The Popular Use of "Creationist" and "Creationism" in American Debates over Origins

Faith & Science Conversation
22

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
25

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… :wink:

1 Like
26

I have had a quick discussion with @Eddie on the matter of the term “ID Evolutionist” - - we have agreed to limit the use of this term to discussions between Eddie and myself.

So… this leaves me with an important question for YOU, @Christy:

If you were going to devise a term (or perhaps the term has already been devised and you are perfectly happy with it) … what term would you recommend is best when trying to name the Christians who hold TWO views simultaneously:

Venn Circle A: God has arranged millions of years of Evolution on Earth either using principally or only processes of natural order.

Venn Circle B: God’s arrangement includes either of 2 possibilities - - using naturally lawful OR non-lawful processes to arrive at specific benchmarks in evolution necessary to his plan.

Christy, the point of the intersection of these 2 Venn circles is to INCLUDE and UNIFY two camps that usually spend more time feuding than they do agreeing:

  1. Christians who think God is responsible for Human evolution;

  2. Christians who seriously doubt Human evolution could have occurred as we find it WITHOUT God’s intervention.

As we all know, the latter is usually found loosely described as proponents of Intelligent Design. But since BioLogos proponents are spreading the good word about God’s role in Evolution, we should not be surprised when we are able to help convince some believers of Intelligent Design that millions of years of Evolution was God’s preferred method of DESIGN!

So … Christy, in the interests of World and Cosmic peace, for all time, if you REALLY REALLY REALLY had to conjure up a term that was intended to describe the INTERSECTION of circles “A” and “B”, what descriptive label would you propose?

George

27

@gbrooks9

Honestly, I don’t really see the point of a unifying label beyond “Christian.”

God’s role in evolution isn’t the gospel and it isn’t central to the gospel, so I think the unity we should be aiming for is centered around Christ and not the acceptance of common descent.

What would be the goal of this unified group? Isn’t the fact that the ID folks and the BioLogos folks have very different goals the reason behind the lack of unity in the first place. I’m failing to see how more elegant terminology would change reality here.

I’m happy with ‘evolutionary creationist’ to generally describe people who believe in a creator and accept common descent. People can then clarify if they want to whether or how they envision God proactively intervening or guiding creation. I would know what someone meant if they described themselves as an evolutionary creationist who subscribes to ID.

1 Like
28

@Christy, when I first arrived here at the BioLogos fora, all around was war.

Old Earth, Young Earth, Evolutionist, Creationist, Theist, Atheist, Theist-but-still-Christian, Evolutionist-but-still-Christian, Theistic Evolutionists, and so on and so on …

But I also saw, almost immediately, was a section of Christians who held to the idea that God used Evolution to create humankind BUT believed God did personally undertook some of the especially difficult steps like

i ) “No RNA/DNA” > “Now there is RNA/DNA” … or
ii ) “No Flagella” > “Now there are Flagella”.

This group of Christian creationists was forced to DEFEND their views against BioLogos enthusiasts because we are more accustomed to think God could use natural processes to create EVERYTHING (RNA, DNA, Flagella, Women-who-Never-Burp, and so forth).

Unfortunately, what I saw was that because the former group was part of the ID wing … there was never going to be peace between them and BioLogos. But that’s silly, right?

Nobody knows for sure yet (and may never know) which things God HAD to make a special effort for, and which things did NOT require His special effort - - other than create the Cosmos exactly as he needed it to be at the instant of creation.

Since BOTH groups (itemized above) accept God’s role … we are literally arguing about what God didn’t HAVE to do special … but which He did ANYWAY! … because both our 2 factions say he WAS involved in human evolution.

SO … if we really are interested in developing a mutuality with those ID Christians who are perfectly happy with millions of years of Evolution … it behooves us to come up with a UNIFYING NAME for this wonderful aggregation …

I’m a smidge surprised I had to offer this rather elaborate discussion … to defend the inevitably required …

George

29

This.

Defining terms is important… But defining them to death would be distracting. Not distracting from the science, but distracting from the faith. @christy makes a very important point.

As Christians, we are always to be a reflection of God. That is our ultimate identity. And as Christians, a unifying concept is that God created and sustains. Period.

