Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

Term "creationism"- the Last Word (we hope)



Dear Colleagues:

I didn't expect such a response! I wasn't even sure
the term creationism was appropriate for the list, until
I read the term several times in several listings...

I did some snipping below to put in my final $0.02 and I
will say no more of this.

Zach wrote:
I have always used the term creationist to refer to
one who rejects the theory or evolution in favor of
the idea that humanity was _created_ directly by God.
I believe this is similar to the definition used by
the people who call themselves creationists, and who
advocate the teaching of _creation science_ in public
schools. I am a strong deist, but in my home state of
Kansas I have seen the terrible damage that
creationists can wreak on science education.

Yes- as a Christian and a creationist I am
unsure about evolution. My son and I have dis-
cussed evolution often, and his school covers
it too. He understands that their are both
Christian and non-Christian evolutionists, with
some of the non-Christians being deists.

The Kansas thing bothes me very much- it is
censorship of ideas. Perhaps an analogous
censorship is that of Alfven's view that
the Big Bang didn't really happen- this view
is rarely expressed by the media to the public.

Thanks Zach!

Dan the Evolutionist (his term) writes:
Religious people of a more liberal persuasion who believe in divine
creation but also believe in evolution and a 10-billion-year-old
universe should probably call themselves something other than
"creationists", or at least use a lower-case c. And on this list,
I would suggest that they be clear about whether they feel that
*scientific* evidence supports their belief in divine creation.

Hah! :) I guess that I'm somewhere between a lowercase
and an upper case c... I certainly do not feel that
science can address the ultimate issues- anything we
can't currently measure is not current science, right?
And all theories are approximate, aren't they? After
all, we never have perfect knowledge. I was drawn to
science because it seemed to me that scientists knew
their limits. So, Dan, I am a c(C)reationist who does
NOT feel that science supports or does not support
a Divine Cause- I believe that ultimately science will
always remain mum on this deep issue. I hope that
identifies me sufficiently.

Thanks Dan!

Robert writes:
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.

Based on these snippets- and the comments I didn't snip- I'm
now seeing that the term "creationist" is used by many folks
in many ways- I confess I've been too one-dimensional in my
use of the term (belief in a Creator, period.) I've always
referred to the 6000-10,000yr people as "young earth creationists"
which is not the class I fall into.

Thanks Robert!

Chuck writes:
Scope's was CONVICTED of violating that ban and the legal restriction
was not removed until fairly recently. In the '60's it was still in
force. Our HS bio teacher had attended a North Carolina institution
to get his advanced degree in Bio and could only 'talk around' his
research on little lizards that grew up in separated environments. He
couldn't use the evil 'E' word.

Yep, and Scopes was also recruited to break the law and test
it in court. When recruited, he wasn't even sure he knew fully
what evolution was. The whole Scopes incident is an incredible
indictment of the people at that time who were on opposite
sides of the issue.

Thanks Chuck!

Hugh writes:
Creationists are free to believe whatever they want, no matter what I
think of it. They are even free to publish whatever they want to
about the creation/evolution controversy, no matter what I think of
it. They are free to run for public office on a plank of promoting
creationism in the education system, and if they and enough of their
co-believers win, even change our constitution to make creationism
the law of the land, although I would fight that with every bone in
my body.

I would fight it too! I want my son intelligently aware of
both sides of the issue; censorship is not the way to go.
I hope that neither creationism nor scientific naturalism
ever becomes the law of the land, as it would impoverish
our souls and intellects.

But, until they manage to convert our government from a
constitutional democracy to an autocratic theocracy, they do not have
the right to force our schools to teach creationism and call it
science. That has been made quite clear by the supreme court on a
number of occasions.

Yep, I, the simple creationist, agree. I would add that
no one should force creationism OR strict materialism on
students and call it science- let's call it what it really is, a
worldview. (And I'll omit discussion of worldview formation
and epistemology as it is NOT germaine to this list.)

In my experience, "folks of faith," as you so quaintly characterize
them, do a lot more demeaning of agnostics and atheists than the
other way around, and if you don't believe that just count the number
of atheists who have been elected to public office in this country
where, according to the constitution there can be "no religious test
for holding public office."

(Sorry about "folks"- I'm a Southern boy and I've used the
term too long to stop now. I even catch myself saying
"howdy" too often- it drives my son crazy! It's too quaint
for him too!) Well, we are a religious people, whether our
faith is Bible-based, Koran-based, or atheistically-based
(yes, even the scientific materialist has a religion.)
I personally don't have any Christian friends who demean
agnostics or atheists, though we have prayed for them on
occasion. One of my absolute BEST friends is a committed
atheist. [BTW, for what it's worth, Thomas Jefferson, who
was a Deist at best, said that the Constitution was a document
for a religious people. Of course he was referring, I believe,
to an ethic of tolerance, kindness, and decency.]

BTW, I am all in favor of religious diversity in this country,
because as long as the diversely religious are at each other's
throats, arguing over who has the most direct line to god, they will
be way too busy to bother with the atheists and agnostics.

Ouch! I best leave this one untouched. There's some
real hostility here. It's this sort of thing on the
List that caused my initial missive.

And before we get out the flame throwers, I agree that this topic is
not germain to this list, and I have said my last on it, and on
creationism.

Amen! Thanks Hugh! (I'm tired of this too...)

I only brought it up 'cause ya'll were all using the "creationist"
term, mostly in a very negative way and without definition.

I hereby hush on this issue- scout's honor! :)

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