Creationism and how it can be true.

[Skwim]

Then let's just carry on from there then. However, then it has to be recognized that many things in which have been classified as creationism can no longer be called creationism. And I'm fine with that.
That isn't what the definition states though. Really, all we can look at here, per the definition you gave, is this based on the Bible. So other religions really are out. Also, everything has to be created. So an idea that the Earth has evolved and changed, yet animals were created, is not creationism. If we are going to use the dictionary definition, and not deviate from that, all aspects of the definition must be present.
Sure they would, and they often do. Look at the various threads in which claim that 40% or whatever of Americans believe in YEC or creationism, yet what the study is measuring is the idea of human origins. Technically, God creating humans in their present form is not creationism, yet many still want to label it such, and that is the only possible way in which one can get this statistic that is always levied against creationists.

More so, ID is often confused into the subject, even though it technically is not creationism, per definition.
And what is that underlying notion? That everything was created by a Creator, in basically it's present form, as told in the Bible?
Honestly, it isn't important, if all parties will agree that there is a difference between notions of creation and creationism. That seldom happens. If all parties want to agree with that differentiation, I'm fine with that.
Except that ID isn't creationism, per the definition that you gave. ID (and there are different thoughts here) does not necessarily deny evolution.
Actually, I don't think you do.

I think I've pretty much reached my saturation point here and can't see much reason to continue, although I would be interested if you would point out where I gave a definition of ID you claim. It's been an interesting give and take, but time for bed. :run:

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If we look through this thread alone, ID and theistic evolution have been called creationism. Here are two examples: http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/3141467-post97.html and http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/3139769-post54.html

Skwim's post referred to ID being creationism in the context of it being a rejection of the principles of evolution.

outhouse's post... well, I often disagree with things that outhouse says.

Here is a somewhat popular site that claims that ID is creationism: CI001.2: Intelligent Design as creationism

They describe it as "creationism" in the context of ID being a rejection of the principles of evolution:

Intelligent design's main characteristics -- rejection of naturalism, denial of evolution, belief in abrupt appearance and supernatural design, emphasis on gaps in the fossil record, claims of scientific support, claims that evolution is a threat to society, and support for "teaching the controversy" -- are essentially unchanged from young-earth creationism of the 1970s

The Wiki Link I provided labels both Theistic evolution and ID as creationism.

They are linked quite often.

Do you have any examples that don't link them in the context of ID being a rejection of aspects of evolutionary theory? IOW, do you have any examples that don't actually support the exact opposite of your claim that creationism doesn't imply rejection of evolution?

 

[outhouse]

outhouse's post... well, I often disagree with things that outhouse says.

Ther are different ways to skin a cat


but to me ID is a form of creation, it invokes a magic man is creating by design

creation does have many faces, all of them are pseudoscience, most are abrahamic faith based or a perverted form from such.







FB can call it what he will, and he does have a point that many theist follow theistic evolution, which is still creation as it invokes the abrahamic deity to create something at some point.

But he has done little to show that 40% of the people in the USA are not YEC . In light of polls that are pretty clear in intent


creation is wide and varied because imagination is, and one is required to use imagination through faith to follow any form of pseudoscience

 

[fallingblood]

Skwim's post referred to ID being creationism in the context of it being a rejection of the principles of evolution.

outhouse's post... well, I often disagree with things that outhouse says.

They describe it as "creationism" in the context of ID being a rejection of the principles of evolution:

Do you have any examples that don't link them in the context of ID being a rejection of aspects of evolutionary theory? IOW, do you have any examples that don't actually support the exact opposite of your claim that creationism doesn't imply rejection of evolution?

I will concede that I overlooked that point.

 

[fallingblood]

FB can call it what he will, and he does have a point that many theist follow theistic evolution, which is still creation as it invokes the abrahamic deity to create something at some point.

But he has done little to show that 40% of the people in the USA are not YEC . In light of polls that are pretty clear in intent

Then please deal with the OP. It seems as if there is a consensus here that there is a difference between creation beliefs, and creationism. So now that we have gotten to the consensus hopefully we can all get back to the original OP.

