(INDEX) Walter J. ReMine's (modified) sentences

Walter J. ReMine's (modified) sentences

I have rewritten many of the sentences or phrases in Walter J. ReMine's book The Biotic Message where the adjective creationary could have been used. I have done this to show creationists and evolutionists, by giving them examples of well-written sentences, how the adjective creationary can be naturally and effectively used in English. He, or others that he has quoted, chose to use words like: creation, creationist, creationist's, creationists', instead of the adjective creationary. The adjectival use of the noun creation, as a modifier is permissable, but in most cases the derived adjective creationary is preferable (cf. educational system versus education system). If an adjectival noun like creation is used as a modifier to qualify another noun, it should be used with restraint.

These are the rewritten sentences or phrases from The Biotic Message where I substitute creationary for other words used. I encourage all creationists and evolutionists to use creationary (and also other adjectives like: noncreationary, anticreationary, procreationary, microcreationary, macrocreationary) similarly in their own speech and writing, if they wish the focus of their discussion or debate to be on creation. (Remember, the corresponding adjectives creationary and evolutionary are derived from the nouns creation and evolution, and thus, when used, point back to these two competing concepts.) All English-speaking evolutionists and creationists, especially evolutionary and creationary theorists, ought to make creationary a part of their active core vocabulary and consistently use it alongside evolutionary.

