What is "CREATIONISM"

[Floodnut]

I understand that "OECs" are to be welcome on the forum, but my question remains: WHAT is an OEC?

How is OEC Creationism? Does it assert that God brought the world into being by FIAT, without the use of molecules to men evolution?

So OECs are allowed to come into the CREATIONISM forum and attack the simple-minded and ignorant creationists who give evangelical Christianity a bad reputation? I think even rabid YECs like myself should not be allowed to come into the Creationism forum and attack bottom line creationists like myself. Will OECs be allowed to do it?

I don't care what label is attached to a poster. I would even welcome TEs as long as they did not come into the Creationism Forum and argue against creationism. But this question is fundamental to establishing rules for the forum: WHAT IS CREATIONISM, and what is it about the position that makes OEC a form of Creationism, but leaves TE as not a form of Creationism?

Still, I wonder, "What is a OEC? And how is OEC differentiated from TE? And TEs could easily maintain that they are in fact YECs, and say that YOUNG is 3.5 billion years verses 4.54 billion years. What is the CREATIONIST point and position that is to be protected in this subforum with its own subset of rules?

 

[KerrMetric]

Aha - therein lies the whole problem in regard to this forum.

Most OEC's are like TE's but without the evolution part. They accept modern astronomy/csomology/geology and that the Universe is 13.7 billion years old and that the Earth is 4.57 billion years old.

When it comes to evolution however it gets complicated. Traditionally the term OEC was coined for people accepting the above I mentioned BUT they did not believe in biological evolution. It is more complicated because there are OEC's who accept biological evolution except when it comes to humanity. They believe humanity is a separate case of Gods creation. Then there are some OEC's who even accept human evolution BUT that God intervened at certain key times in history.

So you have a whole spectrum from people basically YEC's without the Y part all the way to basically TE with a miracle or two thrown in. Gap theorists and progressives creationists fall in this spectrum.

 

[Floodnut]

Aha - therein lies the whole problem in regard to this forum.

Most OEC's are like TE's but without the evolution part. They accept modern astronomy/csomology/geology and that the Universe is 13.7 billion years old and that the Earth is 4.57 billion years old.

When it comes to evolution however it gets complicated. Traditionally the term OEC was coined for people accepting the above I mentioned BUT they did not believe in biological evolution. It is more complicated because there are OEC's who accept biological evolution except when it comes to humanity. They believe humanity is a separate case of Gods creation. Then there are some OEC's who even accept human evolution BUT that God intervened at certain key times in history.

So you have a whole spectrum from people basically YEC's without the Y part all the way to basically TE with a miracle or two thrown in. Gap theorists and progressives creationists fall in this spectrum.

Creationism is a word for nothing since it can mean all of the above. But there is a particular sect within this bunch that is always subject to ridicule and mockery.

 

[KerrMetric]

Creationism is a word for nothing since it can mean all of the above. But there is a particular sect within this bunch that is always subject to ridicule and mockery.

You asked for a definition - I provided a few.

 

[Willtor]

Creationism is a word for nothing since it can mean all of the above. But there is a particular sect within this bunch that is always subject to ridicule and mockery.

That would be correct insofar as the Nicene Theology Forum goes. Anybody who adheres to the Nicene Creed accepts that God made the heavens and the earth. In the context of this forum, however, I think "creationism" is a catch-all for those who don't accept evolution. Do you think it should be different?

 

[Jase]

That would be correct insofar as the Nicene Theology Forum goes. Anybody who adheres to the Nicene Creed accepts that God made the heavens and the earth. In the context of this forum, however, I think "creationism" is a catch-all for those who don't accept evolution. Do you think it should be different?

But then again we have the issue of most creationists accepting microevolution, but not accepting macroevolution. So essentially, all you can boil creationism down to is anyone who rejects common descent, right?

 

[MatthewDiscipleofGod]

But then again we have the issue of most creationists accepting microevolution, but not accepting macroevolution. So essentially, all you can boil creationism down to is anyone who rejects common descent, right?

I don't like the word microevolution because it implies there is a macroevolution. Variation of kinds would be the best way to put IMHO.

 

[Biblewriter]

As an old earth creationist, I will address the question from my perspective.

First, I believe that the Bible is the word of God. Not that it contains it, or that its ideas reflect the mind of God, but that it is the very word of God. Technically, I believe in the plenary and verbal inspiration of the Bible. I believe every word in it (in its original form) is absolutely and exactly true and correct. And I believe that we have a reasonably accurate copy of that original form.

