Neo-Creationism on the Wikipedia

[chaoschristian]

Looky here!

I've only really started using the Wikipedia in the past few weeks, having heard of it, but never given it much attention.

Now I'm finding out its a pretty neat tool, and I'm starting to use it more to help kick-start my inqueries.

Out of curiosity I looked up neo-creationism, and what do you know, it has an entry!

 

[Willtor]

Looky here!

I've only really started using the Wikipedia in the past few weeks, having heard of it, but never given it much attention.

Now I'm finding out its a pretty neat tool, and I'm starting to use it more to help kick-start my inqueries.

Out of curiosity I looked up neo-creationism, and what do you know, it has an entry!

Holy cow! That's fortuitous nomenclature! I guess we'll consider you our resident wordsmith from now on.

 

[chaoschristian]

Holy cow! That's fortuitous nomenclature! I guess we'll consider you our resident wordsmith from now on.

And that would be totally undeserved let me tell you.

The interesting thing is the difference in how the word is being used.

On WIKI it is presented at the label for those who would reinvent creationism in an attempt to excise the less tenable fringe elements

I use it as a label for those who would reinvent orthodoxy and excise all those who don't agree with them.

 

[Pats]

Now, I'm going to be very curious about it etymology. I wonder if it can be traced back to CC?

 

[Willtor]

And that would be totally undeserved let me tell you.

The interesting thing is the difference in how the word is being used.

On WIKI it is presented at the label for those who would reinvent creationism in an attempt to excise the less tenable fringe elements

I use it as a label for those who would reinvent orthodoxy and excise all those who don't agree with them.

I think they're two sides of the coin, though. The way it's used, here, is sort of the implication of what is happening in the neo-creationist movement. But I don't think modern YECs have an agenda to undermine orthodox theology, even if it is a result. Thus, adding the implication you use would be inappropriate for a Wikipedia entry, but it is correct.

 

[chaoschristian]

Now, I'm going to be very curious about it etymology. I wonder if it can be traced back to CC?

That would be rich, even if extremely doubtful.

In fact, it would probably take a real life 'Improbability Drive' to reach that conclusion.

 

[shernren]

Too bad "neo-creationism" doesn't recognize the hijacking of the word "creationism". As I understand it, the "neo-" ness of this creationism is a backlash against the (partial) naturalism and strict literal-Scripturism of the "old" creationists. Which seems to group all creationists, again, as those who believe that the earth was created in a specific way.

Too bad, CC. I wonder if you'll have to coin a new word to replace that wonderful one? I would call them "sci-creationists", but it's a really awkward word!

Speaking of words, what is the adjective for "scientism"? "Scientistic?" XD

 

[chaoschristian]

Too bad, CC. I wonder if you'll have to coin a new word to replace that wonderful one?

Heh, I'm glad you like the word shernren. Regardless of the WIKI, I think it serves well in this context.

I would call them "sci-creationists", but it's a really awkward word!

And it would make them sound really, really sad!

Speaking of words, what is the adjective for "scientism"? "Scientistic?" XD

scientasmic?

 

[Willtor]

How about retro-creationist? It's pretty explicit about imposing something new on something old.

 

[chaoschristian]

How about retro-creationist? It's pretty explicit about imposing something new on something old.

only if we could CF to play a funky base line everytime you moused-over the word

 

[Willtor]

only if we could CF to play a funky base line everytime you moused-over the word

Retro-creationism * bum - pa - bum - pa - cha * is the imposition of a post-enlightenment ideal on the traditional and Biblical doctrine of creation. As such, we find retro-creationism * boom - ba - boom - ba - whum * untenable.

 

[chaoschristian]

Retro-creationism * bum - pa - bum - pa - cha * is the imposition of a post-enlightenment ideal on the traditional and Biblical doctrine of creation. As such, we find retro-creationism * boom - ba - boom - ba - whum * untenable.

How long would it take before Hovind opens each of his seminars with a set from Parliament?

 

[theFijian]

Speaking of words, what is the adjective for "scientism"? "Scientistic?" XD

Scientastic!!

 

[chaoschristian]

Scientastic!!

WE HAVE A WINNER!

 

[shernren]

I wonder if there's anything like the <acronym title="This acronym tag is being misused!">acronym</acronym> tag which can be misused to do that phunkay *bass* line thing for strange new CC-or-other-redefinition-crazed-TE-coined words.

And whatever "scientastic" is, it sounds too darn fun to be of any use. "Neo-creationism" makes it sound like some usurper to the throne, that's what the word is supposed to evoke. But I'd want to be "scientastic", if only because the word sounds so nice. hahahahaha!

 

[Kahalachan]

Looky here!

I've only really started using the Wikipedia in the past few weeks, having heard of it, but never given it much attention.

Now I'm finding out its a pretty neat tool, and I'm starting to use it more to help kick-start my inqueries.

Out of curiosity I looked up neo-creationism, and what do you know, it has an entry!

Wikipedia's great. It's my 2nd favorite site, with google as my 1st.

Just good to keep your eyes open though, cause it can be editted by anyone, so there should be source links at the bottom of each article.

 

[chaoschristian]

I wonder if there's anything like the <acronym title="This acronym tag is being misused!">acronym</acronym> tag which can be misused to do that phunkay *bass* line thing for strange new CC-or-other-redefinition-crazed-TE-coined words.

Perhaps I'll pull a Hubbard and start my own sect: GCCs - George Clinton Creationists. Motto: Our uncle was a monkey who knew how to get funky!

And whatever "scientastic" is, it sounds too darn fun to be of any use. "Neo-creationism" makes it sound like some usurper to the throne, that's what the word is supposed to evoke. But I'd want to be "scientastic", if only because the word sounds so nice. hahahahaha!

At the scientastic seminars they give away free Mentos and Fresca!

 

[Pats]

I looked up Theistic Evolution on the Wikipedia recently, and while I found it to basicly agree with how most TEs seem to define it, I thought their paragraph on Creationary Evolution was... well, not in harmony with things I've heard from Creationary Evos who seem to be indistinguishable from TEs, at least to me.

Creationary Evolutionism according to Wikipedia:

The term evolutionary creationism is used in particular for beliefs in which God transcends normal time and space, with nature having no existence independent of His will. It allows interpretations consistent with both a literal Genesis and objective science, in which, for example, the events of creation occurred outside time as we know it.

As a side note: it was humorous that in their efforts to define TEs, they really hit the nail on the head by making statment like "some or all" and "it is accepted, or at least not rejected..."

 

[chaoschristian]

The quote sounds more like GAP or Day-Age then TE.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

here is an excellent essay defending the label evolutionary creationist at:

http://www.ualberta.ca/~dlamoure/3EvoCr.htm
imho, it is one of the best introductions to the ideas on the net.