If they were “inclined to want to accept the preponderance of evidence for Evolution”, they wouldn’t be creationists.
2 Likes
Yes, technically that is a correct statement.
But we here at PeacefulScience.org recognize that there are many Creationists who are uncomfortable with their stance … and that the only reason they reject the evidence for Evolution is their unwillingness to re-interpret Romans 5.
So, when a phrase like “those Creationists inclined to want to accept… evidence…” is used, it is used to refer to the Creationists who struggle with their position.
This is an interesting comment. There are Christian scientists who accept evolution and that God created all things… they call themselves “Evolutionary creationists”.
Do you think these people cannot be called “creationists”…
Do you think, evolution somehow disproves God is the creator?
It’s not a correct statement. There a reason huge no: of people who believe in evolution as well as God being the creator… pretty much every guy who claims to be EC.
You also believe this. So you are creationist who believes that God created through evolution.
You are responding to my original sentence… and your post seems to have some typos… I don’t really understand the point you are making.
When I agree with the semantics that @Faizal_Ali raises… it doesn’t change my position on anything.
So… re-state your correction … and we can move along accordingly. Thanks!
1 Like
Just tell the guy you are a creationist too… he seems to be working under the misunderstanding that people who support Evolution cannot be creationists.
I am not a creationist. I am an Evolutionist.
You will have to choose someone else to pick for your experimental use of terminology…
1 Like
You don’t believe God created life?
Why do ECs call themselves Evolutionary creationists in your opinion.
You wanted me to use the term “Creationist”. To me, that is clearly an attempt to confuse the discussion.
If you had suggested I call myself an Evolutionary Creationist, I would have paused to consider that… as I am doing now.
Would you accept the term “Evolutionary Creationist” ? Or are you fixed on the idea that the term “Creationist” (by itself) should be used?
1 Like
Is that a big difference. Evolutionary creationist is still a kind of creationist.
A “Creationist” … with no qualifying terminology … is JUST a Creationist.
An “Evolutionary Creationist” is at least TWICE as clear as just a Creationist.
Sure… but still a creationist…
It’s nothing to be ashamed about.
I don’t think that dog will hunt. << Ash, This is an Americanism!
Let’s look at the Wiki article on Theistic Evolution:
" Theistic evolution , theistic evolutionism , evolutionary creationism or God-guided evolution are views that regard religious teachings about God as compatible with modern scientific understanding about biological evolution. Theistic evolution is not in itself a scientific theory, but a range of views about how the science of general evolution relates to religious beliefs in contrast to special creation views."
The point of term “Evolutionary Creationism” (or these other synonymous terms) is to assert a form of Creationism that is compatible with Evolution.
A “Creationist”… without any qualifier … is obviously someone who REJECTS Evolution. There’s no other way around it.
Creationists (sic!) are the ones who named themselves.
Now, if we could do it all over again, how would you name a Creationist any other way … to mean:
“a Creationist who Rejects any notion of Evolution in God’s Creation”?
Words are ‘NOT’ [correcting typo of missing NOT] infinitely elastic… traditional patterns of word usage almost always have a good reason for their existence.
“Intelligent Design”, for example, cannot be equated with “God-Guided Evolution” … not because of English Semantics… but because of American POLITICS!
1 Like
So why allow “creationists” that kind of exclusive claim. The purpose of coining terms like EC is to say that all creationists don’t necessarily reject Evolution.
So why not push on that direction with athiests when they use creationist as a derogatory term?
It’s just a suggestion you can think on.
1 Like
Because “Creationists” started using it before I started using it!
To make your suggestion credible, all you have to do is coin the phrase for how you would refer to Creationists-who-Reject-Evolution.
Do you have one? If you don’t… there’s nothing for me to do about it.
Make one up … and if I like it, I will work on selling your phrase!
[NOTE: I cannot call myself a Creationist if Creationists insist that term means “to reject Evolution”. The only way to proceed is to offer a replacement term for the “default” meaning of the word!]
2 Likes
That is not the usual use of the term.
1 Like
Nothing I have written here indicates that I do. The concept of “God” has been refined over the centuries by clever thinkers so as to make it impervious to logic and evidence, at the cost of also making it meaningless.
2 Likes
They usually call themselves Theistic Evolutionists.
That’s your opinion. You are entitled to it.
I don’t find athiesm logical at all…
It’s just chance building the world. It’s essentially embracing meaninglessness.
At biologos, they call themselves Evolutionary creationists.
Hasn’t caught on, though.
But, hey, if you enjoy going thru life calling yourself a “creationist” and having people assume you’re a fan of Ken Ham, not my problem.
1 Like