Poll for Creationists

[Rational Agnostic]

I am interested in how many creationists have actually researched the evidence for evolution, and I figured this would be an easy way to find out though the sample size will be pretty small. Also, if you are a creationist who has read a book or books on evolution, I would be interested in knowing which books. If you're looking for book recommendations, I'd recommend Why Evolution is True by Jerry Coyne and The Greatest Show on Earth by Richard Dawkins. Most creationists know about Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion and are turned off by him. I will actually agree that The God Delusion is a somewhat poorly written book, however, Dawkins' other books on evolutionary biology are very, very good.

 

[Quintessence]

I wish I could be surprised to see another thread/poll that ignores the existence of theistic evolution.

OTHER: Yes, I have a strong background in life-science at the graduate level and have read multiple books and peer reviewed articles that touch upon biological evolution on some level or another. I honor and accept biological evolution in whatever the current scientific consensus is, and that the gods are the drivers of it (or more accurately, all things are gods, and the forces of biological evolution itself are gods). Theistic evolution is a thing.

 

[David1967]

Didn't vote in your poll as none of the above apply to my thoughts. But yes, I have in my library ,many books in the evolutionary vein of thought. The origin of species, Wonderful Life, Trilobites, by Riccardo Levi Setti, to name a few. I am an avid fossil hunter and have no problem believing in God and aspects of evolution.

 

[David1967]

I wish I could be surprised to see another thread/poll that ignores the existence of theistic evolution.

Very good point. There are many who subscribe to that belief.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I am interested in how many creationists have actually researched the evidence for evolution, and I figured this would be an easy way to find out though the sample size will be pretty small. Also, if you are a creationist who has read a book or books on evolution, I would be interested in knowing which books. If you're looking for book recommendations, I'd recommend Why Evolution is True by Jerry Coyne and The Greatest Show on Earth by Richard Dawkins. Most creationists know about Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion and are turned off by him. I will actually agree that The God Delusion is a somewhat poorly written book, however, Dawkins' other books on evolutionary biology are very, very good.

Not sure I qualify as a 'creationist', but since that's what I invariably get called for questing Darwinism- I'll answer as one!

I've read origin of species and Voyage of the Beagle cover to cover which is a very interesting read once it gets going! Other than that, I've read more scientific studies than 'books' which are more for entertainment value.

Dawkins is a successful pop-science author, but the 21st C science is a little over his head I think, and he as much as acknowledges that

 

[Quintessence]

Very good point. There are many who subscribe to that belief.

For better or worse, in the United States in particular, "creationism" is assumed to be synonymous with Biblical literalism and in particular YEC. I'm not sure how I feel about that sometimes, but it is what it is. If nothing else, I think it's unfortunate that the intersection between religious mythos and scientific mythos get framed in such a limited fashion. It's not that had to specify "Biblical creationism" instead of saying "creationism" or to make it clearer one is addressing not just creationists, but folks who feel their religious mythos conflicts with scientific mythos.

 

[Audie]

Didn't vote in your poll as none of the above apply to my thoughts. But yes, I have in my library ,many books in the evolutionary vein of thought. The origin of species, Wonderful Life, Trilobites, by Riccardo Levi Setti, to name a few. I am an avid fossil hunter and have no problem believing in God and aspects of evolution.

What kind of fossils have you found?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Not sure I qualify as a 'creationist'

Why don't you know if you are a creationist? You believe that the universe was created by a sentient agent rather than formed by blind, naturalistic processes, correct? That's a creationist, right?

 

[David1967]

What kind of fossils have you found?

In my area it is mostly invertebrates. We have some excellent places for Trilobites (my favorites) of many types. Lower Devonian area close by has the widest variety.

 

[Audie]

In my area it is mostly invertebrates. We have some excellent places for Trilobites (my favorites) of many types. Lower Devonian area close by has the widest variety.

I love trilobites! Never found one tho.

I have found miocene mammals, such a nice Oreodont skull.

That was when I was in U.

 

[Axe Elf]

Why don't you know if you are a creationist? You believe that the universe was created by a sentient agent rather than formed by blind, naturalistic processes, correct? That's a creationist, right?

But that doesn't appear to be how the OP defines a creationist; they seem to be excluding people who believe that evolution was created by a sentient agent. So he's probably asking more about the OPs definition of a creationist than about his own.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Why don't you know if you are a creationist? You believe that the universe was created by a sentient agent rather than formed by blind, naturalistic processes, correct? That's a creationist, right?

Sure, I'm fine with that definition for myself

But in my experience most people who identify as, or use the term 'creationist' are referring to the Genesis creation story- i.e. a fairly literal interpretation of it

I'm just a common or garden 'theist' I guess!

 

[David1967]

I love trilobites! Never found one tho.

I have found miocene mammals, such a nice Oreodont skull.

That was when I was in U.

That s neat. Here we have strata from Ordovician thru Carboniferous. So lots of invertebrates. I love digging for that stuff.

 

[Audie]

That s neat. Here we have strata from Ordovician thru Carboniferous. So lots of invertebrates. I love digging for that stuff.

No badlands or roadcuts or outcroppings here.

https://i.pinimg.com/736x/d9/d0/6b/d9d06b9a884a2d0e1aa06b1d9e0a1050.jpg

 

[David1967]

No badlands or roadcuts or outcroppings here.

https://i.pinimg.com/736x/d9/d0/6b/d9d06b9a884a2d0e1aa06b1d9e0a1050.jpg

Oh, I see. You have to travel to fossil hunt.

 

[Skwim]

I once lived fairly close to the Mississippi River where trilobites, brachiopods and sea lillies are there for the bending over. A cool Cub Scout outing.

.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

Didn't vote in your poll as none of the above apply to my thoughts. But yes, I have in my library ,many books in the evolutionary vein of thought. The origin of species, Wonderful Life, Trilobites, by Riccardo Levi Setti, to name a few. I am an avid fossil hunter and have no problem believing in God and aspects of evolution.

Why do none of the above apply to your thoughts? Seems to me that you would be interested in reading the books that I mentioned. Of course, if you are not a creationist, then the poll doesn't apply to you.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

Why don't you know if you are a creationist? You believe that the universe was created by a sentient agent rather than formed by blind, naturalistic processes, correct? That's a creationist, right?

You're conflating the definition of "theist" and "creationist" because what you described defines a "theist" IMO.
I define creationist as a person who disbelieves in evolution (yes macro-evolution for those creationists who like playing semantic games). A theist could believe in evolution and thus not be a creationist, or, theoretically (though highly unlikely) an atheist could disbelieve in evolution, and thus be a creationist.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

Dawkins is a successful pop-science author, but the 21st C science is a little over his head I think, and he as much as acknowledges that

Well, being a pop-science author is better than being a pop-psuedoscience author. As far as so-called creation "science" being too difficult for Dawkins to understand, I will say this: I'd love to see Dawkins challenge the leading pop-creationists and armchair scientists/philosopher wannabes like Ray Comfort, Ken Ham, et. al to an IQ test. But, of course, Dawkins wouldn't do that, because he's too nice, and they wouldn't take him up on the offer anyway because even they know they'd do much worse.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

But that doesn't appear to be how the OP defines a creationist; they seem to be excluding people who believe that evolution was created by a sentient agent. So he's probably asking more about the OPs definition of a creationist than about his own.

I never stated my definition, and your assumption is incorrect. I don't exclude theistic evolutionists who believe God started life, and then let it evolve naturally.