Creationist Philosophy

Creationist philosophy explains the basic logic, concepts, and terminology used in creation theory. Central in creationist philosophy is the creationist conceptual scheme, which validates both concepts of opinon and fact, each in their own right, in one coherent framework. The two fundamental categories in creationism of creator and creation, correspond perfectly with the categories of all what is subjective, and all what is objective.



Overview of the creationist conceptual scheme
Creationism divides reality into two parts, creator and creation. The two parts are connected with the concept of "choice". The creator part contains all that is doing the choosing, and the creation part contains all that is chosen.

“Choice” is the mechanism of creation, it is how a creation originates. To "choose" means to make one of alternative futures the present. Or it can be defined as, making a possible future the present, or not the present. Also explained by the Shakespearean expression "to be, or not to be".

It should be noticed that the concept of choice is not based on the logic of cause and effect, things being forced. A choice is anticipatory in regards to a future of possibilities. This concept of choice is the same as the concept of (true) randomness in science.

The creationist conceptual scheme: 

1. Creator / chooses / spiritual / subjective / opinion

2. Creation / chosen / material / objective / fact

The Creator category
All what is on the side of what makes a choice belongs in the creator category. That includes emotions, personal character, feelings, God, the soul, the spirit. That means God, the soul, the spirit, all make choices. As well as, choices are made out of emotions and personal character, which are attributes of a creator.

The substance of a creator is called "spiritual". Everything together what is in the creator category, is called the "spiritual domain".

Everything what is in the spiritual domain is subjective, meaning it can only be identified with a chosen opinion.

For example, a fireman runs into a burning building in order to save someone's life. Naturally one would judge the personal character out of which he made his decision to be courage. But suppose the fireman's wife, in anguish, considers him reckless, and full of machismo, risking his life, forsaking his responsiblites to his family. There is no fact of the matter of what the personal character of the fireman consists of, it is a matter of chosen opinion. Someone feels what the personal character was, and then expresses that feeling by spontaneous expression of emotion with free will, choosing an opinion on the issue.

The Creation category
All what is on the side of what is chosen, belongs in the creation category.

The material universe with everything in it, like planets, stars, and organisms, are all creations, which therefore belong in the creation category.

Fantasy figures, language, concepts in the mind, mathematics, being creations as well, also belong in the creation category.

The substance of a creation is called "material". All together what is in the creation category, is called the "material domain".

Everything that is in the material domain is objective, meaning that it can only be identified with a fact forced by the evidence of it. A fact is obtained by evidence of a creation forcing to produce a 1 to 1 corresponding model of the creation, in the mind.

For example, the police ask a witness what happened. It means the police want to make a 1 to 1 corresponding reconstruction of what occurred. The witness says, "he came at her with a knife, he held the knife high over his head". The words of the witness provide a picture in the mind of a man attacking a woman with a knife. If the picture in the mind corresponds 1 to 1 with what happened, then the stated fact is accurate. If not, then the stated fact is inaccurate.

So on the one hand there is the model in the mind of what occurred, on the other hand there is the reality to which the model refers. The model in the mind, that is what a fact is. The model is forced by the evidence of what it is that is being modelled. Observation is basically a forced process. If you directly look at a man attacking a woman with a knife, then automatically by seeing it, you also get a picture in your minid of the man attacking the woman. And the picture is then stored in memory.

So facts are always forced by evidence, unlike opinions, which are chosen in freedom.

Applying the creationist conceptual scheme
To apply the creationist conceptual scheme, the question must always be asked if what is being considered belongs in the creator category, or in the creation category. Whether what is being considered is on the side of what makes a choice, or whether it is on the side of what is chosen.

A term may also be defined in a heterodox way, that it contains both elements that belong in the creator category, and elements that belong in the creation category. Consider for example the term "human being". It involves the physical human body, as being a creation, and people's emotions and personal character, which belong in the creator category.

The logic of opinion
People's choices may be made out of emotion. That means emotions are on the side of what makes a choice, and therefore emotions belong in the creator category. Because emotions belong in the creator category, solely the logic of opinion applies to them, and not the logic of fact.

That means an emotion can only be identified with a chosen opinion.

To say someone has love in their heart, (including if that person is yourself), the conclusion can only be formed by choosing it. The conclusion cannot be forced by evidence.

One may use evidence in forming an opinion, but that can only be evidence in the form of supporting opinons. For instance, I saw him giving aid to a stranger, I felt that was very nice.

The chosen opinion it was nice to aid the stranger, is in support of the chosen opinion that the person has love in their heart. It is one chosen opinion, in support of another chosen opinion. It is not evidence forcing to a conclusion.

It is equally logically valid to choose the opinion it was not nice to aid the stranger, but rather it was inappropiate. In which case, it is not evidence that this person has love in their heart.

The logical validity of an opinion merely depends on that it is chosen, and that it identifies what it was that made the choice turn out the way it did.

