http://www.polldaddy.com/p/54154.js MySpace Poll – Take Our Poll
Experience the Adventure, Simplify the Rules
Jan Edmiston writes things here.
here, you can just be.
GAME DESIGNER
Douglas Underhill
Exploring a Hermeneutic of Hope
Award Winning Dungeon Design
Doubting Terrible Doubts
Black pop culture news, political commentary, & social criticism
Exploring and celebrating the tabletop hobby and adjacent culture
Just a man and his homebrew worlds.
An Unofficial Resource Page for fans of Clockwork: Dominion
Photography and Life
Douglas Underhill
Judd Karlman from Daydreaming about Dragons' Blog
>unfinished 
My own shorthand: YEC is Young Earth Creationism (Biblical literalist)OEC is Old Earth Creationism (Biblical-metaphorical)ED is Evolutionary Deism(God started it and let it progress according to natural laws)ET is Evolutionary Theism (God started it and continuous acts within it, though in subtle ways)EC is Evolutionary Creationism(God intervenes at certain necessary points in clear ways)ID is Intelligent Design (Some intelligence must exist to account for irreducible complexity)PE is Panentheism (There is a God, but not outside the Universe)
LikeLike
And don’t worry, I have no way to track who votes what 🙂
LikeLike
And did you vote in your own poll sir? In which case, what did you vote?
LikeLike
It shall remain forever a mystery.
LikeLike
Doh. I want to change my answer. I did ‘OEC’ but what I really meant was ‘ET.’ I was caught up in the idea of the six days being a metaphor for creation (which is an idea I don’t have any problem with – I do in fact view the Genesis account as being metaphorical), and didn’t think all of the implications of the language used.
LikeLike
Although I also don’t object to EC. Eh. Either one is fine.
LikeLike
does it prevent you from voting again? i’m ok with overlap in the various options, since i can see where some of them do
LikeLike
Ah, cool. OK, voted twice, then.
LikeLike
Doug,I voted OEC because given the way you phrased the options that was the option that I am most comfortable with. However, I do believe the best way to decide the issue is with a poll.Craig
LikeLike
I assume you meant to type “do not believe”, and I agree with you. Like I said, I’m just curious where people come down. Ultimately, it really isn’t something that is decided by majority opinion on my little blog 🙂
LikeLike
Doug,No I did mean do believe. It’s as good as anything else I’ve heard. 🙂Craig
LikeLike
Or…perhaps it is!Vote, that we might know the truth!
LikeLike
Ah, truth by consensus: bringing democracy to knowledge.
LikeLike
I voted that I don’t like any of the options, and here’s why: I think the issue of creation is too complex to reduce down to any one option.I can agree with a mix and match combination of all the options <><>except<><> YEC and NCwSI (Naturalistic Causation without Supernatural Intervention).Simply put, I think God got the whole thing rolling (however God chose to do so) and keeps watch over it (however God choses to do so). Science has some answers, and so does Faith.
LikeLike
QUESTION: Can you all see the results from the quiz, or do I need to post them? I can see them by clicking on a button at the bottom of the poll, but I don’t know if that’s because I’m logged in…
LikeLike
I went with Evolutionary Theism–so not everyone in Kentucky has lost his mind!
LikeLike
Your description of Panentheism is wrong. What you are describing is pantheism. Panentheism describes a God who is BOTH fully immanent in creation and transcends creation.You also need a place on your poll for AE, atheistic evolutionism.
LikeLike
The Atheistic Evolutionism is intended to be the one that talk as about the universe originating through naturalistic causes without intervention by the supernatural. I sort of forgot to add a little abbreviation after it though.For Panentheism – I actually find that in theology, in my experience at least, Pantheism and Panentheism aren’t distinguished very well most of the time. The model of the world as God’s body is the panentheism of Sally McFague, where God’s transcendence is similar to the transcendence of “mind” over “brain” i.e. seemingly more than the sum of its parts, and God’s immanence is rooted in the world similar to our relationship to our bodies. I thought it was a good example of panentheism from a modern theologian, a little more interesting than panentheism given as an example to be argued against, which I saw a lot more of.But of course I couldn’t add the mind/trascendence part efficiently in the space provided, so you got sort of a half-definition.Also, God as immanent and transcendent is pretty orthodox, and I’m not sure it is the same as panentheism per se – I think the difference is in *how* God is immanent and transcendent. But you’re right, in the definition given, I only talked about McFague’s concept of God’s immanence, which looks pantheistic, so that’s my bad.
LikeLike
I couldn’t fit the definition of panentheism specifically with regards to origins, so I changed the ending to include (PE/PN) where PN is Pantheism, since what’s written could include either. What I was going for, vis origins, is that for a panentheist, or a pantheist, the question is changed somewhat, since God and the universe arise together, rather than God creating it from outside, or the universe arising without God.
LikeLike