Talk:Creationism/Archive 10

This is an archive of past discussions about Creationism. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

→

An undiscussed undoing

An editor undid my edits: [1] with the summary: "undid earlier change to more neutral and coherent version." I think there is a number of problems with the current version:

The current version says that "in the secular sense" creationism is a "political doctrine". This statement is not cited and worse, I do not think it is true. There is no "creationism" political action committee, there is no creationist "litmus test". Creationism is primarily a religious, not political, belief. It is only because religion has become politicized that creationism has political implications. The version I wrote explains this better (and makes the context clear since the United States is basically the only place where creationism is a political issue: everywhere else it is a cultural/religious phenomenon)
The current version does not link to Creation and evolution in public education which is obviously the place where creationism is most politicized.
The current version has a sentence that reads: "The meaning of the term "creationism" depends upon the context wherein it is used, as it refers to a particular origin belief within a particular political culture." This sentence is not strictly related to potlicial context even as it makes a vague gesture towards such. The first clause is completely superfluous: the meaning of all words is dependent on the context "wherein it is used". The second clause is equally meaningless simply saying that the context is particular. This isn't good writing at all.
The current version wastes an entire paragraph saying "creationism is hard to define". That is not really about the political context at all. The second paragraph should be the lead which is why, in my writing, I switched their order.

In sum, I think that my version is actually more coherent than the current version.

As for neutrality, I do not see any evidence that my version is somehow lacking over the current version. I encourage the editor who made this undo to explain precisely what they meant in this section of the talk page.

--Fradulent Ideas 13:39, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

To be fair, my objection was more to do with your changes lack of coherence, than its neutrality. To address your points one at a time...

It is only because religion has become politicized that creationism has political implications No, it's because creationists have used largely political means to push their agenda that it has political implications. In fact the source you provided supports this.
..does not link to Creation and evolution in public education.. Quite right, I hadn't meant to undo that.
.."The meaning of the term "creationism" depends upon the context wherein it is used.. Good writing or not, it's true. "Creationism" means something quite different to a hindu nationalist, than it would to a US christian fundamentalist. This is dependant on their political and cultural context. And the old order was better, it defined the common feature of disparate forms of creationism, then gave the best known example.
The current version wastes an entire paragraph saying "creationism is hard to define" Really? Does it? Seems to me it says that creationism in a political sense, is a movement to promote ones religious dogma of origins above other explanations, particularly scientific ones, and acknowledges that since those dogmas differ from person to person, group to group, it can be rather difficult to pin down.

Anyway, I would suggest in future, that you propose changes here first, and let other editors discuss them, since this is contentious issue. ornis 14:27, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks ornis, you do a lot to keep WP NPOV. -- WolfieInu 14:36, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Comments such as this are really unhelpful as they do little more than say "I agree" without offering substantive criticism. Please read talk page guidelines and keep your comments on point. --Fradulent Ideas 15:37, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, are you a member of the talk page police, our own little wiki thought- and speach-crimes einsatzgruppen? Knock off the high-dudgeon (or is that trunceon?) crap, if you want to be taken seriously. Jim62sch 22:08, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

This is also not appropriate for a talk page. See WP:TALK. If you have a problem with me, comment on my user talk. And also, remember WP:NPA and WP:CIVILITY. --Fradulent Ideas 00:40, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

...so now I'm not allowed to agree with someone about something? Confusing. -- WolfieInu 18:30, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Herr FI hätte gesprochen. Obviously he likes things "just-so"...not that I care. You are free to agree whenever you wish. Jim62sch 22:13, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

That was sarcasm. Herr FI hat neulich WP policy gelesen, und denkt jetzt, dass die Welt ihm etwas verschuldet (zb. dass WP jetzt ihm gehören soll) ;) -- WolfieInu 23:32, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Ja, Sie hat recht. Sollten wir ihm helfen? Er muß wenig sich entspannen, ja? Jim62sch 19:16, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that ornis has really understood my critique and in fact has made points in favor of my version:

creationists have used largely political means to push their agenda that it has political implications. In fact the source you provided supports this. While it is correct that creationists have used political means to push their agenda, this does not respond to my point that creationism is not a political doctrine. That creationism gets promoted politically does not make it a political doctrine. The current wording is false!
I hadn't meant to undo that. Please be more careful with your edits in the future.
Good writing or not, it's true. "Creationism" means something quite different to a hindu nationalist, than it would to a US christian fundamentalist. This is irrelevant to the point was making. The fact is that what creationism "means" is not a political issue. This point (made well) does not belong in this section.
Seems to me it says that creationism in a political sense, is a movement to promote ones religious dogma of origins above other explanations, particularly scientific ones, and acknowledges that since those dogmas differ from person to person, group to group, it can be rather difficult to pin down. An interesting interpretation, but as I demonstrated with my first point that's problematic in two ways: 1. creationism isn't a political movement and 2. the fact that the dogmas differ from person-to-person is a feature of dogma and political thought. It's like saying "people think differently from person to person". That's not very encyclopedic.

In short, I think that the reasons given for the undo and the subsequent defense made is very poor. I think that we need to writing-workshop this section because right now it says almost nothing encyclopedic.

--Fradulent Ideas 15:36, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

When did this doggerel become a verb, "writing-workshop"?

