|
|
|
|
|
by Ancapistani
1437 days ago
|
|
I strongly disagree. I would consider myself a "creationist", in that I believe than human beings were created by God, for a purpose, and with intent. I also believe that the mechanism through which human beings came about is entirely understandable and is well-described through our current understanding of evolution via natural selection. My beliefs are not at all at odds with scientific understanding because they focus on "why" - not "how". The people I believe you're referencing are usually called "Young Earth Creationists". They, as a group, reject the vast majority of mainstream understanding of biology, geology, and astrophysics. |
|
How is this definition of "creationist" any different than that of "Christian"?
Why overload the word "creationist" with a meaning that is equivalent to "Christian"?
> The people I believe you're referencing are usually called "Young Earth Creationists".
Century Dictionary (1897) defines creationism in this sense as "The doctrine that matter and all things were created, substantially as they now exist, by the fiat of an omnipotent Creator, and not gradually evolved or developed." [...] Creationist (n.) in an "anti-Darwin" sense is attested by 1859 in a letter of Darwin's, and it is said to be used in Darwin's unpublished writings as far back as 1842.
https://www.etymonline.com/word/creationism
It seems "Old Earth Creationism" either predates Darwin, or it's a more recent attempt to namesquat.