Evolution vs "Creationism" Why the Term is Predijudical

[Eyes to See]

I've been on a few forums over the years. I recently joined this one and haven't taken too much time on it as of yet. Although I have already met some very interesting and nice people as well as the exact opposite.

Now going through some of the forum topics I stumbled across this one "Evolution vs Creationism." And on other websites I find the same misnomer as well.

I would like to bring it to the readers attention as to what a misnomer is and why it is a misnomer to paint with such a broad brush.

Note what Wikipedia states as to the definition of misnomer:


"A misnomer is a name that is incorrectly applied. Misnomers often arise because something was named long before its correct nature was known, or because an earlier form of something has been replaced by something to which the name no longer applies. A misnomer may also be simply a word that someone uses incorrectly or misleadingly."

Now I do not claim to talk for everyone here as I hardly know anyone. But I have seen a pattern here, and this is it. People who believe in God and the account of creation in the Bible are usually labeled "creationists."

But if you look at what a creationist actually believes and what the Bible teaches and what the majority of people who believe in the creation account of the Bible you will know that most people who believe in the Bible are not creationists.

Simply put, a creationist is someone that believes that the literally heaven and earth were created some 7 thousand years ago in 6 literal 24 hour days.

Many people who believe in creation and in the Bible DO NOT believe in creationism. Thus this word is used incorrectly, and sometimes misleadingly toward them.

 

[sayak83]

I've been on a few forums over the years. I recently joined this one and haven't taken too much time on it as of yet. Although I have already met some very interesting and nice people as well as the exact opposite.

Now going through some of the forum topics I stumbled across this one "Evolution vs Creationism." And on other websites I find the same misnomer as well.

I would like to bring it to the readers attention as to what a misnomer is and why it is a misnomer to paint with such a broad brush.

Note what Wikipedia states as to the definition of misnomer:


"A misnomer is a name that is incorrectly applied. Misnomers often arise because something was named long before its correct nature was known, or because an earlier form of something has been replaced by something to which the name no longer applies. A misnomer may also be simply a word that someone uses incorrectly or misleadingly."

Now I do not claim to talk for everyone here as I hardly know anyone. But I have seen a pattern here, and this is it. People who believe in God and the account of creation in the Bible are usually labeled "creationists."

But if you look at what a creationist actually believes and what the Bible teaches and what the majority of people who believe in the creation account of the Bible you will know that most people who believe in the Bible are not creationists.

Simply put, a creationist is someone that believes that the literally heaven and earth were created some 7 thousand years ago in 6 literal 24 hour days.

Many people who believe in creation and in the Bible DO NOT believe in creationism. Thus this word is used incorrectly, and sometimes misleadingly toward them.

young earth or old earth creationists need not be Christians. They could be Muslims or jews or Hindus for example. Creationists are simply people who that God created the living beings in ways that are in contradiction with the scientific account of evolutionary biology or terrestrial geochronology. They may hold these beliefs for various reasons.

 

[Eyes to See]

young earth or old earth creationists need not be Christians. They could be Muslims or jews or Hindus for example. Creationists are simply people who that God created the living beings in ways that are in contradiction with the scientific account of evolutionary biology or terrestrial geochronology. They may hold these beliefs for various reasons.

Creationism is commonly used to refer to anyone that believes in the Bible account. But really only a few Christian Fundamentalists have ideas that differ greatly with science that the earth is thousands of years old, or that the universe and everything in it were created in 6 literal 24 hours periods.

I see a tendency of people to include all who believe in the Bible, even when their beliefs concur with science as "creationists." Which is a misnomer.

 

[danieldemol]

...I see a tendency of people to include all who believe in the Bible, even when their beliefs concur with science as "creationists." Which is a misnomer.

Sorry to break it to you but if you don’t accept evolution in its entirety your beliefs do not concur with science.

And what better name for someone who believes that life with its diverse species was a special creation by God than creationist? Just because there are different types of creationism doesn’t mean they are not all fairly falling under the umbrella term creationist.

 

[exchemist]

Creationism is commonly used to refer to anyone that believes in the Bible account. But really only a few Christian Fundamentalists have ideas that differ greatly with science that the earth is thousands of years old, or that the universe and everything in it were created in 6 literal 24 hours periods.

I see a tendency of people to include all who believe in the Bible, even when their beliefs concur with science as "creationists." Which is a misnomer.

No, @sayak83 is right to bring to your attention the distinction between Young Earth Creationism (YEC) and Old Earth Creationism (OEC). Your proposed definition seems only to include YECs, i.e. those who believe in the literal creation in 7 days, Ussher's chronology etc.

