The word "creationist"

[Revenant]

I don't think we should use the word creationist in these debates anymore. I've seen many new people to the discussion confuse it, not surprisingly, with the belief in a creator deity. The alternative of which is, in their view, atheism. Therefore when we say "creationism vs evolution" this ends up placing evolution on the side of atheism in their minds.

Of course science is agnostic and it does not try to address theism or any religion. Many believers in creator gods also recognise evolution as valid.

I think a better term is "anti-evolutionist" or more generally "anti-science".

Let me know what you think.

 

[lucaspa]

I don't think we should use the word creationist in these debates anymore. I've seen many new people to the discussion confuse it, not surprisingly, with the belief in a creator deity. The alternative of which is, in their view, atheism. Therefore when we say "creationism vs evolution" this ends up placing evolution on the side of atheism in their minds.

Of course science is agnostic and it does not try to address theism or any religion. Many believers in creator gods also recognise evolution as valid.

I think a better term is "anti-evolutionist" or more generally "anti-science".

Let me know what you think.

It's not a bad suggestion, but I see two problems:

1. By saying "anti-evolutionist" you are making evolution equal to atheism, since most of the people are anti-atheism.

2. Creationism is a specific HOW of creation and, as such, makes specific statements about the world and is not simply "anti-evolution". It is a scientific theory on its own.

Instead, I suggest that we all make it very clear when we see people confusing the terms to be very clear that CREATION and creationISM are two very different things. Creation is the theological concept that God created. CreationISM is a very specific HOW God created.

But evolution is ALSO a HOW God created. And we need to keep presenting it as such.

"Christians should look on evolution simply as the method by which God works." James McCosh, theologian and President of Princeton, The Religious Aspects of Evolution, 2d ed. 1890, pg 68.

 

[Revenant]

1. By saying "anti-evolutionist" you are making evolution equal to atheism, since most of the people are anti-atheism.

Can you explain this? I'm not sure what you mean.

I agree with the rest of your post. Which is why I'm trying to find ways to make it clearer to people that evolution is not equal to atheism.

 

[Sinai]

I don't think we should use the word creationist in these debates anymore. I've seen many new people to the discussion confuse it, not surprisingly, with the belief in a creator deity. The alternative of which is, in their view, atheism. Therefore when we say "creationism vs evolution" this ends up placing evolution on the side of atheism in their minds.

I tend to agree with you and lucaspa that "creationist" and "creationism" are sometimes used in varying and confusing ways on these boards. Part of the reason may be the meanings of the words themselves.

Webster defines creationism as "a doctrine or theory holding that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by God out of nothing and usually in the way described in Genesis." This definition would include both young earth creationists (who tend to oppose the theory of evolution) and old earth creationists (who generally do not feel threatened by evolution and may in fact support it).

However, many on these boards use "creationist" and "creationism" to mean only the young earth creationists. Since that is where the confusion often arises, I suggest we consider identifying the yeccies as YECs when talking only about the young earth group, identify the old earth creationists as OECs, and avoid using "creationist" or "creationism" unless we mean all who believe that the universe was in fact created by God (or a Supreme Being).

Just a suggestion......

 

[Aceldama]

I only think thier is a problem when using the word "creation". The fact that many creationist forums use the title "Creation V Evolution" is enough to make people see the debate as atheism V theism, because most people believe in theistic evolution/creation and evolution (not creationISM and evolution). I dont think the word creation should be confused with creationism, as creation means God created(doesnt matter how) and creationism is a certain way God created....I wish I made sense sometimes, I really do.

 

[theomnifish]

That's a good idea you guys. Maybe they could put it up as a glossary on the Science forum rules thread or something.

 

[lucaspa]

I dont think the word creation should be confused with creationism, as creation means God created(doesnt matter how) and creationism is a certain way God created....I wish I made sense sometimes, I really do.

I think you make a lot of sense. Perhaps that's because I said the same thing in Post #2.

 

[Taffsadar]

Whats wrong with the term "retard"?

 

[Philostratus]

Taffsadar: I don't condone name calling, and I'm sure others don't either. I do like how you were vague about who that term was defining-- very tactful. Also: I laughed out loud.

 

[Cantuar]

I think a better term is "anti-evolutionist" or more generally "anti-science".

Creationists, however, are very keen to point out that they aren't anti-science at all (never mind that they dismiss just about every scientific discipline except chemistry because they don't like the religious implications), they're just anti that nasty atheistic religion of evolutionism. As long as they're insisting on equating evolution with atheism (as in referring to "evolutionists" when talking about physical science matters like geology and astrophysics), it doesn't matter what we call them. I think it's important to distinguish between creation and creationism, though. Maybe we should call them creationismists?