Which word: creation, creationary, creationist, ought one use when speaking or writing on various topics in the creation-evolution debate?
Speakers and writers of English are often ruled by habit rather that logic in the use of their own language. For instance, I have a sister who in conversation with me often says, "He don't ...." instead of, "He doesn't...." I can correct her time and time again and she will respond for a time by using the correct form of the verb, but soon she falls back into saying, "He don't ...." In her case, force of habit rules. It is not that she does not know which verbal form is correct, she does, but she has used the wrong form for so many years that she very easily slips back into her old bad habit of saying, "don't" for "doesn't".
It has become increasingly (and sometimes painfully) obvious to me that too many creationists have a somewhat similar problem with the word creation. (Most evolutionists don't have this same problem with the word evolution.) They use, or should I say, overuse this noun as if it were an adjective to modify other nouns, as in: creation biology, creation genetics, creation geology, creation astronomy, creation theory, creation literature, creation thinking, instead of (the more correct, in terms of grammar): creationary biology, creationary genetics, creationary geology, creationary astronomy, creationary theory, creationary literature, creationary thinking, where the corresponding adjective modifies the noun. When creationists do this in their speech and writing (even when they know that creationary exists as a legitimate adjective) it reminds me of my sister and her habit of saying "don't" instead of "doesn't" in her speech. At the end of one of our conversations I remember my sister saying to me, in exasperation, "But it 'DON'T' matter", and I said in response to her, "But it 'DO' matter".
I would like to make some additional comments concerning the noun/adjective creationist. When used as an adjective, it should not be treated as if it were simply a synonym for the adjective creationary. I will illustrate my point with some examples. Genuine creationists all believe that the human eye had a creationary origin (it is a product of creation), it did not have a creationist origin. If you stop and think about it, does it really make any sense to say that the human eye had a creationist origin? (Neither did the human eye have an evolutionist origin, even though all evolutionists claim it had an evolutionary origin.) In taxonomy, creationary systematists are attempting to replace the concept of "the evolutionary tree" with the competing concept of "the creationary orchard" [which is a better term to use than "the creationist orchard"), which itself has replaced the older creationist [i.e., creationists'] concept of "the creationary lawn" (which is better than the phrase "the creationist lawn").
I will give you another example to illustrate my point. If you think about it, a creationist biologist is not necessarily or automatically a creationary biologist by virtue of just being a creationist and a biologist. A creationary biologist is a person who is a specialist in the field of creationary biology (a branch of biology), just as his counterpart, the evolutionary biologist, is a specialist in evolutionary biology (a branch of biology). Simply put, a creationist biologist is a biologist who is also a creationist. He obviously favors creationism over evolutionism, that is why he is a creationist biologist. The concept of creation is the core idea of creationism, whereas evolutionism has the concept of evolution as its core idea. A creationist biologist may or may not also be a creationary biologist. He could be a molecular biologist, a cell biologist, or a developmental biologist instead.
It is sometimes just as natural and correct to use a noun-noun combination instead of a noun-preposition-noun combination in phrases like: "the Genesis creation account" (i.e., "the Genesis account of creation"), "a creation seminar" (i.e., "a seminar on creation"), "creation evangelism" (i.e., "creation as [a method of] evangelism"). Reporters (and in my opinion all too many creationists), out of habit, are users and abusers of this journalistic style of writing. They telescope or compress a longer phrase into a shorter phrase by getting rid of one or more prepositions. Many journalists will automatically telescope expressions like "the Premier of Saskatchewan" or "the Premier of Ontario" into "the Saskatchewan Premier" and "the Ontario Premier". (In the same way "the Governor of California" or "the Governor of Minnesota" are telescoped into "the California Governor" and "the Minnesota Governor".) This is a convenient and simple way for newspaper and magazine writers to use fewer words and thus less space, (especially in headlines). Some writers abuse this by linking four, five, or even more nouns in succession. Of course it is possible, although sometimes cumbersome and awkward, for a person to do this in English. This practice of telescoping multiple nouns together in quick succession can create unnecessary ambiguities in meaning. This same practice would be quite impossible in a language like French. For example, one has the choice in English of discussing either "the Genesis creation account", "the Genesis account of creation", "the account of creation in Genesis". In French one could translate these English phrases using the words "le récit de la création dans [le livre de] la Genèse". Another example of this would be the phrase "The Prince Edward Island Teachers' Federation", which could be translated as, "La Fédération des enseignantes et [des] enseignants de l'Île-du-Prince-Édouard" or "La Fédération des enseignant(e)s de l'Île-du-Prince-Édouard". . As you can see, in the French language, unlike in English, one has to use prepositions, word telescoping is impossible.
The above are some thoughts on the correct and incorrect use of the words creation (noun), creationary (adjective), creationist (noun/adjective). The adjective creationary ought to be a part of the active core vocabulary of every educated creationist and evolutionist and it ought to be consistently and regularly used in the same contexts where the parallel and corresponding adjective evolutionary would be used.
Last Modified: 04 January 2008
Page Started: October 2000