As for that 40% statistic, why should I work on showing that it isn't true when there is no evidence that it is? And honestly, I have no want to get into that debate as I really don't feel like arguing against circular, and I have already argued against this statistic multiple times in other threads.




Just to clear something up, I am conceding that there is a difference between creationism and creation beliefs. So let us please get back to the original OP. So creation beliefs and evolution can go hand in hand.

 

[George-ananda]

The correctness of language is determined by usage, and you're in a distinct minority when you use the term "creationism" the way you are.

Why do you insist on ignoring the baggage that comes with this term?

The problem is the word 'Evolutionist' has anti-theistic baggage associated with it by many, like it or not.

So we don't want to be associated with that term either (because of its baggage).

As I said earlier we need to start defining our position with a sentence and not a word.

 

[outhouse]

. So creation beliefs and evolution can go hand in hand.

How can they? one is known and observed scientifically.

the other pseudoscience, and has as much credibility as purple unicorns



You dont mix science and pseudoscience for the benifit of acceptance

 

[outhouse]

The problem is the word 'Evolutionist' has anti-theistic baggage associated with it by many, like it or not.

So we don't want to be associated with that term either (because of its baggage).

As I said earlier we need to start defining our position with a sentence and not a word.

one word describes the origins of mankind. Evolution



no sentance is needed here, and nothing else need be added to that


no pseudoscience, no supernatural, no deities required.

 

[fallingblood]

How can they? one is known and observed scientifically.

the other pseudoscience, and has as much credibility as purple unicorns



You dont mix science and pseudoscience for the benifit of acceptance

You will find the answer to this question in the OP

 

[fallingblood]

The problem is the word 'Evolutionist' has anti-theistic baggage associated with it by many, like it or not.

So we don't want to be associated with that term either (because of its baggage).

As I said earlier we need to start defining our position with a sentence and not a word.

I think this is a very good point.

 

[Breathe]

Here is a somewhat popular site that claims that ID is creationism: CI001.2: Intelligent Design as creationism The Wiki Link I provided labels both Theistic evolution and ID as creationism.

They are linked quite often.

Just had a thought. Linking theistic creationism (and possibly, ID) as creationism is bound to skew polls heavily for the creationism section, isn't it? Somehow, I imagine it looking like the following:

"Do you believe in evolution?"
"Yes."
"Do you believe in God?"
"Yes."
"Okay, put him down for creationism."​

I suppose it's why I think considering theistic evolution to "not be evolution" is a no true Scotsman.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The problem is the word 'Evolutionist' has anti-theistic baggage associated with it by many, like it or not.

So we don't want to be associated with that term either (because of its baggage).

As I said earlier we need to start defining our position with a sentence and not a word.

It's not just the word "evolution" that has anti-theistic baggage; it's the theory itself. Evolutionary theory as well as the evidence behind it suggests an unguided process.

Evolution isn't incompatible with God existing, but the way it describes evolution as an unguided process where the final endpoint can't be discerned in advance is necessarily going to come into conflict with ideas like theistic evolution, which suggests that evolution is guided, not unguided, and its final endpoint is known to God.

That being said, I think there's much less internal contradiction in saying "I believe in theistic evolution" than there is in saying "I'm a creationist who believes in evolution."

 

[Magic Man]

I don't know why it is so hard to accept that there are different forms of creationism. Looking at the Wiki article on the subject; Creationism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, we see that there a variety of forms. Taken from that link: Today, the American Scientific Affiliation recognizes that there are different opinions among creationists on the method of creation, while acknowledging unity on the Abrahamic belief that God "created the universe."

So I am not creating a new definition. And really, if Webster's is only defining it in one way, the simple fact is that they are wrong. And in fact, it is insulting as it completely ignores that there are various other religions out there that believe different things.

So please, why not get back on to the actual topic in which I developed in the OP instead of going off on tangents that have nothing to do with what I said. Again, it doesn't have to be an either/or situation, and there are a variety of forms of creationism.

Looking over this thread, I think one of the reasons why the OP seems so difficult with some people is simply because they are not as informed about the ideas surrounding creationism as they think they are. Which may be expected since most have focused on just a minority position, that of the YEC. But that is hardly all (and yes, it is a minority position. The supposed "statistics" that are cited in defense of it being the majority view simply never deal with creationism in general, but only human origins. If one researchers various forms of creationism, one will see that human origins are a special topic within those).

