Are any of you Neo-Creationist mixed with some other form of creationism?


(Edward Miller) #1

There are many of us out there that are a mixture of creation beliefs. Some are Young Earth Creationist along with Neo-Creationism, or progressive creationist with neo-creationist. Some are even evolutionary creationist and neo-creationist I (Intelligent Design). Do you believe in both macro-evolution and microevolution. I must confess that I am a neo-creationist as well as a progressive creationist Christian. I do not believe in Common Ancestry of species. Have a nice day and may God bless.


(James McKay) #2

Forgive my ignorance here, but what exactly is neo-creationism?


(Wookin Panub) #3

I am just a creationist. I interpret all of Genesis as a literal historical account, because I, like Jesus, believe God’s word as true.


(Matthew Pevarnik) #4

Nice slam. In other words if you’re not a YEC then you don’t believe God’s word is true. Reminds me of this:
image


(Wookin Panub) #5

I cannot control how you perceive what I said, but I know a little of Ken Ham, and I know that Ken Ham would never tell a theistic evolutionist that they are not Christian, because, the bible states that if you repent of your sins and put your trust in Christ, then you are born again. It says nothing of believing in a young earth or spontaneous generation.
Just because we say, that you are wrong and have a horrible view of epistemology i.e. William Lane Craig, N.T. Wright, Francis Collins etc… that in no way condemns a believer. I, myself, could be wrong about my reformed views of scripture, but in no way demonstrates that I am not a believer in Christ. Anyway we are off topic. I just pray that in the future you remember that when someone tells you that you are wrong. God bless.


(Wookin Panub) #6

That is a misrepresentation of who Ken Ham is. I know that we are in the world, but we are not of the world. Such posters as this is worldly, and not edifying in the body of Christ :frowning:


#7

Not sure what a neo-creationist is. I’m a creationist. I believe God created everything and sustains everything.


(Lynn Munter) #8

It may sound fine in principle to distinguish between “macroevolution” and “microevolution” but the problem happens when you try to apply it in the real world. It’s like asking if you believe both in cities and towns—they seem to be clearly different concepts until you sit down and try to agree on how to separate them. The farther you get into the minutiae, the more apparent it becomes that it is really just human categories we use for convenience, not any innate or essential difference in the things themselves.

All living species we know of fall into a distinct “tree” shape. You can chop off all the branches and pretend they all came from separately created animals and plants (Whoops, we’re already in trouble. What about all the other kingdoms?) but how do you know where to chop? How do you know whether any given two organisms are related or not? It’s not easy to tell, unless you realize that yes, they are all related.

Oh, surely you believe in common ancestry of some species! The red wolf and the gray wolf, for example. But not all species, is that right? Red wolf and red fox, related or not? Fox and weasel? Wolf and hyena? Cat and hyena?

Where and how can you draw a line?


(Edward Miller) #9

@Jammycakes,@Wookin_Panub,@pevaquak,@fmiddel,@Lynn_Munter

Hello my friends. I have been taking Dr. Lamoueaux’ course on science and religion. I will make short definitions to show what I am taking about.

Neo-Creation is another name for Intelligent Design Theory supported by the late Phillip E. Johnson of the University of California, Berkeley. He wrote the book : Darwin on Trial." I have a 1991 copy of it.

Microevolution vs Macroevolution: I accept micro-evolution which teaches God allows small amounts of evolution. A dog cannot become a cat or a human being a monkey, but small changes do take place. For example, I believe we all descend from Adam and Eve, i.e., all people descend from them. However, notice that we have black, white, American Indians, and Asians, but we can still marry each other. Young Earth Creations, Progressive Creationist, Old Earth Creationist, and Intelligent Designers can accept this view of microevolution. This is the reason My family has blue eyes but mine are green. We are always still human beings but small changes can happen. Macroevolution teaches that cats can become dogs and monkeys can become human. I do not accept macroevolution. I do believe in an old universe and earth since I am a Progressive Creationist. I reject Common Ancestry and do not believe that monkeys can become humans. I do not accept what Ken Ham teaches about salvation. Salvation does not depend whether you are an evolutionary creationist or one of the other creation paradigms God could have used any method. We only need to accept the Holy Trinity and believe that Jesus will bring back the saved spirits of people that are now in heaven, e.g., my parents. Our bodies will then be resurrected and live forever. Isn’t that grand? I enjoy my friends here. May God bless all of you with His richest blessing.


(Andrew M. Wolfe) #10

I’m going to do @gbrooks9’s job for him here. I guess that makes me the Interim Chief Wikipedia Quoter (ICWQ) until he gets back online.

