Use the adjective "creationary" if it is useful (revised message).
Hans-Friedrich Tamke
Greetings from beautiful Saskatoon!
My name is Hans-Friedrich Tamke and I live in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan,
Canada. I have a B.A. (Hons.) degree in French and Linguistics. I myself
am an old-earth creationist who is very interested in the ongoing
creation-evolution controversy. I am sending you this note to encourage you
to begin using the very useful English adjective "creationary" in your
speech and writing. There are several good reasons why this adjective
should be used. (1) The English adjective "creationary" is the natural
derivative of the noun "creation". It is not in any sense "strange",
"odd", "weird", "stilted", or "contrived". It fully conforms to the rules
of English morphology or word formation. The meaning of the term is very
important, especially for perceptive speakers and writers who are engaged
in the creation-evolution debate. It is not simply a trivial matter of
"semantics", an idle playing with words for cosmetic or devious purposes.
When you use this English adjective in your speech and writing, you are
choosing to stress the idea or concept of "creation" without regard to the
character or personality of the "advocates" or "nonadvocates" of creation.
The concept of "creation" either does or does not have merit on its own,
irrespective of the virtues or vices of its proponents. "Creation" is a
multifaceted concept with several possible meanings depending on the
context in which it is used. Besides "creation", one could also talk about
"macrocreation" and "microcreation". (2) The word "creationist" is
ambiguous in English. Oftentimes it has a pronounced negative connotation.
It is primarily a noun, but it very often does double duty as an
"adjective". When "creationist" is used as an "adjective" it displaces or
replaces the true adjective "creationistic". Many English speakers and
writers dislike adjectives that end in the suffix "-istic" and like to
avoid them. If they are used, they tend to have a mild pejorative sense.
Compare the adjectives "capitalist", "capitalistic" and "socialist",
"socialistic". For the adjectives "creationist" and "creationistic", the
Germans use "kreationistisch". There is no ambiguity or confusion in
German, whereas there is in English. The German noun "Kreationist" means
"creationist" and the word "kreationistisch" is clearly an adjective. The
English noun "creationist" means: "a believer in creationism". The
adjective "creationist" means: "of or relating to creationism or
creationists". For the native speaker of English the noun and the
"adjective" are virtually one word. (3) Another major reason the adjective
"creationary" ought to be used is the fact that it is the counterpart to
the parallel adjective "evolutionary". "Creationary" should be used
alongside "evolutionary" for the sake of its symmetrical structure. The
adjective "evolutionary" is used hundreds of thousands or even millions of
times, by both evolutionists and creationists, in magazine, newspaper,and
journal articles, in countless books, on radio and television, in videos
and films. The adjective "creationary" ought to be used by creationists
and evolutionists in appropriate contexts. This is only fair. After all,
there are millions of people who accept one or the other worldview. These
people live in either a "creationary" world or an "evolutionary" world.
This contentious situation is not likely to change anytime soon.
One should use "creationary" in word combinations such as: creationary
science/scientists, creationary biology/biologists, creationary
zoology/zoologists, creationary botany/botanists, creationary
ornithology/ornithologists, creationary genetics/geneticists, creationary
thought/thinkers, creationary scholarship, creationary paradigm/framework/
worldview, creationary viewpoint/perspective, creationary speculation/
inferences/interpretation, creationary theory/theorists/theorizing,
creationary history/origin/beginnings, creationary development/
change/mechanisms/principles, creationary model/studies, creationary
world/universe, creationary processes/events/tasks, creationary
continuity/discontinuity, creationary research/researchers, creationary
design/designists, creationary conferences/seminars/lectures, creationary
books/magazines/periodicals, creationary videos/films, creationary
literature/writings/publications/newsletters/organizations/clubs, etc.
You will find the adjective "creationary" in the following dictionaries:
(1) Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged, 1986; (2)
Funk & Wagnalls New Standard Dictionary Of The English Language, 1959; (3)
Random House Dictionary Of The English Language, 2nd Edition, Unabridged,
1987; (4) Random House Webster's College Dictionary, 1991.
I urge you to use this very serviceable adjective in your speech and
writing, especially if you want the focus to be on the concept or theory
of "creation", and not simply used in ad hominem attacks against
"creationists" as the "advocates" of creation or creationism. Evolutionary
critics very frequently refer to their opponents as "creationists" almost
always by attempting to link a negative noun with the "adjective"
creationist. They attack "creationists" as "people" and as "advocates" of
creationism instead of focusing on creationary concepts and positions.
They often write with a polemical tone. They write about and criticize
what they call creationist claims (i.e., creationists' claims),
creationist deception (i.e., creationists' deception), creationist
dishonesty (i.e., creationists' dishonesty), creationist fraud (i.e.,
creationists' fraud), creationist bias (i.e., creationists' bias),
creationist crusade (i.e., creationists' crusade), creationist distortions
(i.e., creationists' distortions), creationist lies (i.e., creationists'
lies), creationist minions (i.e., minions who are creationists),
creationist tactics (i.e., creationists' tactics), creationist incubi
(i.e., incubi who are creationists; or, perhaps, creationists are incubi).
Please pass on this note to other creationists and evolutionists.
Please send me your comments regarding the use of the adjective
"creationary", whether positive or negative. I believe that this adjective
ought to be used and is of great value to both creationists and
evolutionists in the ongoing creation-evolution dispute. Thank you for
your time and interest in this matter.
Hans-Friedrich Tamke at <ad...@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca> or <ta...@usa.net>
Daniel Weinreich
On 29 Apr 1997, Hans-Friedrich Tamke wrote:
> Greetings from beautiful Saskatoon!
>
>
> My name is Hans-Friedrich Tamke and I live in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan,
> Canada. I have a B.A. (Hons.) degree in French and Linguistics. I myself
> am an old-earth creationist who is very interested in the ongoing
> creation-evolution controversy.
>
> ... [snip] ...
There is no creation-evolution controversy on mol-...@net.bio.net. Please
find a different soapbox.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Daniel M. Weinreich email: d...@mcz.harvard.edu
Harvard University usmail: 26 Oxford Street
Museum of Comparative Zoology Cambridge, MA 02138
voice: (617) 495-1954 fax: (617) 495-5846
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Eric Cabot
Creationary?
No matter how you slice it, it is still Bologna!
Cheers.
Mark Siddall
Hans-Frederich's arguments are interesting. However, we scientists do
not use "creation" as a sloppy alternative to "creationary" as would
appear at first.
The use of the word "creation" in relation to our detractors is not ad
hominen. It relates to the fact that this is specifically a
neo-conservative puritanical literalist christian reading of the
"Creation".
To use creationary would admit all 'creationary' theologies into the
pool which we cast 'creation' arguments. But these others (in general)
are not trying to subvert science. Thus, our use of the word is
intended to be specific.. almost a proper name noun. To change it would
obfuscate.
Mark