But there are plenty of OECs about as well, for example people who promote the pseudoscience of "Intelligent Design" (ID).

What all these creationists share is the unscientific view that life on earth came about by one or more miraculous, supernatural interventions in nature involving suspension of its laws, rather than by the operation of natural processes.

Where I agree with you is that some people use a more comprehensive definition of "creationist" to include anyone who believes in a Creator, something that is far from incompatible with science. I was surprised to find, when I looked it up, that this second meaning of creationist does seem to be recognised. However, in almost all modern usage, the term is reserved for those who believe the world as we know it today came about as a the result of supernatural intervention in nature.

 

[ecco]

Now I do not claim to talk for everyone here as I hardly know anyone. But I have seen a pattern here, and this is it. People who believe in God and the account of creation in the Bible are usually labeled "creationists."

People who believe no god exists are called atheists.
People who believe a god created everything and then sat back and man do his thing are called deists.
People who believe "God" created everything as written in the OT are called creationists.

Hmm.

Simply put, a creationist is someone that believes that the literally heaven and earth were created some 7 thousand years ago in 6 literal 24 hour days.

Simply put, a creationist is someone that believes a creation story. For the extent of this discussion, that is anyone who believes the Genesis account. "Time" is only one portion of the issue. Creationists disagree amongst themselves about the length of a "day" and how "creation took.

Many people who believe in creation and in the Bible DO NOT believe in creationism. Thus this word is used incorrectly, and sometimes misleadingly toward them.

That comment is self-contradictory.

 

[Polymath257]

Creationism is commonly used to refer to anyone that believes in the Bible account. But really only a few Christian Fundamentalists have ideas that differ greatly with science that the earth is thousands of years old, or that the universe and everything in it were created in 6 literal 24 hours periods.

OK, you are wrong in the use of terminology here. Christian creationism is, specifically, that fundamentalist version of Christianity, not the more general form that allows, for example, directed evolution.

I see a tendency of people to include all who believe in the Bible, even when their beliefs concur with science as "creationists." Which is a misnomer.

Well, the terminology on this has been fixed for a while. And it is that 'creationism' is about the specific type of beliefs that reject evolution and science. In a way, this is a propaganda victory for the fundamentalists because other Christians identify as believing in a creation even though they are NOT creationists.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I've been on a few forums over the years. I recently joined this one and haven't taken too much time on it as of yet. Although I have already met some very interesting and nice people as well as the exact opposite.

Now going through some of the forum topics I stumbled across this one "Evolution vs Creationism." And on other websites I find the same misnomer as well.

I would like to bring it to the readers attention as to what a misnomer is and why it is a misnomer to paint with such a broad brush.

Note what Wikipedia states as to the definition of misnomer:


"A misnomer is a name that is incorrectly applied. Misnomers often arise because something was named long before its correct nature was known, or because an earlier form of something has been replaced by something to which the name no longer applies. A misnomer may also be simply a word that someone uses incorrectly or misleadingly."

Now I do not claim to talk for everyone here as I hardly know anyone. But I have seen a pattern here, and this is it. People who believe in God and the account of creation in the Bible are usually labeled "creationists."

But if you look at what a creationist actually believes and what the Bible teaches and what the majority of people who believe in the creation account of the Bible you will know that most people who believe in the Bible are not creationists.

Simply put, a creationist is someone that believes that the literally heaven and earth were created some 7 thousand years ago in 6 literal 24 hour days.

Many people who believe in creation and in the Bible DO NOT believe in creationism. Thus this word is used incorrectly, and sometimes misleadingly toward them.

Dismissing science in favor of a view that the universe, this Earth and life were created by a deity using methods outside of the constraint of physical laws is creationism. Whether it is based on a literal view of one claim or not.

As a Christian, I am ultimately proclaiming that I believe that everything was created by God. And I do not see it to be any other way for a Christian regardless of interpretation. A creationist is someone that believes that everything was created by a supernatural being. In the case of Christianity, that being is God. Where my views differ from other creationists might be a topic for another thread, so I will not elaborate on it further.

It is correct that it is often fundamentalist Christian believers that reject the evidence of the world and rational conclusions drawn from that evidence in favor of their personal interpretation of scripture that are labeled "creationists". But that term is not limited to them alone.

The misnomer here is the opposition of creationism to evolution. Evolution is not a theory of the origin of life and does not propose or claim a specific origin for life. Creationism in this context should properly be set in opposition to the hypotheses proposing a natural origin for life, collectively referred to as abiogenesis.

 

[McBell]

Simply put, a creationist is someone that believes that the literally heaven and earth were created some 7 thousand years ago in 6 literal 24 hour days.