I have concentrated on mainstream evolutionary literature, with special effort to survey all the anti-creationary material. (p. 2)
This book was motivated partly by a growing sense of frustration with many creationary authors. (p. 3)
The reader should not assume I align myself with the present body of creationary literature--on most occasions my disagreement with it is substantial. (p. 3)
Until the recent courtroom, schoolboard, and textbook triumphs experienced by creationists, anthropologists, like other scientists, held an almost Olympic disregard for creationary views. (p. 3)
It debunks many anti-creationary arguments. (p. 5)
Creationary theory suffered a decisive blow in 1859 with Charles Darwin's publication of The Origin of Species. (p. 14)
Yet creation did not fall into disrepute due to the overpowering evidence for evolution as is commonly supposed, but because creationary theory failed to cope with the issues. (p. 14)
It is unlike any other creationary theory. (p. 18)
Creationary theory failed in the 1850s because it lacked a key ingredient: a full-grown theory of evolution. (p. 18)
Before Darwin, the predominant creationary theory was the Great Chain of Being. (p. 19)
They seek to disallow creationary theory on that basis. (p. 29)
They have widely proclaimed that creationary theories are not science because testability is an essential characteristic of science. (p. 35)
In many cases testability is used as a weapon against creationary theory. (p. 35)
Some evolutionists argue that creationary theory is unfalsifiable and also argue that it is falsified. (p. 36)
Newell devotes much of his anti-creationary book to an examination of creationary science by scientific methods. (p. 36)
His book shows that creationary scientists do offer many testable explanations. (p. 36)
Evolutionists demand that creationary theory provide answers about ultimate origins. (p. 58)
They impel creationary theory to its logically consistent conclusion, then they try to tell us that to do so is unscientific. (p. 58)
But this inability is the very heart of creationary logic and the central reason why their doctrine is not science, while science's inability to specify the ultimate origin of matter is irrelevant because we are not trying to do any such thing. (p. 58)
Yet evolutionists often misapply testability in an effort to defeat creationary theory. (p. 67)
This also subtly strengthened creationary theory by eroding the foundation of alternative worldviews. (p. 69)
One example is from Robert Steiner's vociferous anti-creationary article in Reason magazine. (p. 76)
This 'false separation' was their strategy at the Arkansas creationary-science trial (Act 590), as noted by the judge. (p. 94)
If survival of the fittest is compatible with creationary views, then why should anyone object to it? (p. 117)
Inventive natural selection is what separated evolutionary theory from any previous creationary concept. (p. 118)
[Since creationary theory] asserts that intelligent designers did this and made all organisms out of the same basic substances so that the food chain would work, why did they make plants out of cellulose and lignins and then forget to endow the herbivores with enzymes to digest those materials? (p. 152)
If you replace the references to sociobiology with references to "general evolution" then you will likely have a statement found in creationary literature. (p. 162)
Even Kitcher's anti-creationary book has the information necessary to see the tautology. (p. 174)
The Fundamental Theorem is completely compatible with creationary theory. (p. 187)
This shift -- away from evolution and toward maintenance -- is compatible with creationary views. (p. 205)
Such functions come naturally to the creationary worldview. (p. 206)
The theorem is completely compatible with creationary theory. (p. 207)
David Wise's simulation, for the IBM compatible PC under DOS, is circulated by the National Center for Science Education -- a major anti-creationary organization. (p. 235)
The fact that we cannot draw a firm line between plants and animals, or between unicellular organisms and multicellular ones, is difficult to reconcile with the creationary model. (p. 262)
Ruse and McGowan have made specific challenges against the creationary model. (p. 262)
Berra makes a common mistake about the fossil record: "Still more fossils are discovered every year, and each one further weakens the creationary position." (p. 306)
That the problem perhaps reflects more the poverty of human imagination than any real constraint on nature is an answer not congenial to the creationary line of thought. (p. 318)
This has been part of creationary thought from the beginning. (p. 324)
They had long battled against the early creationary view that species are fixed and immutable. (p. 328)
With punctuated equilibria, evolutionists try to steal the creationary prediction. (p. 335)
So the creationary prediction of systematic gaps in the fossil record has no value in validating the creationary model, since evolutionary theory makes precisely the same prediction. (p. 335)
By emphasizing imperfection, they had a weapon to use against classical creationary theory, while misdirecting attention away from the embarrassing absence of phylogeny. (p. 338)
Punctuationists have been most active in anti-creationary tactics, yet they are the evolutionists most aware of the dismal setbacks of the fossil record. (p. 339)
They claim creationary theory is untestable and unscientific. (p. 341)
His statement is from his anti-creationary book, one of the first to follow the Arkansas creationary-science trial. (p. 350)
That is, they focused on it as a weapon against creationary theory. (p. 378)
This matter is entirely consistent with the creationary worldview. (p. 392)
In 1982, at the height of furor over the Arkansas creationary-science trial, a case occurred in the Boston area. (p. 394)
While these may be evidence for biological change: (1) they are not evidence for biological improvement; (2) they are not evidence for large-scale amoeba-to-man transformation; (3) such cases are fully compatible with creationary theories. (p. 397)
Yet at the same anti-creationary meeting Moore was contradicted by Levin (apparently unknowingly by either of them). (p. 402)
Our creationary detractors charge that evolution is an unproved and unprovable bit of secular religion masquerading as science. (p. 417)
First, Discontinuity Systematics performs its task independently of creationary theories. (p. 443)
