If both Behe and Denton will agree to be publicly identified as “ID Evolutionists”, I will rent a monkey suit and hand out bananas in downtown Grand Rapids. Hold me to it. 
3 Likes
You are right… This is confusing. Defining terms is so important. Unfortunately, in the history of this debate, terms have been thrown around, co-opted, and used interchangeably so often, I sometimes wonder how we will arrive at a standard definition.
This is how I see it breaking down (obviously just my personal definitions):
Creationists or atheists (creationists believe in a Creator, atheists do not)
From there:
Atheists are evolutionists.
But, not all evolutionists are atheists:-) This is where a laziness with terms makes communication and public education difficult. So often the term “evolutionist” represents more than a position on the science. It often represents a position rooted in a naturalistic worldview. This association is the reason why we who hold to TE/EC need to use those longer terms. Ham and Co. equate atheist and evolutionist, which I find to be sloppy and inflammatory. By perpetuating their own ownership of the term “creationism”, these groups can create a divide useful in promoting their materials. It is at the most basic level, all about marketing:-(
Within the creationist category, we have YECs, OECs, TE/ECs, and IDs:
YECs are very well-defined along the Ken Ham/ICR lines
OECs believe in old earth, but do not accept evolution
TE/ECs hold that the science tells us that the Creator used deep time/evolutionary processes to create
ID is the slipperiest to me. Does anyone feel like that group (as a group) has a concrete definition? I see an acknowledgement of a Creator, and then I see much variation within the group. Others will probably have better thoughts on this one.
This structure does not take into account other religions (ie. Islam) only because I see that as outside of the current discussion.
But this is how I think it is represented publicly:
Creationists are YECs
Evolutionists are atheists
ID-ers have their own group, but if you were to ask 20 different people what this means, you may get 20 different answers, lol.
The rest of us (TE/ECs, as well as OEC groups like Hugh Ross’s Reasons to Believe) are in no man’s land from a public discourse perspective. Because we are in no man’s land, we have to do double the work in order to have the same level of effectiveness as other groups in promoting our message. We have to try to educate people on what TE/EC actually means, while at the same time educating them on the science and theology perspectives. Add to that the relative youth of the TE/EC perspective, which has us trying to promote a “working model” rather than a finished work. It is quite exciting, but without a doubt, more challenging.
4 Likes
No. I did not say “in American popular debates over origin”. I said among Christians in North America.
Yes it is. It’s what Robert Chambers meant by “evolution”, a decade before Darwin. It’s what Christian Evolutionary Creationists mean by “evolution”.
And as long as organizations such as the Discovery Institute try to deny macroevolution and claim “evolution is a theory in crisis”, while arguing that God created nature and humans, they’re creationists by this definition.
In all the cases where you cite the word “evolution”, it refers to the modern evolutionary synthesis. You reject the modern evolutionary synthesis, as does the Discovery Institute. So you’re creationists by this definition.
Christy said it well here.
I have made the same point myself.
I agree entirely.
BRAD!!! That would be awesome!
On a serious note … what do you think would be the barrier to combining “ID” with Evolution?
@BradKramer, Doesn’t adding the label “Evolutionist” go pretty far in the DOMESTICATION of the ID beast?
The problem with the terms above is they are POLARIZE instead of UNIFY the most important agreement we can have with other Christians:
That “ID” WITH Evolution is the answer!
That’s why I told you how I was using the term.
It’s not a minority usage.
I’ve visited the US several times over the last fifteen years, many of my friends are from North America, and the discussions on this subject in which I engage are almost all with North Americans. I’m very familiar with the terms they use. I also know that out of all Christians, IDers are the ones who typically try to avoid identifying themselves as creationists, despite believing that God created nature and humans.
You’ve never heard the terms Young Earth Creationist, Old Earth Creationist, Evolutionary Creationist?
It’s not invalid. I was pointing out that contrary to your claim that it was not used by “Darwin or anyone since”, it was in fact used even before Darwin, and has been used ever since. It’s still being used. As Christy pointed out, and to borrow from Dembski, creation can be construed in the narrow sense of a literal six day creation as presented in Genesis 1 and 2, or creation can also be construed in the broad sense of simply asserting that God has created the world with a purpose in mind.
Sure; Google Young Earth Creationist, Old Earth Creationist, and Evolutionary Creationist. You will find hundreds of thousands of examples. Like Christy pointed out, you’ll find people all over the place using those terms. Dembski calls himself an old earth creationist. He believes Adam and Eve were real people, that as the initial pair of humans they were the progenitors of the whole human race, that they were specially created by God, and thus that they were not the result of an evolutionary process from primate or hominid ancestors. He is trying to preserve Christian orthodoxy within Old Earth Creationism. He does not endorse evolutionary theory.
I am talking about your posts, not dictionary entries.
Correct. That’s a direct challenge to the modern evolutionary synthesis, which is a description of how macroevolution has taken place.
