"Creationism:" Define your terms

[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.

[csense]

ID removes every aspect of personal moral responsibility.

Stop right there.

It is evolution which dictates that man, and all creatures for that matter, are inherently morally neutral.

Evolution has no basis whatsoever for postulating otherwise.

[taxesareforever]

The following is a technical version of what a creationist is. However, each individual has their own interpretation of what constitutes a creationist. Personally I do not consider a person a creationist if they believe that God created man thru the evolutionary manner. When He said that man was formed from the dust of the ground and woman was formed from the rib of man I consider that creationism. If it was an evolutionary process how could all the animals and humans been completely formed at the time of Noah and the flood and then there is no change in human form since? I just had to add that last sentence even though it doesn't refer to your question.

Creationism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
(Redirected from Creationist)
This article deals only with the concept of creationism as found in the Abrahamic religions. Please refer to Origin beliefs for other stories of creation.

Christianity, Islam and Judaism hold the belief that the universe was created by a Supreme Being.Creationism or creation theology encompasses the belief that human beings, the world and the universe were created by a supreme being. The event itself may be seen as either ex nihilo or order from preexisting chaos (see demiurge).

Some who hold this belief say that it is compatible with evolution by natural selection. They may say, for example, that the Biblical account of creation is a metaphor. Or they may say that evolution was created by a deity (see evolutionary creationism).

Many creationists adopt a literal interpretation, and say that it is a factual account and that the Bible supersedes science (see Young Earth Creationism, for example). This interpretation is rejected by mainstream scientists, who say that evidence from many scientific disciplines indicates that this interpretation is false. They also object to the basis of creationism, and see it as being based on speculation.

[Triggerhippie]

Maybe my post #16 explains what I was talking about a bit better.

I have no axe to grind with either side of this argument. I think that both are sufficiently pointless.

If you are arguing this point from the atheist side, you should find something more productive to do with your time. If you are a creationist you should concern yourself with salvation rather than biblical nit-picking.

Dude, my two cents were up a few paragraphs back...

[thomaswest]

"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."

Actually, I never met anyone who believed that Adam really existed. It seems an unlikely hypothesis considering the DNA evidence. And creating Eve from a rib seems preposterous--and unnecessary for a creator. I mean, if he can create polar bears by {poof}, why not a woman {poof}?

It would seem that He needed a design template. And did female polar bears get created from the rib of a male polar bear? Or, why go to the trouble of designing male reproductive organs if the female was an after-thought?

OK, I cut Him some slack--this was before project management software. I am not so sure about sin--is this the same as falling behind on the schedule?

[Seven_0]

Don't assume that everyone will agree, ever. There is an awful lot of evidence to look at. As you know, nature is silent on some things and Scripture is silent on some things. We can put the two together and fill in many of the blanks. For instance, science cannot tell us that God made Eve out of one of Adam's ribs. If not for the eyewitness account, we would not know.

God told us to prove all things. Surely he would not have done that if it were not possible. Can we use scientific method to test the veracity of the witness? Nature and scripture have the same author, they agree.

I suspect that there are some events that happened before God created Adam, including war in heaven and the fall of Satan. I try to put them on a time line, using scripture. I am guessing they happened before God said, "let there be light." I guess this makes me an Old Earth creationist since I see a chunk of time in Gen 1:1-3.

If this is true, several other things might follow. The earth was created, destroyed, and recreated, which answers to birth, death and resurrection. It is death and resurrection that sets us apart from the angels. Perhaps that is why God made death to be the food of life.

The evolutionist does not ask WHY?

[MitchellC]

I hope you're kidding.

[WKB]

Actually, I never met anyone who believed that Adam really existed



You have now

[csense]

...if he can create polar bears by {poof}, why not a woman {poof}?

As far as we know, he did {poof} Eve. He {poofed} her from Adam's rib. The meaningful distinction however, may be found in the eyes of Adam, and not necessarily God.

Otherwise, why {poof} at all if there is no meaning within the {poofing}

[Northern Alliance]

That definition of creationist is very narrow. For starters, a lot of religions (all?) have similiar beliefs, but with a much different time frame.
I don't know a whole bunch about the Vedas. Perhaps someone that does will follow up, but have a look at this from http://www.salagram.net/cycleOages.html. My point is simply that neither 'creationism' nor 'intelligent design' should be defined as only Christian concepts nor only in Christian terms.

The Vedic Calculation of Time: The Vedic concept of time is cyclic, rotating in cycles of four yugas:

Satya-yuga: 1,728,000 human years
Treta-yuga: 1,296,000 human years
Dvapara-yuga: 864,000 human years
Kali-yuga: 432,000 human years

[Ain Soph Aur]

Extinction of species: God puts things on Earth, and lets nature take its course. Sometimes this means things don't last.

