Why do creationists redefine and/or make up words out-of-context?

[AV1611VET]

This is a thread topic about creationists making up private definitions of words. "Kind" is a perfect example. So I thank you for that.

Whatever.

(Wait until you hear the term "vicarious sacrifice," or "supralapsarian," or "virgin birth." I want to be around to see this!)

 

[pitabread]

Then why do I understand it, even though I never heard it before?

Ever heard of the history of Rock & Roll?

Does that make sense to you?

To clarify, the context in which the term was used had nothing to do with the history of atheism. Rather, the individual in question was using the term to suggest that the modern study of history was under the influence of atheists. They seemed to be suggesting that atheists were re-writing history. It was a weird discussion.

But if a person was to contextually discuss the history of atheism, then using the phrase history of atheism would be most clear.

 

[Speedwell]

I've noticed a common theme when discussing things with creationists that words are often used out-of-context. This includes words like "theory", "evolution", "Darwinism", and so on.

I've also noticed the use of evolution or atheistic as an adjective to add to various other nouns describing various forms of knowledge. I think my favorite so far was "atheistic history".

What is the point of this? Having a (proper) conversation generally means using words as they apply to a specific context. Using incorrect contextual meanings and even worse, adopting private definitions of terms doesn't lead to meaningful discussion. And I've never understood the point of fighting over a definition, as I've seen more than a few times. Especially given either the contextual usage of a word or when there exists other words/terms that more accurately describe an idea.

I also wonder what other contexts this behavior occurs in. I imagine this must also come up with political discussions as well.

OH, "atheistic history" just means any history not written by David Barton or R. J. Rushdooney.

 

[AV1611VET]

To clarify, the context in which the term was used had nothing to do with the history of atheism. Rather, the individual in question was using the term to suggest that the modern study of history was under the influence of atheists. They seemed to be suggesting that atheists were re-writing history. It was a weird discussion.

But if a person was to contextually discuss the history of atheism, then using the phrase history of atheism would be most clear.

I think the term you're looking for is: historical revisionism.

From Wikipedia:

"In historiography, the term historical revisionism identifies the re-interpretation of the historical record. It usually means challenging the orthodox views held by professional scholars about a historical event, or introducing new evidence, or of restating the motivations and decisions of the participant people. The revision of the historical record reflects the new discoveries of fact, evidence, and interpretation, which produce a revised history. In dramatic cases, revisionism involves a reversal of older moral judgments about heroes and villains."

 

[Speedwell]

I think the term you're looking for is: historical revisionism.

From Wikipedia:

"In historiography, the term historical revisionism identifies the re-interpretation of the historical record. It usually means challenging the orthodox views held by professional scholars about a historical event, or introducing new evidence, or of restating the motivations and decisions of the participant people. The revision of the historical record reflects the new discoveries of fact, evidence, and interpretation, which produce a revised history. In dramatic cases, revisionism involves a reversal of older moral judgments about heroes and villains."

And then there are Christian historians like Barton and Rushdooney, who do it without new evidence.





c

 

[The IbanezerScrooge]

I agree 100%.
For instance, I try to explain that "kind" means "genus" (not "species") and get some bologna reply that scientists don't really use that word to mean anything.

Do you like cats, AV?

 

[Clint Edwards]

In my experience most creationists and other anti-scientific types really do not understand the very theories they are so vehemently against. Scientific disciplines use technical language and oftentimes these terms are misunderstood to the point that these people feel free to generate their own meanings.

That is a very overbroad statement based on YOUR experience. My best friend, a full professor of microbiology at a well known Ca university, who also believes in intelligent design, would report a totally different experience. Again your put down of creationists as ¨anti scientific types ¨ is ridiculous, guilt by association at itś best. Some are, some aren´t. I believe in intelligent design. I have been debating evolutionists for years on that mystical magical first evolutionary step, the process of abiogenesis. I do quite well, especially when they are forced to admit they haven´t a clue as to how their precursor organism came about. I debate them using scientific principles, and available research. That is hardly being an ignorant (implied) ¨non scientific type ¨.

 

[Clint Edwards]

But when I intone with "genus," I usually get a straight-out denial.

Even when I back it up with the online etymological dictionary.

My suggestion … if I was an academian trying to point out that the Ark was too small to house all those animals for a year … is to first find out what "kind" means to the person I'm talking to (i.e., "species" or "genus"), then tell them that there's still too many of either to fit aboard the Ark.

Do you mean genus, or family ? There are intelligent creationists who use one, or the other.

 

[Brightmoon]

And rock and roll does have a history. It started in the mid fifties .

