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.
Are you familiar with the word dominion?
Honest question -- How old do you think the universe is?
The question of what is creationism? was the topic of a research thread years ago.
It recently resurfaced on on another thread. For the discussion, this is what I posted to the recent thread – to define creationism and contrast it with intelligent design:
Naturally, there are differences in specific doctrine – but the narrowing in on Genesis 1 is a misdirection when speaking to Christians. It is a doctrinal issue which can only be addressed by theological argument.
The creationist group breaks down into several sub-groups:
Another side believes that God created an “old” looking universe, 6000 years ago. There is no scientific argument against this group at all – because there can be no scientific argument that God did not create ‘all that there is’ last Thursday. It is theological and everyone knows it.
Another side believes that Adam was specially created and zapped into an old universe, 6000 years ago. Again, there is no scientific argument against this group.
Another group – a mid ground between creationism and evolution – is the interpretation that Adam was the first ensouled man. This is the Catholic doctrine and again, there is no scientific argument against this group.
Still another group (my group) – says that God was the only observer of creation week and thus those 6 days must be viewed from inception space/time coordinates (inflationary theory and relativity). Using that formula, 6 days at the inception coordinates equals approximately 15 billion years at our space/time coordinates, Genesis 1-3 apply to heaven and earth and Adams’ time begins when he is banished to mortality in Genesis 4 (6000 years ago).
Collective consciousness is Eastern metaphysics and very popular among a number of scientists outside the United States. Again, this is not far afield of research in swarm intelligence, the behavior of ants, bees and the ilk.
God, of course, is the most logical candidate for designer among most Western civilizations whether Judeo/Christian, Islamic or myriad other religions.
The chief objection to the theory is that “randomness” cannot be the prime factor in the formulation: random mutations – natural selection > species.
In the naturalistic, determinist view (and theological, predestination view) – every effect has a prior cause – and therefore - even under strict scientific materialism - there is no such thing as randomness per se - only pseudo-randomness. Chaitin's Omega, for instance, is the effect of a cause. Brownian motion is caused, etc.
This is fairly basic stuff these days – that is why the mathematicians have turned to “self organizing complexity” to explain master control genes and the ilk which allow such functions as eyeness to evolve concurrently across phyla, i.e. it is not “random”.
For all the objections to Intelligent Design and the tossing of spit wads – the mathematicians and physicists are already engaged and working on the very things which are necessary to give a complete picture of origin of species: information (successful communications), autonomy, semiosis, complexity, intelligence.
IMHO, it doesn't matter whether the work is done because of Intelligent Design objections or despite them - in the end, the randomness pillar will be pitched and we will be looking for non-corporeal causation for the "will to live", "fecundity principle", "evolution of one" - or whatever one wishes to call it.
A distinction should first be made between "creationist" and "creationism." The former may apply to an individual or be used as an adjective, the latter to an ideology. I do not think you will find a conventional use of the words, just as the words "science" and "theory" are subject to wide and narrow meanings. I am quite sure that is why the debate becomes heated at times.
It is a good thing to seek clarity when other people are trying to communicate with you, so your attempt at understanding how these words are used is commendable. My guess is that you will find people on all sides of the debate using them in different ways, often without thinking through the implications and accuracy (or lack thereof).
That woman is derived from man by virtue of the Creator's use of the man's flesh is the reason why men and women are more intimately intwined - spiritually and emotionally - than the other creatures. "Bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh," says Adam. The Creator did not make the human creature in the same way as plants and animals, and for good reason.
> It is a good thing to seek clarity when other people are trying to communicate with you
Yes, but clarity can be damned difficult to come by. I expected this thread to turn into the usual shouting match eventually, but not within the first couple of posts!
So, out of the posts so far, I've got this:
* Those in favor of the "broad" definition of "Creationism" (God did it, maybe evolution, maybe not)
Posts: 9 (USAFJeeper), 12 (AndrewC), 16 (Triggerhippie), 18 (spinestein), and of course my friend
* Those in favor of the "narrow" definition of "Creationism" (God did it via "poof")
Posts: 15 (MitchellC), 19 (thomaswest), 20 (Bonaparte), 22 (taxesareforever), 43 (Alamo-Girl), and of course me.
OK, in more than 40 posts, a total of 11 actual "votes," and I may have mis-interpretted some of those. And so far it appears to be pretty even, though a database of 11 is pretty lean, statistically.
Sigh...
I would define "creationism" has having four main tenets, namely 1.) as applying to the universe, that it came into being "out of nothing," 2.) as applying to the biosphere, that species observed today were created separately and have by and large remained as such from the time they were created, 3.) as applying to the process, that it involved six literal days after which no new heaven or earth was created, and 4.) as applying to the cause, that the agent of this creation is a personal being of infinite power and intellect who continues to sustain the creation.
