Angry Christians Part 3

This is a debate that began when I labelled someone "A Creationist" (after he referred to himself as a creationist).  He now decides to explore the meaning of the word "Creationist" which is an interesting topic. But it eventually descends into anger. We also learn that there are definitions of words which "transcend" the Oxford English Dictionary, plus a few other gems…

Who	Comment	Analysis
A Creationist	"Like evolution, creationism can have more than one meaning. At its most basic, creationism is the belief that the universe was created by a deity of some sort - but after that, there is quite a lot of variety among creationists as to just what they believe and why. Some believe that a god simply started the universe off and then left it alone; others believe in a deity that has been actively involved in the universe since creation. People may lump all creationists together in one group, but it is important to understand where they differ and why." creationism noun (Concise Encyclopedia) The belief that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by God out of nothing. Biblical creationists believe that the story told in Genesis of God's six-day creation of the universe and all living things is literally correct. Scientific creationists believe that a creator made all that exists, though they may not hold that the Genesis story is a literal history of that creation. Creationism became the object of renewed interest among conservative religious groups following the wide dissemination of the theory of biological evolution, first systematically propounded by Charles Darwin in On the Origin of Species (1859). In the early 20th century some U.S. states banned the teaching of evolution, leading to the Scopes Trial. In the late 20th century many creationists advocated a view known as intelligent design, which was essentially a scientifically modern version of the argument from design for the existence of God as set forth in the late 18th century by the Anglican clergyman William Paley."	Makes sense. I wonder why there was no citation.   This is where it came from This is taken from Merriem Webster. But for some reason, ignores the main part of the definition given there. This is cherry picked from the bottom of the page. But never mind.  I wonder why A Creationist didn't provide a link or a citation?
A Pantheist	that's that explanation, are their any names for the different types of creationists, other than just old/young earth? As you say it is a very broad spectrum and a few narrower bands would help. Some believe that a god simply started the universe off and then left it alone; this seems quite an important difference from other creationists, so is there another classification for this belief?
A Creationist	I don't think there are different names for all the variations in views. I used to think it was either old earth or young earth creationists and that pretty much covered it. My overall views are unknown here since I have not detailed them. So it's not accurate to simply refer to me as a creationist. One has to assume a lot of details. It's not wise to fill in the blanks for someone else. I actually don't know where my overall views fall with respect to a particular category name.	Actually, this person’s views have been discussed at length. He explained several months ago that he used to be a young earth creationist, but then became an old earth creationist. (I guess he’s forgotten he said that).  He’s also an advocate of the Discovery Institute, and especially Michael Behe. Which is ironic considering the reference to the Scopes Trial in the definition provided on line 1.
A Christian Apologist	It does seem as if attempting to apply the word "creationist" to a specific definition is an attempt to straitjacket varying beliefs on the matter in a way that doesn't really "fit." I think A Creationist did a good job of giving an overview of current perspectives. To go further than that would be to invite caricature in use of the term, and we all know that leads to a straw man.	This appears to be a criticism of me, but I have no idea what any of this means!
JimC	A Creationist described himself as a creationist. Your criticism baffles me.
A Creationist	Wrong, wrong, wrong. Not according to the definition you gave.  I was making a distinction between old earth and young. As a Christian who sees the universe as billions of years old, and yet still believes that and Intelligent Agency (whom I call God) created it all, I recognize that there are many more differences between me and those that hold to a young earth - literal 6 days interpretation of Genesis. What I fully believe cannot be described simply by calling me a creationist.  And after reading your blog, it's easy to see that you mean it in a pejorative sense. As it is, Jim deliberately misleads his readers starting with the blog heading and it goes downhill from there. It's evident from Jim's posts here (not all of them but generally it's true) and his blog that Jim must resort to caricatures to score points with his readers (all three of them). <Laughing>	There is nothing in my blog that uses the term “Creationist” pejoratively and I’ve never resorted to “caricatures”.   Obviously A Creationist has no evidence or examples to support his claim, so it can be ignored.  I’m sure he’s forgotten that he refers to himself as a Creationist. I’d better remind him…
JimC	These are your exact words from 3rd March 2013… "I'm a creationist that believes in the big bang. I used to believe in a young earth but no longer am convinced of that position. However I am open to being proven wrong by young earth creationists."