The bottom line is I don't think changing it to mean something other than "a belief in a god having created living things the way they are today" is helpful or good for communication. It seems unnecessary and confusing to me.

 

[outhouse]

The bottom line is I don't think changing it to mean something other than "a belief in a god having created living things the way they are today" is helpful or good for communication. It seems unnecessary and confusing to me.

I agree.


and for me I think it is sad for humanity, that people are still trying to place mythology into science, promoting pseudoscience.

creationist have been backpeddling for decades, as biblical mythology has been proven to be, just that. So now you see some theist, digging footholes, so that creation mythology can try and climb into science, any way shape or form, no matter how perverted from the already proven false, original mythology.

they keep creating new mythology to cover up the mistakes of previous mythology that seeded this pseudoscience



Creation invokes two fields of pseudoscience, one that god exist, and two ,starts invoking atributes, all requiring only faith

 

[fallingblood]

The bottom line is I don't think changing it to mean something other than "a belief in a god having created living things the way they are today" is helpful or good for communication. It seems unnecessary and confusing to me.

I think in general though the topic is confusing as really only a small portion of creation beliefs have been focused on, and the vast majority are ignored. I will concede that I may not have been using the best terminology, but the terminology is often jumbled.

For instance, right in the next post by outhouse, we have an example of various forms of creation beliefs all lumped together and then tried to be argued against based on an uninformed view of the differences between these creation beliefs. And in fact it makes an over arching statement which basically is just anti-theistic, which often becomes the case.

So the terminology is just a problem in general.

 

[outhouse]

For instance, right in the next post by outhouse, we have an example of various forms of creation beliefs all lumped together and then tried to be argued against based on an uninformed view of the differences between these creation beliefs..

there is no such thing as informed in creation pseudoscience.

we have to guess at what your imagination has drempt up for a definition, because scientifically, no such concept exist in reality.

 

[outhouse]

it makes an over arching statement which basically is just anti-theistic

Not even close to being anti-theistic. defending science against mythology and pseudoscience, is not anti theistic. its just putting up a STOP sign not letting theology into credible science


you want to try and slide pseudoscience right up next to credible science, and claim it can co-exist.

by claiming creation you are in fact now pseudoscientifically stating a deity exist, and attributing powers to such, all based on imagination to fit in gaps of science

 

[outhouse]

really, I think your making a noble gesture.

but you should have confined this to the "same faith" section, where some theist need to be educated on evolution.


people who understand evolution, do not need unsupported pseudoscience

 

[fallingblood]

really, I think your making a noble gesture.

but you should have confined this to the "same faith" section, where some theist need to be educated on evolution.


people who understand evolution, do not need unsupported pseudoscience

I'm not going into a large refutation here as it would be a waste of time as you haven't read and/or understood the OP. You keep claiming I'm trying to give credibility to pseudoscience when that has never been the case. I'm saying that it is fine to have a both/and mentality. That it is fine for people to have faith that God exists and participated in this world as long as it doesn't interfere with science. It isn't placing this faith as science in anyway.

Also, one can be informed on the subject of creation beliefs. If they aren't, then it is ridiculous for that person to argue against something they are ignorant about as the arguments they make are going to be ridiculous and hardly to the point.

And much of what you say is anti-theist. When you insult theism that is pretty much anti-theist. When you refuse to allow people to have theistic ideas, and insult their god/s and beliefs, that in anti-theist.

Now please continue with your normal tactic. Take me out of context, ignore what I said, and repeat your same tired mantra. We have all come to expect no less.

 

[outhouse]

. You keep claiming I'm trying to give credibility to pseudoscience when that has never been the case.

the title of your OP states the exact opposite

That it is fine for people to have faith that God exists and participated in this world as long as it doesn't interfere with science.

stuffing a deity in the gaps of knowledge is a mistake people have been making for as long as we have had written history, how much longer should we play that game?


but your real problem is that your pseudoscience does interfere. Creationsim is a problem in the USA, pseudoscience has many negative impacts on society

it doesnt need defending