That’s exactly what I see IDers doing. When it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it’s probably not a chicken.
I know you have. And I’ve pointed out repeatedly (and Christy has agreed), that within Christianity this is such a broad term that it includes YECs, OECs, and ECs, which is why people further specify Young Earth Creationism, Old Earth Creationism, or Evolutionary Creationism.
No, the other way around. I said that someone who believes that God created nature and humans, is a creationist.
I haven’t found this yet.
Behold!
I haven’t said this. By the way, do we agree that Dembski is an Old Earth Creationist?
Instead of applying commonsensical definitions as they are being used in the “arena of discourse”, I would say it is more helpful to redefine the terms from a linguistic / philosophical starting point. This is what I try to do when I discourse with other Christians. There is especially a huge baggage of meaning associated with “-isms” and “-ists”. So I would define them as such:
"-ism"
Essentially any “-ism” denotes faith in some set of ideas.
"-ist"
In some sense, “-ist” goes even further in that it denotes faith in some set of ideas that define one’s identity.
So creation-ism denotes the faith statement that our world is a creation and hence that a Creator exists.
A creation-ist is someone who would define him- or herself as such.
I think this treatment makes it clear that every Christian is essentially a creationist.
I would even say that deep down a Christian can’t truly be an evolutionist, because our identity is in Christ. Evolutionary theory is currently the best thing we have in scientific terms, but it does not define who we are. We don’t proclaim a “faith statement of evolution”. We just proclaim its harmony with our faith in Christ.
So once that confusion is out of the way, you can start using adjectives to further specify the position. But these adjectives are not part of the “-ism” which means they are not what defines the core meaning of the position.
This approach makes it clear that the term “Evolutionary creationist” is very different in definition from “Theistic evolutionist”.
You could say that many people who identify themselves as Young Earth Creationists could additionally be specified as Young-Earthists and Anti-Evolutionists. This is because they have raised their believe in a young earth and their belief against evolution to the level of a faith statement (a la Ken Ham, “nothing can convince me I’m wrong”).
I think this distinction is useful because I know people who are YEC but do not dogmatically assert the young earth or anti-evolutionary position as part of their faith. It’s more that they see the young earth position as the most acceptable one from their perspective. In a similar way, an evolutionary creationist (like me) views evolution as currently the most acceptable means of creation but does not dogmatically assert it as an absolute truth.
I haven’t commented on which is more frequent. That doesn’t matter.
So your definition of “creationist” is “someone who doesn’t believe macroevolution has occurred”? Does that apply to atheists who don’t believe macroevolution has occurred?
[quote=“Eddie, post:19, topic:4427”]
I know that the usage of “creationists” to mean something much narrower than “believer in creation” irritates you…[/quote]
No it doesn’t. I don’t care.
And also in its broader sense. That’s the point here. As Dembski has said, it is used in both a broad and narrow sense. That’s why he called himself a creationist.
I agree with you in the sense that I would never use my definitions without any qualification if they differ from the commonsensical definitions. That would defy the most basic rules of communication. I will always take the effort of clarifying the difference. This effort is worthwhile because I have found that, often, a large part of the confusion in a discussion results from wrongly defined terms. So just offering a different set of definitions can help to clarify the discourse and can thus result in new insights / less conflict. We don’t have to be a “passive receiver of linguistic history” because conflicts are often aggravated by word usage based on misunderstandings. We have to engage with the language and redefine it wherever necessary / useful.
For example, I have found it useful in discussions with non-believers to explain to them my conception of the difference between “faith” and “religion”. Another example is how John Walton criticized the currently used conceptual separation between “natural” and “supernatural”. There are countless examples where progress in understanding can be made by correcting the terms that are currently causing confusion.
In a similar fashion, using the term “creationist” for the specific category of YECs equips them with a title that perpetuates the misconception that they are the only group that believes in Creation. In this sense, I completely agree with @Professormom that appropriation of the term “creationist” by YECs has a marketing purpose for YEC ministries. In my opinion, this is a completely valid reason to share a different set of definitions. Of course, this different set has to be introduced appropriately.
Besides, I think that the definition of “-ism” and “-ist” that I have given fits very well with the connotation that underlies the usage of these suffixes as I have seen in the discourse on origins and in general.
2 Likes
As a late contributor, I see part of the issue as being informed by American culture which, from an outsider’s POV tends to polarize into dualities:
You are liberal or conservative.
You are Republican or Democratic.
You are a Creationist or an Evolutionist.
So if I believe that evolution is well attested to in nature, then “I don’t believe that God created everything”? This accusation has been levelled at me. I believe God created everything. Thus I am a “Creationist.” I kind of resent the narrow definition of the term, to be honest although I must acknowledge the general usage and understanding of the term. Typical modernist/imperialist coopting of language to dominate and subjugate… 
1 Like