As for the hemoglobin/carbon/DNA argument, well, do you listen to music? Most bands have a signature sound, regardless of the song. Many painters, architects, and sculptors have a basic style that is detectable throughout most if not all of their work. Could you not say that hemoglobin, cell biology, and DNA are a form of the signature of the designer? The variances in the macroscopic forms, like your example of cat claws, and things like different species (all the types of fish, corals, birds, etc.) are just different works by the same creator, with the same underlying style.

Intelligent design does not remove every aspect of personal moral responsibility, it just doesn't address it. If there's a Creator, then it is probably safe to say said Creator is still around, and it isn't wise to piss Him off.

I really don't get the Noah's Flood thing. For the record, I'm also not familiar with most of the ID arguments/proposals. The above just represents my immediate thoughts on the matter.

[raynearhood]

A subject that I love to argue.

Just like there are different belief systems in the evolution only camp (Darwinism, neo- Darwinism, permeated- equilibriumism, etc..) there are different belief systems in the creation camp.

What your friend believes is called Creationism/Evolutionism, sometimes in debate circles shortened to Creationism. The onslaught of scientific theories supporting and disproving each other becomes confusing. The ingraining of the "fact" of evolution in the school systems has to be made to fit one's faith. Thus, this belief system is born.

The other camp of belief is called Intelligent Design Creationism, sometimes shortened to Intelligent Design. Adhereing to this belief system allows that modern science tends to be biased, that there are may ways to interpret facts when the entire process cannot be observed (macro-evolution.) So, one's faith in an intelligent Creator leads them to believe that all species were created according to the Genesis account between four and six thousand years ago. (How long is day in Genesis chapter 1? That's another arguement.)

BTW, I am a Christian that adhere's to the theory of Intelligent Design. I accept that as fact as a matter of faith, just as humanist and evolutionist accept evolutiion as fact. My bias, however, comes as a result of study. Becoming a Christian began as a study of evolution gone awry.

[Manic_Episode]

Six 24 hour days.

[WKB]

And creating Eve from a rib seems preposterous


One time while Eve was having a PMS attack
she accused Adam of seeing another woman.
Adam used his best logic to convince her
that he was not seeing another woman.
or so he thought.
That night Adam awoke to Eve poking him in the
ribs going One......Two............Threee.....Four......

[csense]

Actually, I never met anyone who believed that Adam really existed.

And I have never met anyone who I would consider to be a person of faith...if they didn't.

If you toss out Adam, then everything else is meaningless, and what you have left is nothing more than a security blanket, rather than faith.

Faith is so much more than mere belief [for belief's sake] it is an awareness that is profound, an experience that can never be put into words, and a realization that it is not you who need God, but it is God who needs you.

This is the reason why pride is the greatest stumbling block to faith.

[Technical Editor]

csense wrote:

"...it is not you who need God, but it is God who needs you."
---

Could you explain what you mean? Thanks.

[raynearhood]

You know, I was flipping though the replies after I posted my last, and I saw that alot of the posts were saying that the Intelligent Design camp is the camp that believes God created the process of Macro-evolution. Maybe the definition of ID has *ahem* evolved into something other than what I have adhered to for nearly 10 years now, but here is how I understand Intelligent Design.

The human eye, for example, is an extremely complicated part of the human organism. Much more complicated than that of any fish or lizard. (sure it doesn't move around in all the cool ways a chameleon can move its eyes, but the ability to distinguish and mix nearly the entire spectrum of light in the mid frequency range is unique.) So complicated in fact, that no evolutionary theory, save the 'hopeful monster' theory, can explain how the eye is what it is. Mathematically, no matter how much time you give it, it is impossible to evolve the human eye from a lesser eye. To many beneficial mutations would have to take place at once to even deem the eye useful, much less progressively so.

SO, the only other explanation for the human eye is that it was DESIGNED by an Intelligent Creator and made in it's present state.
Symbiosis, the bombardier beetle, etc... are all good arguments for Intelligent Design.

[Junior]

Define "environmentalist." Some of the most ardent environmentalists I know are church-going hunters.

[ovrtaxt]

That's good advice for all who frequent these ridiculous crevo threads! HAHA!!

[Junior]

Actually, the human eye is not nearly as unique as you think it is. All our spectral range is shared by other primates (apes and monkeys). We have at least one design flaw in that the optic nerve lies across the middle of our retina, leaving a dead spot (which the brain fills in). Many nectar-eating insects actually have a wider spectral range and can see colors invisible to us.

Now, Darwin, in a bit of a rhetorical flourish used the eye to illustrate a potential falsification of his theory. But then immediately went on to describe the literally hundreds of variations of the eye found in nature, from simple light-sensitive spots, to certain avian eyes that can spot a mouse-sized object from half a mile away. Of course, your average creationist site does not include these paragraphs, only the rhetorical flourish, so you may not have been aware of them.

[PatrickHenry]

Thanks. I'm probably going to lurk this one out. If anyone cares, here's a link to a large amount of information accumulated during more than five years of these threads: The List-O-Links.