Quote:
Originally Posted by parallaxicality
Most of the people who accept that the universe was constructed according to some form of divine plan or law still accept the evidence presented by the world as valid. These people I do not consider creationists. Nor, I imagine, would they call themselves that.
|
Yes, many, if not most, do take that amorphous creationists term that way, but don't bother to qualify this view.
There are many interesting aspects of how the "creationist" term affects people.
Do Creationists, as per your definition, enjoy the use of a term that is attractive to all those who believe in a Creator? I would think so. Suppose the term astronomist existed. Would it not seem synonymous with astronomer, as in comparision of the term "creationer" to "creationist", though "creationer" is too akward sounding, obviously? Can those engaged in astronomy not be astronomists, and would those who engage in a belief in a Creator not be creationists (or creationers)? Perhaps, but if that were true, astronomists would likely have a clear definition to prevent the confusion. [Indeed, many separate terms exist, though I won't mention heliochromologists, of course.  ]
Nevertheless, a simple view of the term creationist suggests one who holds to the belief of a Creator. Thus, YEC Creationists (Yecists?), likely enjoy this attractive benefit when they call themselves, or are called by others, Creationists. [IIRC, the term creationism was coined by someone at ICR.]
Those who oppose believe in a Creator, also enjoy the collateral damage they do to all believers when they attack Yecists by using the broad term of "creationists", unless, of course, they qualify their target. Since no specific term, like Yecists, exists, it is hard to be critical of their use of that term.
The two groups that are the most vocal publicly are the two above, which perpetuates the problem. The vast majority of believers are not creationists (Yecists), yet suffer from both sides.
Obviously, I would suggest improved terminology to "eschew obfuscation".
Quote:
|
Among those who believe in a divine plan however, there exists a substantial minority who will accept no authority whatsoever, even that of their own eyes, over that of their holy texts. Among Christians this takes the form of Biblical literalists who, against all the physical evidence of astronomy, geology, cosmology, biology and even chemistry and physics, adhere to a literal interpretation of the first eleven chapters of the Book of Genesis as the first and final word on the universe's origins. These people would probably call themselves creationists, though personally I would not. For me, creationism is a political as well as a religious ideology. In order to be a creationist, one must not only insist that a literal reading of a religious text is the only valid method for discerning reality, but also must insist that to allow any other interpretation to circulate in public is against one's deity's law, and thus to do everything in one's power to undermine and discredit alternate modes of thought, and science in particular. That, to me, is a creationist.
|
I would consider them active creationists, instead. To obstinately deny the results from a beautiful confluence of scientific knowledge in favor of a particular literal interpretation is no different in ideology than someone who becomes more active with it politically. Those creationists (Yecists) who are not active, perhaps, are "closet Creationists", but they would still be creationists and will likely support those creationists in political endeavors.
__________________
Lighten up! This is a stellar board!
|