FWIW, I would not count those who believe evolution was "created" in order to facilitate the balance of creation as "creationists." You could lump me in the second group.
* Those in favor of the "broad" definition of "Creationism" (God did it, maybe evolution, maybe not)
Posts: 9 (USAFJeeper), 12 (AndrewC), 16 (Triggerhippie), 18 (spinestein), 47 (chronic_loser) and of course my friend
* Those in favor of the "narrow" definition of "Creationism" (God did it via "poof")
Posts: 15 (MitchellC), 19 (thomaswest), 20 (Bonaparte), 22 (taxesareforever), 43 (Alamo-Girl), 48 (Fester Chugabrew) and of course me.
I believe that God created man through scientifically discernable natural processes, including evolution from non-human forms over the scientifically accepted geological time spans."
This is a typical cop-out...Those who dont have the guts to take a stand ( mostly Moderate Women)
You cant have it both ways. it is the same as those who say they are Agnostic..They say there might be a god but
that we are too insignificant for Him to bother with us etc.
They want their "Fire Insurance"...But the policy will burst into flames on Judgement Day.
Evolution is a Lie, unproovable..Read "Bones of Contention"
There are no "transitional" Species. Period.
Evolution Never Happened.
I used to buy it Hook Line and sinker. but every Lie was exposed as I searched for Answers and looked at both sides of the debate.
Every piece of evidence used to support Evolution, is either, a Lie, a twisted fact, or a Biased conclusion.
Archiopterix...is "Fully a Bird"
Peking Man is a Fraud..He was a Monkey and was the real Peking Man's dinner.
Nebraska Man is a Pig's tooth. etc. etc. etc.
I consider the Leftist PHD's of this world with the LOWEST regard.
Scientists That are the Most Biased and Stupid Individuals On the Planet.
Louis Leaky's Wife is the Worst Liar in the World, She combined the Bones of 2 sepparate Animals to Get what She wanted...More Funding.
So... is that "broad" or "narrow?"
BEWARE, unleashing the Lion of the Tribe of Judah can be harmful to your worldview!
I will do my best to be "silent"!
Mar 10:6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.
Isa 45:12 I have made the earth, and created man upon it: I, [even] my hands, have stretched out the heavens, and all their host have I commanded.
Zec 12:1 The burden of the word of the LORD for Israel, saith the LORD, which stretcheth forth the heavens, and layeth the foundation of the earth, and formeth the spirit of man within him.
Isa 42:5 Thus saith God the LORD, he that created the heavens, and stretched them out; he that spread forth the earth, and that which cometh out of it; he that giveth breath unto the people upon it, and spirit to them that walk therein:
Isa 45:18 For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I [am] the LORD; and [there is] none else.
Isa 40:21-22
Have ye not known? have ye not heard? hath it not been told you from the beginning? have ye not understood from the foundations of the earth?
Isa 64:4 For since the beginning of the world [men] have not heard, nor perceived by the ear, neither hath the eye seen, O God, beside thee, [what] he hath prepared for him that waiteth for him.
Gen 2:7 And the LORD God formed man [of] the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
Gen 5:1 This [is] the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him;
Deu 4:32 For ask now of the days that are past, which were before thee, since the day that God created man upon the earth,
Gen 5:5 And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died.
New Testament references to Adam.
Luk 3:38 Which was [the son] of Enos, which was [the son] of Seth, which was [the son] of Adam, which was [the son] of God.
1Cr 15:45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul;
Jud 1:14 And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints,
1Ti 2:13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
Col 2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.
I said I was only lurking, but I can't resist giving my opinion of the matter. To me, "creationism" is virtually synonymous with being anti-evolution -- and in many cases (but not all) being anti-science and anti-reason too. Those who find the theory of evolution to be persuasive, regardless of their theism or non-theism, aren't "creationists" as I would define the term. Most scientists are probably theistic evolutionists, and I don't consider them to be creationists. Similarly, many religious people, who truly believe that God created the universe, have no problem with evolution. I don't consider them "creationists" either. Creationist applies only to the whack-jobs like Gish, Morris, Ham, and of course -- the lovely Kathy Martin.
Ping Pong!
Thanks for the reply.
I too believed that way at one time. However, the evidence persuaded me that 6000 years just could not account for everything we can see or measure.
Just one example (and there are many thousands) is the supernova 1987A. That in itself shows the universe to be at least 167,000 years old.
It is simple, macro-evolution in regards to mankind's current condition is diametrical opposed to the Bible.
For us to be part of your fan-club, we would have to disregard much of our Holy Book. Most are not willing to do that on the whim of the current scientific understandings.
On these threads, your pal would be considered a "theistic evolutionist" like many who argue from the evo side of things. The various creationist sites, needless to say, do not consider TEs to be real creationists or real christians.
Not a whim my old friend but years of study.
> your pal would be considered a "theistic evolutionist"
That's my view, yes.
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.