What is a Creationist?

A 'Creationist' is a person who uses the Bible as an astronomy textbook, a biology textbook, a cosmology textbook, a geology text, a physics text, et. cetera. Thus saving themselves thousands of dollars at the college bookstore. Not to mention all then money it costs to buy that silly little cap and gown.
I, as a Catholic, study the life of Christ as a guide to how to live a moral life. A creationist extends those teachings to explain more then morality, but to explain all natural phenomena. I don't look to Peter, Paul, or John when I want information on the development of emerging human microbial pathogens. And I, as an amateur scientist, read Gould when I want an expert scientific opinion regarding biological mechanisms behind evolution. I try hard not to confuse King James with Max Planck.
Why should I expect that much from a fundamentalist creationist?

Well, let's see. Several years ago I was proud & happy to call myself a young age literalist-creationist because as you say, I did believe the earth was only 6 to 10 thousand years old, based on a literal interpretation of the Bible. I suppose it was'nt made very clear to me then, but as I understand it, a literal interpretation meant taking every word in the Bible as essentually factual. My motto at the time, and you have probably heard this before was: "The Bible says it, I believe it, & that settles it!" Anyway, it meant taking whatever the Bible plainly said as true. Fortunately, as time went on studying & reading the Bible, I didn't ? my beliefs because of factual discrepancies in the Bible as much as I saw how the Bible contains more literary genres than just the literal wording. That is what led me to ? some of my previous assumptions about the "truth" of the Bible. Then I was able to confirm factual errors in the Bible that other people generously provided. I hope by sharing my experience here that it helps to clarify what happens in the brain of a young age literalist-creationist. Thanks PM

Yes, NN may have been influenced physically by differential equations study which have both boundary parameters and initial conditions hence "set up the universe". Wolfram could have said that. Maybe three was an equivocation with "the way it is" For you are correct to suspect in the natrualism of the theistic evo for if GOD we cant change was and and is no longer wording the particle then even impentrance matters not in the same time which makes the physics difficult to refer to chain by reference. I never heard of the third either.

quote:

---

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.

---

Oh, NOW I see what I was missing!! You are correct JP I had deviated indeed. There is a differnce between what is constant across generations (say Mendel 3:1) and what subjectivity seperates taxonomic LEVELS of Categorization (morphometric tangent reference form if one is ambivalent about D'Arcy Wentworth Thompson). Yes this chage is UNCONTROVERSIALLY THE SAME over the 200 yrs. Price was continually asking D S Jordan to give him an example of a fossil fish that was transitional and Provine generations later (after Jordan LEFT Cornell with an illegal Master's Degree) said that Johnson did not know what his"collegue" at Cornell did with fossil fish who asked ME, BSM, WHERE in NJ (not Africa as Provine subsequently conflated what IS NOT A PLACE but the place that taxonomists work from or areas over studied etc)such fossil might be found (which is only EITHER a Croizat PLANT or ANY HERPETOLOGICAL distribution between the Pine Barrens and NORTH NJ so with only Darwin's local IS NOT Croizat's "pan"). SO the issue even as JONF thought creationsts neighborly with ecology of the Price vs Clark LINE but the conflation of strata correlation with cause of relation of TWO CROIZAT genera to any one subspecies or variety for ANY variable. I agree with JP now that I see what you guys were talking about.

