SecretMethod70

Generally speaking, at least in my experience, and in America, "creationist" pretty much always refers to what you call "new world" creationists. I can't say I've ever seen views such as the Catholic Church's described as creationism. In my mind, that's simply balancing faith with science. No doubt, creationism technically can mean any belief which involves a god in creation, but that's not how it's popularly used by any means. Indeed, I see nothing wrong with what you call "old world" creationism. If someone wants to believe that some sort of metaphysical force was involved in creation, while also accepting everything science has to tell us, more power to them. This is commonly referred to as the "Two Books" approach, which refers to scripture and nature: one cannot contradict the other, and if they do then our interpretation of one is wrong. What bothers and confuses me is seeing people reject actual knowledge in favor of what is unknowable, rather than seeking to find balance between the two.

EDIT: I just realized I totally missed your point on "old world" creationism. It's been awhile since I've seen that thought process talked about, so I apologize for that. My original post is still correct in that the Catholic Church does not fall into "old world" creationism. The reason for this - and the reason "old world" creationism is almost equally as invalid as "new world" creationism - is because science has also shown us that the universe, and life on earth, did not come into being in the order described in the first creation story of Genesis (the 7 days one). Not only did creation not follow that order, it did not follow those equal time spans, making the "7 days = ??? years" approach even more incorrect.

__________________
Le temps détruit tout

"Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling