What is a Creationist
David Heddle from He Lives has continually asked posters at the Panda's Thumb what they define a creationist as. He finally got one response and he discusses it here. The definition given was
Here’s my understanding of “creationist”: someone who rejects the conclusive evidence of common descent, and/or someone who believes that supernatural intervention is necessary to explain the current state of the natural world, particularly that part of the natural world we call biology. Now, I’m sure you can construe that to include “theistic evolutionists” - indeed, I know some who proudly lay claim to the label “creationist”. But as long as they recognize that their understanding of divine intervention can never fall under the purview of science, they’re not “creationists” in my understanding of the word.David makes some good points about the definition, including the following.
While I applaud the attempt, this is a bizarre definition indeed. Whether one is a creationist should not be tied to the notion of common descent—otherwise it would have been impossible to label anyone a creationist or a non-creationist prior to the advent of the theory of common descent.One thing that I think he should have discussed more however was this one part of the definition
someone who believes that supernatural intervention is necessary to explain the current state of the natural worldI have a real problem with this. My problem probably relates a little to what Joe Carter was talking about yesterday. The whole idea that the natural world is some default explanation. The whole crux of this part of the definition is that if we can explain that it could have happened naturally, then God didn't do it. It just doesn't follow logically.
Also, the whole bit about 'conclusive evidence' in the definition is a laugh. If it was conclusive, then people wouldn't be able to disagree with it would they....
I'll probably post more later on this topic, although I am not sure how much later that will be.