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.
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'.
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.
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.
Caroline Berry, Secretary, Christians in Science
(Speaking for herself, not necessarily the organization)
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.