Yeah, Ashtar, grimpixie, the labels “intelligent design” and “scientific creationist” have already acquired specific meanings in the debate.
BTW: “Scientific creationism” in particular has grown specially discredited as a label, as it has been most commonly used by those who claim to make use of “scientific evidence” to “prove” straight-out creationism, the sort where everything is created “by kinds” and Man does NOT evolve from common primate ancestors. (Though it’s more often about “proving wrong” one or another Darwinian school of thought by pointing to apparent lacunae and saying “AHA! You can’t prove THAT, so all of evolution is impugned!”) These were the guys attempting to change the school textbooks in the 1980s to “Evolution is only a theory”. Thus Mangetout’s alternate, “Theistic Evolution”, would be the opposite, the one where Evolution DOES happen through Natural Selection as predicted by the theories, but God is somewhere in the background, setting the initial conditions and the rules by which the game will play out (and maybe, depending on your religion, looking over our shoulders to see if WE futz it up and some smiting is required ).
Deist - God sets up the game and the rules, flicks the “on” switch, and walks away. (A deist generally believes that God does not intervene on any level, while a theist generally believes that God does intervene in at least the spiritual.)
This leads to:
Theistic Evolutionist - God is the Creator, but we do not have a direct view of his continued role. The world is clearly moving forward under a set of consistent laws that govern it and God is not necessary to keep the laws working or the development progressing. I would disagree with Mangetout to the extent that I do not believe that a theistic evolutionist must perceive God nudging things along. He may or may not touch the physical world. While God clearly impinges upon the spiritual, He may choose to directly intervene in the physical or he may choose complete non-interference. There are various beliefs regarding this latter point, but the phrase “theistic evolutionist” would cover either position.
Simple labels for complex ideas rarely work well. Many labels (as others above have described) are already used with certain meanings. If one of these fits you well, use it. Otherwise, don’t feel constrained to describe yourself with a simple label.
BTW, I prefer to call myself a very generic “scientist and non-dogmatic creationist”.
Old Earth Creationist is the term I use to decribe this type of belief, with God creating the Universe billions of years ago, and only occasionally messing with the development there-in. This is opposed to the young Earth Creationist are those people who believe God created everything ~6000 years ago.
Except that Old Earth Creationist already has a meaning that may or may not match the views of Muldoon III. An OEC (as used by OEC and YEC combatants) means someone who believes in the Genesis account(s) or creation, but believes that each “day” may be of a flexible duration to account for the geological record and astronomical observations. An OEC still does not admit that evolution (or macroevolution if they are of the macro/micro distinction variety) is a factor in the world we observe.
I’ve never heard this description of an Old Earth Creationist. It basically implies that everyone who believes in the Bible as a religious text must believe in the doctrine literally. Direct literal interpretations of the Bible are inherently difficult and many times flawed. Someone who is Christian need not directly believe the Bible word for word. Many Christian faiths have long traditions that have become religions “laws” to follow, but are not directly written in the Bible.
The belief that the Bible was devinely inspired by God, does not mean that the words were directly written by God. In this inspiration belief there is an intermediate between God and the text, humans. We are imperfect, so it is very reasonable to believe that our beliefs and pre-misconceptions of things clouded the inspiration. At the time the various books were written, the “science” of the day used God (or gods) to explain many things in the world.
Today we’ve expanded our scientific knowledge considerably, does that mean that we must be constrained to the science of the past in order to believe in a religion started in that past?
Enough ranting, and back to the real topic. A philosophical term for the belief that God started the universe is labelling Him a Prime Mover. In general this philosophy precludes God’s involvement in the universe, but in so doing, it places limits on an omnipotent being which inherently has none.
No. We are not going to turn this into a debate about whether the belief is wrong or hypocritical. We are only looking for a word or phrase that describes the belief. If you want to debate the wrongness or hypocrisy of the belief, we have another forum for that.
No, it does not. The reverse is true: Everyone who believes in the Bible, literally, must be either a YEC or an OEC. I believe in the Bible; I am not a literalist. I do not believe that the two stories of Creation that appear in Genesis are literal descriptions of the events of creation, but are explanations of the authorship and inherent order and goodness of that creation.
Thanks Tom for the links! As I mentioned at the beginning of my last post, I’ve never heard a description of an Old Earth Creationist. From your post I got the impression that an OEC believed in the Bible as a Literalist but blurred the time line in the meaning (eg the length of a day.)
I still have a problem is your next statement:
"Everyone who believes in the Bible, literally, must be either a YEC or an OEC. "
The problem I see is searching for science in the Bible when it is a religious text/moral guide, not a scientific one. My religious beliefs may be based in the church, but my scientific are separate. Does this match Muldoon’s stance? or is he an OEC and this yet another category? It is very difficult to fit everyone’s beliefs into certain categories, and many times I think it is a mistake to do so.
However, I did not use the word literally figuratively. I suppose I should have written that sentence "Everyone who believes in the Bible as a literal presentation of events, must be either a YEC or an OEC. " I meant that any person who is a biblical literalist must choose OEC or YEC. I, who do believe that the bible is true, but not that the bible is literal, have no problem with evolution or cosmology or any other aspect of science. I do not believe the bible is addressing those phenomena.
Really, I had no intent to debate. I suggested these, and the other, terms simply as an answer to the question. Clearly, of course, use of these terms would indicate a bias on the part of the user.
I don’t completely agree with Genesis though. God is supposed to be the Almighty, why does it take him several days to create the world? I have just come to think of the story of creation as a mythological explanation of how the writer of Genesis thought the world was born. He didn’t think about the rest of the cosmos b/c no one knew anything of the existense of the rest of the universe 2000 years ago.
Nor have I suggested that you are an OEC. My earlier suggestions were in support of Theistic Evolution and Deism. My comments on OEC have all been limited to noting its current usage in evolutionary discussions.
As Tom~ mentions, the word “creationism” in this field of debate has acquired a specific meaning, that includes Genesis as more than an allegory, the existence of the Earth as we know it and the rise of life as the result of direct acts of God and that living beings were directly created “according to their kind” in their respective days/ages so that, ultimately, humans did not share a common ancestry with apes.
Another term for all of ya: “Teleology” – in evolutionary studies (the term really is from metaphysics: the study of final causes) the school of thought that evolution has a necessary specific end towards which it has moved/is moving/must move.
I went to college and dated a girl with your exact views. She believed in a higher power and that we have evolved and that the big bang was logical and such. She called herself a “Divine Creationist.” So your not alone, there are others like you…if you want, I can hook you two up. If she hasn’t changed in the last 5 years, she should still be single. Heh.
-M
I venture to say that you’re a “compromisist” rather than a “realist” which would suggest factuality. I also believe that evolution has been proven way beyond a shadow of a doubt, and wonder why old-school religious types can’t fathom that God created evolution. As far as I know, evolution has been proven to exist, and the creation of the universe is nowhere near being decyphered. That said, I’ll gladly let blind faith guide my opinions on that which has absolutely no factual data available currently, and let science justify the information that helps me understand the world as I know it.
).