If we get together on nothing but that, we are good:-)

How the earth was created hasn’t actually changed. How much we know about the creation has. From a general public/layperson’s perspective, I think it can sometimes feel like we are changing how the world was created. I think a lot of the vitriol comes from a place of fear that we are changing God. From my perspective, God is simply revealing more about himself to us as we can handle it. In my view, the development of science historically reflects this ongoing revelation.

Beyond being ready, though, I think He does it because we need it. God created humanity. He created humanity to be curious and to desire growth and learning. As we grow in knowledge, we do get more jaded about that which has come before… that which we already know. He has continually fed that need. And, like everything good, it should draw us closer to Him. It should guide us to knowing Him more.

I, for one, see a much bigger God because of my knowledge of science, the ancient earth, and evolution. As I grow, I need Him to grow. I believe that He grants just enough of Himself to fill that need but no more so as not to overwhelm us. For this, I am grateful:-)

Like I said I don’t know as much about ID as other groups, primarily because I see it as a bit redundant. Weirdly, I always saw IDers as precursors to EC… They were there when we didn’t know as much about evolutionary theory and genetics as we do now. I have a hard time seeing where their lines are. I am sure they would not appreciate my somewhat uninformed assessment, lol.

I am not sure why they are looking to prove God. I see proof of God everywhere, but I don’t think His intention is to let us prove Him. I see that in Scipture.

30

And so … we will CONTINUE to debate and argue about “Intelligent Design” … because we have no “mental frame of reference” that unites we like-minded “Creationist Evolutionists” together …

31

Perhaps somewhat simplistic, but when I see someone described as a “creationist” especially if capitalized, my impression is that they see a literal Genesis as foundational to their faith, and the lense through which they view the rest of the Bible.

32

Or we could just try to be nice to them and not fight dirty over stupid stuff and let everyone call themselves what they want. I’m still not seeing what a unifying label buys anyone.

33

Let’s see how many MORE posts there are - - arguing about Intelligent Design folks… Let’s COUNT them …

Is he? Isn’t he? What’s bad about ID? What’s good about ID ? It’s all a terrible waste of time …

We need to make a sub-section of ID the GOOD GUYS … so we can stop arguing about them…

34

I am not sure I am following you?

35

As long as it is allowed that ANY “ID” folks are all on the OTHER side… the unnecessary conflict between the camps will continue.

By having a term that embraces BOTH BioLogos people and ID people who are unquestionably pro-Evolution … the tendency to bicker over the mere MENTION of ID will be dramatically diminished.

Just look at Brad’s posting above:

BradKramer - “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.”

I think there is a chance they would if an acceptable bridge label was embraced.

36

@gbrooks9 They can be “good guys” but usually people are arguing with them because they disagree with them about something that is perceived by the debaters to be important. You can think it’s not important, but I doubt that is going to have much affect on those who don’t agree.

Take a look over at Discovery Institute’s Evolution News and Views and see if you still think the general ID message and the general BioLogos message is essentially the same and we really are all mostly on the same page. http://www.evolutionnews.org

I think it’s pretty clear we have different goals.

37

Agreed. I think it is clear too.

But I think it is also clear that there are SOME Intelligent Design people who have no quibble with millions of years of Evolution …

… and they are ready to be harvested for “good” not “evil” - - if only we learn how … :wink:

39

Overstate?!, Moi ??? I NEVER EVER overstate … well, except during months that have an “R” in its name …

As Eddie says, mutual agreement will certainly not end up including everyone.

If we were to make a “fish-bone” analysis of evolutionary positions, we can see that Intelligent Design is shared amongst two different sub-groups:

A) We have Young Earth Creationists who have embraced Intelligent Design to oppose the Atheists.

B) And we have Christian Evolutionists who inevitably accept that God created Humanity.

So for Christian Evolutionists to ASSERT that Intelligent Design must be wrong is rather odd, and more than a bit contrarian in nature. What Christian Evolutionists are really opposing is Young Earth Creationism … not the fact that God designed humanity.

The utter contrariness of this opposition to “God Designed Humanity” energizes the internal dialectic that triggers opposition against BioLogos goals. If we meet and confirm an ID proponent who clearly and without equivocation endorses Evolution and Common Ancestry … we should honor the moment with a unifying description - -

If we believe God was behind Evolution - - he designed us. We cannot argue against ourselves without undercutting our efforts…

40

This topic was automatically closed 6 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.