Why I call myself a Conservative, Republican, Christian Creationist Evolutionist

Mr. Phat,I think most of your questions are (or should be) rhetorical - but I'm going to answer them individually anyway (ornery me). Depends. If everybody thought that they should love their neighbour as themselves, I'm sure He would approve of that. If everybody thought that the earth was 6000 years old, I'm equally sure He would not approve of that. I think He "really cares" that they understand the message behind the stories. If they cling to a belief in a literal Adam and Eve, they have missed the point. If they cling to a belief in a literal snake, they have missed the point. If they cling to a belief in a literal flood, they have missed the point.He cares about the point, not the fairy tales told to illustrate the point. Are there not too many negatives in that sentence to make it incomprehensible?I think you meant to ask, "Does He want us to use our minds?"Yes. No. Since the fiction of "Original Sin" is supposedly right at the beginning of the Bible, the "hopeless victims" scenario would make the rest of the Bible redundant. You've made an Olympic-caliber long jump from "should we use our brains?" to deification of our human wisdom.We should use our feet for walking, but that doesn't deify them. We should use our hands to make a living, but that doesn't deify them. Why single out the brain for atrophy? Bear in mind that the unused brains of religionists have probably created more problems than they have solved. I think jar - among others - illustrates that he can.The problem is that some people don't believe that he believes. Could that be a flaw in their beliefs? Or a flaw in their critical thinking?

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

Thinking about this helps me to see that there's a problem in my definition of creationist. Many creationists wouldn't agree with that definition. For example, Faith and Randman would say that the evidence absolutely supports the Biblical accounts, and that it is the maddening, infuriating, dishonest and lying evolutionists who hold beliefs above evidence.I could change the definition to say that creationists are those who hold views based upon their interpretation of religious revelation and that are not accepted within the mainstream scientific community, but then there are those like Randman who would disagree with even this, claiming, for example, that the noodleheaded evolutionists here at EvC Forum are lying when they deny that quantum theory disproves causality, as he claims John Wheeler has clearly demonstrated.But one can go on refining definitions forever. At some point one has to rely upon the good intentions of people to be sincerely committed to making themselves clearly understood. Whether creationists agree or not with the way I have phrased it, I'm sure they know exactly who my definition is referring to, which is what's important.If you say to someone here at EvC Forum, "I am a creationist," then they will conclude that you reject the theory of evolution and quite possibly believe in a young earth and a recent global flood. If you disagree that that is the case then I won't argue the point, but I will insist that you make clear which definition you're using when you choose one that no one at a board that debates creation/evolution would expect.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Oh, yes, very much so. That's why I said, "The administrative concern is that threads could be diverted from their topics into arguments over definitions, so for threads where word definitions are not the topic..."This is clearly a thread where definitions (or semantics) *is* the topic.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Perhaps way too far afield for this thread, but do you think the Creator cares whether we believe any of the bible is factually accurate? Would the Creator be satisfied if we conclude that every word of the bible is a fairy tale that teaches us important lessons of life and live those lessons?

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin

creationist: a person who places their interpretation of religious revelation above scientific evidence.

​

evolutionist: specifically, a person who accepts the theory of evolution as the explanation for the diversity of life on earth. More generally, it is often used by creationists as a blanket term to refer to anyone who places scientific evidence and theories above religious revelation.

​

So to say that I am a creationist is, perhaps, pre-establishing the idea of a Creator?

​

Unitarian Universalism writes:

​

Unitarian Universalism is a liberal religion born of the Jewish and Christian traditions. We keep our minds open to the religious questions people have struggled with in all times and places.

​

We believe that personal experience, conscience, and reason should be the final authorities in religion. In the end religious authority lies not in a book, person, or institution, but in ourselves. We put religious insights to the test of our hearts and minds.
We uphold the free search for truth. We will not be bound by a statement of belief. We do not ask anyone to subscribe to a creed. We say ours is a non creedal religion. Ours is a free faith.

​

We believe that religious wisdom is ever changing. Human understanding of life and death, the world and its mysteries, is never final. Revelation is continuous. We celebrate unfolding truths known to teachers, prophets, and sages throughout the ages.

​

So if I had a personal experience with God, could I call myself a creationist evolutionist, seeing as how I accept the theory of evolution as the explanation for the diversity of life on earth?