Mike, yes, most evos here show evidence of what would likely be average to above average intelligence, but don't let that throw you. Consider the following:1. Most evos who participate here, have been students of physics, science and/or astronomy. this subject has be of special interest to them to the extent that they can talk the talk of science with a degree of academic knowledge sufficient to impress without necessarily, I say necessarily, having no more than an average IQ. Likely a number of them would be hard pressed to do such things as repairing a delicate watch, surviving in the wilderness with a knowledge of edible herbs, wire a house, succeed profitably in the stock market, perform an operation, or a number of things other average IQ folks are proficient at.2. The 39 Heavens Gates cult folks who all lay on cots and took poison, believing they would hook up with the Haley Comet and somehow reach some state of paradise were average to above average computer technical employed folks operating in a 1.3 million dollar complex in plush Rancho Santa Fe, Ca. These intelligent folks were simply powerfully deceived. I don't know what their ideology was concerning origins, etc, but my point is that deception is powerful, regardless of IQ. Imo, an ideology that goes all the way from nothing to all that exists on our planet and the rest of the universe without a smidget of intellect to drive/guide/design it takes every bit as much deceptive power as these folks exibited. This is not to say deception is not present within segments of intelligent folks who profess Christianity as well.Judge Biblical doctrine and creationism on it's own merrits and don't allow yourself to be brainwashed from these forums. Don't forget the fulfulled Biblical prophecies. Study/investigate them diligently and your faith in the Bible will be immensely bolstered.

Well, well, a post of Buzsaws that I have to generally agree with. Smart people can say and do stupid things. They can be expert in one area and not another. You need to make up your own mind as best as you can.I, of course, agree with the following: and would add:Judge the evidence supplied, the logic offered and the conclusions suggested for any of the sciences on their own merits and don't allow yourself to be brainwashed from these forums.However, I would also add:Demand evidence, examine the logic and try to see if the conclusions are reasonable for both sides of the debates. No one person can really get "their hands dirty" and really look at all data so you will have to pick and choose a lot. Do the best you can.

That is a theistic evolutionist also the premise is wrong. It should read "accepts the concensus of naturalistic scientists"Personally, since I am one, I prefer scientific-creationist to theistic evolutionist.Either something is literal OR it is an interpretation.This isn't true. Something is a quote or it is an interpretation, but there are literal and figurative interpretations.If I tell my wife that I let the cat out of the bag, and you overhear it and think that I am talking about cats and bags, then you are literally interpreting my sentence, and you are interpreting it wrong.The only reason someone would say, "something is literal OR it is an interpretation" is because they believe that being literal is accurately understanding, rather than intrepreting, something that was written or said. As I just pointed out in my last paragraph, that is wrong. Literal interpretations are very likely to be wrong if they are not considered and examined.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.Used to be common in the 1800's. I understand from another thread here that Philip Johnson is one.

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.Educated is not the same as intelligent or reasonable. Henry Morris was definitely an educated creationist, but I would not consider him reasonable.Are you just talking about young earth creationists? Perhaps you would argue that I don't have a sound mind. I think there was a big bang, twelve billion years or so, then us, with a lot of changes in between, but I think "goddidit," as people put it around here occasionally.Or how about Glenn Morton, who was formerly an avid young earth creationist, but as a geologist for an oil company became convinced of evolution. He is still a creationist (he thinks "goddidit," too), but he is definitely both educated and honest enough to address the evidence.On the other hand, I have to agree with you that someone who is as educated as say, Ken Ham or Duane Gish, and still refuses to admit the overwhelming evidence for Darwinian-style evolution has a brain that I can't understand.

But Truthlover, I don't see how you can have it both ways. How do you call yourself a Biblical creationist if you throw out the Genesis account and having it all come together Dwinian-style? Or is it that you're some kind of non-Biblical creo, whatever that would be?

I should, of course, leave this to TL but it isn't that hard to see a very reasonable answer to the question. TL believes, just as he says, that God is the creator of everything. I have already seen others say that makes one a "creationist". How God choose to create things is what TL will allow science help him understand.The reason I started this thread is that there are clearly many different beliefs that can be called "creationist" and maybe we need a bunch of qualifiers to keep track of what kind a given person is. You've just helped support my point by using the expression "biblical creationist". I'd just suggest that one might believe the bible and that God created everything but still not be a literalist (as if anyone actually is).