Neo-creationism is a pseudoscientific movement which aims to restate creationism in terms more likely to be well received by the public, by policy makers, by educators and by the scientific community. It aims to re-frame the debate over the origins of life in non-religious terms and without appeals to scripture. This comes in response to the 1987 ruling by the United States Supreme Court in Edwards v. Aguillard that creationism is an inherently religious concept and that advocating it as correct or accurate in public-school curricula violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.[1][2][3]

One of the principal claims of neo-creationism propounds that ostensibly objective orthodox science, with a foundation in naturalism, is actually a dogmatically atheistic religion.[4] Its proponents argue that the scientific method excludes certain explanations of phenomena, particularly where they point towards supernatural elements, thus effectively excluding religious insight from contributing to understanding the universe. This leads to an open and often hostile opposition to what neo-creationists term “Darwinism”, which they generally mean to refer to evolution, but which they may extend to include such concepts as abiogenesis, stellar evolution and the Big Bang theory.

Notable neo-creationist organizations include the Discovery Institute and its Center for Science and Culture. Neo-creationists have yet to establish a recognized line of legitimate scientific research and as of 2015 lack scientific and academic legitimacy, even among many academics of evangelical Christian colleges.[5] Eugenie C. Scott and other critics regard neo-creationism as the most successful form of irrationalism.[3] The main form of neo-creationism is intelligent design.[6] A second form, abrupt appearance theory,[3] which claims that the first life and the universe appeared abruptly and that plants and animals appeared abruptly in complex form, has occasionally been postulated[7][8]


(Andrew M. Wolfe) #11

This is a common misconception of evolution. Evolution does not teach that cats become dogs. It teaches that a common ancestor of all carnivores evolved into both cat-like carnivores and dog-like carnivores, and that these further splintered into all the various carnivores we have today, including cats and dogs. This is not a trivial correction, because, speaking for myself, I find it difficult to believe that dogs would become cats or vice versa, yet it doesn’t seem as spectacular to me for a small creature that is neither cat nor dog but sort of similar to both to eventually develop into both.

Interestingly, I understand that some YECs also believe that carnivores were one “baramin” that evolved into cats and dogs, so you don’t even have to be an evolutionary creationist these days to believe this…


(Edward Miller) #12

An interesting answer. I would recommend Dr. Haarsma’s book on Origins. It has a section dealing totally with various paradigms. It is good to hear from you.


(James McKay) #13

Macroevolution teaches nothing of the sort. Cats becoming dogs is shape-shifting, not evolution. And shape-shifting is science fiction.

Macroevolution is the cumulative effect of numerous consecutive generations of microevolution. As such, the problem with trying to draw a distinction between “microevolution” and “macroevolution” is that you need to demonstrate the existence of a boundary between the two that can not be crossed. To the best of my knowledge, nobody has ever succeeded in doing so.


(Andrew M. Wolfe) #14

Thanks… I’m not sure what I would get out of this, though. Being a convinced evolutionary creationist and perfectly at peace with that, I’m not terribly interested in learning more about other points of view, except at the sort of trifling level of reading the introductory paragraphs of a Wikipedia article. But I appreciate your participation here with us! And I’m glad to chime in in the discussion for those few rare moments when I have something potentially worthwhile to share.

Blessings,
AMW


(Andrew M. Wolfe) #15

This made me chuckle a good bit. You’re a very clear communicator, @jammycakes!


#16

Welllll…not really.


#17

No, that’s fantasy, not science fiction.


(Edward Miller) #18

Gould states:

First, we have abundant, direct, observation evidence of evolution in action, from both field and laboratory. This evidence ranges from countless experiments on change in nearly everything about fruit flies subject to artificial selection in the laboratory to the famous population of British moths that became black when industrial soot darkened the trees upon which moths rest. (Moths gain protection from sharp-sighted bird predators by blending into the background.) Creationists do not deny these observations: how could they? Creationists have tightened their act. They now argue that God only created “basic kinds,” and allowed for limited evolutionary meandering within them. Thus poodles and Great Danes come from the dog kind and moths can change color, but nature cannot convert a dog to a cat or a monkey to a man.


(Edward Miller) #19

Micro-evolution: evolutionary change resulting from selective accumulation on minute change variations.

macroevolution: evolutionary involving relatively large and complex steps.

Definitions from Webster Seventh New College Dictionary.


#20

The question that always comes up is where is the barrier to these small changes accumulating into larger changes over time. It’s like saying that you can microwalk to the curb, but you can’t macrowalk to the store using the same process. Macroevolution is just lots of microevolution just as macrowalking to the store is the accumulation of many small steps.

Macroevolution does not teach that a living species can evolve into another already existing species. Monkeys and men are both primates, as was our common ancestor. It is primates evolving into primates. The distant ancestors of dogs will still be dogs, but they may vary as much as primates do now.