Comments on "Creation, not Creationism"

Good article on the proper distinctions between Creation and EvolutionISM. I introduced this idea at a message I gave in April of this year, on the topic of "Evolutionism" and introduced this distinction to the audience. I emphasized that the word "Creation" is a concrete noun and a word with the "-ism" suffix becomes a diminutive form representing an ideology or philosophy. Therefore since Creation is a fact and not a "ideology" per se; the correct attachment of "-ism" is to the word evolution, i.e. evolutionism, since it truly is a ideology or philosophy.

I came to realize this, after getting and reading T. Berra's book, Evolution and the Myth of Creationism. Where this title shows that the evolutionist' see this distinction themselves.

I think you are promoting an important point; keep up the good work.

October 18, 2001

Greetings. Excellent article regarding titles on your website.

Ever since coming on board ICR over 5 years ago I have been using the above phrase ("Creation science vs evolutionism"). Furthermore, when I give the rare seminar presentation, I urge the audience to get in the habit of using these descriptive terms. If we believe creation to be more scientifically valid that evolutionism, then let's say so as we present the two worldviews: 'evolutionism and creation science'.

Three years ago I had a debate with 2 evolutionists at an Iowa radio station. One was a PhD with the Iowa Academy of Sciences (he even knew my late graduate school advisor, Gerald D. Schmidt of Colorado). The other was a mean-spirited and vitriolic high school biology teacher. When it came time for me to speak I used the above phrases repeatedly as I presented the scientific case for creation. When it was the teacher's turn to speak he was livid and snarled that it most certainly wasn't "evolutionism."

Two quick examples: years ago D.E. Rosen & R.T. Schuh (both of the American Museum of N.History) writing in Systematic Zoology, used "evolutionism" a number of times in their article. So does Peter J. Bowler (Reader in the history of science at Queen's University) in his classic book on Darwinism, 'Evolution: The History of an Idea'.

Take care - and keep in touch with us!

Frank Sherwin, ICR

I Quite agree although I would not want to be obsessive about semantics yet symbols and image are the big battlefield. Thank you for your recommendation I think we would do well to follow it in the future.

W. D. Wilder

11/9/2001

Ross and Linda,

Thank you for sharing this article! You make an excellent point.

It is really something how three little letters on the end of a word can communicate so much. I will be very conscious of my words AND my thoughts from this moment on!

May God continue to bless your ministry as you strive to set forth the truth.

Fred Koestner

Thank you, many members of Christians in Science, being working scientists, would accept evolution as a theory, as the evidence seems to indicate that this was how God created the biological world, but do not accept evolutionism as a world view. (Evolutionism being a world view that believes that all can be explained by this theory.) In the same way science is a subject to be studied but scientism is a world view which claims that the scientific explanation is all there is to life. It is possible to study science without accepting scientism, to study evolution without accepting evolutionism and to rejoice in God's creation without being a creationist.

10/18/2002

Dear Ms. Linda Gunderson;

Hello. I am a TCCSA member. I have enjoyed your articles on the website, and I would like to offer some ideas to your article "Creation - Not Creationism" on misuse of the term "creationism". Agreeing wholehardedly with your points, I was already taking notice of the subtle nuance.

We often use the term evolutionary, but have neglected it's counterpart term, "creationary."

I came across this site, http://www.geocities.com/hftamke/, which promotes adoption of the word "creationary." Although the term seems a bit unusual at first, I have used it in many conversations (and have noticed others using it as well). I feel it is more accurate form in many cases, both gramatically, and also to correctly emphasize the alternate paradigm in science.

As you will find in the link above, this usage can replace many awkward sayings such as creationist science, etc. The author notes, "The English adjective creationary is a natural derivative of the noun creation."

By the way, I have no problem per se with the terms "Creation Science" or "creation-science", but it has sometimes been used to compartmentalize our movement (particularly by compromizing "creationists"). Where as, I feel the term "creationary science(s)" reflects a way of understanding (worldview) within all of the sciences... defining a worldview framework of interpretation, rather than an mere subset. (I still use all terms interchangeably, and don't seek a "PC" terminology... just distinction where appropriate.)

Feel free to pass this link on to anyone who would be interested. If this terminology doesn't catch on, at least it is informative. If you have any thoughts on this, please let me know.

Thanks!

In Christ,

Don Olson

edonedon{at}msn.com

For the article on which these comments are based, click HERE.