A Creationist	Thanks for proving my point. Apart from that small amount, you have no idea as to my view.	The point was that he referred to himself as a creationist. So my point has been proved. Not sure what his point is, to be honest.
JimC	I thought you were objecting to me to referring to you as a creationist. It seemed logical to me, seeing as you referred to yourself as a creationist.  As for your view on creation, I think you've explained it very clearly in various conversations here.
A Creationist	Very well then. Please articulate for us my views and add your understanding of my views on Genesis 1 and 2
jimC	With regard to your current Creationist views, and if I had to categorise the specific label of Creationist you gave yourself, I'd say you were an intelligent design creationist. You generally accept common descent but you believe there are aspects of life that evolutionary theory will never explain. From a Genesis context, you assume that God created some form of life de novo from which all life is descended, and a template, hence Adam and Eve are allegorical not literal.   Was that close?
A Creationist	Only close in parts. So how are your readers of your blog supposed to see those specifics based on your choice of a single word? Using the word creationist does not clarify someone's views. It's unnecessary to use a word that has a wide variety of views. It seems dishonest. If we were talking about our views on free will would you then blog about the "creationist's" views on free will? I know atheists whose views on free will are close to mine.	It’s true that I label this person “A Creationist” in my blog, but that’s not to clarify his views. It’s just a label. I don’t want to publish his identity in my blog – I don’t think that’s fair. The label of “A Creationist” is just a label to differentiate him from the apologist, the pantheist and so on. And – it’s a label he applied to himself.
A Christian Apologist	Jim is quite adept at "paraphrasing" our views--although accuracy seems to be a casualty of such. Smiling	Another pointless contribution from the Apologist. I was asked to articulate the views of the Creationist. I did as I was asked, and then I get criticised for doing so. LOL
JimC	I use the term "creationist" in my blog as a label to differentiate you from other people. It's a label you've used. Your words describe your views, not your label.
A Creationist	I don't believe a word you are saying about this. I believe the reason you use dishonesty in your arguments is because without dishonesty, your arguments are weakened. So you create caricatures and then you argue from there. Your excuses for using a word that doesn't add to the point of your posts demonstrates this fact.	The anger kicks in. Ad hominem, completely ignoring everything I’ve said. The debate is effectively over.
JimC	You're entitled to your opinion, but I'm not sure what facts you're providing.  As I said, I'm using the word "Creationist" as a label on the blog, because you used it to label yourself. Where is the caricature that you refer to?
A Creationist	and you're entitled to your opinion. Please name a Christian who is NOT also a creationist.	Aha! The debate takes a new turn! It's not over after all!
JimC	Well I have friends who are Christian but not creationist, but I'm guessing you mean someone in the public eye.  How about Kenneth Miller?	A Creationist must have heard of Kenneth Miller, considering A Creationist has referred to the Scopes Trial in his definition of Cfreationism and has advocated Michael Behe several times in the past.
A Christian Apologist	What definition of Creationist are you using?	I sense another pointless diversion from the Apologist coming up…
JimC	The dictionary definition. Which one are you using?
A Christian Apologist	The definition that transcends such, as offered by Papa Zoom. Again: caution to all who would appeal to language definitions in fixed references as if they were cast in stone forever--they are obviously not!	I was right.  A transcendent definition! LOL
JimC	You're using a definition of a word that transcends the dictionary. Love it.