 

[Brightmoon]

Okay … there's no consistency of usage.

What's your point?

Would you believe it if there was?

If every Christian believed in creatio ex nihilo, would you still be an agnostic?

Or would you, as I suspect, be against every Christian?

And if you think I'm being facetious, consider this:

Every single Christian ever born, living today, and will become one tomorrow believes IN THE BEGINNING, GOD.

And guess what? it doesn't mean a thing to unbelievers.

And doesn’t mean anything to a scientist either because none of that is what scientists study. They study natural phenomena.

 

[Ophiolite]

That is a very overbroad statement based on YOUR experience. My best friend, a full professor of microbiology at a well known Ca university, who also believes in intelligent design, would report a totally different experience. Again your put down of creationists as ¨anti scientific types ¨ is ridiculous, guilt by association at itś best. Some are, some aren´t. I believe in intelligent design. I have been debating evolutionists for years on that mystical magical first evolutionary step, the process of abiogenesis. I do quite well, especially when they are forced to admit they haven´t a clue as to how their precursor organism came about. I debate them using scientific principles, and available research. That is hardly being an ignorant (implied) ¨non scientific type ¨.

And I suppose for all those years you have been using the same disingenuous, passive-aggessive, unscientific, sneaky rhetoric of trying to associate abiogenesis with evolution. And then the OP wonders why evolutionists wind up attacking the Creationist. It's because of reprehensible, dishonest, in-your-face prevarication of this type.

 

[Ophiolite]

To be fair, the point of evolution is never really clear. And too often we are all using whatever we personally think about what evolution means when we come to the discussion. I've heard countless statistics from evolutionists about the age of this or the time of that and none of it is in the least consistent. So being fair here, it happens on all sides. Maybe now you should come out with a premise of what you believe evolution to be so that the other side is clear from the beginning what is being argued.

I'm surprised you have not encountered an answer before, but since you haven't your request is a sound one.

1. Evolution does not have a point. It just is.
2. The point of evolutionary theory (which is what you may have meant) is to explain the mechanisms of evolution and thereby account for the diversity of life.
3. I would be happy to address any contradictions you have encountered as to age of any species, common ancestor, geological epoch, etc. Just provide an example and I'll address it here, in a separate thread, or by pm, as you wish.
4. Evolution is the process of change of the character of interbreeding populations, over time. It is thought that on Earth all life forms underwent such change from a common ancestor. The phrase "descent with modification" was used by Darwin and is apt. The cause of such modification in populations is through a variety of mechanisms, of which natural selection and genetic drift are currently thought to be important, acting upon variations within the genes of the population, either pre-existing genes or ones recently arising through mutation.

In my experience, even when these points are made, they are either ignored, challenged (as in "I don't believe that's what it means") or a goalpost shift occurs. I'm happy to try to work on this with you.

 

[grasping the after wind]

I've noticed a common theme when discussing things with creationists that words are often used out-of-context. This includes words like "theory", "evolution", "Darwinism", and so on.

I've also noticed the use of evolution or atheistic as an adjective to add to various other nouns describing various forms of knowledge. I think my favorite so far was "atheistic history".

What is the point of this? Having a (proper) conversation generally means using words as they apply to a specific context. Using incorrect contextual meanings and even worse, adopting private definitions of terms doesn't lead to meaningful discussion. And I've never understood the point of fighting over a definition, as I've seen more than a few times. Especially given either the contextual usage of a word or when there exists other words/terms that more accurately describe an idea.

I also wonder what other contexts this behavior occurs in. I imagine this must also come up with political discussions as well.

Does it ever. to the point of redefining the meanings of the words marriage, minority, he, she, right, etc. Political discussion far outstrips anything within the debate over evolution vs creation when it comes to insisting that a personally preferred, previously unknown definition must be accepted by the opposing side as the authoritative one.

When people argue issues based upon completely different sets of basic assumptions they not only waste their time but they also become frustrated and can reach the erroneous conclusion that those opposing them are just evil or stupid. If one understands that the problem is not that the other side is illogical, lacking intelligence or malevolent but simply begins from a different POV and set of basic assumptions one can then have a civil debate even if one cannot come to agreement. They cannot agree because there is no way, through argumentation, to divest a person of their POV which is based upon their set of basic assumptions. For instance, if one assumes that humans are basically good, there is not train of logical argument based upon the assumption that humans are not basically good that will be convincing to that person. The only argument that will be convincing to that person is one that also assumes the basic goodness of human beings.

