All Christians are Creationists

[picnic]

I'm finding it generally frustrating that people tend to refer the term creationist to Young Earth Creationists. Not just on this board, but in the media in general. As Christians we believe God created the Earth, as stated in the first line of the Nicene Creed, therefore we are all creationists.

Is it just me or do others find this annoying?

 

[jereth]

You're absolutely right. All Christians are creationists. We just differ over the methods by which God created and how long he took.

For the time being, however, the words"creationist" and "creationism" have been hijacked by the YECists, with some ground ceded to the OECists. TE's often say "hey, we're evolutionary creationists", but are not taken seriously.

 

[theFijian]

It's just the current parlance, don't sweat. If you want to get annoyed get annoyed at Young Earth Creationists for what they've done to the term.

 

[Pats]

You're absolutely right. All Christians are creationists. We just differ over the methods by which God created and how long he took.

For the time being, however, the words"creationist" and "creationism" have been hijacked by the YECists, with some ground ceded to the OECists. TE's often say "hey, we're evolutionary creationists", but are not taken seriously.

(Emphasis mine.) You think that term is not taken seriously? I don't think YECs are open to accepting that one can accept the truth and value of the scripture without taking it literally, but is that the same as not taking the term seriously?

EDIT:made an oops

 

[gluadys]

I'm finding it generally frustrating that people tend to refer the term creationist to Young Earth Creationists. Not just on this board, but in the media in general. As Christians we believe God created the Earth, as stated in the first line of the Nicene Creed, therefore we are all creationists.

Is it just me or do others find this annoying?

Even more annoying is the equation of creationist = Christian. That occurs in the media all too frequently.

I would prefer "evolutionary creationist" to "theistic evolutionist" myself, but it is hard to dislodge entrenched terms.

I see it as part of the way words with general meanings become attached to particular meanings. This is a frequent occurrence in theological history.

"catholic" once referred to the universal church. Now it tends to mean "Roman Catholic". "orthodox" was once seen as a characteristic of the whole catholic church. Now it trends to mean "Eastern Orthodox" Similarly, "evangelical" was once seen as a characteristic of the whole church. Now, in Roman Catholic countries it means "Protestant". And in Protestant countries it refers to those denominations which rejected the Modernism of the early 20th century. One of the most egregious narrowing of terms is the use of "bible-believing" to refer to a small group of mostly fundamentalist churches, as if all Christian churches were not bible-believing. Likewise "creationist" no longer means simply "those who believe in creation", but "those who reject evolution--in whole or in part--as a process of creation used by the Creator".

 

[Poke]

You're absolutely right. All Christians are creationists. We just differ over the methods by which God created and how long he took.

I've yet to see TEs present their own model of Creation. Trying to get them to say what God did is like trying to get blood from a stone. Evolution itself is based on the assumpton that there is no God, that nature accounts for everything.

 

[RealityCheck]

Even more annoying is the equation of creationist = Christian. That occurs in the media all too frequently.

I would prefer "evolutionary creationist" to "theistic evolutionist" myself, but it is hard to dislodge entrenched terms.

I see it as part of the way words with general meanings become attached to particular meanings. This is a frequent occurrence in theological history.

"catholic" once referred to the universal church. Now it tends to mean "Roman Catholic". "orthodox" was once seen as a characteristic of the whole catholic church. Now it trends to mean "Eastern Orthodox" Similarly, "evangelical" was once seen as a characteristic of the whole church. Now, in Roman Catholic countries it means "Protestant". And in Protestant countries it refers to those denominations which rejected the Modernism of the early 20th century. One of the most egregious narrowing of terms is the use of "bible-believing" to refer to a small group of mostly fundamentalist churches, as if all Christian churches were not bible-believing. Likewise "creationist" no longer means simply "those who believe in creation", but "those who reject evolution--in whole or in part--as a process of creation used by the Creator".

All too often, religion ends up being nothing more than a private club where the members revel in their exclusiveness and special status that they have given themselves but claim to have received from God.

How little things change in 3000 years of history.

 

[RealityCheck]

I've yet to see TEs present their own model of Creation. Trying to get them to say what God did is like trying to get blood from a stone. Evolution itself is based on the assumpton that there is no God, that nature accounts for everything.

Evolution does not assume that there is no God, it simply does not require God in order to work.

Centuries ago, Johannes Kepler presented his laws of planetary motion to one of the monarchs of Europe. The laws accurately model how planets orbit the sun, and accurately predicted where one could find a planet at any given time in the night sky. This monarch reputedly looked over the equations and after a while asked Kepler, "Where is the hand of God in these laws?" Kepler, reputedly, replied, "It is not there, your majesty, because it is not required to make the laws work."

 

[Assyrian]

I've yet to see TEs present their own model of Creation. Trying to get them to say what God did is like trying to get blood from a stone. Evolution itself is based on the assumpton that there is no God, that nature accounts for everything.

I would be suspicious of anyone who has a model of creation, or at least anyone confidently asserting they know how God created everything. The bible tell us God created. It doesn't tell us how. We can know a lot of what happened through science, but how God created everything and how he molded his creation is another matter.

 

[DailyBlessings]

Is it just me or do others find this annoying?

A little, but we rarely get to define our own labels- that's why I avoid wearing them.

 

[jereth]

I've yet to see TEs present their own model of Creation.

That's because you've obviously got both eyes shut and your hands over your ears, while shouting "la la la la, I'm not listening" at the top of your voice.

Trying to get them to say what God did is like trying to get blood from a stone.

Knowing full well how futile this is, I say it one more time:
****GOD DID EVERYTHING****

Evolution itself is based on the assumpton that there is no God, that nature accounts for everything.

