Hans-Friedrich Tamke &
Nadine Joyce Tamke, née Earl
Photos (1)
tamke@hotmail.com
CREATIONARY/EVOLUTIONARY
By Hans-Friedrich Tamke
[Was the renowned nineteenth-century French scientist Georges Cuvier a creationary zoologist or an evolutionary zoologist? Is irreducible complexity better characterized as a creationary thesis or an evolutionary thesis? Is intelligent design a part of modern creationary theory or evolutionary theory? Does the human language capacity have a creationary origin or an evolutionary origin? Is the human eye an example of creationary design or evolutionary design? Does Robert V. Gentry's creationary research on polonium halos provide irrefutable evidence for creation? Does Walter J. ReMine's book The Biotic Message present a testable (falsifiable) creationary theory?]
Warm greetings from beautiful Saskatoon! My name is Hans-Friedrich Tamke and I am a native Saskatonian. I am a second-generation Canadian of German and Norwegian ancestry. My German grandparents were born in Volhynia in western Ukraine and my Norwegian grandparents were born in western Minnesota. These four grandparents later became Canadian citizens. My parents were born and reared in Saskatchewan (Land of Living Skies), Canada.
I have a B.A. (Hons) degree in French and Linguistics from the University of Saskatchewan. Languages (English, French, German, Norwegian, Esperanto) are one of my major interests. I am an old-earth creationist who has had and continues to have an active interest in the ongoing creation-evolution controversy, especially in terms of the choice of words used by evolutionists and creationists in this often heated debate.
Assuming that you also have an interest in language use and in the topic of creation-evolution, I would like to encourage you to begin to use the English adjective creationary alongside the parallel adjective evolutionary. I would like to stress in my comments that word structure and word meaning are intimately linked.
creation/evolution (nouns)
creationary/evolutionary (adjectives)
creationism/evolutionism (nouns)
creationist/evolutionist (nouns)
creationist[ic]/evolutionist[ic] (adjectives)
Is "Creationary" A Legitimate Word?
Is "creationary" a legitimate word? Yes, just like "evolutionary" is. The English adjective creationary is a natural derivative of the noun creation. Contrary to the view of some people, it is not in any objective sense "strange", "odd", "weird", "stilted", or "contrived". It is true that the adjective is, at present, rarely used by English speakers and writers. (I hope that we can gradually change this.) Most people are simply unaware of the adjective's existence as a legitimate word. This is probably its chief shortcoming, but this situation is correctable. I believe that many or even most fair-minded evolutionists and creationists would be willing to use the word if only they knew of its existence and usefulness.
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.
Creationary, as an adjective, is exactly parallel to the corresponding adjective evolutionary. 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. "Creationary" means: "of, relating to, or produced by creation". ("Evolutionary" means: "of, relating to, or produced by evolution".) It is not a trivial matter of semantics, an idle playing with words for cosmetic or devious purposes. When creationists and evolutionists use "creationary" in their speech and writing, they are choosing to stress the concept of creation without regard to the character or personality of the advocates or nonadvocates of creation. Creation either does or does not have merit as a concept or theory, irrespective of the virtues or vices of its proponents.
"Creation" is a multifaceted concept with several possible meanings depending on the scientific, philosophical, or religious context in which it is used. Besides creation in general, one could discuss more specifically such ideas as microcreation and macrocreation (in biological theory), instead of microevolution and macroevolution. For example, as a pigeon fancier, I know that pigeon breeders have been able to create ("microcreate") more than two hundred beautiful and sometimes bizarre pigeon breeds through selective breeding. This is a good example of creationary ("microcreationary") change, not "macrocreationary" change. Evolutionists would call this "microevolutionary" change.
What's Wrong With Just Using The Word "Creationist"?
When the word "creationist" precedes a noun in English its meaning can be ambiguous. One is never quite certain how to understand it. Does the speaker or writer intend the word to refer to a creationist or creationists (to people), or to creationism (to an ideology)? "Creationist" is a noun in its form, but it can also behave like an "adjective" in its function. If "creationist" is used with the function of an adjective it displaces the genuine adjective "creationistic". Sometimes adjectives that end in the suffix "-istic" can have a mildly pejorative force and are thus purposely avoided.
