I would like to clarify a few things regarding exactly what creationists believe today.
Back in the day, many creationists
accurately recognized Darwin’s theory as an attack on the Bible’s authenticity.
However, many failed to recognize the reality of change among species. Because
of their reactionary nature, many well-meaning creationists held to a view
called “the fixity of species.” It was the idea that a given species, as a
reproductively isolated organism, remained that same species since creation.
Times have changed, however. It is evident that species (by a modern
definition) do change. We aren’t really “creationists” anymore. We are
"new" creationists.
Now, the original version of this post said we were "neocreationsts" which essential means "new creationists" but I have learned that this term often refers to creationists that do not hold to the Bible as their foundational starting point. Therefore, I don't really qualify as a "neocreationist," because I certainly start with the Bible. I don't know how "neocreationists" get on without it. Anyways, I digress.
Now, the original version of this post said we were "neocreationsts" which essential means "new creationists" but I have learned that this term often refers to creationists that do not hold to the Bible as their foundational starting point. Therefore, I don't really qualify as a "neocreationist," because I certainly start with the Bible. I don't know how "neocreationists" get on without it. Anyways, I digress.
In effect, Darwin was right—about
some things. He was right about the adaptability of animals (natural selection)
and he was right about diversification to a certain extent. There are only two
fundamental parts of Darwin’s theory that I, as a modern creationist
("new" creationist), do not believe. First, not all organisms descended from a
single common ancestor. There were many initial ancestors when life began.
Second, it didn’t take millions of years for the various species to evolve,
just thousands. To me, it doesn’t seem like this is really the dramatic denial
of science that creationist critics claim it is. After all, when the
opportunity presents itself, new species adapt far more quickly than might be
expected (Catchpoole et Wieland,
2001). Time is not a problem for the modern creationist.
 |
| Creationists might not agree with the idea of Archaeopteryx as a missing link between Velociraptor and birds, but could it be the most bird-like member of a diverse group of dinosaurs that includes Velociraptor? Possibly. |
Reference:
Catchpoole, David et Carl Wieland. 2001. “Speedy Species
Surprise.” Creation, 23(2), 13-15. http://creation.com/speedy-species-surprise
Hi Caleb, really, ones belief of how animals and everything else came into being is a matter of faith and not of evidence. I have met many believers in evolution who would refuse to honestly evaluate the facts and would become angry as I brought up fact after fact that brought Darwin's evolution into question. They simply did not want to hear it. Others do listen and consider and I commend them for it.
ReplyDeleteOne thing to keep in mind is that modern sciences definition of a species can be very different from a created "kind" ( baromin). Animals kinds can change ( evolve?), but still has to remain inside its kind; "a dog is still a dog no matter how weird we breed it to look".
Actually I've never heard the term 'neocreationist' before. I will have to look that one up!
Also, EXCELLENT drawing Caleb!
Dad.
I agree. Evolution, is completely appropriate for creationists within a kind. Which, by the way, is a "baramin" not "baromin." Actually, the full word for a single, defined "created kind" is a holobaramin.
DeleteUnfortunately, I hadn't looked up the former uses of the word "neocreationist" myself. Now that I have, this post as been edited appropriately.
Caleb Bomske