Posted on 06/10/2005 9:40:20 PM PDT by orionblamblam
I've been having an offline debate with another Freeper on the topic of "Creationism," and there's been some friction over jsust what that term means. To me, especially on FR discussions, when someone proclaims themself a "Creationist," that means something akin to "I believe that (a) God created mankind pretty much as he is now, relatively recently, and there has been no macro-evolution." However, my pal claims to be a Creationist, but to her it means "I believe that God created man through scientifically discernable natural processes, including evolution from non-human forms over the scientifically accepted geological time spans."
So: while I accept that in general terms "Creationist" can include both "man created by God via evolution" and "man created basically as current by God 6000 years ago," to me the latter definition has always seemed to be the more widely accepted. Am I wrong?
I would prefer if this didn't turn into another cervo shouting match (I know, fat chance); I am interested in settling a debate on just what "Creationist" means to everyone. Perhaps if we settled this basic definition issue, some people might find they were argueing against people they actually agreed with.
Thanks.
Pinging for opinions...
There is really a lot to be said for speaking where the bible speaks, and being silent where it is silent. Anything beyond this comes from...well, you know.
Also, I always thought it peculiar how 90% of the evolutionists are almost always environmentalists.
I have met very few people commit their lives to God because some one convinced them evolution was wrong. I have seen a lot of people come to know God because they saw a lot of kindness in someone who said they knew Him. I don't care what anyone thinks about how it all began. But when someone whose heart is bent even slightly to God sees a Christian who demonstrates goodness and mercy to others, when they see a Christian love their enemies, when they see a Christian turn the other cheek, they will have a response somewhere inside.
First off, it is clear by the way you put Creationism in parenthasis, that you clearly look upon those who believe in God or a Creator as less intelligent. Therefore you are not truly looking for reasonable discussion, but an argument. Nevertheless, I will take your bait.
God created the world essentially as it is. He set it all in motion. We are created in his own likeness, we still retain some of that likeness today although it has been greatly corrupted by sin and the devil. I do certainly believe that creatures do adapt to different environments, this is a key difference from "evolution." I have adapted physically to life in Alaska. Humans have adapted dependng on where they live, they have different characteristics depending on where their ancestors were from. As people meet and meld together they change, it is the way it works. Animals have changed and adapted to different environments. Think about it this way. If you were to make some different kind of animals would you make a cat and a dog totally different? No you would probably base the next design off of a working design. Similar yet different. This is what I think, and I do not presume to know the mind of God, but i think the way we think about things sometimes is a reflection of how He would.
So there is your comment.
Scientific observation? ;)
I also am able to align my beliefs with a scientific world. As a computer programmer I have a fairly analytical mind, it was a necessity I suppose. But, whats a day to God?
So I agree with your friend, God did create, through his other creation, science.
> So there is your comment.
Which didn't really seem to answer the question. To you, does "Creationism" mean God made man as he currently is, no "macro-evolution" involved?
> First off, it is clear by the way you put Creationism in parenthasis, that you clearly look upon those who believe in God or a Creator as less intelligent.
What an odd conclusion. I put "Creationism" in quotes because that's the word I'm trying to get some consensus on a definition of.
> So I agree with your friend, God did create, through his other creation, science.
So, to you, if you see someone define themselves simply as a "Creationist," then you do not automatically assume that they deny evolution?
Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
I do not dwell on what I believe because it becomes a red herring when the subject is Darwinism. So, no, "creationists" are not necessarily encompassed by the limited box you assume contains them.
Finally: on the 12th post, an answer. Thank you. Now, if we could only get a few dozen more...
I personally believe that ID makes the most sense. Provided that ID = God created everything including the evolutionary process. After all, who am I to place limits on God by claiming that evolution is beyond His power.
Strict fundamentalists beware! Archbishop Ussher's "The earth is 6000 years old" theory was debunked a few hundred years ago. (He created precision out of thin air, folks. Not only did he come up with the year, he somehow wrangled the day. Come on.) As I recall, a contemporary (J. Lightfoot) of his nailed down the exact time!