The native speaker of English can have difficulty separating the noun "creationist" from the adjective "creationist". They are essentially one word for him. In German, this confusing of noun with adjective does not arise. For the adjectives creationist and creationistic, the Germans use the adjective "kreationistisch". For the noun creationist, they use the noun "Kreationist", a separate word. When translating the word "creationist" from English into German , the Germans are forced to disambiguate the English "noun/adjective" by either translating it as the noun "Kreationist" or as the adjective "kreationistisch". The German adjective and noun cannot be blended into one "noun/adjective" with one spelling as in English.
Now, the number one problem, as I see it, is that creationary and creationist, used as adjectives, have quite different meanings. Strictly speaking these words should not be used as if they were synonyms. As stated earlier, "creationary" means: "of, relating to, or produced by creation". The focus is explicitly on "creation". The adjective "creationist" means: "of or relating to creationism or creationists". Here the focus is on "creationism" or "creationists". (The noun "creationist" means: "one who believes in or advocates creationism".) I believe that these important distinctions in word meanings are worth highlighting and ought to be preserved in English.
If one compares English with German, there are some additional parallels to consider. The expression evolutionäres Denken ("evolutionary thinking") is sometimes used. To translate the expression "creationary thinking" into German one could use the words kreationäres Denken. Also, the words microcreation and macrocreation could be translated into German using the words Mikrokreation and Makrokreation. The Germans already use Mikroevolution and Makroevolution. The Latin-derived word "Kreation" meant/means "Schöpfung" (creation) in older German. Germans use a number of Greco-Latin-derived words in their language alongside the native words.
Kreation/Evolution (nouns)
kreationär/evolutionär (adjectives)
Kreationismus/Evolutionismus (nouns)
Kreationist/Evolutionist (nouns)
kreationistisch/evolutionistisch (adjectives)
Creationary should be used alongside evolutionary for the sake of morphological symmetry and clarity of meaning. 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. "Creationary" ought to be used by creationists and evolutionists in similar contexts. This is only fair. After all, there are millions of people who accept one or the other competing and conflicting worldview. This contentious situation is not likely to change anytime soon.
The issue of creation and evolution is a complex one, and will continue to be debated for years to come. The use of the adjective creationary will help, rather than hurt, that debate.
One should use "creationary" in word combinations such as: creationary science/scientist, creationary biology/biologist, creationary zoology/zoologist, creationary botany/botanist, creationary ornithology/ornithologist, creationary genetics/geneticist, creationary thought/thinker, creationary scholarship, creationary paradigm/framework/ worldview, creationary viewpoint/perspective, creationary speculation/inference/interpretation, creationary theory/theorist/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/researcher, creationary design/designist, creationary conferences/seminars/lectures, creationary books/magazines/periodicals, creationary videos/films, creationary literature/writings/publications/newsletters/ organizations/clubs, etc.
In summary, I encourage you to use creationary in your speech and writing, especially if you want the focus to be on "creation", and not on "creationists". "Creationist", as a "noun/adjective", is subject to abuse and it is often used in unnecessary and nasty ad hominem attacks against creationists (especially young-earth creationists). For example, one can find many expressions similar to: "creationist lies" (i.e., "creationists' lies"), "creationist deception" (i.e., "creationists' deception"). Here the attack is obviously directed against creationists as people. The focus of the criticism ought to be on creationary concepts and positions. This hostile approach is unnecessary and ultimately unproductive. Let us all, whether evolutionists or creationists, take the high road when using words and not use words as weapons against one another.
If you are so inclined, please send me your comments regarding my suggestion that both creationists and evolutionists make creationary a part of their active vocabulary and use it alongside evolutionary. Thank you for your time and interest in this matter. Have an excellent day!
Last Updated: 30 January 2009
Page Started: July 2000