Second, I believe that the days of creation in Genesis 1 are literal, twenty-four hour days, as we normally understand the term. And I believe that this took place approximately six thousand years ago.

But third, I also believe that Isaiah 45:18 expressly tells us that when God created the earth (in Genesis 1:1) it was not without form, as described in Genesis 1:2. This is because the Hebrew word translated in vain in Isaiah 45:18 is exactly the same form of the same Hebrew word translated without form in Genesis 1:2.

Tell me that you believe I have misinterpreted Isaiah 45:18, if that is what you think. But do not tell me that my position is a position of unbelief. And do not tell me I am yielding ground to the evolutionists, or playing fast and loose with the word of God. For I believe it as absolutely as you do.

Since I believe that this is indeed what the word of God teaches, I have no problem with the theorized age of the earth. But I am also acutely aware that at least most of the methods they use to calculate that age are based on unprovable assumptions.

But I have an extreme problem with the alleged gradual change demonstrated in the fossil record. When I examine the fossil evidence, I see evidence of a long series of stable ecosystems that appeared suddenly, flourished virtually unchanged for very long periods of time, and suddenly disappeared, only to be immediately replaced by a different ecosystem. This is incompatible with both theistic and atheistic evolutionary theories. But it is totally compatible with a creator God who, for reasons He has not chosen to reveal, created and destroyed each of these ecosystems in turn.





Third, I believe that

 

[Gwenyfur]

Definitions in the WIKI
Definitions



Young Earth creationism is a religious doctrine that teaches that the Earth and life on Earth were created by a direct action of God relatively recently (about 6,000 years ago). It is held by those Christians who believe that the Hebrew text of Genesis can only mean a literal account of Earth's creation in six 24-hour days, that evidence for a strict interpretation of scripture as historical fact is present in the world today




Old Earth creationism is a variant of the creationist view of the origin of the universe and life on Earth. As a theory of origins it is typically more compatible with mainstream scientific thought on the issues of geology, cosmology and the age of the Earth, in comparison to Young Earth creationism. However, it still generally takes the accounts of creation in Genesis more literally than theistic evolution (or evolutionary creationism).




Gap creationism, also called Restitution creationism or Ruin-Reconstruction, are terms used to describe a particular set of Christian beliefs about the creation of the Universe and the origin of man. The concept of the Gap Theory is widely thought to have been promulgated by William Buckland and Thomas Chalmers in the early 1800s, though some adherents maintain that it can be traced back to biblical times. Certainly it became quite popular when it was promoted by the Scofield Reference Bible in 1909.




Progressive creationism is a form of Old Earth creationism that accepts scientific geological and cosmological estimates for the age of the Earth, but posits that the new "kinds" of plants and animals that have appeared successively over the planet's history represent instances of God directly intervening to create those new types by means outside the realm of science.

 

[mindlight]

As an old earth creationist, I will address the question from my perspective.

First, I believe that the Bible is the word of God. Not that it contains it, or that its ideas reflect the mind of God, but that it is the very word of God. Technically, I believe in the plenary and verbal inspiration of the Bible. I believe every word in it (in its original form) is absolutely and exactly true and correct. And I believe that we have a reasonably accurate copy of that original form.

Second, I believe that the days of creation in Genesis 1 are literal, twenty-four hour days, as we normally understand the term. And I believe that this took place approximately six thousand years ago.

But third, I also believe that Isaiah 45:18 expressly tells us that when God created the earth (in Genesis 1:1) it was not without form, as described in Genesis 1:2. This is because the Hebrew word translated in vain in Isaiah 45:18 is exactly the same form of the same Hebrew word translated without form in Genesis 1:2.

Tell me that you believe I have misinterpreted Isaiah 45:18, if that is what you think. But do not tell me that my position is a position of unbelief. And do not tell me I am yielding ground to the evolutionists, or playing fast and loose with the word of God. For I believe it as absolutely as you do.

Since I believe that this is indeed what the word of God teaches, I have no problem with the theorized age of the earth. But I am also acutely aware that at least most of the methods they use to calculate that age are based on unprovable assumptions.

