The title of this post doesn't match what the article is reporting; the poll is about the timing and method of human creation, not planetary creation.
> Which of the following statements comes closest to your views on the origin and development of human beings:
> 1) Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process;
> 2) Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process;
> 3) God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so.
I would consider myself a "creationist", in that I believe than human beings were created by God, for a purpose, and with intent. I also believe that the mechanism through which human beings came about is entirely understandable and is well-described through our current understanding of evolution via natural selection. My beliefs are not at all at odds with scientific understanding because they focus on "why" - not "how".
The people I believe you're referencing are usually called "Young Earth Creationists". They, as a group, reject the vast majority of mainstream understanding of biology, geology, and astrophysics.
That's who I and GP were referring to.
- a god that creates humans
- and evolution?
Specifically, what is his role and actions to go from a cell billions years ago to the human we know since 100k years?
Has he programmed evolution so that it takes a specific path (so it is not evolution because it takes randomness), or created humans but let the rest of nature evolve (but that would probably fit the young earth creationism you mentioned)? Or something else?
It is an admittedly untestable assertion, which is why I don’t ask anyone else to believe it :).
How is this definition of "creationist" any different than that of "Christian"?
Why overload the word "creationist" with a meaning that is equivalent to "Christian"?
> The people I believe you're referencing are usually called "Young Earth Creationists".
Century Dictionary (1897) defines creationism in this sense as "The doctrine that matter and all things were created, substantially as they now exist, by the fiat of an omnipotent Creator, and not gradually evolved or developed." [...] Creationist (n.) in an "anti-Darwin" sense is attested by 1859 in a letter of Darwin's, and it is said to be used in Darwin's unpublished writings as far back as 1842.
https://www.etymonline.com/word/creationism
It seems "Old Earth Creationism" either predates Darwin, or it's a more recent attempt to namesquat.
The original title is:
«40% of Americans Believe in Creationism»
Can any moderator fix it ASAP.
For that matter, none of the things we discuss are part of a universal preparatory course.
> the 'editorialization' might be clarifying
And yet potentially states a falsehood in more ways, on literal facts and possibly indirect. Pretty trivial, and a reason why the guidelines are very clear:
Otherwise please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait; don't editorialize.