The word “creation” is used by non-creationists in a minimal sense. The existence of the universe is explained as the creation of God. This is the core meaning that all monotheists accept. But what about the essence and nature of the universe — was that created, too? The success of physics has led to a minimalist version of creation here. It is claimed that “a few simple rules” is all the essence needed for the present universe to happen. The universe of today is only remotely created.
Creationists use the word “creation” in a maximal sense: almost everything is the result of creation. Every variety of plant is created, even though we know that artificial or natural selection have a more direct bearing on them than what happened thousands of years ago. Every beautiful or amazing aspect of the universe is ascribed to creation and every ugly or diseased aspect of the universe is ascribed to the fall, yet no objective criteria are provided to delineate these differences.
In short, one group under-uses the word “creation” and another group (us) over-uses the word “creation”. This doesn’t foster communication or understanding between people from different backgrounds A more precise meaning for the word “creation” that is between these extremes would help.
October 2014