And herein lies a problem.
You have attempted to put all creationism into one neat and tidy little box when the truth of the matter is much more complicated.

In other words, you have oversimplified it into being worthless.

 

[Polymath257]

That comment is self-contradictory.

Actually, no it is not. Creationism is a very specific set of beliefs about the way things were created. Simply being a Christian that thinks the universe was created by God does NOT mean a person is a creationist.

The term 'creationist' is limited to those who deny that evolution was how living things have developed. So, you can be a Christian and believe God created the world, but also believe that evolution is the method God used to do this. In that case, you would NOT be a creationist.

As has been pointed out, there are Old Earth Creationists and Young Earth Creationists, but the unifying aspect of their beliefs is the denial of evolution (and, often the Big Bang, but that is beside the point).

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Actually, no it is not. Creationism is a very specific set of beliefs about the way things were created. Simply being a Christian that thinks the universe was created by God does NOT mean a person is a creationist.

The term 'creationist' is limited to those who deny that evolution was how living things have developed. So, you can be a Christian and believe God created the world, but also believe that evolution is the method God used to do this. In that case, you would NOT be a creationist.

As has been pointed out, there are Old Earth Creationists and Young Earth Creationists, but the unifying aspect of their beliefs is the denial of evolution (and, often the Big Bang, but that is beside the point).

I have thought about this a lot, given my beliefs, and I think most people that believe in God would fall under the classification of creationist. All-be-it, not the same narrative of creation for everyone. God would have had to create something, even if the rest was left to run on its own after a certain point.

But is correct that the opposition that these discussions often draw are the strict biblical creationists that deny the evidence of reality and reject science in support of their favorite dogma. The bottom line is that some creationists deny science and some do not.

 

[McBell]

And here I always thought that creationism was an umbrella term that included anyone who believed the universe was created, directly with intent or otherwise.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

And here I always thought that creationism was an umbrella term that included anyone who believed the universe was created, directly with intent or otherwise.

I started to respond to your post, but you either amended it or withdrew it. However, I have come to agree with what you claim to be your definition of creationist.

I have long been in opposition to and remain opposed to the notions of the strict, biblical creationist regarding the findings of science, but it was once pointed out that as a Christian I am a creationist too. After long consideration, I have to agree with that point. However, my view of what creationism means to me has changed.

Edit: Or it has not changed so much as been placed in a different context.

 

[MNoBody]

polarization
us vs. them
debate mode-adversarial
sounds like the hippy vs square arguments..... refried
it only serves to keep things going in circles

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Now I do not claim to talk for everyone here as I hardly know anyone. But I have seen a pattern here, and this is it. People who believe in God and the account of creation in the Bible are usually labeled "creationists."

There are many different breeds. Perhaps even more then there are denominations
In general though, when I'm told "creationist", I hear "science denier".
I associate it with someone that denies science, evolution in particular.

There's many different breeds within that species.
There's the YEC folks, the OEC folks and the ID folks. Among those 3, each have many different subspecies as well. In YEC, you have the Kent Hovindians, the Ken Hamians and many others.
Within ID you have folks with various degrees of acceptance of evolution, you have YECs that disguise themselves in a labcoat and then call themselves "intelligent design proponent", because it sounds smart I guess.

But yeah, the lowest common denominator seems to be a denial of or objection to evolution and related sciences.

But if you look at what a creationist actually believes and what the Bible teaches and what the majority of people who believe in the creation account of the Bible you will know that most people who believe in the Bible are not creationists.

Simply put, a creationist is someone that believes that the literally heaven and earth were created some 7 thousand years ago in 6 literal 24 hour days.

That would be a YEC, which is actually the most famous kind of creationist. Or at least, they are the loudest.

Many people who believe in creation and in the Bible DO NOT believe in creationism. Thus this word is used incorrectly, and sometimes misleadingly toward them.

So to you, creationism is restricted to just YECs?
Old earth creationists aren't creationists? They believe pretty much the same thing as YECs though, when it concerns evolution theory and how species originate.

I like my definition of "creationist" better: someone who denies the biological theory of evolution in favour of supernatural myth. (note that I didn't restrict it to just biblical myth... there's also the quran and many other creation myths from a great many religions)

 

[MNoBody]

query-why is 'Intelligent Design', in its most general sense considered absurd?
it seems to keep coming up from some and I wonder why that is considered unreasonable, since every other theory is equally unproven.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

query-why is 'Intelligent Design', in its most general sense considered absurd?

The answer to that question lies in the origin story of the term cdesign proponentsists
The infamous leaked "wedge document" from the discovery institute is another.