BTW, creationism has become a de facto political doctrine: the appropriation of creationism for political ends is well-known, well-funded, quite the vote-getter in the US, and a driver of various decisions taken in the several states and in the Federal government. I'm not too clear on what planet you live, but these are simple facts here on Earth. Maybe you should read-workshop a little. Jim62sch 22:19, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Your opinion is noted, but unless we have a reference that states that creationism is a de facto political doctrine, we cannot simply state it. I think that this is a novel interpretation and bordering on violation of WP:NOR. Also, your response to me violates the spirit of WP:NPA and WP:CIVILITY. It wasn't necessary for you to say "I'm not too clear on what planet you live." Please apologize. --Fradulent Ideas 00:30, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Your opinion has been noted. Jim62sch 22:14, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, to clarify. Fradulent Ideas, I agree that creationism is not a political doctrine. However, the tone your edits used was not very neutral. If I have to choose between a debatable fact and an NPOV tone, I'd go for the debatable fact. Then I'd see about getting the factual error(?) resolved. If a section is in a POV tone, it's too easy for another edit to accidentally remove facts while removing a POV. And then you may have to argue a revert to get your facts back, while struggling against people who don't like your POV. Confusion results, and you may as well forget about getting your facts back on the page.

PS. Just some friendly advice. I know some comments other people make can sting, but sometimes it's best to ignore them rather than call in the "WP policy" artillery straight away. If personal attacks continue, then invoking WP policy is called for. However, by initially responding in a friendly tone you can often successfully defuse the situation. -- WolfieInu 18:47, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Which place was the tone of my edit not neutral? --Fradulent Ideas 19:25, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Here:

"In a political context, creationists advocate for the validity and superiority of their particular religiously-based origin belief over those of other belief systems, including those in particular espoused through secular or scientific rationale. They are opposed by many individuals and organizations who consistently point out that the alternatives to scientific reasoning offered by creationists are opposed by the consensus of the scientific community." There is no doubt which side you're on, is there? -- WolfieInu 22:40, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

And what side would that be? --Fradulent Ideas 01:12, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

WolfieInu speaks wisely. Reaching for the "WP policy" artillery right off the bat is simply going to cast you as someone difficult to work with, as that tactic is one generally used by trolls. You also need to learn to be less dismissive -- your's is not the only opinion here, and you do not own the talk page. Jim62sch 22:19, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

<undent, reply to Fradulent Ideas> Well, there are many factions of anti-creationism, but I'm sure you slot in there somewhere... my point being that your edit is (for the most part) factually correct, but POV. Just slightly, but detectably so. It's good work, and nobody can avoid being influenced by their POV. I just picked it up because my POV is diametrically opposed to yours ;) -- WolfieInu 08:14, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Explain. Where is the evidence for POV? --Fradulent Ideas 16:48, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Wolfie, please explain. If a POV was apparent to you then surely we just need to reword it a bit. Jim62sch 19:20, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

There has been little to no response to my proposals on this section. I'm going to reinstate the edits trying to take into consideration the criticisms listed here. --Fradulent Ideas 14:30, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

No response? I notice at least a couple of other editors have given substantial attention to your suggestions. How did you decide this constitutes no response? Do you want to have 10 or 20 other editors writing 10s of kilobytes to address your objections? What on earth? Be careful here. You are creating a certain image and reputation.--Filll 17:15, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Sentence about rulings

Creation science was ruled unacceptable for teaching in public school science classes in the ruling for the court case Edwards versus Aguillard, after which creationists invented the concept of intelligent design that was recently ruled unacceptable for teaching in public school science classes in the Dover Panda Trial ruling. That's some pretty substandard english right there. Again, I suggest you discuss these edits you want to make first. ornis 16:13, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Other than being a bit long, what is substandard about it? --Fradulent Ideas 16:23, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I split the sentences up into two shorter sentences if that helps. I also think it is disingenuous and mean for you to revert without discussing which you have done twice by my count. You seem to think that it's okay for you to revert without discussion while criticizing me for making edits without discussion. That seems very hypocritical. Isn't there a Wikipedia policy against hypocrisy and being mean? --Fradulent Ideas 16:31, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh please, I reverted you for making contentious and poorly written edits without discussing them. That sentence above for instance, can you really not see how ugly it is? and what exactly does it add over the original version: After legal judgements that teaching this in public schools contravened constitutional separation of Church and State, it was stripped of biblical references and called creation science, then when this was ruled unacceptable, presented as intelligent design.? If anything your version obfuscates the relationship of creationism, creation science and intelligent design. ornis 17:46, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

David Souza has recently cleaned up the new addition. Though longer, it does seem to have advantages over the earlier version, at least on a cursory examination. Silly rabbit 17:49, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

<edit conflict> Here it is for discussion:

After legal judgements that teaching this in public schools contravened constitutional separation of Church and State, it was stripped of biblical references and called creation science. When the court case Edwards versus Aguillard ruled that creation science similarly contravened the constitution, all references to "creation" in a draft school textbook were changed to refer to intelligent design, which was subsequently claimed to be a new scientific theory. The Kitzmiller v. Dover ruling concluded that intelligent design is not science, and contravenes the constitutional restriction on teaching religion in public school science classes.

