Comments on: The Common Thread in Modern Creationism

By: Threads from Henry’s Web » Blog Archive » Defining my Position on ID and Creation

Tue, 25 Sep 2007 11:01:39 +0000

[...] at particular points. This is the ID position, and is the one I was addressing in my post The Common Thread in Modern Creationism [...]

By: Henry Neufeld

Henry Neufeld — Tue, 25 Sep 2007 02:25:39 +0000

I think my first post of tomorrow should be helpful. I tried to write briefly–something I almost always fail at–and simply define my position without trying to defend it. Then I can go on to write more on various points.

And write more and more, and many of my friends would say!

By: Henry Neufeld

Henry Neufeld — Tue, 25 Sep 2007 02:24:42 +0000

I decided to write a full post on this one, which will appears tomorrow morning. I tried to keep it short and just define, but not defend, my position.

By: Larry B

Larry B — Tue, 25 Sep 2007 02:12:25 +0000

These are interesting posts Henry. I certainly don’t know where in particular I would stand on these isses. I think you have a good grasp on the differing theories here, and I was wondering if at some time you could elaborate a bit on whether evolutionary theory can (or is expected to be able to) explain how it is that human’s ability to design has allowed us to thrive in the evolutionary sense? I suspect this drives much of the passion for an ID viewpoint, because we are literally draped in the results of our own design activities.

I don’t wish to confuse this by insisting that evolution be able to explain this away, but I am curious how evolution accounts for our own remarkable design capability.

By: Nima

Nima — Mon, 24 Sep 2007 22:20:22 +0000

Ah, I see. Then how does “God created the universe” differ from intelligent design?

By: Henry Neufeld

Henry Neufeld — Mon, 24 Sep 2007 21:35:11 +0000

Actually, in common usage the word “creationist” has quite a variety of meanings. “As explained in Genesis” is something that is not agreed by everyone. Old earth creationists, young earth creationists, all ruin and restoration creationists all believe they accept creation “as explained in Genesis.”

Then there are “evolutionary creationists,” though that is not a term I would use. I would suggest that you define “as explained in Genesis.”

I would prefer the simple meaning for creationist, as one who believes that God created the universe, without reference to how. Anything more specific requires one of the adjectives.

By: Nima

Nima — Mon, 24 Sep 2007 21:14:01 +0000

I think you should define what you think “creationist” means to you. The popular use of the term is to denote someone who believes God created the Earth as explained in Genesis. That is, by nature, antithetical to current evolutionary theory.

So without clarification as to what way you’re using the term “creationist” I’m totally baffled.

By: The party continues « Further thoughts

The party continues « Further thoughts — Mon, 24 Sep 2007 20:45:40 +0000

[...] The Common Thread in Modern Creationism -� by Henry Neufeld of “Threads from Henry’s Web”.� As usual, Henry’s comments are thoughtful and insightful. And here is my major point. The common thread through the three varieties of creationism [old-earth creationism, young-earth creationism and intelligent design creationism] is that they are all looking for the break in the natural processes of variation and natural selection such that God must intervene in the natural processes in some way. Whether that intervention is at the biochemical level or whether it deals specifically with speciation events, there needs to be a gap showing where God is �necessary� to the universe. [...]