What's an open creationist?

[Kelp]

It's a new option for the profiles. I'm just wondering what it entails.

[rogue06]

It's a new option for the profiles. I'm just wondering what it entails.

Perhaps in response to this thread (see post #3)?

[TolkienFan]

It's a rather simple position. Originally founded as Apathetic Creationism, the idea behind the position is that those who hold the view don't really concern themselves much with protology. The Open Creationist holds that it was indeed God who created all things, but they express openness (or in my case, apathy) towards exactly how long it took or how it was done. The OC holds to the idea that Christian Soteriology (an issue such as those at AiG connect with protology) can be properly maintained regardless of protological view. Hence, they don't really concern themselves much with the debate and remain open (or in my case, apathetic). As you can see, it's a very simple position with very few tenets.

[Kelp]

Oh. Well there ya go then.

[Kelp]

In as much as Theistic Evolution is not a form of Creationism (a distinction I admittedly don't understand well), would an Open Creationist also be open to not being a Creationist at all?

[TolkienFan]

Originally posted by Kelp

In as much as Theistic Evolution is not a form of Creationism (a distinction I admittedly don't understand well), would an Open Creationist also be open to not being a Creationist at all?

It's a form of creationism to the extent that TE's believe that God had some part in the evolutionary process (I think they all would agree that He at least started it). Creationism, in it's widest definition, means that it is believed that a deity created the universe. The term itself doesn't really make any statement as to how, so TE is able to be under the widest definition. I think it's just that TE's don't like that label for some reason. But to answer, yes the OC position is open to the position of Theistic Evolution (and you know how it is in my case).

[Leonhard]

I probably find myself in the catagory, since I attribute the creation of the world to God. So far I'm in the TE camp, pending investigation of ID and Irreducible Complexity, at the moment I'm undecided about their scientific validity.

[oxmixmudd]

It's a form of creationism to the extent that TE's believe that God had some part in the evolutionary process (I think they all would agree that He at least started it). Creationism, in it's widest definition, means that it is believed that a deity created the universe. The term itself doesn't really make any statement as to how, so TE is able to be under the widest definition. I think it's just that TE's don't like that label for some reason. But to answer, yes the OC position is open to the position of Theistic Evolution (and you know how it is in my case).

I would say a lot (most?) of the TE's I know consider themselves creationists in the sense you describe, we believe God created and established that which was required to create what He wished to create. Perhaps some of the distinctions lie in how much one allows for the miraculous (outside of natural law) in the process. I know TE Glenn Morton does allow for the miraculous, especially in the creation of Adam/Eve. I personally have no problems with miracles along the way, as long as one doesn't demand miracles for which there is positive evidence against, that is, conclusive evidence of a nature that for the claimed miracle to have occured, God would have had to have taken active steps to create a misleading set of evidence to obscure or hide said miracle.


Jim

[JonLanceBarker]

I would say a lot (most?) of the TE's I know consider themselves creationists in the sense you describe, we believe God created and established that which was required to create what He wished to create. Perhaps some of the distinctions lie in how much one allows for the miraculous (outside of natural law) in the process. I know TE Glenn Morton does allow for the miraculous, especially in the creation of Adam/Eve. I personally have no problems with miracles along the way, as long as one doesn't demand miracles for which there is positive evidence against, that is, conclusive evidence of a nature that for the claimed miracle to have occured, God would have had to have taken active steps to create a misleading set of evidence to obscure or hide said miracle.


Jim

I say with Theodosius Dobzhansky (fruit fly experiment pioneer), "I am a creationist and an evolutionist."

Standard TE position right there. I presume the only reason some of us shy from the "creationist" label is that it's gotten a bad rap in the public eye...it's typically synonymous, for most people, with YEC (and these days, ID).

Can't have that association, now, can we?

[JonLanceBarker]

For those of you interested in the evidence, I've got some threads for you to check out:

Rogue06's Fossil Finds News

Transitional Fossils