When I see "Creationism" with a capital C, I assume it to refer to
the doctrine of the so-called "scientific creationists" affiliated or
allied with the Institute for Creation Research in La Jolla, CA.
These are the people who tried to get the public schools to teach
"scientific creationism" as a scientifically viable theory a decade
or two ago (until they lost in court). Their theory is that the
earth and the universe are no more than 10,000 years old, that most
of the geological strata were laid down in a single catastrophe
lasting no more than about a year, and that evolution of new species
has never occurred (and would violate the second law of thermodynamics
if it did). Their manifesto is the book Scientific Creationism,
which I recommend as excellent reading for anyone with a strong
stomach. The thesis of this book is that even setting aside Scripture
and using only empirically verifiable facts, the vast majority of
evidence supports their view rather than "evolutionism". Oddly
enough, these people do not deny that our galaxy is 100,000 light-years
across and that other galaxies are millions or even billions of
light-years distant. When you ask them how the light could have
reached us in less than 10,000 years, they get a bit embarassed and
say that either the speed of light was faster in the past or God
created the light on its way to us so the first humans would be
able to see the stars.
These Scientific Creationists are not a fringe group. Polls of
the American public indicate that as many as half of us agree with
them on most of their key points. Certainly most of my relatives do,
and many of my students do as well.
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.