Macroevolutionists, Creationists and ID Proponents
As I promised a commenter earlier, I would quit calling the "opposition" Darwinists. So I began calling them macroevolutionists. But I have been questioned about that as well. So....
Creationist
Believes that God created the world and everything in it. Some creationists take a very literal view of the Genesis account and believe that the earth is of a very young age. There are some longer-age creation advocates as well. YEC stands for Young Earth Creationist. I am in that group. There are some creationists who believe that at some point God designed macroevolution to operate within nature. I am certainly not in that group. All creationists believe that God created the Universe and that God created life.
Intelligent Design
Many have called the ID movement a kind of a front for creationism. Some of the founders of the movement have been creationists. Yet many of them are not. In fact, there are ID'ers who believe in macroevolution to a great extent. They seem to believe in an initial design that has since evolved in various ways. Not all ID proponents are creationists. ID'ers claim that the Universe and living organisms appear to have been designed and there is evidence that makes it hard to believe otherwise.
Macroevolutionists
Macroevolution is a process by which natural selection, operating with mutation, changes organisms from one kind to another. Microevolution is the process by which organisms change within the kind. An example of macroevolution is the idea of a dinosaur evolving into a bird. The idea of microevolution is the idea of a Water Buffalo evolving into a Longhorn. Since "Darwinist" is not a term people want to have applied to them, and I have to identify the proponents of macroevolution in some way, this is the term I use. Hopefully that makes sense. Hard core macroevolutionists also postulate that life came from non-life, since no room for a creator is allowed.
The Majority
There is evidence found in the world today that seems to back up macroevolution, and evidence that is on the side of creationists/ID'ers. There are evidences that are hard for both sides to explain. I can cite religious reasons to believe in creation, but I generally rely on scientific and historical evidence in my postings here.
The majority of scientists today believe in macroevolution. The majority can be wrong, but there is no doubt what the prevailing scientific opinion is. In the United States of America, the majority of the public seem to believe in creation but many of them believe as modified old-earth creationists.
Opinion polls show that parents want both ID (to avoid the religious aspect) and macroevolution taught in the schools. The scientific majority fights tooth and nail to stop this from happening. These scientists want only one possibility taught in schools and wish to stifle the opposition. This is a major reason I blog on the matter. There are big questions both creationists and macroevolutionists need to answer but certainly neither point of view has been proven. It would be fair to say that macroevolution has been accepted generally, and now comes the search for evidence to back it up.
That is my opinion, of course, and I am happy to say that commenters with opposing points of view weigh in on the subject. Beginning tomorrow, seven points of the discussion as previously mentioned will be discussed in detail with the opinions of both myself and commenters being highlighted and reviewed.
Creationist
Believes that God created the world and everything in it. Some creationists take a very literal view of the Genesis account and believe that the earth is of a very young age. There are some longer-age creation advocates as well. YEC stands for Young Earth Creationist. I am in that group. There are some creationists who believe that at some point God designed macroevolution to operate within nature. I am certainly not in that group. All creationists believe that God created the Universe and that God created life.
Intelligent Design
Many have called the ID movement a kind of a front for creationism. Some of the founders of the movement have been creationists. Yet many of them are not. In fact, there are ID'ers who believe in macroevolution to a great extent. They seem to believe in an initial design that has since evolved in various ways. Not all ID proponents are creationists. ID'ers claim that the Universe and living organisms appear to have been designed and there is evidence that makes it hard to believe otherwise.
Macroevolutionists
Macroevolution is a process by which natural selection, operating with mutation, changes organisms from one kind to another. Microevolution is the process by which organisms change within the kind. An example of macroevolution is the idea of a dinosaur evolving into a bird. The idea of microevolution is the idea of a Water Buffalo evolving into a Longhorn. Since "Darwinist" is not a term people want to have applied to them, and I have to identify the proponents of macroevolution in some way, this is the term I use. Hopefully that makes sense. Hard core macroevolutionists also postulate that life came from non-life, since no room for a creator is allowed.
The Majority
There is evidence found in the world today that seems to back up macroevolution, and evidence that is on the side of creationists/ID'ers. There are evidences that are hard for both sides to explain. I can cite religious reasons to believe in creation, but I generally rely on scientific and historical evidence in my postings here.
The majority of scientists today believe in macroevolution. The majority can be wrong, but there is no doubt what the prevailing scientific opinion is. In the United States of America, the majority of the public seem to believe in creation but many of them believe as modified old-earth creationists.
Opinion polls show that parents want both ID (to avoid the religious aspect) and macroevolution taught in the schools. The scientific majority fights tooth and nail to stop this from happening. These scientists want only one possibility taught in schools and wish to stifle the opposition. This is a major reason I blog on the matter. There are big questions both creationists and macroevolutionists need to answer but certainly neither point of view has been proven. It would be fair to say that macroevolution has been accepted generally, and now comes the search for evidence to back it up.
That is my opinion, of course, and I am happy to say that commenters with opposing points of view weigh in on the subject. Beginning tomorrow, seven points of the discussion as previously mentioned will be discussed in detail with the opinions of both myself and commenters being highlighted and reviewed.