Re: definition of "Creationism"

[Jack Uretsky <jlu@HEP.ANL.GOV>]

Interesting.  The third position is not very different, in fact although
not in language, from the anthropic universe proponents.  In their most
sophistic version they note that there are some key numbers, like certain
nuclear binding energies, which, if different, would make life (as we
understand it) impossible.  A theist might say this is evidence of
"fine tuning" and therefore of a higher intelligence.  An anthropic
universe proponent would say, "Nonsense! Universes are created all the
time with random values of physical constants such as dimensionality,
fine structure constants, quark masses, etc."  We just happen to live
in the one in which life - and us - can exist.  Just dumb luck, you
might say.
                                        Regards,
                                                Jack

Adam was by constitution and proclivity a scientist; I was the same, and
we loved to call ourselves by that great name...Our first memorable
scientific discovery was the law that water and like fluids run downhill,
not up.
                          Mark Twain, <Extract from Eve's Autobiography>

On Thu, 2 Mar 2000, Scott Bonham wrote:

> For what it is worth, let me throw in some definitions of different
> positions in the origins debate from Denis O. Lamoureux (St. Joseph's
> College, University of Alberta) who holds a doctorate in evolutionary
> biology and one in Christian theology.  He believes it is possible to
> reconcile biological evolution with traditional Christian theology.
> Whether one accepts that as possible or not, I think his description of
> different positions are helpful. He defines at least five distinct camps;
> here is a synopsis of his definitions and some of the people or
> institutions that (according to him) hold to them.
>
> Young Earth Creation ("Scientific Creation") which claims a earth less than
> 10,000 years old and a catastrophic flood.  Position of Henry Morris and
> Institute of Creation Research.
>
> Progressive Creation, which accepts an old earth but claims that life as we
> now know it required many direct divine interventions over the years.
> Position of Berkley Law professor Phillip Johnson and the "Intelligent
> Design Theorists".
>
> Evolutionary Creation ("Theistic Evolution") which accepts standard
> evolutionary description of how life developed but rejects that it was just
> by chance.  Rather, God ensured that human-like creatures would appear
> through natural processes by extremely judicious choice of physical laws,
> setting the initial conditions, and perhaps controlling "random" events.
> This is the position of the Catholic Church (and Lamoureux teaches in a
> Catholic school).
>
> Deistic Evolution, which accepts full blown evolutionary biology but still
> believes there is a God around who may be involved at some level.  This
> appears to have been the position of Charles Darwin.
>
> Dysteleological (Atheistic) Evolution, which rejects the existence of God
> and asserts that biological evolution was driven entirely by chance.
> Richard Dawkins and Carl Sagan fall into this category.
>
> The first three positions could be labeled "creationist," and the last
> three could be labeled "evolutionist." Unfortunately, the same words are
> sometimes used to mean very different things, depending on who is using them.
>
> Scott Bonham