What’s the difference between creationism and ID? Noah’s flood, the genealogies, tower of Babel, Sodom and Gomorrah — in sum, creationism is defined by the book of Genesis, whereas ID is not focused on these matters at all. ID is the search for patterns that signify the action of intelligence. Judeo-Christian Creationism is the study of the book of Genesis. ID is very important to creationism, but not vice versa.
For those of us in the creationist community, some of us chuckle that Darwinists call all ID proponents creationists. If you really want to know what’s important to creationists, consider the Creation Research Society’s statement of belief:
All members must subscribe to the following statement of belief:
1. The Bible is the written Word of God, and because it is inspired throughout, all its assertions are historically and scientifically true in the original autographs. To the student of nature this means that the account of origins in Genesis is a factual presentation of simple historical truths.
2. All basic types of living things, including man, were made by direct creative acts of God during the Creation Week described in Genesis. Whatever biological changes have occurred since Creation Week have accomplished only changes within the original created kinds.
3. The great flood described in Genesis, commonly referred to as the Noachian Flood, was an historic event worldwide in its extent and effect.
4. We are an organization of Christian men and women of science who accept Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior. The account of the special creation of Adam and Eve as one man and one woman and their subsequent fall into sin is the basis for our belief in the necessity of a Savior for all mankind. Therefore, salvation can come only through accepting Jesus Christ as our Savior.
So now that I’ve set the record straight on the difference between ID and creationism, I’ll mention the upcoming creationist movie starring Russell Crowe (a recent convert to Christianity) that is getting a lot of flak from creationists:
Back when Darren Aronofsky revealed he was working on a big-budget adaptation of the story of Noah’s Ark from the Book of Genesis, the immediate reaction from many was what kind of flak the “Black Swan” director might receive from the Christian community. After all, from the beginning, he made it clear that he was in it for the story and not the religious underpinnings — a declaration of sorts that conservatives were not going to be pleased.
“I don’t think it’s a very religious story,” he told Variety in 2012. “I think it’s a great fable that’s part of so many different religions and spiritual practices. I just think it’s a great story that’s never been on film. I want to make a big event film, and I think it can be that.”
Fast-forward and it appears that early test screenings to what The Hollywood Reporter describes as “key groups that might take a strong interest in the subject matter” have not turned out well. The report quotes an anonymous source close to the production that says poor ratings from Christians and Jews in particular have studio partner Paramount worried. Based on the above quote, I’m not sure what they were necessarily expecting from those groups, but a test screening to the general public also apparently did not fare well. From the article:
“All are said to have generated troubling reactions. But sources say Aronofsky has been resistant to Paramount’s suggested changes. ‘Darren is not made for studio films,’ says a talent rep with ties to the project. ‘He’s very dismissive. He doesn’t care about [Paramount’s] opinion.'”
With “Noah” debuting in March of next year, there’s still plenty of time to tinker with the final product. And let’s not forget the lessons learned from “World War Z,” which turned out to be a giant success despite media reports in the months prior to its release declaring otherwise.
I hope it turns out to be a blockbuster.
1. ID is very important to creationists, but the converse is not true, often creationism’s association with ID is viewed as a liability by some in ID’s big tent. One of my favorite quotes by Bill Dembski regarding creationists:
…some of the people at the table with us will also be young earth creationists. Throughout my brief tenure as director of Baylor’s Michael Polanyi Center, adversaries as well as supporters of my work constantly pointed to my unsavory associates. I was treated like a political figure who is unwilling to renounce ties to organized crime. It was often put to me: “Dembski, you’ve done some respectable work, but look at the disreputable company you keep.” Repeatedly I’ve been asked to distance myself not only from the obstreperous likes of Phillip Johnson but especially from the even more scandalous young earth creationists.
I’m prepared to do neither. That said, let me stress that loyalty and friendship are not principally what’s keeping me from dumping my unsavory associates. Actually, I rather like having unsavory associates.
2. Creationists actually accept a lot of evolution! How did a small number of ancestral forms in the ark diversify into such varieties on Earth were it not for indefinite radiation (to use creationist Blyth’s ideas that were later plagiarized by Darwin).
3. I accept Noah’s flood as true. I can’t believe Darwinists who accept multiverses as an explanation of OOL find belief in Noah’s flood outrageous. If multiverses explain OOL then it also plausible we live in a universe where Noah’s flood happened. 🙂