A Christian Apologist	Of course you do because you appeal to a definition that has already been refuted through reference to a living language! Thanks for your appeal to an ossified reference and your inability/unwillingness to transcend such! Many dictionary definitions are obsolete as you well know because language is a living thing, to which new contexts regarding specific words are adopted all the time	The Oxford English Dictionary has been refuted?  Many definitions are obsolete? This person’s interventions in the debate are pointless, and hilarious. But I should take it seriously, so I need to explain what a dictionary is…
JimC	I know you don't seem to like the dictionary definition but it hasn't been "refuted". A dictionary provides the meaning that is in current use, and will also provide obsolete meanings as well if there are any. Most dictionaries, and the OED in particular, are revised every year, precisely because English (like most languages) is a "living language"
A Creationist	Please name a Christian who is NOT also a creationist. Just one or two or as many as you can name.	Ah – back to this again. I will try Kenneth Miller. Again.
JimC	How about biologist Kenneth R Miller?
A Creationist	What about him?	Seriously?!
JimC	Does he qualify as a Christian who is not a creationist?
A Creationist	If he does, then according to your definition so do I. He believes God did the creating of everything. He's a theistic evolutionist. So he believes that God created the universe and used evolution as the mechanism for species etc.  You seem to suggest one category definition for creationists but then lump a bunch together based on the fact that they believe that God created the universe. But apparently according to you some are exempt from your label even though they also believe that God created the universe.	Yes he is a theistic evolutionist, but A Creationist is not. A creationist is an advocate of intelligent design, which is a different thing.  The phrase “God Used Evolution” says it all…
JimC	What do you mean by "God used evolution"? Did Kenneth Miller say that?  As I've said before - Creationism is the belief that the universe and living organisms originate from specific acts of divine creation, as in the biblical account, rather than by natural processes such as evolution. http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/american_english/creationism As far as I know - Kenneth Miller does not believe living organisms originate from specific acts of divine creation.
A Creationist	"as in the biblical account" people differ greatly as to what this means exactly Kenneth Miller isn't the only theistic evolutionist. So he's not alone. But he still believes that God is the creator.	Yeah – but he’s not a creationist.
A Creationist	Like many other scientists who hold the Catholic faith, I see the Creator's plan and purpose fulfilled in our universe. I see a planet bursting with evolutionary possibilities, a continuing creation in which the Divine providence is manifest in every living thing. I see a science that tells us there is indeed a design to life. Kenneth R. Miller	An apparent quote from Kenneth Miller. But, it’s only a partial quote.  There’s something missing. Let's assume the last few words of Miller's quote were truncated accidentally.  I’d better put that right…
JimC	“I see a science that tells us there is indeed a design to life, and the name of that design is evolution.” Kenneth R. Miller http://ndsmcobserver.com/2014/03/notre-dame-award-2014-laetare-medal-biologist-kenneth-r-miller/
A Creationist	I don't object being known as a creationist but it's not an accurate description of anyone who believe God created everything. Even Kenneth R. Miller ultimately must believe that.	Good. That makes sense. I mean, A Creationist did object to being known as a creationist, but now he doesn't, so that's a step forward.
JimC	I think we agree - Creationist is not an accurate description of anyone who believes God created everything. And I'm happy to hear you don't object to being known as a creationist.
A Creationist	Jim, I do object to being referred to as a creationist out of context simply for the purpose of misleading - which is what you do. I want truth and accuracy.	Hang on… he didn’t object a few seconds ago. And out of context? I only used it as a label – because he used it first!
JimC	I only labelled you as a creationist because you labelled yourself as a creationist. I see no evidence of the word being used in a misleading way.
A Creationist	Sure. Got some swamp land to sell too?	Ah… the sound of a lost argument!
A Creationist	If you want to be taken seriously, you'll have to drop the obfuscation. You can start by always defining your terms. Accurately. And honestly.	The sound of a lost argument, again…
JimC	I don't think I need to create definitions when they already exist in the dictionary. I don't consider the OED to be inaccurate and dishonest.