Re: creationists

[Robert A Cohen <bbq@ESU.EDU>]

Since I mentioned "creation science" in one of my posts, I'll put forward
my definition of "creationist".  Before I do, I should point out that
there are essentially three areas of debate when it comes to the evolution
issue.

1. How did life begin?
2. The age of the universe, earth, etc.
3. Whether species have involved (or can evolve) into different species

In my view, the word "creation" relates to #1.  When I use "creation
science", however, I am using it to describe the approach in which the
Christian Bible is used as a basis to address #2 and #3, not just #1.  I
apologize for not defining my terms.  There are many people who agree with
"creation science" when it comes to #1 but differ when it comes to #2 and
#3.  Here I assume the "creation science" argument is that the age of the
universe is relatively young (6,000-10,000 years or so) and that there
have been no interspecies evolution.

In regard to my previous post, I'd say that some have argued that
"creation science" is science since it utilizes observations and
explanations just LIKE science. However, I'd argue this only makes it LIKE
science, since it misses other components of science (like testing,
predicting, etc.).  I don't mean to imply that "creation scientists" have
low IQ.  I just believe that their argument for equating "creation
science" with "evolutionary theory" is based upon the belief that one can
neglect the importance of testing, predicting, etc. and still be
considered science (rather than "LIKE science").

----------------------------------------------------------
| Robert Cohen               Department of Physics       |
|                            East Stroudsburg University |
| bbq@esu.edu                East Stroudsburg, PA  18301 |
| http://www.esu.edu/~bbq/   (570) 422-3428              |
----------------------------------------------------------

On Wed, 1 Mar 2000, David Ward wrote:

> Dear Colleagues:
>
> I have been troubled by folks on the List seemingly having
> a problem with some nebulous category of people referred to
> as "creationists." On the surface, the term simply reflects
> the belief that what we see was created- the term implies
> a Creator, period.
>
> For purposes of discussion on this List,
> is a creationist someone who
>
>         a) is a Deist only
>         b) believes in a 6 day (144hr) creation event
>         c) believes the Bible is inerrant
>         d) attends church regularly
>         e) rejects scientific naturalism
>         f) is a professing Christian
>         g) some of the above
>         h) all of the above?
>
> I've read the term "creationist" several times on the List-
> always in a negative light.     There seems to be an inbuilt
> assumption that whoever these people are they are of low
> IQ advancing some sort of evil anti-science agenda.
>
> Does everyone on the list subscribe to scientific naturalism
> only- are there not even a few Deists out there? Is there any
> empirical evidence that there was NO creator before the first,
> say, femtosecond? Is physics the only reasonable religion and
> are scientists the only viable priesthood?
>
> I do know people of faith who believe in a Creator who have
> advanced degrees- some in physics even!- and posperous scientific
> careers. One is even a very prosperous biophysicist doing important
> cancer research at one of the top 5 research institutions in the
> country. However, this biophysicist has a very fundamental
> faith in the Scriptures. Let's not demean folks of faith in a
> Creator anymore than we would demean the atheist or the agnostic.
>
> David
>
>
> Dr. David Ward
> Dept. of Chemistry & Physics
> UNU#3160
> Union University
> 1050 Union University Dr.
> Jackson, TN 38305
> ph. 901-661-5241
> email- dward@uu.edu