A survey of attitudes

[jereth]

Someone has recently written:

I have to tell you that even when I first came to this board and was quite culture shocked to learn how many Christians agree with the theory of evolution.... I certainly did not doubt their Christianity, particularly after reading just a sampling of what they had to say.

Furthermore, I see atheists down in the Crevo forum argueing this kind of thinking regarding TEs and holding more respect for their Christianity than I am seeing from some YECist.

This says to me that there are some YECs who are so narrow minded they are blatantly preudice.

Let's see what people's attitudes really are, then. Let's vote!

 

[chaoschristian]

Oh good, I get to crank about another poll

Creationism a sort of theological flag that I want badly to capture from the other team. TEs have just as much right and foundation to claim to be Creationists as creationists do.

That said, I have found creationists to be entirely fine folks, even if I think their view of Creation and origins is slightly off base.

Neo-creationists, on the other hand, are the militant arm of creationist theology and I do find them both dangerous to society (willingness to promote bad science at all cost) and dangerously unorthodox (trying to redefine traditional orthodoxy to fit their ends).

So I didn't vote in the poll because I think the terminology needs to be corrected (crank, crank, crank) but I do look forward to seeing how other folks vote.

 

[vossler]

I didn't like the term forcefully because that can imply militant and I'm not at all of that ilk, I believe a term such as always would describe me much better.

 

[AngCath]

Why can't I vote "none of the above"?

 

[Willtor]

I also want to redefine all your terms, Jereth, but I voted, anyway (just to be a team player).

I think the neo-creationists are mistaken. As for most, I don't think it is particularly harmful. There is a broader mistake that is potentially harmful, but I don't find any theological problems with the bulk of the doctrines.

In a few cases, I think it has become harmful, and it has quite possibly reached the point of heresy. That is, if neo-creationism existed unto itself, in the light of orthodox theology, there would be no problem except that the particulars are not tempered by what is observed. However, I don't think neo-creationism exists unto itself. For a few, it exists in response to evolution. As such, some are quick to spout arguments against evolution that also transgress against orthodoxy.

But, again, in the general case, I don't think most neo-creationists with whom I've talked have done this.

 

[PaladinValer]

Not surprised with the results so far

 

[LewisWildermuth]

Creationists for the most part are harmless, sometimes gravely mistaken, but for the most part they are good people who have listened to the wrong teachers.

Creationist leaders on the other hand are often far more dangerous to Christianity. I have found little concern for the truth and even less concern about alienating fellow believers among much of the Creationist leadership.

Then there are the militant creationist foot soldiers. They jump into these boards and into churches using the Bible and their twisted theology as WMD, not caring who gets maimed by their random violence. They care nothing for the truth, and if caught in a lie they cry persecution or disappear. They never admit that they have done wrong even when caught in the sin of false witness or outright lying. These are the most dangerous to Christianity; they are vocal and often are on many boards or proclaiming their lies to people, destroying the image of Christianity among the educated in our population and ripping the life and faith from the young Christians that happen not to believe exactly the same thing that they do about creationism.