like an atheist fleeing a baptismal gathering at the river.
Your remarks on this forum indicate an indifference to what beliefs are taught in public school, so long as they are not religious. Again I ask, what values then? What composes the values of public school teachers today? Quite a wide range, I should think. Absent anything but the most generalized guidance, what values do you think those teachers will pass on to their students? (And thats assuming the absence of an activist Administration Hell-bent on 0bamanizing the whole student body.) Which of those values would you wish to see passed on to the students and which would you not? How do you separate the chaff from the grain, and who decides which is chaff and which is grain, if its not the patrons of the school district?
"The Pope for example is not a creationist, but is most certainly a Christian."
Source? An authoritative source, if you please. I dont know of any Christian who does not, as an article of faith, believe that God created Mankind and the Universe (the heavens and the earth). Apparently you think the Pope does not believe thusly.
Ping to YHAOS excellent post 203.
Bump to that!
Evolutionists do like to ‘evolve’ words as they see fit.
Likewise, if some parents don't have the right to enforce their values on other parents, what do the evos think gives them the right to force their (evos) values on other peoples children instead? It's the height of hypocrisy for evos to complain that parents don't have the right to force their values on other parents and then in the next breath demand that THEIR (evo) values be forced on children across the country through litigation and the misuse and abuse of the judiciary.
It's also hypocritical to complain about parents not having the right to force their views on others when it's Christian/creationist parents who want creation taught in the schools in addition to evolution, but not complain, rather support, the parents who want evolution only taught in schools against the wishes of the Christian/creationist parents.
In both cases one group of parents is going to prevail and if you're going to object to Christian/creationist parents forcing creation in schools, then to be consistent evos need to object to atheistic/evo parents forcing evolution in the schools. They are both doing the same thing and evos are revealing their blatant (subjective) bias in condemning in one group the very thing they support in the other, all based on which world view they agree with.
So much for objectivity.....
I do not know a single Christian or Jew who denies that God is the Creator. Some of them hold to Young Earth Creationism beliefs.
And yet many of our correspondents do use the term "Creationist" when they are really arguing against "Young Earth Creationism" which is a subset of Creationist beliefs.
National Geographic will read the memo in about 100 years.
Well said.
That's an argument?
Exactly.
Liberals hijack everything, from science to politics, to law to journalism and this is one I continue to leave out: the lexicon. And alas, this is where it all begins and is therefore ultra-important. GREAT point YHAOS.
The endless Chrissy-Fit Matthews "anti-science" rants against any and all that disagree with liberal sensisbilities continue and all too often go uncorrected, unchallenged and unabated.
Liberals never fight fair because their ideas and ideology are so rotten to the core, there's simply no way they could survive otherwise. Thus the projections, misrepresentations, strawmen, smears and lawsuits.
We saw this same tripe over the Iraq war. Liberals showed support of the troops in the most bizarre of ways.
The media kept calling it:
invasion...occupation...but to this very day you never hear the more accurate liberation of Iraq.
And conservatives/Christians/Republicans have played nice and just allow it to happen. Which is our nature.
Sometimes you'll see people get fed up enough and suicide-bomber for instance was eventually more properly labeled: homocide-bomber for instance, (but could be even more accurately labeled genocide-bomber)
Liberals need to start understanding no one gave them the keys to science, and while they're at it they need to understand no one gave them the keys to law, the courts, journalism, or anything else and above all the definitions or the keys to the lexicon/English language either.
If anything they've proven time and again, over and over they should only get the keys under serious adult supervision and simply can't be trusted.
You often hear them say ironically that words mean things...what they're actually trying to say is words mean things as defined by them and them alone.
ENOUGH ALREADY!
...that was a conversation with those parents you didnt want to have. You fled that discussion like an atheist fleeing a baptismal gathering at the river.
Frankly, we've all had dozens of these discussions with almost all of the evos here, from that's not science to religious attacks on science to any number of their other smears, lies, strawmen and projections.
And yet they keep pronouncing the same rubbish over and over as if it's the gospel.
Source? An authoritative source, if you please. I dont know of any Christian who does not, as an article of faith, believe that God created Mankind and the Universe (the heavens and the earth). Apparently you think the Pope does not believe thusly.
Of course. And this is yet another example. It simply doesn't follow and even more bizarre is this incessant effort to sterlize science of all things God...BY injecting the dizzying Pope's DIS-belief in God as the Creator of all we know or ever will know!!! Including of course science, science books, scientific theories, science teachers...little girls that ask about their teeth...pretty much any and everything real, imagined, natural, supernatural, ultra-natural and all things in between and/or not yet seen.
It's the most irrational, illogical, unhinged position I think I've ever seen on here (perhaps anywhere) and fits about every hallmark of a cult as could be possible.
Thanks. Indeed an excellent post!
If the design of life on this planet is so sloppy and haphazard that it warrants pejoratives like *incompetent design* then why are we expected to believe that evolution is such a wonderful explanation for how life arose on this planet?
It's ludicrous to expect to convince anyone to choose evolution over creation if evolution produced the same life we see that's condemned as *incompetent design* when a creator is posited.
At air’s a question ~ ‘ems differnt
Like I said, you’re propping up a scientist for saying something you agree with while ignoring the same scientist when he says something you disagree with.
Which is it?
Am I to believe the scientist like you want me to...or not believe the scientist like you want me to?
All I can say is that “they” were waiting in the wings ready to come in here with all sorts of stuff and start duking it out.
Sounds like evos.
When someone disagrees with the hardline FRevo position on the ToE no matter what the scientists credentials, PhD's notwithstanding, they're not *real* scientists.
If someone agrees with the hardline FRevo position on the ToE, no matter what their educational background and lack of science education or job experience, then they're an expert on what science and scientists really are and are qualified (supposedly) to sit in judgment of them. And all because someone else told them that they were right, not because they have any scientific experience of their own.
The ToE has become a litmus test for FRevos to determine who they label as a *real* scientist or not.
And you were saying something about ignoring the same scientist when he says something you disagree with?
Creationists oppose evolution. Pope Benedict XVI accepts evolution as a fact that “enriches our understanding of life and being and such”.
Thus Pope Benedict is a Christian, but is not a Creationist by the commonly accepted definition of the term. As in Websters ‘Creationism = opposition to evolution’.
There was no “Creationism” movement until Darwin. Creationism as a movement formed in opposition to a scientific theory.
Yes, I'm saying that GGG does exactly that...nearly every time......and it's comical, considering many many times GGG has propped up a scientists saying something....who in the next paragraph starts talking about tens of millions of years of animal existence.
Sweeping generalities abound!! As with GWT "scientists".....I'd rather look at the raw data to discount the claims rather than to blindly discount the scientist......but hey, if you think Brian PhD (one of GGGs favorites)....PhD in an unknown discipline...is a sound scientific writer that understands what he's writing about....well...you got your FRevo snipes in.
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.