What is a Creationist?

In another thread John Paul has made statments about what "creationists" are and believe. He has also made statments about what creationists knew in the past.I suggest that we need to be careful about what we call a creationist. At the very least we might need a bunch of hyphenated words.For example:
scientific-creationist: One who accepts both the complete consensus of modern science AND believes that the Christian God set the universe up to be the way it is.
young age literalist-creationist: one who believes that the earth is very young based on a literal interpretation of the Bible
multiple-creation non literal creationist: one who believes that God continues to 'create' new species or genera but not that God did it all at once as described in Genesis
young age-mutliple creations non literalist: combination of the above two
young age-single creation literalist: one who believes that the Bible is precisly literal. No new forms at all are created.
young age-initial creation with limited modification partial literalist(yaiclmpl): one who thinks that the earth is young(ish), that there was a big time intial creation about like described in Genesis but not that all of the Bible is to be taken literally. For example, there were fewer sorts of organisms on the ark than there are around today and the rest arose through hyper evolution later.
etc.
etc.
I have no good idea where this list ends.

Ofcourse you are right Ned. I have been a lot more 'open minded' to all of these things you have stated above. My problem is I'm a confused chap.Evolution - Yes, it's a possibility to me because I have no idea about God's tools.
Young Earth - I believe it for now but I don't think I necessarily will in the future - as it wont effect my belief in God anyway.
Old Earth - I certainly believe that is plausible.I also have a huge problem - I can certainly see that almost everyone here who speaks about evolution is highly intelligent - much more than I! So how can I say they are wrong honestly to myself? - Maybe I should not be an official YEC anymore but rather a confused one.I'm on the fence but my Christianity is 100% intact.

scientific-creationist: One who accepts both the complete consensus of modern science AND believes that the Christian God set the universe up to be the way it is.That is a theistic evolutionist also the premise is wrong. It should read "accepts the concensus of naturalistic scientists"young age literalist-creationist: one who believes that the earth is very young based on a literal interpretation of the BibleEither something is literal OR it is an interpretation. That said there can be interpretations of a literal reading.multiple-creation non literal creationist: one who believes that God continues to 'create' new species or genera but not that God did it all at once as described in GenesisNever heard of that one.NosyNed many on your list are really the same. #s 2, 5 & 6. No educated Creationist believes organisms are immutable. Linne was a Creationist. That means that Creationists knew of change for over 200 years.

"No educated Creationist "I guess this is yet another one for the list. How do I tell an educated creationist? Is that defined as one who agrees with you?There have been so many different stories from different "creationists" here that I'm sure if I kept listing there would be a few new ones before I finished the list I've run into so far. What exactly does this mean? The "educated" in there suggests that you would agree that there are still creationists who believe that organisms are indeed immutable. Is that correct?Is "educated" defined here to mean those that do not believe that organisms are immutable. I think that takes this into the "no true Scotsman" fallacy.I don't particularly care what labels you put on them. I would just like to see your definitions for enough different types so that we can cover the whole range with a reasonable (say 10) number of labels.As I said, as best as I can tell, you would agree that Darwin was a creationist. Is that correct?[This message has been edited by NosyNed, 12-17-2003]

Is "educated" and "Creationist" not seen as mutually exclusive terms? From experience, any Creationist I have come across would be hard pressed to know what real science and logic was.I, personally, can't see how someone who believe in Creation can have a sound mind, but I may be wrong and it's 0400 nearly in the morning so I may be talking crap.

It should be obvious to what I mean by the word "educated". I can find evolutionists who think the theory is tied in with abiogenesis- does that make it so? No- educated evolutionists- those educated as to what the theory of evolution is, know better. Educated Creationists are those who know what the theory of biological evolution, Creation style, is.No I don't agree that Darwin was a Creationist.

Hi Admiral- I feel the same way about evolutionists! Go figure...BTW there are thousands of Creationists that are scientists. Some of the greatest scientists throughout history were Creationists. Newton, Kepler and Pasteur to name 3.

Compared to what? If there was no scientific theory of evolution in their time, what else were they supposed to be?[This message has been edited by crashfrog, 12-17-2003]

You don't agree that Darwin was a creationist?Ok, what is your definition of a creationist? And can you clarify what an educated creationist is?

The scientific accomplishments of Newton and Pasteur were based on proposing testable material mechanisms for natural phenomena. That's what scientists do. Newton in particular is no poster boy for creationism, since he not only pioneered the concept of empirical evidential inquiry but wrote most of his works on, ahem, astrology.In other words, their own belief in the supernatural was not what made their research relevant. People of any religious or non-religious persuasion can understand and verify the results Newton and Pasteur obtained.------------------
The dark nursery of evolution is very dark indeed.
Brad McFall

... a true Scotsman, of course ...

Only those scientists didn't believe such things as YEC and "God did it. 'Nuff said", they held the belief that their religion at that time was the only real way of explaining the Universe and how life came to be as they tried to explain other things, gravity and light for instance. I’m sure if they had been around in this day and age they would gladly accept what we know now as the field they neglected, evolutionary biology, was fleshed out.I still want to know what an "educated Creationist" is. Do you mean someone who, despite having a proper degree or accolade as a scientific (or otherwise) force to be reckoned with, still stands with their dogma in Genesis? If you mean a Creationist who seems to be, say, a brilliant neurosurgeon yet doesn't accept evolution, I can understand. That would technically be an educated Creationist, but that doesn't mean they know jack nor shit about how life actually came about. I'll trust that knowledge to those who write peer reviewed theses on evolution and not read it from some travelling storytellers in an ancient book. Creationist science is an oxymoron if ever there was one.

You just wait before you count all those mar-bles for it will not mal be that Galvani-Volta Faraday thought was but the affinity opened by a more modern helm that Mayr only squashed the point AFTER the virus was in the tank. I am still reading the "AMBIGOUS FROG" so my own judge, jury and justice is still out. As for the compromise- it still existed in the past 100 yrs which ever hundered that be.

Oh, there is a theory of biological evolution creation-style? Could you summarize it? Perhaps offer some links to more detail?However, how could a person be an educated creationist before there was such a theory. How was Newton, for example, a creationist? Was he an "educated" one?

Apostle, in another thread asked: I have not read all that much of Behe, but everything I have read suggests to me that he thinks that, after life arose originally by whatever means, it has evolved over billions of years. That the mechanism for it's evolution is neo-darwinian in nature. This makes him awfully close to mainstream biologists if it is true. What he does say is that NOT ALL of the evolutionary steps are possible through neo-darwinian mechanisms. There is, in his mind, some additional mechanism that has to have had an affect in a few places. He believes that the nature of the steps taken through this mechanism are such that it must be "intelligent" in a way that we would recognize as intelligent. Alien super-intelligences are one such possible mechanisms.If we have to call somebody either a creationist or an "evolutionist" then compared to a YEC, all species created in the garden of Eden type Behe would, IF the above is true, look a lot more like an 'evolutionist' than anything else.Especially you'd have to say this if you recognize that a significant fraction of regular neo-darwinian accepting scientists would agree that an intelligence was involved somewhere in the processes that eventually resulted in us. To say otherwise messes the meaning of the words up so much they become useless.I don't really care what you label people. What I do care is that we sort out what they are suggesting has happened and what positions they are actually supporting.IF what I have written about Behe is true I would be astonished at a YECer wanting anything to do with him.