VirusWiki - create

Create

Due to the "great creation debate" in "Evolution as a secular religion" and the disagreement over the meaning of the word, this provisional entry has been established to support the proposed Virian Polls at On Creation - for North Americans and On Creation - For everyone outside North America as discussed at "Evolution as a secular religion", Reply 25 and 26

AdminAttention Please notice that both proposed polls are flagged as "Polls" in the <Category> field, but only the first shows as a poll on the Vote Index Page.

The dispute over the meaning of "create" and "creation" is characterised by the following excerpts

David Lucifer I already mentioned that the act of creation does not require intent. The universe was created in the big bang. New stars are created out of the remnants of supernovas. The elements that give rise to life were created in stars. None of this happened with intent as far as we know.

Hermit I agree that intent was almost certainly missing in the examples given. However, I disagree that intent is not required for creation. English has a very rich vocabulary which allows us to select the appropriate word to describe phenomena accurately. It is a hallmark of the scientific (and legal) process that words are used in such a way as to avoid confusion. "Creation", being directly descended from "krainein" (to accomplish), undoubtedly requires intent (what is it you wish to accomplish) and thus is avoided in scientific discourse except where intent is involved. Thus

The Universe was not "created", it was instantiated.
New stars arise when sufficient material gathers through gravitational attraction or collision to establish fusion, but not so much as to instantiate a black hole before the fusion process can become established. They are not "created" either.
Elements heavier than Helium were indeed produced in stars. Again, they were not created.

And again

David Lucifer If you really don't believe me, I suggest we have a Virian vote on acceptable usage of the word "create". The vote will have several sentences using the word and we can vote on which ones we find acceptable (whether or not we agree with the truth of the content). I've seen this mentioned in online dictionaries that make use of expert panels to determine acceptable usage of words.

Hermit ...a vote might be interesting. If you establish such a vote, please create two votes. One for North Americans, one for everyone else. I hypothesize that if anyone supports your asserion of the meaning of "creation", that there will be a geographic difference in the results.

Hermit Hmm, given that your Christian neighbors are a majority and in your neighborhood, why bother with dictionaries? Can't you simply ask some of them whether, when they claim "God created the world', they meant that this was done mindlessly and without intent. If they don't mean that, wouldn't that mean that the same word has now two simultaneous and opposing meanings? And wouldn't that make the word itself meaningless?

David Lucifer Your suggestion makes no sense. If I said that someone created an artificact, then there was likely intent. If I said a natural pattern was created (e.g. sand dunes created by wind) there there is no intent implied. The word create can be used validly in both contexts. I never implied otherwise.

Hermit So, by your argument, the word does have two contradictory meanings. To deliberately establish something, and for something that happens by accident. In other words, everything is "created". Now tell me, how is this different from saying that everything that is, is? Given your sense of "created", what is it that makes "created" a useful word? If everything is "created", it is not useful to say that something was "created", as this in no sense qualifies it from anything else.

Hermit Would you say that a child who accidently knocked over a tin of paint had "'created' a mess" or would you say "he made a mess"? How about a painter? Would you say he "made a work of art" or would you say he "created a work of art"? What is the difference between these phrases? Do you see all the above as correct, idiomatic usage?

Hermit If, all things are "created" and there is no difference implied in the process of "creation" and other words like "make" and "happened" and "instantiated", e.g. there is no difference between an intentful action (e.g. creating a meaningful message) and an unconsidered side effects (e.g. "creating" a puddle of coffee) we have to ask why the word "created" exists?