Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Creationist; What is your definition?
Topic Started: Feb 16 2009, 12:49 PM (415 Views)
QuantumIvory
Member Avatar
Senior Carp
What exactly is a "creationist"? Obviously, the scientific community largely views the term as a pejorative one, but can't one be a creationist and still believe that life evolved? If a person believes the universe was created by God (or some other intelligence) with the Big Bang and this creator is responsible for the spark of life and its subsequent development over a long period, does that make that person a creationist? Or is a creationist simply someone who literally interprets the Bible and believes the earth was created by God in six days with mankind originating in the Garden of Eden?
"I regard consciousness as fundamental. We cannot get behind consciousness." -Max Planck

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Moonbat
Member Avatar
Pisa-Carp
I've seen the term used usually in the context of young earth creationists, i.e. biblical literalists who think the world is 6000 years old, and that believe the ark story and Adam and Eve etc. etc.
Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The 89th Key
Member Avatar

I think the problem here, as much as I like them, is labels. Lumping those who believe in the Ark story or Adam and Even in with those who think the earth is 6,000 years old. Or lumping in those that believe in the big bang with those who reject the idea of a deity. Etc, etc, etc...

To answer your question, I think the term "creationist" is often used to describe one who literally believes what the Bible says about the origins of the universe. Of course it's a bit misleading since one can believe in the Christian God creating all things and using various forms of evolution as the vehicle to sustain the created life. I think a better term would be a "Genesis Literalist" or something along those lines...but whatever.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Free Rider
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp
A creationist to me means someone who thinks that evolution is wrong and shouldn't be taught in school. They instead believe that God created all the living creatures and that God created the world itself. Then on the 7th day, he rested.


Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuantumIvory
Member Avatar
Senior Carp
So, if I believe God is the creator of the universe and that life was "front-loaded" at the moment of the Big Bang singularity; does that make me a creationist?
"I regard consciousness as fundamental. We cannot get behind consciousness." -Max Planck

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Renauda
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
More than likely.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dewey
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Quote:
 
So, if I believe God is the creator of the universe and that life was "front-loaded" at the moment of the Big Bang singularity;


Not exactly sure what you mean by that - could you explain?

In answer to your original question, I think others have correctly identified that the term, as it's used in current discussion, would mean someone who takes a literalist reading of the Genesis accounts of our origins. Based on my own conversations with creationist folk over the years, I'd say this group is subdivided into two general groups. There are those who follow the "young earth" path, based on the idea that each "day"/yom mentioned in the biblical record of creation was a literal, 24-hour, terrestrial "day." And there are others who believe in God's direct act of creation as described in Genesis, but who believe that it took place over a much longer period of time - that the "day"/yom mentioned in scriptures is a more allegorical use of the term.

I don't mean to speak on their behalf, but it seems to me that the most important point to either group is rejection of the belief that evolution - at least "macroevolution;" some in the latter group grant the occurrence of "microevolution" - was involved in our origins.

"By nature, i prefer brevity." - John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 685.

"Never waste your time trying to explain yourself to people who are committed to misunderstanding you." - Anonymous

"Oh sure, every once in a while a turd floated by, but other than that it was just fine." - Joe A., 2011

I'll answer your other comments later, but my primary priority for the rest of the evening is to get drunk." - Klaus, 12/31/14
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Copper
Member Avatar
Shortstop
QuantumIvory
Feb 16 2009, 04:05 PM
So, if I believe God is the creator of the universe and that life was "front-loaded" at the moment of the Big Bang singularity; does that make me a creationist?

Well, at a minimum, it means that there is a group of people who will point at you and giggle because they believe that you are uneducated and inferior.
The Confederate soldier was peculiar in that he was ever ready to fight, but never ready to submit to the routine duty and discipline of the camp or the march. The soldiers were determined to be soldiers after their own notions, and do their duty, for the love of it, as they thought best. Carlton McCarthy
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Renauda
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
The converse can be said as well of evolutionists, that they are overeducated and inferior owing to their humanism and rejection of a personal god.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
apple
one of the angels
Creationism is a totally convoluted proposal masquerading as a theory..
i've met the Kansas Creationists.. the intelligent designers and they are dishonest and in their own mind have no idea... it's such a farce.. aaarghh - so many holes.

i have no problem with beliefs.. people can have them. Please let us not pretend belief is equatible to fact.

there are plenty of people who'd like to see it 'taught' in public schools..

that would be fine if it were included in history perhaps/ religious theory.

it behooves me to behold
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Renauda
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
I see no problem with it being taught in an option/elective such as a high school religion class but it has no place in elementary/Junior high levels or a science class at any level.