But I have an extreme problem with the alleged gradual change demonstrated in the fossil record. When I examine the fossil evidence, I see evidence of a long series of stable ecosystems that appeared suddenly, flourished virtually unchanged for very long periods of time, and suddenly disappeared, only to be immediately replaced by a different ecosystem. This is incompatible with both theistic and atheistic evolutionary theories. But it is totally compatible with a creator God who, for reasons He has not chosen to reveal, created and destroyed each of these ecosystems in turn.

Personally I find this Old Earth Creationist point of view the most challenging of all the alternative interpretive models to my Basic Young Earth Creationist convictions.

What holds me back from accepting this point of view is the following:

1) This is not the way that the text was interpreted for most of the last 3000 years and this includes people much closer to the original language that anyone alive today. The pressure to read Isaiah in the way you do comes from the prior conviction that the cosmos is old.

2) It still broadly accepts what is in my mind the 2 colossal and unwarranted assumptions of many modern scientists:

i) That we can generalise from the observations and deductions we derive by analogy with the world and universe today about the unique event of creation as if these trends and evidences we see today could give us clues about something that has never been done before or repeated since. That the scientific method is the appropriate one to consider our origins.

ii) That our reasonings about the distant even of creation can be considered reliable because the evidence on which they are based is
a) complete and has not been lost in time
b) has not been corrupted
We cannot check the models that prevail in modern science about the age of the Earth and I cannot accept the assumptions that underpin them and I can see no practical reason to do so either.

 

[busterdog]

Personally I find this Old Earth Creationist point of view the most challenging of all the alternative interpretive models to my Basic Young Earth Creationist convictions.

What holds me back from accepting this point of view is the following:

1) This is not the way that the text was interpreted for most of the last 3000 years and this includes people much closer to the original language that anyone alive today. The pressure to read Isaiah in the way you do comes from the prior conviction that the cosmos is old.

2) It still broadly accepts what is in my mind the 2 colossal and unwarranted assumptions of many modern scientists:

i) That we can generalise from the observations and deductions we derive by analogy with the world and universe today about the unique event of creation as if these trends and evidences we see today could give us clues about something that has never been done before or repeated since. That the scientific method is the appropriate one to consider our origins.

ii) That our reasonings about the distant even of creation can be considered reliable because the evidence on which they are based is
a) complete and has not been lost in time
b) has not been corrupted
We cannot check the models that prevail in modern science about the age of the Earth and I cannot accept the assumptions that underpin them and I can see no practical reason to do so either.

Say more.

Interesting.

I have read alot about changing physical "constants" and the unwarranted assumptions that have been made about how they behaved in the past.

Its sort of like crossing a lake in August and assuming what your transit time would be in January with no idea about the change in seasons.

 

[Floodnut]

If the term "Creation" and "creationism" is allowed to mean "evolve" then the idea of any discussion about origins is hopelessly mired in double-talk and gobbledy g00k. A means non-A, two equals three and there is no reality and words mean nothing.

Hence my sparse presence here, which makes many people glad.
I really see no way to carry on a sensible discussion with anyone under those conditions. Forgive me for being so naive and forgive me for lacking the nuances of subtlety to pull it off.

 

[Willtor]

If the term "Creation" and "creationism" is allowed to mean "evolve" then the idea of any discussion about origins is hopelessly mired in double-talk and gobbledy g00k. A means non-A, two equals three and there is no reality and words mean nothing.

Hence my sparse presence here, which makes many people glad.
I really see no way to carry on a sensible discussion with anyone under those conditions. Forgive me for being so naive and forgive me for lacking the nuances of subtlety to pull it off.

I'm not sure it's really double-talk or whatever. After all, I still argue with Atheists that there is a Creator. And if there is a Creator then it makes sense to talk of that which He created as Creation. Perhaps in the context of Origins Theology it makes sense to distinguish what people mean when they use the term "creation" and "creationism" but an evolutionist who is a Christian has as much right to the word "creationist" as a YEC.

 

[shernren]

If the term "Creation" and "creationism" is allowed to mean "evolve" then the idea of any discussion about origins is hopelessly mired in double-talk and gobbledy g00k. A means non-A, two equals three and there is no reality and words mean nothing.

Hence my sparse presence here, which makes many people glad.
I really see no way to carry on a sensible discussion with anyone under those conditions. Forgive me for being so naive and forgive me for lacking the nuances of subtlety to pull it off.

I think the horse you're flogging is a few weeks dead.