Which just goes to show that you haven't the slightest clue what "evolution" is.

 

[artybloke]

And in Protestant countries it refers to those denominations which rejected the Modernism of the early 20th century.

Though it's funny how Modernist those literalistic interpretations seem to us Post-Modernists.... If you want to know what the presuppositions of a position are, look at what it opposes... Hidden in its opposition to Modernism is the fact=truth equation of Modernism.

 

[Poke]

****GOD DID EVERYTHING****



Which just goes to show that you haven't the slightest clue what "evolution" is.

How do you know someone is an Evolutionist? He's the one who spends his day telling everyone who knows better than him that they're ignorant.

"God did everything" has no practical meaning. And, it's an especially weak statement when used to defend dogma and opinions based on, or compatible with, the presumption of atheism.

How about you put some substance behind "God did everything" and identify some specific acts of God relevant to the topic?

 

[jereth]

How do you know someone is an Evolutionist? He's the one who spends his day telling everyone who knows better than him that they're ignorant.

"God did everything" has no practical meaning. And, it's an especially weak statement when used to defend dogma and opinions based on, or compatible with, the presumption of atheism.

How about you put some substance behind "God did everything" and identify some specific acts of God relevant to the topic?

I was right. Utterly futile.

I'm not going to bother responding to this jibberish anymore. Poke you may be a believer in Christ, but you really have some growing up to do. Your remarks make it very clear that you are precisely the sort of person this thread "All Christians are Creationists" was meant to combat. Please think of this as a kind admonishment.

 

[theFijian]

"God did everything" has no practical meaning.

Quoted for irony.

 

[shernren]

"God did everything" has no practical meaning. And, it's an especially weak statement when used to defend dogma and opinions based on, or compatible with, the presumption of atheism.

How about you put some substance behind "God did everything" and identify some specific acts of God relevant to the topic?

If I name you a specific scientific process, can you prove that God didn't do it? Can you prove to me that a particular scientific process can't run without God?

If I wanted to prove that life does not require atmospheric nitrogen, I would take a mouse, put it in a box from which all nitrogen is removed, and watch as it survives happily. I expect that if you say a scientific process requires the absence of God (since you say people who believe in the specific scientific process of evolution don't believe in God), I expect you to be able to prove it similarly. Make a box, find some way to pump God out of it, then run the scientific process and show me it works.

Can you prove that God is not needed for osmosis?
Or gravity?
Or diffraction?
Or redox reactions?
Or fertilization?

If you can't, why do you assume that God is not needed for evolution? Why is it wrong for a Christian to say that God did everything? Is it somehow more glorifying to God if there were some things which He didn't do?

 

[Poke]

If I wanted to prove that life does not require atmospheric nitrogen, I would take a mouse, put it in a box from which all nitrogen is removed, and watch as it survives happily. I expect that if you say a scientific process requires the absence of God (since you say people who believe in the specific scientific process of evolution don't believe in God), I expect you to be able to prove it similarly.

It would be silly for you to call your belief about mice not needing nitrogen (which presumably is based only on demonstrable science) "theistic science". It would be beyond silly if your beliefs went beyond (or violated) anything you could scientifically demonstrate, yet you still insisted on calling your beliefs, which are based on the presumption of atheism (or materialism), "theistic science."

Can you prove that God is not needed for osmosis?
Or gravity?

So, are you saying you believe in Theist Osmosis? Theistic Gravity?

If you believe that Gravity is involves the supernatural action of the hand of God, then call your belief "Theistic Gravity." If you think gravity is an intrinsic natural force, then don't be silly by calling your belief "Theistic Gravity."

If you can't, why do you assume that God is not needed for evolution?

Tell me where God is needed for Darwinism or Evolution.

I've never head the phrase "theistic gravity" before, so why does the phrase "theistic evolution" exist? (I have an answer, but it's not flattering).

 

[gluadys]

If you believe that Gravity is involves the supernatural action of the hand of God, then call your belief "Theistic Gravity." If you think gravity is an intrinsic natural force, then don't be silly by calling your belief "Theistic Gravity."

Gravity is a force initially created by God to be an intrinsic part of nature and its action is continually sustained by God's providence.

The same applies to other natural processes. Before you claim they do not require God, find a universe without God and see if they are observed there. Or, alternatively, show that this universe is not dependant on God.

 

[Poke]

Gravity is a force initially created by God to be an intrinsic part of nature and its action is continually sustained by God's providence.

1) Why have I never heard the term "Theistic Gravity"?

2) How do you know there isn't a natural reason, from physics, to explain the origin of gravity within the Big Bang? Just because you can't imagine an answer shouldn't be an excuse for you to plug God into the gap.

3) How do you think God was supernaturally involved in Darwinism?

 

[gluadys]

1) Why have I never heard the term "Theistic Gravity"?

Because Christians in Newton's day did not assume that science denied God, so it was unnecessary to affirm that a theist can accept the fact of gravity.

2) How do you know there isn't a natural reason, from physics, to explain the origin of gravity within the Big Bang? Just because you can't imagine an answer shouldn't be an excuse for you to plug God into the gap.

Because scientists have so far been unable to develop a theory of quantum gravity, which is required for uniting the four fundamental physical forces. The other three: strong nuclear force, weak nuclear force and electromagnetism have already been shown to be derived from each other. When (if?) quantum gravity is worked out we may be able to develop a GUT (Grand Unified Theory of everything.)

However, this still would not mean it was uncreated or functions independently of God. A natural explanation for any phenomenon does not rule out God as prime cause and sustainor of that phenomenon. It is you who err in defining "natural" as "godless".