A Creation/Evolution Continuum

[John Bauer]

I am trying to construct a continuum of the different views regarding origins and would like some suggestions and feedback on constructing this thing. Maybe you think the order should be different, maybe I missed one or two perspectives, etc.

Here's what I've hammered out so far:

A. Theism
----- I. Creationist
---------- 1. Young-earth creationist
--------------- a. Flat Earth Geocentrist
--------------- b. Round Earth Geocentrist
--------------- c. Round Earth Heliocentrist
---------- 2. Old-earth creationist
--------------- a. Gap creationist
--------------- b. Day-age creationist
-------------------- i. Progressive creationist
--------------- c. Evolutionary creationist
---------- 3. Intelligent design proponent
B. Deism
----- I. Theistic evolutionist
C. Atheism
----- I. Evolutionary naturalist

Updated to add: Revised list (February 13, 2021):

A. Theism
----- I. Creationist
---------- 1. Young-earth creationist
--------------- a. Flat-earth geocentrist
--------------- b. Round-earth geocentrist
---------- 2. Old-earth creationist
--------------- a. Gap creationist
--------------- b. Day-age creationist
-------------------- i. Progressive creationist
--------------- c. Evolutionary creationist
--------------- d. Intelligent design
----- II. Evolutionist (i.e., theistic evolution)
B. Deism
----- I. Evolutionist (i.e., deistic evolution)
C. Atheism
----- I. Evolutionist (i.e., naturalistic evolution)

[Tcg]

I am trying to construct a continuum of the different views regarding origins and would like some suggestions and feedback on constructing this thing. Maybe you think the order should be different, maybe I missed one or two perspectives, etc.

Here's what I've hammered out so far:

A. Theism
----- I. Creationist
---------- 1. Young-earth creationist
--------------- a. Flat Earth Geocentrist
--------------- b. Round Earth Geocentrist
--------------- c. Round Earth Heliocentrist
---------- 2. Old-earth creationist
--------------- a. Gap creationist
--------------- b. Day-age creationist
-------------------- i. Progressive creationist
--------------- c. Evolutionary creationist
---------- 3. Intelligent design proponent
B. Deism
----- I. Theistic evolutionist
C. Atheism
----- I. Evolutionary naturalist

It seems that some Theists are also Theistic evolutionists. Perhaps you have that covered with the term "Evolutionary creationists?" Are there distinctions between the two?

Edited to add: While doing a bit of research I came across the term "Deistic evolutionist." I'm not sure if it is truly distinct from these other two or not.

I also wonder if the three subheadings to "Young-earth creationists" are actually variants of creationism or rather just different views on the structure of our solar system.


Tcg

[Thomas123]

John Bauer "Here's what I've hammered out so far:"


Good hammering, JB!

Can things really be that simple and compartmentalised? Can I be a fly in the ointment and suggest that there is more written on the back of your page than that which is written on the front.

Does the egg reflect the chicken or does the chicken reflect the egg? Do I reflect creation or does creation reflect me? Is neither the actual truth?It appears to me to be beyond argument that conjecture regarding our position is impossibly difficult. Yes you can hold the various positions that you refer to JB, but any one of them is as frivolous as the next. They are chess strategies to someone who believes that chess contains real conflict.
What category am I in?
What category would you apply to believers in consciousness alone.?
What about people who believe in a denial of anything resembling a created reality?
You may have the phone book in alphabetical order but you are missing the section with the area codes.

I commend your work on this thread and I am not intending to trivialize the intricate nature attached to the combilation of your catalogue.

[Miles]

I am trying to construct a continuum of the different views regarding origins and would like some suggestions and feedback on constructing this thing. Maybe you think the order should be different, maybe I missed one or two perspectives, etc.

Here's what I've hammered out so far:

A. Theism
----- I. Creationist
---------- 1. Young-earth creationist
--------------- a. Flat Earth Geocentrist
--------------- b. Round Earth Geocentrist
--------------- c. Round Earth Heliocentrist
---------- 2. Old-earth creationist
--------------- a. Gap creationist
--------------- b. Day-age creationist
-------------------- i. Progressive creationist
--------------- c. Evolutionary creationist

B. Deism
----- I. Deistic evolutionist
C. Atheism
----- I. Evolutionary naturalist

If I may.

A. Theism
----- I. Creationist
---------- 1. Young-earth creationist
--------------- A. Flat Earth Geocentrist
--------------- B. Round Earth Geocentrist
--------------- C Round Earth Heliocentrist
-------------------- a. Intelligent design proponent
---------- 2. Old-earth creationist
--------------- A. Gap creationist
--------------- B. Day-age creationist
-------------------- a. Progressive creationist
--------------- C. Evolutionary creationist
----II. Evolutionist

B. Deism
----- I. Deistic evolutionist

C. Atheism
----- I. Evolutionary naturalist


.

[John Bauer]

[John Bauer]

[Thomas123]

continuum
a continuous sequence in which adjacent elements are not perceptibly different from each other, but the extremes are quite distinct.

sequence
a particular order in which related things follow each other. ..eg..
"the content of the programme should follow a logical sequence"

.............
Are we to assume that your arranged order is sequential in that 2 is closer to 1 than 3 is.
You talk about nuances of shade but surely your numerical list is nothing except a lithmus test for your own starting bias. That bias appears to create presumptions of arrangement.Perhaps I miss the point of the exercise, JB.

[John Bauer]

Are we to assume that your arranged order is sequential, in that 2 is closer to 1 than 3 is?

That's the idea, yes.

You talk about nuances of shade but surely your numerical list is nothing except a litmus test for your own starting bias. That bias appears to create presumptions of arrangement. Perhaps I miss the point of the exercise, JB.

Indeed, perhaps you do.

[John Bauer]

If I may. [...]

Why do you have "intelligent design" as a young-earth creationist view? According to my reading of the literature, the majority of ID proponents are old-earth creationists, and some (e.g., Michael Behe) even accept much of evolutionary theory.

[Tcg]