If an earlier version is preferred or improvements can be made, that will be welcome. .. dave souza, talk 17:58, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that is better. ornis 17:58, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for listening, Dave. I made a few new tweaks to add McLean v. Arkansas. I'm curious, though, maybe this historical explanation is best left for the political controversy section? It may be too specific according to WP:LEAD. --Fradulent Ideas 18:01, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

It should really be Daniel v. Waters that stopped creationism being taught, McLean v. Arkansas ruled creation science unconstitutional in the relevant district but was ignored nationwide. The court cases are central to the renaming of creationism, it's complex but this very simplified account is focussed on the name changes. I was trying to minimise the detail in the lead to focus on the naming, but as is evident a bit more information makes the statement a much clearer summary of the article. ... dave souza, talk 19:01, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction, Dave. I do think that the court cases are central, but is it possible to summarize this excellent prose and then put it in lower section? --Fradulent Ideas 00:32, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Hard to see how. What do you have in mind? -- WolfieInu 08:51, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

A summary statement that creationism has been ruled inappropriate for teaching in public schools. --Fradulent Ideas 16:49, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Mainstream churches and timeframes

While it is true that most mainstream churches allow for the timeframes given by science, most do not go as far as to make it a dogmatic acceptance. Many mainstream churches are somewhat accomodating of those people who would believe in a literal interpretation when it gets right down to it. For example, while the Catholic Church has made strong statements in support of science, they also have not said it is an error to support Ussher's chronology and therefore there are plenty of Catholic creationists in the right-wing of the church fighting against the timeframes as other creationists do. Mainstream churches tend not to attack creationism directly: they instead tend to attack the ideas that only literal interpretations can be correct.

The claim was insinuated in the article that creationists timeframes are directly opposed to the theology of mainstream churches. I think that science is accepted by mainstream churches in a more nuanced apologetic fashion than that.

--Fradulent Ideas 13:54, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

While churches might be accommodating to a wide range of beliefs, many churches have issued statements condemning creationism and biblical literalism. There are many examples. See level of support for evolution of clergy letter project.--Filll 14:08, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Individual clergy members that make statements do not equate to the statements of the entire church organization. We could include comments that there are mainstream clergy-members which dispute creationism, but stating that the mainstream churches themselves do is slightly misleading. --Fradulent Ideas 16:10, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Is this a reading comprehension problem? Take a look at this for example.--Filll 17:12, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I think this illustrates perfectly the mainstream denomination's "agnosticism" towards evolution vs. creationism. Let's look carefully at the statements of the churches:

Neither evolution over an immensity of time nor the work done in a six-day week are articles of the creeds. EPISCOPAL BISHOP OF ATLANTA, PASTORAL LETTER.

Resolved, the House of Bishops concurring, That this 67th General Convention affirm its belief in the glorious ability of God to create in any manner.... THE GENERAL CONVENTION OF THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH.

To preserve their own integrity both science and religion need to remain in a healthful tension of respect toward one another and to engage in a searching debate which no more permits theologians to pose as scientists than it permits scientists to pose as theologians. THE LUTHERAN WORLD FEDERATION

3. That the General Assembly urge congregations to encourage and assist teachers and administrators in becoming sensitive to the religious perspectives of all persons in the schools, without sacrificing their professional commitments and standards regarding the teaching of science and teaching about religion. UNITED PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH IN THE U.S.A. (1983)

These all indicate that the churches make delicate accomodations of the creationist impulses of those in their particular communion. To be sure, I'm certain that these mainstream churches have not excommunicated heretics for preaching creationism or creation science, despite their stated disdain and lack of approbation for the subject.

17:36, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I am certain no church would throw someone out for being a creationist. However, some might throw someone out for supporting evolution or even science. But so what? What is your point?--Filll 17:52, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

My point is that to say that the mainstream churches dispute creationism (even in its most fundamentalist form) needs to be carefully couched: most mainstream churches tolerate a certain level of creationism and their disapproval is related to how much they disapprove of fundamentalism. --Fradulent Ideas 19:06, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok I agree. Fundamentalism usually ends up being intolerant or worse. We need to define creationism in the way that most dictionaries and encyclopediae do, not in the way that Homestarmy or some others might want to define it. That way we can discuss it and write an article. If we do not have creationism defined narrowly, an article cannot be written.--Filll 23:49, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Filll, the way that clergy letter project seems to be spinning it, i'm having a hard time seeing anything there that explicitly rejects any possibility of God creating the universe, just plenty of vauge doublespeak about "religious truth" and "scientific truth", and it only seems to explicitly accept evolution, which of course, has little in and of itself to do with the creation of the universe. Homestarmy 17:22, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Homestarmy, you are confused. When creationists start ranting and raving, they claim that if you do not believe what they believe, you are not Christian and/or you are an atheist and/or you do not believe God created the universe, etc. This is just pure nonsense and propaganda out of creationists. You are just listening to pure lies and ludicrous claims from religious leaders and a few atheists with an agenda, and inferring all kinds of false ideas. Somehow I think someone has to make a very complete and elaborate work on definitions of creationism. I do not think this is even appropriate for WP because it would be hundreds of pages long to address all the confusion that has been generated, and how often the definitions have fractured and changed over the centuries, and how different the definition is among the 30,0000+ types of Christian and the 75+ types of Muslim etc.--Filll 17:52, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Err? All I said was that letter doesn't explicitly reject the idea that God created the universe. By not providing any background on what "religious truth" even means, it doesn't seem to me that the letter is attempting to argue that religious truth is basically just fairy tales or something. Your comment mentioning the letter, on the other hand, seemed to indicate that you thought it was a condemnation of Creationism, and I simply don't see that. Homestarmy 18:07, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

<undent>Exactly as I said before. According to that definition of creationism, *I* am a creationist and so is Orangemarlin and about 90% of the population of the USA and 50% of all scientists in the US. However, that is not a useful definition and not the one that is most commonly used. By that definition, probably half or more of the people working at the National Center for Science Education are creationists. So it is a nonsense definition.--Filll 18:59, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

