@@ -8,9 +8,9 @@ On Creation - For everyone outside North America|http://virus.lucifer.com/bbs/index.php?board=3;action=voteResults;idvote=44] as discussed at ["Evolution as a secular religion", Reply 25 and 26|http://virus.lucifer.com/bbs/index.php?board=3;action=display;threadid=28642;start=15]
[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|http://virus.lucifer.com/bbs/index.php?board=3;action=voteIndex].
----
-__The dispute over the meaning is characterised by the following excerpts__
+__The dispute over the meaning of "create" and "creation"
is characterised by the following excerpts__
[David Lucifer|DavidLucifer] 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|VectorHermit] 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