No.Maybe the Creator wants us to believe that all of The Clan of the Cave Bear is factually accurate. He'd be more than satisfied. He'd be delighted.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

It certainly is a complicated issue. As you point out, there is no real definition of Creationist that seems to accurately portray peoples personal position.The debate usually reduces to an "Us vs Them" position.My only goal Percy is not to disrupt or mislead folk. It is to say though, that "Yes, you can believe in GOD the creator and not reject science."Too often the positions expressed here (see recent posts by Origen, JesusFighter and others) is that support for Evolution is a Godless, Atheistic, Marxist attack on Christianity.My only hope is that I can point out to the readers at EvC that it is possible to be a Christian, to believe in GOD the Creator, to support positions other than Marxism (or Communism or Anarchism) and still accept Evolution. I believe that it is pretty damn clear to folk that visit EvC that I do not "reject the theory of evolution and quite possibly believe in a young earth and a recent global flood."If someone here is still under such an impressions, then I simply suggest that they read a smattering of my posts.However the last sentence does get to what I consider to be the heart of the issue.When I say that I am a Creationist, it is jarring, discordant. Hopefully it causes folk to step back. Hopefully it penetrates their personal comfort zone and causes them to stop and think.Hopefully, it causes people to stop and actually think about, to consider what THEY think the term Creationist means?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I know. I was a creationist moderator.Edited by jar, : helps if you actually put words in the quote

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

If I might intrude. I believe that GOD created all that is, seen and unseen.Well, when we look around, we find that GOD created dogs and cats and lions and tigers and bears and ohmys. He also created Buddhists and Wiccans and Muslims and Jews and Taoist and Atheists and Agnostics, with just a smattering of Christians sprinkled around.She created far more other stuff than Christians.The one thing that we do know is that all GOD's creations gotta live together.GOD, if GOD does exist and if GOD is the creator, is so far beyond the power and majesty of any human as to be incomprehensible.To think that GOD would be concerned if we believe some book factually correct or even whether or not we believe She exists, is more ludicrous then a human becoming upset because an amoeba does not worship man.A GOD who could create the Universe, who understand all the laws of physics, chemistry, biology, intuitively and who can bring all into existence solely through an act of will is not some bling bling pimp daddy that gets pissed if dissed.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Then there are new members, old members who haven't had much interaction with you yet (hard to believe, I know), lurkers with widely varying degrees of familiarity with the participants here, a rather large number of one-time and few-times visitors who are led here as a result of Google searches and such, and sometime down the road when you're no longer participating and so are no longer familiar to everyone your old threads might be very confusing.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

If confusion prompts people to actually think instead of having a knee-jerk reaction, is that such a bad thing?

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

That is always a risk.It is also a risk using the Socratic method as a way to further discussion.When I try to break some of the complex issues we try to address down into smaller more manageable sequence of thoughts, I run the risk of one single post being taken out of the context of the thread as a whole.But I think it is also necessary and effective. When we try to address massive sweeping subjects in one post we also run several risk. It becomes easier in mammoth comprehensive posts for things to wander off topic where sometimes important points get lost in the clutter.If you will look just as an example to those posts where I do call myself a Creationist, I believe you will also find that I try to distinguish between my being a Creationist and the Biblical Creationist.Frankly sir, I now have something like 12,000 posts here at EvC. Even years in the future I imagine that will remain a comprehensive body of messages.I have also tried to present specific threads where I have outlined my beliefs, probably in as great detail as any member here at EvC. When combined with the threads where folk specifically call me out to challenge parts of my beliefs or challenge positions I hold, I think my positions are pretty well documented.If, someday in the future, someone comes to the board and reads one of my posts where I call myself a Creationist, will it be any different than those who are here now, who have read my posts, and still misrepresent my position?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Let me suggest another criterion for defining these terms. If you were to read a news report about a Gallup poll that stated that 60% of those polled identified themselves as creationists, what would you conclude about the relative support for evolutionary theory? How would you respond to such a poll knowing how the vast majority of people would interpret the results?

Actually I was contacted on just such a poll, although it was not Gallup but a different polling group. And I refused to answer because it is to simplistic.Please remember that when I identify myself as a Creationist, I am speaking not to those who accept evolution, but to those Christians who do not accept Evolution.In addition, it very seldom is in a post where the only content is that I am a Creationist.For example, the post that began this discussion can be read in Message 114 where I said: I do not see how that can leave any doubt that I support both the FACT of Evolution or the Theory of Evolution.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I have several times seen religious leaders make the unqualified statement:"You cannot believe in evolution and still be a christian." or, more specifically: "You cannot believe in evolution and still be a (true/good/real) christian."Their point is based on an understanding of the whole point of (divine) Jesus' birth, life, and death: Jesus did not die for man's sins. He died to absolve mankind of sin. That is, god did not arrange for his only son to hang on a cross in order that you or I could be forgiven for filching that hotel ashtray. He died to wipe the slate clean of mankind's Original Sin (and as a bonus, to provide a mechanism for forgivance of new sins). If you accept the theory of evolution, than you must believe that the stories of Adam and Eve and the Fall and original sin are mythical, allegorical, metaphorical, or anything other than actually true. If these stories are mythical, than the whole story of Jesus is mythical, or at least the part where he is the son of god sent to die on the cross so that mankind could start anew unblemished by original sin. The central creed of Christianity is demolished.You can certainly still believe in Jesus as a very wise teacher, and even fervently follow his teachings, but that (according to the above mentioned religious leaders) is not being a christian. Muslims do that. Many Buddhists, Hindus, and even atheists do that. So, I think the central issue you raise in this OP is not so much what it means to be a creationist, but what exactly it means to be a christian. Is it valid to say that 'christian evolutionist' is an oxymoron?