Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 164 (8125 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 08-30-2014 2:26 PM
80 online now:
DrJones*, Malcolm, NoNukes, PaulK, ringo, Tanypteryx (6 members, 74 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: AppleScratch
Upcoming Birthdays: Omnivorous
Post Volume:
Total: 735,045 Year: 20,886/28,606 Month: 1,383/2,774 Week: 266/238 Day: 10/50 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What is a Creationist?--Weekly Question # 1 Week of 3/12/01
lbhandli
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 4 (217)
03-13-2001 5:37 PM


As a quick bit of introduction to this series, I'll be posting a series of questions with at least one new question per week. I'm moderating Topical Discussion and this is one of the promises I made to Percy.

He is still looking for more moderators as well so feel free to drop him a line if you are interested. There is a dearth of creationists for the positions especially.

This series is in topical discussions so it won't be scored. Moderation is primarily to keep discussions going and stop trolls. I promise not to abuse the power, and hopefully you will only hear from me in the moderator role when I'm posting these questions from week to week.

This weeks question is what is a creationist. I'm pulling this topic over from the Great Debate for a couple reasons. It seems to me that there are many types of creationists and many who may believe in a Creator, but they may not consider themselves a creationist.

If I may, let me suggest some guidelines. First, I don't see this as a providing a right or wrong answer, but exploring the different contexts in which the issue is discussed.

One source in particular that is quite exhaustive in its treatment of the issue is a talkorigins.org faq on the different types of creationists. One of the critiques of it is that many in these different categories may not see themselves as creationists:

http://talkorigins.org/faqs/wic.html

What do you all think?

Larry Handli


Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Thmsberry, posted 03-14-2001 6:07 AM lbhandli has not yet responded
 Message 3 by Shaklfree, posted 03-21-2001 7:02 PM lbhandli has not yet responded

Thmsberry
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 4 (226)
03-14-2001 6:07 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by lbhandli
03-13-2001 5:37 PM


Wow,

That Talkorigins link is good again. I think it provided a fair analysis of a complex subject.

I would make one difference in the ordering of the spectrum.

I believe that Evolutionary Creationism should come after Theistic Evolution and right before Methodological Materialistic Evolution.

The theistic definition of "God" still lives in the literal realm of Understanding the Bible and one could go further as I do and say it looses major relevance outside of the Nicean council that was completely unrelated to the old testament views of "God".

To say it another way, Evolutionary Creationism takes in account three "higher" levels of understanding of what "God" is. Levels that are not limited by and don't even agree with the theistic definition, when taken in entirety. So it would be incorrect or incomplete, to see oneself still in the realm of Theism with Evolutionary Creationism.

Also, The dividing line between Evolutionary Creationism and Methodological Materialistic Evolution would be whether "God" "knows" the future evolutionary events before they in fact happen.

The distinction of whether or not "God" inteferes is no longer relevant because in Evolutionary Creationism "All" is a part of "God". So when natural contingent processes are occurring, this is in fact the "work" of "God". What man calls miracles are merely natural processes that can be but are not always contingent and that we simply don't understand. And these processes themselves are in fact a part of what is called "God". It's theism, by definition, that makes this sort of separation between What is "God" and What is nature. It's theism, by definition, that "God" "operates" unnaturally in the natural universe.

In addition, I hope this post better clears up where I stand in the continuum. If not, let me know, I can go into more detail.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by lbhandli, posted 03-13-2001 5:37 PM lbhandli has not yet responded

Shaklfree
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 4 (253)
03-21-2001 7:02 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by lbhandli
03-13-2001 5:37 PM


The TalkOrigins link has highlighted the major (and minor) movements in creationism and evolutionism. Those guys are such great communicators, aren't they?

In reviewing the list supplied in the article, I'm not sure where I fit in. Of course you'll note that many of the items enumerated are not mutually exclusive. For instance, you can be an intelligent designist and believe in any of the old earth positions as well. Technically, you could be a young-earth geocentrist. Who knows, there might even be one or two methodological naturalists stuck in geocentricism.

All in all, I think the article does give information on the subject.

But what is the root of the creationist philosophy? How does a creationists' approach to knowledge differ from an evolutionists' approach? It would have to be on the issue of supernaturalism/naturalism. These two philosophies (beliefs on knowledge) are the root of our interpretation of facts.

Ultimately, a creationist is a supernaturalist, and a evolutionist is a naturalist. Does that summarize it correctly or no?

Be


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by lbhandli, posted 03-13-2001 5:37 PM lbhandli has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Percy, posted 03-22-2001 8:26 AM Shaklfree has not yet responded

Percy
Member
Posts: 13111
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 4 of 4 (254)
03-22-2001 8:26 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by Shaklfree
03-21-2001 7:02 PM


Hi, Shaklfree! Welcome aboard!

quote:
But what is the root of the creationist philosophy? How does a creationists' approach to knowledge differ from an evolutionists' approach? It would have to be on the issue of supernaturalism/naturalism. These two philosophies (beliefs on knowledge) are the root of our interpretation of facts.

From the Britannica:

quote:
Naturalism, late 19th- and early 20th-century aesthetic movement inspired by adaptation of the principles and methods of natural science, especially the Darwinian view of nature, to literature and art.

In other words, naturalism is based upon science, not the other way around. I offer this as clarification to avoid confusing legitimate criticisms of naturalism with science.

quote:
Ultimately, a creationist is a supernaturalist, and a evolutionist is a naturalist. Does that summarize it correctly or no?

I would agree (as long as we include the stipulation that naturalist should not here be interpreted to mean an adherent to the philosophy of naturalism) but go further and note that many Creationists believe science errs in excluding the supernatural. Philip E. Johnson, author of Darwin on Trial, is the best known Creationist advocate of this position. But Creationism has as yet offered no legitimate scientific research based upon an inclusion of the supernatural, and of course their primary goal is not science but the suppression of information that contradicts their world-view.

--Percy

[This message has been edited by Percipient (edited 03-22-2001).]

{Took hard to read colors out - Adminnemooseus}

[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 12-25-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Shaklfree, posted 03-21-2001 7:02 PM Shaklfree has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2014 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2014