But as I have already stated it is not an issue here because the curriculum and learner outcomes are determined by the provincial government and the post secondary education institutions and not by individual school boards or special interest groups and lobbies.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
At it's basic form, a creationist is just some who believes that the material word was created by [God]. The way the words is bandied about, even here, tends towards politically expedient mischaracterization. A Christian or Jew need not think that Genesis is a literal accounting (pace Dewey) to be a creationist -- just that we and all material reality is "created" rather than random chance. Genesis is mythopoetical on its own terms.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuantumIvory
Member Avatar
Senior Carp
Dewey
Feb 17 2009, 05:09 AM
Quote:
 
So, if I believe God is the creator of the universe and that life was "front-loaded" at the moment of the Big Bang singularity;


Not exactly sure what you mean by that - could you explain?


By front-loaded, I mean the entire “design” of the universe was programmed at the moment of the Big Bang by God. That, because of this programming, life was destined (indeed, encouraged) to bloom. The fine-tuning of certain physical laws in that moment is astounding and, to me, seems way beyond sheer coincidence.

BTW, I borrowed the term front-loading from a book entitled, “The Design Matrix” by Mike Gene (a pseudonym, of course), however, his use of the term is limited to biological evolution. In the end though, the use of the term is really just about information.

So, in this sense, I suppose I could be labeled a creationist as I do believe a Divine Providence was responsible for the creation of the universe and the life that is in it.
"I regard consciousness as fundamental. We cannot get behind consciousness." -Max Planck

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Moonbat
Member Avatar
Pisa-Carp
Quote:
 

So, in this sense, I suppose I could be labeled a creationist as I do believe a Divine Providence was responsible for the creation of the universe and the life that is in it.


It sounds a bit like what some of the Deists said/say - you think God set up laws of physics such that life turned up (or was likely to turn up) but not that life itself requires any extra supernatural stuff in comparison to volcanoes or storms or other phenomena. Do i have that right?
Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuantumIvory
Member Avatar
Senior Carp
Moonbat
Feb 17 2009, 11:46 AM
Quote:
 

So, in this sense, I suppose I could be labeled a creationist as I do believe a Divine Providence was responsible for the creation of the universe and the life that is in it.


It sounds a bit like what some of the Deists said/say - you think God set up laws of physics such that life turned up (or was likely to turn up) but not that life itself requires any extra supernatural stuff in comparison to volcanoes or storms or other phenomena. Do i have that right?
Yeah, that's pretty close. Although the general definition of a deist usually assumes no interaction between God and the universe or its inhabitants. I probably would not go quite that far.
"I regard consciousness as fundamental. We cannot get behind consciousness." -Max Planck

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dewey
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Quote:
 
A Christian or Jew need not think that Genesis is a literal accounting (pace Dewey) to be a creationist


Actually, I agree with that in its truest meaning. I would have no problem consdering myself a creationist because I believe that God is the cause of al material creation; but I wouldn't be considered anything near being a "Creationist" as the term is generally defined in current conversation.
"By nature, i prefer brevity." - John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 685.

"Never waste your time trying to explain yourself to people who are committed to misunderstanding you." - Anonymous

"Oh sure, every once in a while a turd floated by, but other than that it was just fine." - Joe A., 2011

I'll answer your other comments later, but my primary priority for the rest of the evening is to get drunk." - Klaus, 12/31/14
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dewey
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Quote:
 
By front-loaded, I mean the entire “design” of the universe was programmed at the moment of the Big Bang by God. That, because of this programming, life was destined (indeed, encouraged) to bloom. The fine-tuning of certain physical laws in that moment is astounding and, to me, seems way beyond sheer coincidence.


Quote:
 
because of this programming, life was destined (indeed, encouraged) to bloom.


This I believe.

Quote:
 
the entire “design” of the universe was programmed at the moment of the Big Bang by God.


This I'm not sure whether I believe or not. Not because I doubt God's ability to do so, or God's ordaining the eventual important ends, but I'm not completely convinced that God actually chose to do so. The more I think about it, the more intrigued I am by the thought that it may be an infinitely "more perfect" creation to create a creation that actually serves as participant in the creative process itself - that, in fact, creation contributes many of the details which ultimately reach an ultimate predestined endpoint; rather than God simply determining every single minute detail of creation. I very much believe this about human co-participation/co-creation in God's overall creative process, so it isn't too terrible a stretch to think that this same principle is at work in non-human creation as well.

Either type of action on God's part is fine to me, and would be consistent with my personal theology. I just think that a kind of creation as described above would be an infinitely cooler, more intelligent, more creative creation for God to have created.
"By nature, i prefer brevity." - John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 685.