You're indeed right about education not meaning reasonable or even common sense based people as results.But my qualm is with those that avidly go against the evidence and theories that are all pointing to the reality of the situation. To illustate that extreme, consider those that praise God after a surgeon has just removed a fatal brain tumour from someone. They believe God had a hand in that and don't think for a second that in fact it was pure human skill and thank the surgeon. These people likely believe planes fly because "Goddidit!".However, a Christian who was brainwashed into Creationism in the most literal sense and then learns of evolution, those people are A-OK. They know that, even if they still followed Creationism as part of their religion, the reality could be evolution and thus totally different.I hope that made sense, the cold is freezing my brain up here.

I think the biggest obstacle for hardline creationists to surmount is that they recieve their education on biology from other creationists. Trying to understand the foundational principles as well as the subordinate theories behind the major organizing principle of biology from a fundamentalist, is the same as trying to get an objective lesson regarding Hebrew history from a Nazi.
Having an intuitive sense that a theory seems 'wrong' is ok. But one be open to hearing what its proponents as well as its opponents have to say. They deficits in evolutionary theory exist. If there were no holes in the knowledge base then there would be no reason to continue research in biology.
But those mammoth gaps in creationist myth do not receive scrutiny from their proponents. And those who continue to spread the myth also continue to spread the same mistruths and misunderstandings of very basic science.
Consider for example the often cited example of how evolution violates the laws pertaining to entropy and conservation of energy. The Earth is not a closed system but operates within a system containing a vast reservior of energy from our sun. That we on earth only tap into a tiny part of that available energy to drive the biological processes on our planet. But on the whole entropy increases even though in this one tiny spot we see an increase in order.

I think we are starting to get a way from the original topic. I don't think we need to turn this into a creationist bashing thread. I'd (in my non-admin disguise) intended that we simple get some clear categories of different kinds of creationists established.I'd like to hear more from the actual creationists themselves actually. Do they have labels for all the others who believe differently than they do?

I hope this is on topic. I think it qualifies. I "allow" science to help me understand, not because I'm wise, open-minded, or gracious, but because the evidence says I ought to. I used to believe that I should just trust the "plain" and "literal" meaning of the Bible, and I considered scientist to be deceived, or worse yet, deceivers.Once, the internet became available, however, and I got to debate evolutionists and see them debated, I saw that the evidence all around us backed up what science said. The world around us just does not back up the "plain" and "literal" meaning of Genesis, which I don't even think is so plain and literal anymore.I "allow" science to teach me, because the evidence is on their side. The world around us, that I believe God created, testifies that modern scientists understand far more about how it was created than Moses did, so I listen to scientists.Even more than the evidence, however, is the effectiveness of scientists. Their research is effective. It heals diseases, leads to incredible inventions, etc. As Jesus himself said, "You shall know a prophet by his fruit." Scientists have better fruit than young earth creationists, so they make better prophets, according to Jesus.Creationism doesn't produce effective science. Shoot, it doesn't even produce effective Biblical living. Born Again Evangelicals, the most likely group to be young earth creationist are not different than non-Christians in almost any area of Biblical lifestyle. Their politics and science are different, but their lives aren't. For that, I reference born again, Christian, young earth creationist pollster George Barna, who in response to a question about his data on divorce among born again Christians, said: ...edited to put right brackets on quote codes[This message has been edited by truthlover, 12-22-2003]

I think most atheists probably consider everyone that's not a materialist to be a creationist. To test this out let's see what the atheists on this forum consider me to be. I accept that evolution has occurred, however, I don't believe all of evolution is due to material mechanisms. Now don't make the mistake of equating material mechanisms with natural mechanisms. If, as I suspect, evolution is front-loaded or preprogrammed, then natural mechanisms have been designed to produce a result therefore they are NOT material mechanisms. I also think it's possible to empirically distinguish between material mechanisms and front-loaded or preprogrammed natural mechanisms in evolution. Am I an evolutionist or a creationist?[This message has been edited by Warren, 12-23-2003]

Sounds like a theistic evolutionist to me. Say, about 90% theism independent (to avoid the loaded and ill defined "atheistic") evolutionist, and about 10% creationist.A lot closer to being an "atheistic" evolutionist, than to being a young earth, anti-evolution creationist.Moose