Discontinuity Systematics tries to identify the boundaries of evolutionary continuity by emulating a neutral scientist who (1) has no detailed knowledge of creationary theory, and (2) views phenetic and cladistic patterns skeptically or agnostically. (p. 444)
The combination of the two can be called Creationary Systematics. (p. 455)
(It is the creationary counterpart to evolutionary systematics.) (p. 455)
Creationary Systematics in not neutral or theory-free. (p. 455)
The relationship between Discontinuity Systematics and Creationary Systematics is like the relationship between transformed cladistics and Hennigian cladistics. (p. 455)
Every major scientific organization explicitly endorses this criterion, and every major evolutionist uses it as a weapon against creationary theory. (p. 456)
Defenders of evolution often complain that the creationists spend virtually all their time attacking evolution and almost no time at all in developing a creationary model or in adducing evidence for creationary ideas. (p. 456)
[T]he very juxtaposition of evolution with creationary science--what creationists call the "two-model approach"--is itself fallacious. (p. 456)
Scott and Cole make a six point complaint against creationary reasoning. (p. 457)
Yet the entrance of creationary theory into the schools got an immediate, strong, negative response from evolutionists. (p. 459)
They became leading opponents of creationary theory and made many arguments against a designer. (p. 462)
Evolutionists used testability as a weapon against creationary theory, but they also tried to prevent the same criterion from overthrowing evolution. (p. 462)
Most of them are entirely acceptable within a creationary viewpoint. (p. 464)
If they found it, they would use it as evidence in their favor and against creationary theory. (p. 467)
On every major point--from biology to cosmology--from fossils, to experiments, to extraterrestrials--this creationary theory is vulnerable to future observations. (p. 468)
Michael Ruse--the foremost philosopher of science to testify against creation at the 1981-82 Arkansas creationary-science trial (Act 590). (p. 470)
Nearly all anti-creationists explicitly endorse Popper's criterion of testability, and use it as a major weapon against creationary theory. (p. 491)
One day, however, there arose a band of committed dissidents who called themselves "creationary scientists." (p. 491)
[E]volutionary theory...has lent itself to testing from a number of different directions.... Creationary "science," by contrast has been...putting together a hodgepodge of vague suggestions that are explicitly designed to avoid any serious test. (p. 493)
Discontinuity Systematics seeks to identify the boundaries of common descent, with two explicit restrictions: one against phenetic and cladistic patterns, and the other against any greater involvement of creationary theories. (p. 508)
The restrictions against creationary theory arose from two sources: (1) previous conceptions of creation; and (2) message theory itself. (p. 509)
Creationary systematists have been at a standstill since the mid-1800s. (p. 509)
To prevent such theoretical holdups, Discontinuity Systematics has a restriction against creationary theories. (p. 509)
Discontinuity Systematics is an observational enterprise, not an exercise in speculative creationary theorizing. (p. 509)
In short, the restriction against creationary theories seems anti-creationary, but it clears the way for creationists to make real scientific progress. (p. 509, The adjective anti-creationary was used in Walter ReMine's original sentence.)
This is another reason why Discontinuity Systematics has a restriction against further involvement of creationary theories. (p. 509)
There are two reasons for this: (1) They foster an entanglement with creationary theory that is unproductive to the systematic method. (p. 510)
A creationary theorist could argue as follows. (p. 510)
Again, this de-emphasis of creationary theory is intended to clear the way for creationists to make real progress in systematics. (p. 510)
Before Darwin, in the times of the creationary taxonomist Carl Linnaeus, creationists held that species were fixed and immutable--each species had been separately created, remaining virtually unchanged thereafter. (p. 511)
Darwin's evolutionary tree largely displaced the creationary idea of a Linnaean lawn. (p. 511)
Kurt Wise aptly calls the new metaphor the "creationary orchard." (p. 511)
In the creationary orchard, the trees are separate and distinct. (p. 511)
They claim as evidence that kinds have evolved into new separate kinds--in contradiction to creationary theory. (p. 513)
Yet the term species lacks the precision necessary for detailed discussion of creationary theory. (p. 513)
Species carries its own baggage of ambiguity and confusion, while providing no indelible correspondence with the creationary concept of kinds. (p. 513)
It communicates creationary theory with less confusion. (p. 513)
More importantly, kind no longer meets the needs of creationary systematists. (p. 514)
The modern metaphor of the creationary orchard requires several terms to communicate subtly different meanings and construct knowledge. (p. 514)
A single word, like "kinds," is inadequate for doing systematics in the creationary orchard. (p. 514)
"Some Rebutting Comments to Creationary Views on the Origin of Life," (p. 517)
"Certainty and Proof in Creationary Thought," (p. 521)
A compilation of anti-creationary position statements from numerous scientific, educational, and religious organizations. (p. 522)
"Answers to the Standard Creationary Arguments. (p. 523)
"Discontinuity Systematics: A New Methodology of Biosystematics Relevant to the Creationary Model," (p. 524)
Ignorance Versus Knowledge in the Evolutionary-Creationary Controversy. (p. 524)
"Creationary Science Is Not Science," (p. 525)
"Creationary Pseudoscience: Scientific creationism is a classical pseudoscience in every way," (p. 525)
"Fossils, Stratigraphy, and Evolution: Consideration of a Creationary Argument," (p. 525)
... a staunchly anti-creationary/pro-evolutionary organization. (p. 525)
"The Elusive Scientific Basis of Creationary 'Science'," (p. 525)
"Creationary Pseudoscience," (p. 526)
What's Wrong with Pandas? A Closeup Look at Creationary Scholarship, (p. 526)
Reviews of Thirty-one Creationary Books (p. 527)

Last Modified: 23 February 2002
Page Started: January 2001