<undent, edit conflict> Filll, please stop your ranting and raving. I know creationism upsets you. Well, evolutionism upsets me. Yet I do not rant and rave, even though evolutionism gets forced down my throat (in an intolerant manner, I might add) perpetually, both in academic and everyday situations (even in advertising, for goodness' sake!). Creationists (e.g. Hovind) can rant and rave, and evolutionists (e.g. Dawkins) can rant and rave. That doesn't address the truth or falsehood of their positions. We can't disprove an idea by (rightly!) highlighting the attitudes of its extremist proponents. PS. 30,000 different types of (by implication, mutually incompatible) Christian? Reference? -- WolfieInu 19:10, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

How am I ranting and raving? Creationism does not upset me, but I do object to teaching nonscience as science in science classes. Creationism is religion and I have no problem with teaching it in religion class or philosophy class or history class or public affairs class or debate class in public schools. In private schools you can teach anything you want in any class you want. Public schools paid for with public money are a different story. By the way, you might note that evolutionism is not a term that is viewed favorably and does not really mean very much in science. How do you define evolutionism anyway? What is it? And how has it been forced down your throat? And how is it in an intolerant manner? And if it is done in advertising, then you are free not to buy that product to express your wishes. The support for evolution is determined by the evidence, which is why all the courts back it as a science, not creationism. And the reason why 99.9% of the biologists subscribe to evolution, not creationism. And of course there is a huge amount of overlap between Christian sects. One person who has tried to count them is David A. Barrett. Take a look at [2] for instance.--Filll 23:49, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Very good :). A few reasons why you came across as ranting: you describe creationists as "ranting and raving", uncharitable, mongers of "pure nonsense and propaganda", advocates of "pure lies and ludicrous claims", and highly factioned (despite the fact that most/all major creationist organisations are non-denominational).

My claim that evolution has been forced down my throat is in jest, mainly because evolutionary theory (okay, yes, not "evolutionism") is propagandized everywhere, even in totally irrelevant contexts. The point I was making is that evolutionists repeatedly complain how creationists "intolerantly" try to "force their beliefs on others", yet have no problem doing the same thing themselves.

As for 99.9% of scientists believing in evolution... for most of history, 99.9% of scientists agreed that the universe was geocentric, but that didn't make it true. Just because a particular scientific theory (such as evolutionary theory) is more recent than its competitors doesn't mean it is an improvement - remember Tycho? -- WolfieInu 08:31, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Then what is the one most commonly used, and why is it more useful than stating what the most notable definitions are instead of just one definition? Homestarmy 19:05, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Science allows for god in the gaps creationism, which is the variety that Filll, Orangemarlin, 90% of the population, and 50% of all scientists in the US including Ken Miller are. However, I don't think that most people would consider creationism to allow for god in the gaps. --Fradulent Ideas 19:09, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Science tells us HOW things might have been done, not WHO did them. This is much easier than people are making it.--Filll 19:59, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, so science has gaps. Filling them with a god is, by definition, using a god in the gaps. I agree that this is the major way that people justify their continued belief in religious dogma, but most creationists take issue with this (for example, Answers in Genesis, ICR, Phil Johnson, etc.) --Fradulent Ideas 20:09, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

This is exactly the reason that creationists are at war with theistic evolution and each other and with atheists and other groups. They insist on a certain interpretation and worldview and set of beliefs.--Filll 20:15, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I dunno Filll, the mere idea that everything was created by a deity of some sort sure sounds like there's plenty of room to fit in many different interpretations, perhaps even multiple religions and philosophies. I question whether or not there's only one kind of Creationism as you seem to suggest, in fact, it looks to me like there are many different ways that people choose to believe that God created everything. Of course, they aren't all accurate needless to say.... Homestarmy 20:32, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Of course there are. That is what I have always maintained. However, the creationists that this article is about, the creationists in Number's books, the creationists that oppose science and evolution, the creationists that have lost court case after court case on this issue, are different than what you are suggesting. Most people have a very special thing in mind when they talk about creationist, and it is not as you suggest, but far more specific. And if we did not adopt a specific meaning in these articles, we could not write a meaningful article about this movement at all.--Filll 21:03, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree 100%, Filll. I think that this is the direction the article needs to take. --Fradulent Ideas 22:00, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

AFAIK, an article named simply "creationism" needs to acknowledge the broader usage of the term. If the intention is to talk only about the more strict sense (as described by Filll), than we may create a new page about "strict creationism" or a similar unambiguous term. --Leinad ∴

-diz aí, chapa. 23:37, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

<undent> Wait, hang on. Would this "re-direction" of the article entail deleting any material? For slightly different reasons, I raised (or concurred with) a similar view a while back: the article covers too much divergent material. Most people have American "fundamentalist" Creationism in mind when they say "creationism", so all this other material could confuse/frustrate them. Why not a disambig page? Poor martytred me, all that effort and nobody even took the trouble to comment. (sniff) -- WolfieInu 23:44, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

By the way, and I've said this a million times, evolutionist is not a word to describe scientists. It's pejorative and completely incorrect. I do not believe in evolution. I do have an evolutionary dogma. Evolution requires no faith on my part. It is simply a scientific fact, no different than gravity, light, or hemoglobin carrying oxygen from the lungs to the muscles. As all of those concepts, it is backed up by literally millions of articles published by very smart people in peer-reviewed magazines. So when you use the word evolutionist it has no meaning to me. Actually I read blah blah instead. You are merely trying to equate your unscientific belief in a higher being to my science. I refuse to participate. This article is about Creationism which is a strictly religious belief. One more thing about the geocentric theory. That was religion interfering with science. Once scientists (let's say Galileo) stated otherwise, the church went ballistic. In the history of human beings (which started about 200,000 years ago) in lieu of knowledge, they created myth, legend and lies. We now have the ability to see everything from distant stars to microscopic viruses. I don't need myth, legend and lies to allow me to understand the natural world. To me, your beliefs would send us back to the dark ages, where people lived 30 years and died of horrifying diseases (because all medicine needs evolution), where the churches kept knowledge from people, and where lies were utilized to control them. It was your church that created geocentricism, not science. Orangemarlin 08:42, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

All right! All right already! Evolutionary dogma, paradigm, tenets, whatever you're happy calling it.