When the conclusion of an argument contradicts a basic assumption a person will inevitably reject the argument that comes to such a conclusion as being flawed. Two completely logically flawless arguments on a subject can reach contradictory conclusions because they start from contradictory sets of basic assumptions. So it may well be that an opposing argument is not flawed but rather that the basic assumptions cannot be reconciled.

 

[Halbhh]

I've noticed a common theme when discussing things with creationists that words are often used out-of-context. This includes words like "theory", "evolution", "Darwinism", and so on.

I've also noticed the use of evolution or atheistic as an adjective to add to various other nouns describing various forms of knowledge. I think my favorite so far was "atheistic history".

What is the point of this? Having a (proper) conversation generally means using words as they apply to a specific context. Using incorrect contextual meanings and even worse, adopting private definitions of terms doesn't lead to meaningful discussion. And I've never understood the point of fighting over a definition, as I've seen more than a few times. Especially given either the contextual usage of a word or when there exists other words/terms that more accurately describe an idea.

I also wonder what other contexts this behavior occurs in. I imagine this must also come up with political discussions as well.

Oh yeah, political arguments tend to change about....0.0001% of minds, it would seem. When it's arguing. As soon as one person tells another in any manner one of the various forms of 'you're wrong' or other such confrontations that have any personal side, even 'that's an uneducated idea' etc., then it's just arguing (fighting), and there's zero gain. Very often, when a person has some pet theory they want to evangelize for, they will be the ones that rely on the personal attack, and that's a telling sign. Out of many thousands of discussions, I found in the 15 or so times I followed up on the obscure links offered by anyone doing personal attacks (of any kind, even slights), that every time the links had clear and obvious mistakes I could quickly find, just basic stuff, like basic mechanics/physics/math mistakes, simple errors of ordinary fact, etc.. It's kind of a rule of thumb, that as soon as someone makes an attack on another, I can instantly know all their information is unlikely to be of any use at all. They make the personal attack in order to avoid real research/learning/discussing.

Our wise Teacher told us this in a general form -- "By their fruits you will know them."

As soon as any person is personally antagonistic even on the level of saying "that's basic knowledge anyone can learn in grade school" etc., then you instantly can know they are like a bad tree making bad fruit, and then all you should do is be kind and say something friendly like "have a good day" and let go of that attempt to battle and spend your time better talking to someone else.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I agree 100%.

As the saying goes:

Don't argue with an academian; he will drag you down to his level, then beat you to death with experience.

But … yes … I won't argue with an academian on his turf.

If he isn't willing to accept working definitions of words in the Bible, then his terminology can take a hike too.

For instance, I try to explain that "kind" means "genus" (not "species") and get some bologna reply that scientists don't really use that word to mean anything.

Or at least that's what I interpret what they're saying.

If you believe that "kind" means "genus", then just use the word "genus" when discussing matters of biology.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Ya -- get ready for "descent with modification" or "change in alleles over time" or "change in the frequency of alleles over time" or some other phrase that a child can't understand -- let alone a Philadelphia lawyer.

So if a child doesn't understand it, then we get to dissmiss it for that reason?

 

[AV1611VET]

If you believe that "kind" means "genus", then just use the word "genus" when discussing matters of biology.

I'll pass.

That's like asking me to use "fetus" instead of "child in the womb".

 

[AV1611VET]

So if a child doesn't understand it, then we get to dissmiss it for that reason?

We do.

You don't have that luxury.

You're obligated to the scientific method.

Else you'll commit your own unpardonable sin.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I have been debating evolutionists for years on that mystical magical first evolutionary step, the process of abiogenesis.

Another fine example of what the OP is talking, but then in terms of "scope" instead of terminology.

The continued insistence that abiogenesis is somehow an essential part of evolution theory while it really isn't and while it has been pointed out thousands of times that it isn't.

Yet, creationists stubbornly insist on getting it wrong.

I do quite well, especially when they are forced to admit they haven´t a clue as to how their precursor organism came about.

"forced" to admit...
Lol.

Intellectually honest people don't have any issues with acknowledging ignorance on subjects they are ignorant about, you know...

I debate them using scientific principles, and available research. That is hardly being an ignorant (implied) ¨non scientific type ¨.

Except of the part where you think it's relevant to evolution theory, that is.

 

[essentialsaltes]

The sad thing is that I think most (if not all) of the 'professional' creationists do know how scientists use these words. But they lie for the benefit of the people who trust them to provide a method of 'slaying' evolution. And then who will the laymen believe? The person who confirms their biases, or the person trying to explain how science really works (even if they are themselves Christian). These persistent deceptions make it harder for the truth to take hold.