Heathen (Non-believers/Agnostics/Whatevers) types, your argument that God doesn't exist flies in the face of reason too. Only a caveman would marvel at a book/building/boat and, while proclaiming it's grandeur, credit its existance on itself, rather than the author/architect/shipwright.
Atheists, you are in the interesting position of denying that any author/architect/shipwright ever existed DESPITE the book's/building's/boat's presence. Regardless of this stance, very well thought of philosophers have taken this approach. You have to admit, though, it seems that Hume, Voltaire, Marx, et al. have a personal axe to grind with the Almighty. Their fervor makes me skeptical of their "reasoned" arguments.
That being said, the 800lb gorilla that seems to be lost in the mix is: "What does ANY of this have to do with salvation?"
"I believe that (a) God created mankind pretty much as he is now, relatively recently, and there has been no macro-evolution."
There is probably a wide range of belief on this for both groups. Adam being pretty much as we are now, physically, is probably believed by most, but the physical world was without death before the first sin against God was commited by man, and nearly all seem to believe that God's judgement had physical consequences on the world - after all, the Garden of Eden is envisioned as something different from the world as we know it now.
There's also a range on the issue of evolution of living things other than man. "Creationists" (or, "young earth creationists") tend to believe there has been evolution within "kinds" (as the Bible calls it, not to be confused with "species"), while "IDers" may well believe it all (even man, in some cases) evolved from a single organism.
Also, there are others who believe man was created by God but that the earth is old, but that there have been points of 'special creation' by God along the way, lining up the age of the earth closer to that estimated by Darwinists but the age of man closer to that of "Creationists."
Of course, all three groups can be identified with the word "Creationist" since the word implies only that the world (or, all things, really) were an intended creation.
Exactly! I consider myself to be a "creationist." That being said, I believe that God "created" everything by his hand (directly) and by evolution (indirectly). I think that you have to lump all of us IDers into the "Creationist" group on the Macro scale and in the "Evolutionist" group on the Micro scale.
Clearly, man is unique in God's creation, and his uniqueness is inextricably connected to his awareness and intelligence.
If, somwhere along the line of evolution, God were to imbue a primate, or primates, with a soul, then their awareness and intellignece would necessarily need to be altered profoundly, otherwise, what is the point. Such a condition would be indistinguishable from the evolutionary process which would take us there eventually anyway. There simply would be no further need for God to interfere in a system that would acheive the same results.
That said, why would there be a need for two mechanisms of awareness.
You're having a hard time nailing down the definition of "creationism" because its definition changes over time.
It used to be the literal word in Genesis (6 days duration, for example) but now that the process of evolution has been discovered and accepted by people who put a priority on the scientific method, the definition has to be modified to include metaphorical and not literal meaning.
The problem is, many people of faith do not accept that Genesis is metaphorical and believe that it always has been literal, while there are many other people of faith who have made the philosophical change to symbolism in the Bible. This has application to other Bible books such as Noah's ark and the Exodus of the Jews with the plagues and the parting of the red sea and so on. They used to be accepted literally by all people of faith but now there is a division among believers about how strictly to accept stories that have no merit scientifically but may be very profound religiously.
I find it hard to believe that ID makes sense.
ID has no explanation whatsoever for extinction of species. ID has no explanation for why all mammals share hemoglobin as the oxygen-transporting molecule in the blood. An "intelligent designer" might have chosen a copper-based molecule or a fluorine-based polymer, rather than use the same old molecule over and over. And over again. Did the designer lack imagination?
ID never explains species of the cat family having retractable claws. Oh, yes--it was a created "kind".
With enough miracles, suspending natural laws, anything is possible. There is no limit under ID. Crop circles, yep, ID. Stalinism, yep, ID. ID removes every aspect of personal moral responsibility.
And, we have this quote from Duane Gish, a famous creationist:
"We have to have intelligent design as our first line of defense for Noah's Flood. The scientists' evidence against the Flood may be successful, and this undercuts the Bible interpretation. Intelligent design is important to focus attention on the Spirit of our Lord."
Awesome--the real problem is Noah's Flood? Which, ironically, ID does not address.
If that's what she believes, then she does not believe in the truth of scripture, which contradicts her.
You might ask her this --
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.