Now this: the only reason you say that "religion" was invented on the spot by people too stupid to rely on the scientific method, is because of your view of history... based on evolutionary theory? Can you spot the circularity here?

And something else: If Christianity is anti-science, how do you explain that the only societies in which true science (incl. the scientific method) arose were Christian? Excepting Japan, the areas with the most readily available high technology (which implies advanced theoretical science) correspond exactly to nations that were historically Christian.

And another thing: I didn't even mention the word "evolutionist" in my edit! Why the chip on your shoulder all of a sudden?

BTW: Galileo is a bad example. He was arguing against the scientific establishment of the day, not the Church primarily. The Bible has no position on geocentrism. It says that the Earth is "central to creation" since it is most important, not because everything rotates around it. For example, if you say that "the motherboard is central to a computer," that doesn't mean that you believe a computer is constantly orbiting about its motherboard. The Church of the time had deliberately reinterpreted certain poetic texts to bring them "in line" with contemporary science (kind of like long-age creationists today, only in reverse). When Galileo challenged current science, the scientists of the day called the Pope's attention to him and tried to have him refuted on religious grounds, since they could make no dent in his science. Quite ironic, actually. -- WolfieInu 09:14, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Galileo case is very complex: it was not purely an instance of conflict between science and religion, since personal and political factors also weighed heavily in it. More importantly, though, Galileo is not really representative of the overall relationship between science and Christianity - contemporary historians of science make it clear that historical instances of conflict are the exceptions rather than the rule in this context. --Leinad ∴

-diz aí. 14:38, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, much of Orangemarlin's apparent view regarding the medieval period is quite common among the public, but quite inaccurate according to contemporary historians. Misconceptions such as: "the rise of Christianity have killed of ancient science", and "the medieval Christian church suppressed the growth of science", "the medieval Christians though that the world was flat", "the Church prohibited autopsies and dissections during the Middle Ages", are all reported by Ronald Numbers as examples of widely popular myths that still pass as historical truth, even though they are not supported by historical research. --Leinad ∴

-diz aí. 15:34, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

<ri> Quite right, Leinad, and one particularly relevant case is Charles Darwin who is commonly misrepresented as some kind of dogmatic atheist plotting from the outset to undermine Christianity, when as Moore points out he was qualified as a clergyman and was following the example of his clergyman friends in becoming a naturalist then working within the ideas of natural theology – thus The Origin of Species is natural theology, though by then his faith had waned to deism, later becoming a troubled agnosticism. Also, while it was opposed by Church of England conservative evangelicals, it was welcomed by liberals in that church and by some other denominations... dave souza, talk 16:06, 4 July 2007 (UTC) tweak - Moore notes Darwin still believed in God at time of writing the Origin .. dave souza, talk 16:11, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

References

BTW

Could we remove or archive the "References" section? It's no logner relevant. -- WolfieInu 15:08, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

The reference entries are auto-generated by some references in the preceding text. They will automatically vanish once that text is archived. I would remove the section only when it is empty, otherwise we have dangling references. --Stephan Schulz 15:32, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Roger, roger. -- WolfieInu 18:15, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Creationism Definition Proposal

How about a separate article, linked to this one, on the different definitions of the word "creationism" and its history? I found about 20 different definitions from different encyclopediae and dictionaries that we can use to start with.--Filll 02:13, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

It is semi interesting and has changed over the years. Different religions define it in different ways. Some dictionaries do not include OEC as creationism and only focus on YEC. Some define creation science to be the same as creationism, and some define scientific creationism to be just an earlier version of creation science. The Catholic definition is very elaborate. Some are broad and some are narrow. --Filll 02:35, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Put "Creationism" into the search at www.mahalo.com. I was shocked at the heading this was redirected to, but after a bit of thought... I decided yes this is the super-category of Creationism, Creation science, Theistic evolution etc. What do you think? ^ross ^nixon 02:02, 5 July 2007 (UTC

It's the "big tent". A term so vague as to incorporate Raelians and all, given a new more specific meaning by the ID movement. There's a long discussion about the point in the talk:Intelligent design archives somewhere. Nice search – fun to see the "Intelligent Design Supporters" list topped by Answers in Genesis, as well as including "Blog: Sneak Peak at the Creation Museum" and "YouTube Video: How God Designed the Banana For Human Consumption". Oddly, "Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster " comes under Evolution Proponents and not under Intelligent Design Satire. ... dave souza, talk 06:19, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Also from the list, Spiked Male Genitals Spur Beetle Evolution. Creationism?? .. dave souza, talk 10:30, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

there is wiki about evolution writen from the POV of science, are there wikis on creation writen from the POV of each religion?

this would allow each party their own platform and theoretically remove the need for arguments. i admit that while science is one cohesive view, the religious views have probably split into 100s of different views. but hey, wiki's got 2million articles and growing. let them bikker among themselves.Wikiskimmer 05:42, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Platforms? There are no arguments. Creationism is an essentially religious conversation, one with many forms--only when it tries to enter science does it get problematic. Evolution is science. Only when nonscientific religious dogma is used is there an argument there. NPOV requires a balanced approach to any article. Orangemarlin 07:32, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

correct. then where is the religious wiki on creation? the creationism wiki is not written by creationists it seems, it looks to have been written by USWikiskimmer 08:36, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

