Mainstream Creationism

[RufusAtticus]

Originally posted by Sinai
The problem is that you have some persons (whom I suspect disagree with the entire notion that God may have specially created anything) who attempt to define what "special creation" is--and do so in a matter that both is contrary to scientific evidence and is contrary to the Bible.

The defination of "special creation" isn't wrong just because it establishes "special creation" as something contradictory to science and your interpretation of scripture. In fact, "special creation" can be accurately defined without bringing scripture into it.

Special Creation is the hypothesis that all organisms came into existance approximately in their present forms and at a single instance in the past.

Rufus, would you be willing for someone whose beliefs are totally contrary to yours on a particular point (perhaps a young earth creationist, for example) to be allowed to define what the "default" meaning is for something you believe

No because such actions would be perscriptive in nature. I am not perscribing how "creationist" should be used here, only describing how "creationist" is currently used. You are completely missing this distinction.

--especially if such a default definition is both contrary to what you actually believe and is contrary to the scientific evidence involved in the matter being debated?

But "creationist" isn't a technical term, nor is used like one in these discussions. Maybe you want to make it technical, but it isn't there yet.

As I've said before, I suggest that if you think that scripture and science seem to be contradicting each other, it is very likely that you either do not understand what science is actually presenting or that you do not fully understand what the Bible may be saying--or both. In other words, it may be time to check both the most credible scientific sources available, and to check what the actual Hebrew or Greek scriptures say--and what the range of meanings is for the words and phrases in question.

It's not my scripture. I can't say whether it conflicts with science or not. I can only judge the scientific accuracy of different interpretations of it.

 

[Sinai]

Originally posted by RufusAtticus
In fact, "special creation" can be accurately defined without bringing scripture into it. Special Creation is the hypothesis that all organisms came into existance approximately in their present forms and at a single instance in the past.

Is that an example of your idea of accuracy? That "definition" is contrary to science, is contrary to the Bible, and appears to be a blatent attempt on the part of those who would use it to create a strawman that can be easily defeated....without any regard for truth, correctness, or accuracy.

No because such actions would be perscriptive in nature. I am not perscribing how "creationist" should be used here, only describing how "creationist" is currently used. You are completely missing this distinction.

No, Rufus, I think I understand the distinction--and I understand how it may be tempting to a person who has some understanding of science but does not understand scripture to characterize or define his opponents' beliefs in such a way as to paint them into a corner--even if his definition is an incorrect statement of his opponents' beliefs. I also understand that doing so is intellectually dishonest. Although you have no problem with exposing the intellectual dishonesty you find in such persons as Mr. Hovind (and certain other YECies), you apparently have no problem with advocating the intellectual dishonesty evidenced by the definition you cited from the Dictionary of Biology.

Again, although I am a creationist in that I believe that God created the universe and life, I am not a young earth creationist. I base my beliefs on both the word of God and on the worlds of God--and I see no real conflict between scientific truth and biblical truth. I therefore do not particularly care whether or not God used evolution to accomplish his purposes, and I generally stay out of the frequent debates between the YECies and the evolutionists....unless I see one side or the other making incorrect generalizations that go unchallenged. And both sides do it.

YECies are especially bad about attempting to support their position by stating emphatically that the Bible says something and that anyone who disagrees is at odds with the word of God--when the truth is that that is only one interpretation of the scripture in question (and very possibly a rather unlikely interpretation at that).

And evolutionists are especially bad about trying to lump all creationists together when making claims or counterclaims that generally pertain only to a small spectrum of creationists. Thus, evolutionists will often say that creationists believe something that only young earth creationists think. And sometimes--as in the case of your definition of "special creation"--they will totally mischaracterize something; I doubt if very many of the YECies believe what that definition claims, since it doesn't even allow microevolution.

 

[RufusAtticus]

Originally posted by Sinai
Is that an example of your idea of accuracy? That "definition" is contrary to science, is contrary to the Bible, and appears to be a blatent attempt on the part of those who would use it to create a strawman that can be easily defeated....without any regard for truth, correctness, or accuracy.

It's not my fault that special creation is false. It is what it is. Do you have the same problem with the defination of geocentrism being "the hypothesis that the Earth is the center of the universe?" You can't complain that something needs to be redefined simply because the current defination makes it false. Now, if you believe I have constructed a strawman, fell free to produce a more accurate defination of "special creation." Just be prepared to back it up.

No, Rufus, I think I understand the distinction--and I understand how it may be tempting to a person who has some understanding of science but does not understand scripture to characterize or define his opponents' beliefs in such a way as to paint them into a corner--even if his definition is an incorrect statement of his opponents' beliefs. I also understand that doing so is intellectually dishonest.

Sinai, I am not telling you what to believe. I am only pointing out how the term "creationist" is used. My conclusions are based on observations of how both self-described creationists and evolutionists typically use it.

Although you have no problem with exposing the intellectual dishonesty you find in such persons as Mr. Hovind (and certain other YECies), you apparently have no problem with advocating the intellectual dishonesty evidenced by the definition you cited from the Dictionary of Biology.

Since you haven't offered a different description of what special creation is, I can't go on whether the Dictionary of Biology is intellectually dishonest.

Again, although I am a creationist in that I believe that God created the universe and life, I am not a young earth creationist.

I understand that and you have made it perfectly clear in what context you use "creationist."

And sometimes--as in the case of your definition of "special creation"--they will totally mischaracterize something;

Well you haven't done much to show it is a mischaracterization.

I doubt if very many of the YECies believe what that definition claims, since it doesn't even allow microevolution.

Please read my original comments with the DoBio defination. I clearly say that "special creation", call it "neo-special creation" if you want to, now allows for some limited changes.

 

[wildernesse]

Originally posted by Sinai



And evolutionists are especially bad about trying to lump all creationists together when making claims or counterclaims that generally pertain only to a small spectrum of creationists. Thus, evolutionists will often say that creationists believe something that only young earth creationists think. And sometimes--as in the case of your definition of "special creation"--they will totally mischaracterize something; I doubt if very many of the YECies believe what that definition claims, since it doesn't even allow microevolution. [/B]

This paragraph is a perfect example of what the two of you are arguing about.

Sinai, you are upset that evolutionists are bad about lumping all creationists together as holding stupid beliefs that only pertain to a small spectrum of creationists (namely, YECs)--but what if when evolutionists use the word 'creationist' the stupid people (namely, YECs) are the only ones they're talking about? (Those who are insulted now may visit this link.)

I think that is what Rufus is trying to tell you--so-called standard definitions of words (creationist meaning those who believe something created the world somehow) mean very little if the common use by a group of people is different. And he's arguing that creationist no longer applies to those people who simply believe that someone/God created the world somehow in some form--that the word has become the label for those who oppose evolution because God created the world in a certain way--not only a label applied by the opposition, but one accepted and touted by the labeled.

This thread is going no where fast--because technically it boils down to whether you are a descriptive or prescriptive linguist. Rufus is a descriptive, and Sinai is a prescriptive. I'd say Rufus is a realist because I'm a descriptive too. My advice would be to drop this topic because it's insufferable.

--tibac