According to the logic of opinion, it is equally logically valid to say a painting is beautiful, as to say it is ugly. But to be forced to say the painting is beautiful, provides an invalid opinion. Because that would violate the rule of logic that dictates that opinions must be chosen.

That an opinion is logically valid, does not mean that the opinion is morally upright. Opinions that are said to be inspired by lust or greed, are still logically valid opinions.

The basic logic of an opinion is that: An opinion is formed by choice, and an opinion expresses what it is that makes a choice.

One feels what emotions are in someone’s heart, and then expresses that feeling, by spontaneous expression of emotion with free will, thereby choosing an opinion on the issue.

The logic of fact
Planets and stars are creations. That means that planets and stars came to be by "choice". The existence of any material thing is preceded by the possibility of it. First there was the possibility of the planet Earth coming to be. Then, by decision, in this case, the possiblity of it coming to be was made the present. The decision whether or not the Earth would be, or not be, turned out to that the planet Earth came to be.

And if it would be many, or one decision, by which the Earth came to be, that does not change the fundamental logic of it.

In science, freedom in the universe is most times called randomness, or true randomness. When a human being chooses A instead of B, then in science it is noted as randomness of the human being doing A instead of B. With subjectivity we might feel that the decision was made out of "courage" and "love", but because these are subjective, there is no scientific evidence for them whatsoever.

There is a widespread misconception that emotions can be measured in the brain, which is to say that emotions can be established as fact. This misconception also asserts that neurology supports this idea.

Neurology identifies emotions by asking people how they feel, and then observing the physical state of those people while they provide an answer. Interviewing and observing many people that way, the neurologist derives physical correllates to the personal judegement of the people they interview.

For example, the neurologist interviews someone who says they feel fear, and then measures the brain of that person with an fMRI. Then the neurologist interviews many more people the same way, to derive a physical brainstate correllate of the personal judgment "fear". That's how the neurogolist derives a reasonable and informed judgment on what is an expression of fear in the brain.

It does not mean that the physical brainstate equals fear. That would be the same as saying that the word "fear", is what fear consists of. It would be saying that the expression of fear, is what fear consists of.

The processes in the brain have freedom, in the moment the processes can turn out either A or B. What can be observed in the brain is how the decisionmaking processes are organized, and what the results of the decisions are. What is making these decisionmaking processes turn out the way they do, cannot possibly be observed. The "fear" is what doing the deciding, fear is not a chosen thing. We cannot create our emotions, created emotions, are fake emotions.

The same rules apply to objects in people's mind, as they apply to objects in the universe proper. Objects in the universe of mind are just as well creations, as are objects in the physical universe. When you have the fantasy figure spiderman in your imagination, then it is a matter of objective fact that this picture is in your mind. Spiderman is just as well a creation, as a planet is, so the rules of objectivity apply to spiderman just the same as they apply to any other creation.

The more precise logic of fact is as follows;

A fact is obtained by evidence of a creation forcing to produce a one to one corresponding model of it, in the mind.

When we for instance measure the circumference of the moon, measure it's mass, what it consists of, and record the craters on it's surface, then all these facts together make up a 1 to 1 corresponding model of the moon, in our mind.

Obtaining facts basically means to copy from nature. Copy from the physical universe, to the universe of mind.

Taking a closer look at the logic of opinion
To help understand the logic of opinion, it serves to make a formal step by step explantion of it.

1. There are alternative futures A and B available

2. As it happens, alternative future B is made the present, meaning B is chosen

3. Then there is the question, “What made the decision turn out B?”

4. Then logic dictates that the answer must be a choice between subjective words P and Q

5. Q is chosen, meaning that the opinion is that Q made the decision turn out B.

We have many words specifically designed to answer questions about what made a decision turn out B instead of A, these are the socalled subjective words. Words denoting the emotions, such as love and hate, or derivative words such as beautiful and ugly. Words denoting personal character such as lazy and nice. And also the words, spirit, soul, and the name God.

All these words are defined in reference to what makes a choice. These sorts of words can be filled in for the variables P and Q in the example.

The logic shows that an opinion always answers a question about what it was that made a decision turn out the way it did. Anger, courage, love, hate, these all have the logical function of making either A or B the present.

It is equally logically valid to choose either answer P or Q. Same as it is equally logically valid to say a painting is beautiful, or ugly.

In step 4, the subjective words P and Q, are alternative futures, just the same as A and B were also alternative futures. There are the alternative futures available of saying B was chosen out of hate, or saying B was chosen out of love.

So we can begin the steps all over again. Choosing an opinion on what it was that made the decision turn out Q. When we say someone is hateful, then someone might say it is hateful to call that person hateful. An opinion can be expressed on an opinion, on an opinion, ad infinite.

It is also shown in the logic, that nothing is ever definitively established. One might choose the opinion B was chosen out of Q, one might next choose the opinion B was chosen out of P. Neither opinion definitively establishes anything.