You might try origin belief and creation within belief systems. --FOo 08:20, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

no no no, these are all written from an anthropological/scientific point of view. we don't want religious fundamentalists to come screw with our evolution wiki, yet we've WE have written a creationism wiki FOR THEM. where are the wikis where creationists have written their own account. Evolution IS POV, science POV. where are the wikis from RELIGIOUS, FUNDAMENTALIST POV?Wikiskimmer 08:36, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Good ideas, but this project shouldn't be considered a series of independent rants...except for the talk sections, of course. Orangemarlin 08:30, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

rants? there seems to always be trouble of fundamentalists screwing with the evo page but i couldn't find THEIR OWN page. seems out of balance.Wikiskimmer 08:36, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Once we start a debate on WP, we can forget trying to build an encyclopedia. NPOV should be enough to keep anti-creationist comments out. The article already references creationist sites, so anyone who is interested enough can go and read up on creationism from a creationist POV.

In other words - nobody is stopping creationists from contributing. If the creationism article ends up with a POV, then it just means the evolutionist contributors are blind to their own POV. I don't think they are, they're doing a good job IMO. -- WolfieInu 08:41, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

If you are interested in argumentation where everyone gets to present their side, you may want to take a look at Wikiinfo. JoshuaZ 13:30, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

where are the wikis from RELIGIOUS, FUNDAMENTALIST POV?

You might want to try Conservapedia - that's a wiki encyclopaedia written from a fundamentalist POV. Guettarda 13:58, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Or you could try here [3]. Jim62sch 18:30, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Well if you want more wikis on this general topic:

Covering range of meanings in the lead

The opening paragraph was a guddle anyway, and in my opinion it should cover all the meanings of creationism while making it clear that in terms of modern arguments it basically means anti-evolution. So, I've boldly changed it to the following:

Creationism is the belief that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe were created in their entirety by a deity or deities (typically God), whose existence is presupposed.^[1] The term can be used to refer to specific doctrines within this broad range of beliefs, for example in theology Creationism refers to the doctrine that God directly creates a soul for each body, as against traducianism or pre-existence of the soul. In relation to the creation-evolution controversy the term creationism (or strict creationism) is commonly used to refer to rejection of evolution. The wide spectrum of such beliefs includes young Earth creationism holding a very literal interpretation of Genesis, while old Earth creationism accepts geological findings but rejects evolution. The term theistic evolution has been coined to refer to beliefs in creation which are compatible with scientific findings on evolution and the age of the Earth.

There are no additional citations as yet: if required, the dictionary references discussed above could be cited, and the "spectrum" section would cite The Creation/Evolution Continuum by Eugenie Scott. The article already covers all these various meanings save only Creationism (soul) which is covered in its own article. .. dave souza, talk 08:54, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Good. Boldness is what we need :) -- WolfieInu 09:34, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

How heavily cited do you want this to be? --Filll 12:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, adding to the existing cite 1, Theological Outlines by Francis J. Hall: Ch. XIV. Q. 84. Traducianism and Creationism covers that point well, and The Creation/Evolution Continuum as above covers the rest. By the way, her opening comment "Many -- if not most -- Americans think of the creation and evolution controversy as a dichotomy with "creationists" on one side, and "evolutionists" on the other. This assumption all too often leads to the unfortunate conclusion that because creationists are believers in God, that evolutionists must be atheists. The true situation is much more complicated." pretty much covers the question about which usage is most common. .. dave souza, talk 13:50, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:BOLD inspired me to remove this statement:

The term can be used to refer to specific doctrines within this broad range of beliefs, for example in theology Creationism refers to the doctrine that God directly creates a soul for each body, as against traducianism or pre-existence of the soul.

I contend that this is about a subject that is different from the article and so doesn't belong in the WP:LEAD. We already WP:DISAMBIG before the lead begins.

--Fradulent Ideas 19:45, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes! Good move. One less wild-card factor to worry about. -- WolfieInu 10:53, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Some changes

I did a few things:

I enacted the change regarding "most often" to "general". This was discussed above.
I summarized the history of creationist legal battles for the lead and moved the detailed discussion to the appropriate section.
I created a new subsection regarding early theology and creationist connections.

Please discuss whatever problems you have with these edits in this section.

Fradulent Ideas 18:21, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

The new sections and moving the legal outline to the intro to the history seemed to me to work pretty well, minor glitch being that the early theology should be a subsection of history and not a new section. The intro seemed rather confused about the 1920s, so I've briefly clarified that. .. dave souza, talk 21:22, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. I changed the wording slightly as I felt the discussion was too halting. There is still some issue as to how to describe the turnaround that happened from the 1920s to the 1960s, but we are at a much better place now, I think. --Fradulent Ideas 16:37, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

There is an archived discussion of this template at Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/Not_deleted/May_2005#Template:Creationism2. There was no consensus for deletion. Joe D (t) 10:09, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

So there should be no tag at all indicating it is proposed for deletion? - Tεx τ urε 16:45, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

So there should be a tag for deletion on a template that was once but is no longer on TFD? - Hm. SV|t 20:11, 18 May 2005 (UTC) PS - resored vertical version redirected by Joshuaschroeder. SV

Ok. I'm only asking the question because the tag still existed but Joe D's comment said the vote was over. Glad to see it's resolved. - Tεx τ urε 20:14, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

I removed the edit button at the bottom to tighten the template.--ghost 30 June 2005 14:47 (UTC)

redundancy

heya -- good edits generally ... but the contents of the "pseudoscience" subsection are redundant -- they're on the template twice. i'm just deleting the redundancy ... Ungtss 20:10, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

also ... regarding flat earth ... on what basis are we describing it as a form of creationism? it seems to me it's a "related concept." to believe the earth is flat is not a form of creationism like the others -- the others relate specifically to how and when the earth was created, while flat-earthism speaks only to the shape of the earth. so if "flat earthism" is a form of creationism, then "roundearthism" is too ... and THAT'S certainly not a form of creationism. beyond that, the article title itself is "flat earth society," not "flat earth creationism," and the word "creationism" does not appear in the text. what do you think? Ungtss 20:21, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree...and am deleting it.