"intelligent design" has become synonymous with fraudulent. It's creationism designed in a lab-coat.
ID consists of pretty much the same materials, just repackaged with some (wrongly used) scientific jargon sauce on top of it which serves as camouflage.

That's what it is and has been shown to be.

it seems to keep coming up from some and I wonder why that is considered unreasonable, since every other theory is equally unproven.

That is just false.

Scientific theories are models of explanations of phenomenon within a well defined scope, which accounts for all the relevant facts and contradicted by none, which provides explanatory power and is falsifiable: meaning it is independently testable and verifiable and which provides us with usefull information about reality so that we might use it in some sort of practical application or as a foundation for further research.

Evolution theory passes all these criteria. In fact, evolution theory is generally seen as one of the most comprehensive, most supported and best established ideas in all of science. Physics doesn't have its "unified field theory", which ties together all the various subfields into one central idea / model. But biology does. It's called evolution. It ties together molecular biology, comparative anatomy, paleontology, taxonomy, phylogenies, geographic distribution of species, embryology, virology, genetics, comparative genomics, molecular biology, micro biology, etc etc etc etc etc.

This is why they call it the "backbone of biology".

Intelligent Design? ID doesn't meet ANY of these criteria.

It doesn't address a well defined scope as it is being brought up in just about any conversation where it seems convenient for the creationist... ow sorry, "intelligent design proponent".

It doesn't account for all the relevant facts, since there is no way to determine what is "relevant", since the scope is ill-defined. Not defined at all, actually.

It has no explanatory power and it isn't falsifiable. Meaning it's not testable nore verifiable.

As a result it isn't usefull in any way for anything.

 

[HonestJoe]

Simply put, a creationist is someone that believes that the literally heaven and earth were created some 7 thousand years ago in 6 literal 24 hour days.

Many people who believe in creation and in the Bible DO NOT believe in creationism. Thus this word is used incorrectly, and sometimes misleadingly toward them.

I disagree. The meaning of words depends very much on context and intent but in general terms, the word "creationist" isn't limited to the specific belief you describe, it isn't even limited to Christian beliefs, but those of any divine creator. It certainly can be used to only refer to "young Earth creationism" but that doesn't justify demanding that no other use or definition is valid. (Creationism - Wikipedia)

This isn't really about what words mean but making sure that when we do discuss highly emotive and controversial topics like this, we should make every effort to be clear and consistent in what we're actually saying. I'd personally avoid introducing any singular labels like this one to such discussions and instead describe the specific concepts or beliefs directly. That also helps lead to discussions about ideas rather than attacks on groups of people.

 

[MNoBody]

The answer to that question lies in the origin story of the term cdesign proponentsists
The infamous leaked "wedge document" from the discovery institute is another.

"intelligent design" has become synonymous with fraudulent. It's creationism designed in a lab-coat.
ID consists of pretty much the same materials, just repackaged with some (wrongly used) scientific jargon sauce on top of it which serves as camouflage.

That's what it is and has been shown to be.



That is just false.

Scientific theories are models of explanations of phenomenon within a well defined scope, which accounts for all the relevant facts and contradicted by none, which provides explanatory power and is falsifiable: meaning it is independently testable and verifiable and which provides us with usefull information about reality so that we might use it in some sort of practical application or as a foundation for further research.

Evolution theory passes all these criteria. In fact, evolution theory is generally seen as one of the most comprehensive, most supported and best established ideas in all of science. Physics doesn't have its "unified field theory", which ties together all the various subfields into one central idea / model. But biology does. It's called evolution. It ties together molecular biology, comparative anatomy, paleontology, taxonomy, phylogenies, geographic distribution of species, embryology, virology, genetics, comparative genomics, molecular biology, micro biology, etc etc etc etc etc.

This is why they call it the "backbone of biology".

Intelligent Design? ID doesn't meet ANY of these criteria.

It doesn't address a well defined scope as it is being brought up in just about any conversation where it seems convenient for the creationist... ow sorry, "intelligent design proponent".

It doesn't account for all the relevant facts, since there is no way to determine what is "relevant", since the scope is ill-defined. Not defined at all, actually.

It has no explanatory power and it isn't falsifiable. Meaning it's not testable nore verifiable.

As a result it isn't usefull in any way for anything.

so, all that can be summarized down to : matter, the universe is merely 'dead' inert matter and consciousness is nothing but chemical reactions...and there is no "spirit" in anything....
Is that what you are saying?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

query-why is 'Intelligent Design', in its most general sense considered absurd?
it seems to keep coming up from some and I wonder why that is considered unreasonable, since every other theory is equally unproven.

What is the evidence for a designer besides someone claiming a designer? ID cannot be falsified.