Subjective words are expressive, meaning they are only understood by the emotion that is supposed to accompany them. The word anger is only understood by the feeling of anger. Basically it is just as valid to utter "aaaaah", or "ooooooh", as it is to use proper subjective words like anger, or joy.

Error by which people deviate from creationism


The whole creationist conceptual scheme hinges on the concept of choosing, which means that having a faulty definition of the verb "choose" makes the logic in the creationist conceptual scheme break down.

People experience enormous psychological appeal / pressure, to do their best. From society, from parents, from one's own ideals. That leads to corruption of the definition of the verb "choose". The correct definition of: "making one of alternative futures the present", changes to the faulty definition: "picking the best or most appropiate option from several alternatives".

In the faulty definition of the verb "choose", the verb is defined with a synonym of the verb "choose", such as the verb "picking". And if we then ask about the definition of the verb "picking", then the answer would be to "choose" something. That is to say that to choose means to choose, which is an error of circular logic. In logic you can never define a word by the word itself, or a synonym of that word.

This error is very common, the overwhelming majority of people define choosing that way. It is defined that way on Google, which is based on the Oxford languages dictionary.

pick out (someone or something) as being the best or most appropriate of two or more alternatives.

To choose in terms of what is best, is a complex way of choosing, involving sorting the alternatives, it is not the fundamental definition of the verb "choose". In essence to define choosing in terms of what is best, is a conflation between the moral advice to do your best, and the barebone logic of choosing.

People who define choosing in terms of what is best, tend to comprehend choosing as like a chesscomputer calculating a move. The chesscomputer calculates different moves in a forced way, and then ranks the moves according to chances of winning, or scoring the most points. Then it plays the top ranked move. This selection procedure looks a bit similar to the logic of choosing, but it is all forced, there is no freedom in it.

With actual choosing there is a future of real possibilities that is anticipated from the present. Actual choosing is spontaneous, free.

People who define making a choice in terms of figuring out what is best, generally have problems with forming subjective opinions. Because the concept of subjectivity does not function with the definition of the verb "choose" in terms of what is best.

There is a plethora of mental illness and bad ideology related to this one particular error.

Because these "best" people ( the people who define the verb "choose" in terms of what is best), have no functional concept of subjectivity, they then tend to objectify what is subjective. So they tend to objectify emotions, personal character, assert they can measure them as fact.

Most significantly in the theory of natural selection, this tendency to objectify subjective terminology is quite apparent. For example, (C. Darwin, Origin of Species,1859)

..and as natural selection works solely by and for the good of each being, all corporeal and mental endowments will tend to progress towards perfection.

Natural selection theory asserts what is “good” as an objective statement of fact, while normally "good" is used as a subjective word. Natural selection theory is thereby indisthinguishable from ideology about what is good.

To this day evolution scientists describe the entire life cycle of organisms using subjective terminology, in regards to what is called differential reproductive "success". The word "success" in the main definition that evolutionary scientists use, justifies this use of subjective terminology.

On account of the widespread use of subjective terminology in natural selection theory, evolution scientists assert they can establish the personal character of organisms, including people, as a matter of biological fact. Who is “courageous”, who is “selfish”, who is "lazy", and who is “industrious”. The content of character is asserted to be a matter of biological fact.

For example, evolution scientist Ernst Haeckel even commented on the biological character of Jesus (E. Haeckel, Riddle of the Universe,1901, page 337).

Yet the characteristics which distinguish his high and noble personality, and which give a distinctive impress to his religion, are certainly not Semitical; they are rather features of the higher Aryan race, and especially of it's noblest branch, the Hellenes.

According to creationism, because personal character is on the side of what makes a choice, it is a matter of chosen opinion what the personal character of someone is, and no statement of fact can be made about it.

This assertion that natural selection theory can be used to establish the content of character of people, is part of what is called social darwinism, which was the main element in Nazi ideology. For example, the Handbook for schooling the Hitler Youth, Fritz Brennecke, 1937.

The foundation of the national socialist outlook on life is the perception of the unlikeness of man.

In the start of the handbook it asserts that personal character can be established as biologica fact of racial science. Then later in the book selection and evolution is explained, in explict reference to Charles Darwin. Then selection is extended to "socialist selection", which meant "wiping out the less worthy".

The hard emotionless attitudes of the nazis, come from the hard pseudoscientific facts about personal character. These were the attitudes that occasioned warmongering and genocide, the holocaust

In response to the holocaust, after the second world war, postmodernist philosophy became popular.

Postmodernism asserts that opinions are inherent in statements of fact. Meaning that every statement of fact, is also a statement of subjective opinion.

Postmodernism worked to soften the previous hard edged factual attitudes of social darwinists, allowing for some emotion in their judgments.

But postmodernism does not validate the concept of subjective opinion, like creationism does. Postmodernism only assumes the concept of personal opinion, as known from common discourse, without explaining it.

Solely creationism validates both concepts of subjectivity and objectivity, each in their own right, in one coherent conceptual scheme.