Since it is a related concept, we've included it under "related concepts".

Regarding the image of Adam and Eve, I believe they should not have naval, as they were "created" and not born from womb. The image should be cleaned.

Length

You don't need to include every word that can be associated with creationism, never mind the suptopics for these. The nav bar is not supposed to be longer than the articles. Bensaccount 8 July 2005 00:49 (UTC)

Bensaccount explained his edits Ungtss; they weren't "destructive", its called editing... and in this case culling. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 8 July 2005 18:25 (UTC)

that's not an explanation, it's a bald and erroneous assertion by a repeatedly proven vandal [4] that no one has the courage to rfc. the template allows the reader to quickly, easily and conveniently access creationism articles. it is not longer than the article, as bensaccount claimed. on the contrary, it is shorter than every single article there is. deleting the bulk of the links serves absolutely no purpose except allowing bensaccount to giggle to himself. it plainly and simply a destructive edit. culling? no. poaching. Ungtss 8 July 2005 21:07 (UTC)

Yes, culling; because the template is long Ungtss. One of the longest I've seen; and there is no expectation or need for it be comprehensive on the subject. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 9 July 2005 04:49 (UTC)

My explanation, which Ungtss must have missed, is that subtopics of distantly related associations don't belong in a nav bar. Ungtss has posted the above link about a dozen times so far, while omitting the following: [5]. This is an attempt to mislead, no doubt motivated by spite. Ungtss, as usual, offers nothing of value. Bensaccount 8 July 2005 23:26 (UTC)

The explanation comes to late, firstly. This rather large edit should have been discussed on the Talk page. Its what Talk pages are for. Secondly, I agree with Uggtss' assesment. The template allows the reader to quickly, easily and conveniently access articles refering to creationism. There is no reason to change it. -- Ec5618 July 9, 2005 01:33 (UTC)

Yes there is. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 9 July 2005 04:49 (UTC)

the stated reasons are "shortness" and "prevent distantly related topics." both of these fall far short of the arguments for "access," "clarity," and "convenience." the claim that it is longer than all other templates is false. have a look at Islam. your ultimate argument is that "there is no need for it to be comprehensive." What? you'd prefer mediocrity? Isn't "comprehensive" better than "half-ass?" Ungtss 02:44, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

I didn't claim its longer than all other templates. And I prefer brevity over comprehensive; I would consider it half-ass if those sub-articles aren't linked from the main articles listed. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 04:10, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

so which would you like removed, insofar as they aren't linked to the topic? Perhaps we should start with Flat Earth Society and geocentrism, which have absolutely nothing to do with creationism, and leave things like Creation biology and flood geology, which are, for all intents and purposes, core to contemporary creationism, but which bensaccount removed. what criterion would you like to apply here for determining which links are in and which are out, as opposed to sheer culling? Ungtss 20:39, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

What you've said so far sounds like a good start; Baraminology, Vapor canopy, Created kinds are sub-articles that aren't necessary. While I understand the Vapor canopy is a key creation concept; if its one of the key concepts in Flood geology; then IMO its already been pointed to and the reader won't have trouble finding it. (but upon looking at the articles, the vapor canopy is not a key creation concept, and hence should not be cited in the template) And I'd clarify that although I felt a culling was necessary; Bensaccount did go overboard, but from now on if I need a template assassin I know who to call. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 02:01, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

yes, i think vapor canopy and baraminology could go too. here's what i propose we remove:

Gap Creationism (part of old earth creationism, already on template)
Day-Age Creationism (same as above)
Progressive creationism (same as above)
Irreducible complexity (part of intelligent design)
Specified complexity (same)
Intelligent design movement (same)
intelligent designer (same)
Scientific creationism (should be given its proper name, creation science)
Created kinds (part of creation biology)
Baraminology (same)
Vapor canopy (part of flood geology)
Teach the Controversy (part of controversy)
The Wedge Strategy (part of controvery)
Santorum Amendment (part of controversy)
Omphalos hypothesis (part of history)
Modern geocentrism (not creationism)
Flat Earth society (not creationism)

what do you think? Ungtss 04:07, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Creationism2"

I concur; although I'd like to see Teach the controversy stay given its recent prominence; and I suspect it will be a strategy that will be front and center for some time to come. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 04:18, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

People dont need to see every page that is remotely related to creationism on the side of their article. It simply does not help anyone, and it clutters the page. Another problem is the image. Images do not belong on nav bars. Another problem is the headings. It is POV to say that CS is the basis for creationism, since creationism came first. What makes you think that anyone would find this list of word associations to be convenient? Bensaccount 03:50, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

you're telling me that you don't think it's any use to have a template linking to creation biology and flood geology. cute. Ungtss 20:40, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Pseudoscience

I removed it from the template because I'm confident this is not the place for statements; and I'm assuming pseudoscience will remain in the article(s) listed. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 01:00, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Sorry for trouble

It appears I've deleted the "Creationism2" template. This was not my purpose but it happened due to my clumsy computer skills. What I tried was to remove the box from "Flat Eath Society" article. A message I sent to the Flat Earth discussion is below (with some typos corrected).