"Never waste your time trying to explain yourself to people who are committed to misunderstanding you." - Anonymous

"Oh sure, every once in a while a turd floated by, but other than that it was just fine." - Joe A., 2011

I'll answer your other comments later, but my primary priority for the rest of the evening is to get drunk." - Klaus, 12/31/14
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Renauda
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
To each their own I guess, but you lost my attention the moment you used the term *ultimate predestined endpoint*.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuantumIvory
Member Avatar
Senior Carp
Dewey
 
The more I think about it, the more intrigued I am by the thought that it may be an infinitely "more perfect" creation to create a creation that actually serves as participant in the creative process itself - that, in fact, creation contributes many of the details which ultimately reach an ultimate predestined endpoint; rather than God simply determining every single minute detail of creation.


I would agree with that, D. I probably wasn't very clear when I said "the entire “design” of the universe was programmed at the moment of the Big Bang by God." I didn't mean to imply that everything would unfold as predetermined on a huge blueprint, but rather, would unfold according to certain laws and rules. Emergent properties come to mind.
"I regard consciousness as fundamental. We cannot get behind consciousness." -Max Planck

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bernard
Member Avatar
Senior Carp
apple
Feb 17 2009, 07:46 AM
Creationism is a totally convoluted proposal masquerading as a theory..
i've met the Kansas Creationists.. the intelligent designers and they are dishonest and in their own mind have no idea... it's such a farce.. aaarghh - so many holes.

i have no problem with beliefs.. people can have them. Please let us not pretend belief is equatible to fact.

there are plenty of people who'd like to see it 'taught' in public schools..

that would be fine if it were included in history perhaps/ religious theory.

Yes. The problem isn't with "creationism" per se, the problem is in wanting to treat religion as science. I read something today that I think is good:

"Religion is not science, and in attempting to gain acceptance as a science, it allows itself to be treated on the same terms as science. In other words, it begs to be treated as if it were falsifiable, when the entire point in faith is that it is something that is unfalsifiable. Worse, it forces religion to get tied up in arguments that have precious little to do with the elements of faith that are so very important: things like morality, conscience, meaning, etc. And so it loses the forest for the trees, to use a cliche.

"But similarly, science demeans itself when it used as a proof of the non-existence of god. Science is not meant to provide unfalsifiable answers, nor is it intended to answer questions that can only admit of unfalsifiable answers. To do so is to turn the scientific method on its head. And in so doing, science demeans itself because it loses part of its very essence.


--Mark Thompson at The League of Ordinary Gentlemen



Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Copper
Member Avatar
Shortstop
Bernard
Feb 18 2009, 10:55 AM

Yes. The problem isn't with "creationism" per se, the problem is in wanting to treat religion as science.

Yes.

And at least part of that problem is that science isn't necessarily science.

In between faith and science fact is theory.

There are theories that are rightly considered to be in the realm of science.

There are theories that are not rightly considered to be in the realm of science.

That is why this political debate is a political debate – there are so many places you can draw the line.

The Confederate soldier was peculiar in that he was ever ready to fight, but never ready to submit to the routine duty and discipline of the camp or the march. The soldiers were determined to be soldiers after their own notions, and do their duty, for the love of it, as they thought best. Carlton McCarthy
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Renauda
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
For starters, I would draw the line immediately after the introductory phrase "In the beginning".
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Copper
Member Avatar
Shortstop
Or maybe the line could be a circle, you could draw it around documentaries like "Inconvenient Truth ".

Or maybe around a book like "The Origin of Species".

I'm not saying there is anything incorrect about either.

It's just that one is political drama, and the other some brilliant observation and guesswork.
The Confederate soldier was peculiar in that he was ever ready to fight, but never ready to submit to the routine duty and discipline of the camp or the march. The soldiers were determined to be soldiers after their own notions, and do their duty, for the love of it, as they thought best. Carlton McCarthy
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bernard
Member Avatar
Senior Carp
Copper,
Quote:
 
In between faith and science fact is theory.


I'm not sure I agree with that. I think theory works solely within the realm of science and has nothing to do with faith. Theory may be falsifiable. Faith never is.


Quote:
 
There are theories that are not rightly considered to be in the realm of science.


What are those, Copper?

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Copper
Member Avatar
Shortstop
Bernard
Feb 18 2009, 06:55 PM

Quote:
 
There are theories that are not rightly considered to be in the realm of science.


What are those, Copper?


Theories like "conspiracy" theories, half truths or myths assembled to make a whole.
The Confederate soldier was peculiar in that he was ever ready to fight, but never ready to submit to the routine duty and discipline of the camp or the march. The soldiers were determined to be soldiers after their own notions, and do their duty, for the love of it, as they thought best. Carlton McCarthy
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
« Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic »
Add Reply