Often, when writers refer to how they write books, they usually refer to the process they use in one of two ways: creation or evolution. This dichotomy got me thinking about the way we as writers view our writing and understand ourselves.
In philosophy, especially apologetics, you will se this same differentiation. Of course, this is a matter for debate in that sphere. But, ultimately, people are referring to two disparate processes that are supposed to lead to the same end. In science/philosophy, evolution is referred to the mechanism by which organisms change over time from one type to another (broad definition). However, from a creationists’ standpoint, life was created as is and the only change that take place is intraspecies change (e.g., many breeds or dogs or horses).
As writers, people see their process very much the same as in the difference between creation and evolution. Creationist writers create the story and then guide it along. While some changes will happen, the kernel remains the same. There is no literary extra-speciation, so to speak. In Evolutionary writing, the story starts in one way, but is left to change and grow and move into and out of other areas. No plan is applied and chance is king.
Neither of these approaches are better or worse than the other, really. Both can be used as mechanisms to get you to a good book. But, I think we must ask ourselves: Am I a creationist or an evolutionist?