Who wrote our forum description? Let's change it.

[shernren]

"Forum for the discussion of Creation Science (Young/Old) vs Theistic Evolution. Discussion of Atheistic Evolution should be taken to the Discussion and Debate forums."

I propose that we amend this to:

"Forum for those interested in discussing various Christian viewpoints on creation, origins and providence, including Young/Old Earth Creationism, Progressive Creationism, and Theistic Evolution."

Some points at which I disagree with the current description are:

1. "Creation science" isn't precisely what is discussed here. Even if one should grant that such a thing exists creationism is still much more than "creation science", which normally refers purely to the scientific implications that creationists attempt to draw from their views. Someone who discusses whether or not Romans 5 supports creationism, for example, is not discussing creation science.

2. There's no reason for the negativity in "Atheistic evolution not welcomed here"; it gives far more credence and weight to the militantly atheistic interpretations of evolution than we ought to. One might as well insert, into the description of a forum on Trinitarian theology, "Discussion of Islamic monotheism should be taken to the Discussion and Debate forums." The forum rules and sub-rules are already clear enough on this matter.

What do you guys think?

 

[shernren]

Another reason I'm proposing the change is because it more accurately reflects the purpose of our discussion and that this isn't simply one long, tiresome debate. We have to remember that Christians were hammering out theologies of origins, creation and providence long before Darwin, and that both YEC's scientism and militant atheism are developments that have only recently proved to be culturally definitive. Polarization is pointless.

 

[Assyrian]

What is atheistic evolution anyway? Mention of evolution by an atheist? The mere mention of evolution because according to many creationists evolution is atheistic? Some sort of Dawkinesque argument that science shows there is no God?

 

[shernren]

Atheistic evolution: the theory that atheists evolved?

 

[artybloke]

Another good reason would be that "creation science" is an oxymoron, like "compassionate conservatism" and "Christian soldier."

 

[Mallon]

I thought the same thing myself when I read the forum description. I vote for a change, too. I would also like to see "theistic evolution" changed to "evolutionary creationism".

 

[Tinker Grey]

I agree with the sentiments expressed above.

 

[shernren]

Another good reason would be that "creation science" is an oxymoron, like "compassionate conservatism" and "Christian soldier."

There are also plenty of reasons to change the name for those of us who frequent OT but would disagree with you.

 

[gluadys]

I like shernren's suggested wording, with the emendation to evolutionary creationism. One might have to add (aka theistic evolution) for those not familiar with EC.

 

[Assyrian]

Theistic evolution is the much more common term on google, people are much more familiar with it, and much more likely to search for it than evolutionary creation. Use both.

 

[shernren]

I was wondering also about those for whom evolutionary creationism isn't a familiar term - gluadys' and Assyrian's suggestion is good in that respect.

 

[Willtor]

Huh! I hadn't looked at the new forum titles until now. I don't like the antagonism expressed in "vs.". It will probably just exacerbate the artificial divide. It _is_ an interesting sociological experiment (grouping unlike things together and seeing them unify: e.g., YECs defending "Expelled" and such), but I don't think this is the right place for it.

 

[Nathan45]

I'm still trying to figure out what the difference is between theistic and atheistic evolution, besides that the one who espouses theistic evolution believes in God while an atheist obviously doesn't

But where would I go if I wanted to discuss atheistic creationism?

 

[Willtor]

I'm still trying to figure out what the difference is between theistic and atheistic evolution, besides that the one who espouses theistic evolution believes in God while an atheist obviously doesn't

But where would I go if I wanted to discuss atheistic creationism?

Yeah, I think that theistic evolution as a category is pretty artificial. As has been said numerous times: saying that someone accepts a theistic understanding of the theory of evolution is a lot like saying that someone accepts a theistic understanding of the theory of gravity. It might be more adequate to say that this group of people think that the mode of knowledge worked out in the scientific community is valid. That is, if science showed evolution to be untenable then we would give it up, too.

If you want to discuss atheistic creationism, I'm afraid there isn't a good forum for you, here. The atheistic creationists (or "ACs" as we call them) don't fit into CF's categories.

 

[Assyrian]

But where would I go if I wanted to discuss atheistic creationism?

That's Intelligent Design isn't it? Or would that be Agnostic Creationism?

 

[shernren]

I'd go for Agnostic Creationism ... but I really don't know.

 

[Melethiel]

If you decide on something, PM CaDan or Tonks - they know the right tech people to go to to change it.