Revelation 4:11
See my profile for info
Thanks.
While there are degrees of understanding of God's creation and its timing, one cannot be described as a creationist if one believes that God just sort of got the ball rolling and let things evolve on their own.
And if your friend does not believe in the unique creation of humans, she is not a creationist at all.
In other words, one cannot call him or herself a creationist, if one has beliefs that are contrary to what is revealed in Scripture (i.e that man was a God-breathed creation apart from plants and animals).
* 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), 54 (PatrickHenry), 58 (VadeRetro), 75 (Manic_Episode), 78 (ohioWfan) and of course me.
our hope in discovering a unifying theory and unlocking the secret to creation possibly lies in string theory (using extended objects as opposed to particles). if a unifying theory is ever uncovered (and I secretly hope it happens OUTSIDE of the physics world ;) ) then it will probaly spark a whole new debate on whether God created such a mathematically perfect universe - or that he simply doesn't exist. I lean towards the first possibility.
So I guess you could call me a math-creationist.
I haven't tracked all 112 posts, but in a nutshell, the argument regarding Creationism extends further than merely a 'Darwinist' and agnostic/atheist/materialist vs a literal fundamental Christian.
Within the group of Christian systematic theologians, difference has emerged in the interpretation of whats constitutes 'man'.
In some cases, man is perceived as body and soul. In other cases he is understood as body, soul and spirit (3 different aspects comprising the man that God has created).
The Creationist a century ago, was one who believed God created the body of man, which is perpetuated by genetic procreation, from generation to generation, while the soul is God breathed upon physical birth, and the spirit, once created in Adam, was separated from God and must be regenerated or rebirthed by God at the time of salvation closely associated to the time of faith alone in Christ alone. (tends to follow a St Augustianian interpretation)
The Traducianists , tended to believe the soul and the body were originally formed in Adam and then each individual man inherited both the body and soul genetically.
The discernment here wrt Creationism, touches upon the issue of whether the soul is created by God for each man upon birth or if it is a genetic consequence of conception.
Darwinism entered the scene and tended to obscure the argument by formulating a false argument between believers and unbelievers that the issues of Creationism were strictly associated with materialism.
Secondary arguments have then been bantered around which probably are nothing more than arguments for arguing sake.
IMHO, the essence of Creationism is recognizing God created all things and then once they are running, He also sustains all things. The rest of the issue might touch upon how we perceive the realm of our domain. I suspect more arguments on Creationism touch upon one form or another of arrogance. Intellectual arrogance of those insisting they live independent of God and crusader arrogance of those who fail to rest faithfully upon the grace of God.
When I hear the word 'creationist', I think of a Protestant (i.e believes in private interpretation of truth) who believes God 'poofed' the universe into existence pretty much just as it is.
Revelation 4:11
See my profile for info
"Creationist" should mean simply one who accepts a doctrine of creation: That God created the world, and also possibly continues to create or sustain it, and has a relation of whatever sort with it. But antievolutionists themselves (at least the vast majority of religiously motivated antievoltutionists, excepting maybe the odd Hari Krishna devotee) have attempted to expropriate the term "creationist" for themselves, and implicitly deny it to those who accept both Creation and mainstream science.
Most modifiers to the term "creationist" in current usage (e.g. "progressive," young-earth," "old-earth") merely specify some variant of antievolutionary creationism, rather than distinguishing antievolutionary creationism as a whole from other sorts not hostile to evolution. I suppose the adjective that comes closest to doing so is "special," but it's not used much these days.
A "special creationist" is one who asserts that the creaturely potentials of nature, and/or God's providential governance thereof, are insufficient and that "special" acts of creation (i.e. Divine interventions into the order of creation, or "miracles") must have occurred; or one who believes that statements in the Bible or other religious documents demand an acceptance of such "special" acts.
Even "special creationist" is not perfect, however, as one might logically believe (and many do) in certain acts of "special creation" -- as for instance the creation of souls, or the initial creation of life in a primitive form -- while still fully accepting scientific versions of evolutionary theory.
So I still prefer the terms "antievolutionist" or "antievolutionary creationist," but often simply use the term "creationist" in the context of a CREVO debate where the restricted denotation is generally understood.
The current totals (remember: this was intended to be a poll of what the word "Creationist" *means* in the terms of FR debates, not whether any particular view of it is correct or accurate)
* 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), 108 (mdmathis6), 119 (TXnMA) 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), 54 (PatrickHenry), 58 (VadeRetro), 75 (Manic_Episode), 78 (ohioWfan), 100 (dread78645), 102 (Elsie), 115 (Varda), 128 (Stultis) and of course me.
There are 3 terms to keep straight, Creationist which is what you described, Evolutionist which is the opposite and Theistic evolutionist which is a combination of the two.
I am a Creationist: God created the Universe approximately 4.5 billion years ago.
Why is it so hard to understand that God created man in His own image? Is God some lower form of life that would evolve into the mess that man has become? Do we not recognize that man has not evolved from the biblical account, but has devolved? Be an evolutionist and deny the veracity of God's telling of the story of Creation, or be a creationist and accept it. But there really is no middle ground. Yeshua himself said that at the judgement many will claim to have done much good work in His name, but he will deny ever knowing Him. Deny self, fly in the face of reason (sophia), and sell out to God. That is how you will be acknowledged by Yeshua in the end.
Creationism, used by itself, is used of any idea which has God creating multiple, distinct creatures from the start.
Young-Earth Creationism is the belief that the account of Genesis 1-11 is historically accurate within the language limits of the Hebrew people. "Young Earth" is a bit of a misnomer, as many YEC's believe in an old age for the physical rock we live on. YEC is characterized by the belief that there was no animal death before Adam, and therefore the geologic column is the result of the flood, not millions or billions of years. YEC's believe in very rapid diversification for animals under stress, but by different means than evolutionists (YEC's believe that the mechanism evolutionists propose is at play, but that it is a lesser mechanism for diversification). YEC's believe that diversity among the species is created by heterozygous fractionation, genomic modularity, and to a lesser degree, evolution. However, they believe with the ID'ers that all information arose from God.
Progressive Creationism isn't really creationism (it's a modification of theistic evolution), except that they believe that God did something special around 6,000 years ago when He put a soul into existing soul-less hominids.
Theistic evolution shared with evolution the belief in Universal Common Ancestry, but disagrees with evolution in the mechanism used to create the diversity of life. They believe that the process of evolution was directed by God and was not random or purposeless.
Some links of interest:
Differences and similarities between creationists and evolutionists:
http://crevo.blogspot.com/2005/05/differences-and-similarities-between.html
Two metaphors for the role of evolution in natural history as seen by creationists:
http://crevobits.blogspot.com/2005/06/nike-metaphor-and-other-thoughts.html
http://crevobits.blogspot.com/2005/05/fireworks-metaphor.html
A book review of a creationist biosystematics book, with summary:
http://crevobits.blogspot.com/2005/05/understanding-pattern-of-life-book.html
Is there anyone out there that believes that God created the big bang, and all else just followed from that? The big bang theory pretty much sounds like creationism to me.
Creationism is a theological view on the meaning(s) of the creation stories in Genesis. It is not a science. My study of science leads me to conclude that this universe was created with laws that permit the evolution of humans and like lifeforms. It also seems to me that if we were created by God, He endowed us with the intellect and imagination to discover creation through science. All of our centuries of scientific advancement must have been intended by Him.