Don't worry about it. It was easily fixed. --Ian Pitchford 12:02, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Sorry if I caused unwanted trouble with the "Creationism2" template. My purpose was to remove the box from the Flat Earth article -- not to delete the template itself. Sorry if the latter happened.

Now, because it seems I don't have the computer skills myself, I strongly suggest someone to remove the box if I didn't succeed in the proper way.

The reason for this is quite clear. Although Flat Earthers mostly are creationists, the opposite is not the case. As mentioned in the article itself, the view of flat Earth is somewhat a ridicule. I'm not willing to speculate why the box had been placed on such a notable and important place, but nevertheless it gives the impression that creationism and even intelligent design are among jokes comparable to flat Earth.

I'm well aware that many naturalists and evolutionists personally think that way, but on my opinion no neutral view supports this. Firstly, the number of supporters of creationism anf flad Earth differ with a factor of four powers of ten, or so. Secondly, and more importantly, the supposed flat Earth is something that is contrary to everyday observations that almost anyone can make.

For prehistoric events, most often there are more or less some indirect clues, often to different directions, but the direct observation is beyond human perspective. Although some models combine better with the indirect evidence, no-one has to play fool and think contrary of what is seen today.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Flat_Earth_Society"

Part of a series

This template is used by articles outside of the ones mentioned in the template. I'm note sure what common procedure is, but shouldn't the template contain links to all articles? Or shouldn't there be a project page in which all relevant pages are linked? Should we not put a link to [6] in the template to help people find all creationism related articles? I understand the template needn't be comprehensive, but shouldn't something tie the creationism articles together?

Should we perhaps link to [[Category:creationism]]? -- Ec5618 18:15, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Flying Spaghetti Monsterism

...was removed from the template. Why? — ciphergoth 18:08, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

As a parody of ID it is too narrow to warrant inclusion on a general creationism template.

Teleological argument

While certainly many creationists revel in this idea, it is not part-and-parcel to creationism as a subject. In general, creationism derives from creation (theology) not from any sort of philosophical concern over proofs of the existence of god. Teleological argument may be appropriate for the Intelligent Design template, but creationism as a bigger tent doesn't necessarily ground itself in William Paley or his watchmaker. --ScienceApologist 15:49, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Changes

I've made some appearance changes to match it to Template:Intelligent Design and Template:Evolution3, which it shared some pages with. Notably, I upped the width so it plays nicely with being combined into one box. Adam Cuerden ^talk 05:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I also rearranged the links a bit so it is more practically ordered. I was wondering if there was a way to integrate umbrella term distinction into the template. Intelligent design includes all forms of creationism excluding theistic evolution; Old-earth creationism includes gap creationism, day-age creationism, and progressive creationism. This distinction should be noted in the template somehow. Pbarnes 16:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Proposal: Intelligent Design Not Creationism

I'm relatively new here, and am not entirely up to speed on all the proper nomenclature in these talk pages, but I'm hoping to bring up a matter which I hope will help improve the quality of the article through a matter of clarification. Before I continue, let me say a couple things about what I'm not advocating. My purpose here is not to argue that ID succeeds as a theory, or that it deserves a hearing in public schools. None of my remarks below are intended to give any defense of ID or evolutionary theory, but to seek to maintain some important distinctions, lest we allow cultural momentum to distort the substance of what Intelligent Design is.

I've read some of the works by leading thinkers on both polar ends of the spectrum on this issue. It's not uncommon to see talented and prominent professionals speak with confidence about their persuasions on metaphysical/spiritual matters while also expounding on details that pertain to their actual field of scientific study. Many of these professionals think it appropriate to publish popular books and articles allowing their limited areas of specialty to support their broader philosophical views (and presumably allow philosophical precommitments to regulate what we do in--or even call--science). While this is standard fare in popular works, I suggest the quality of their professional work would suffer if this was done regularly in professional scientific literature. We might rightly infer that in such cases, the introduction of religious or areligious references are out-of-place, since they do nothing to enhance our understanding of the actual topic one is supposed to be addressing. We might likewise do well to separate the two categories when devoting articles to the one and excluding the other.

For the purpose of this writing, I'm going to assume now that Creationism is indeed an offshoot of theology. Even if there were some data that might incidentally be in corroboration with what Creationists agree with, what is unique to Creationism is three-fold: First, it purports to give an account of where matter itself came from (hence, the term Creation); secondly, its dependence on a sacred text to provide the parameters which define the enterprise throughout its pursuit from conception to outcome; finally, all forms of creationism identifies a deity of some kind as the creator.

So the perennial question we might ask is what, precisely, warrants associating Intelligent Design with Creationism? Well, as I survey culturally iconic figures that make this association, I notice we have a judge, the ACLU, bloggers, social critics, activist organizations, and even some antithetical scientific thinkers weigh in on the matter.

But to my knowledge, none of the leading thinkers in the Intelligent Design movement identify ID as a form of Creationism, as construed above. This is neither done explicitly, or by implication--whereby the strict aims of what ID is intended to address are substantially indistinguishable with that of Creationism. While Creationism deals directly with the question of ultimate origin, Intelligent Design limits its scope to examining the characteristics of pre-existent matter -- to say nothing of how matter itself came into being in the first place. Intelligent Design examines certain already existing components of nature and asks whether particular phenomena in natural systems display features not adequately explained by the current naturalistic paradigm, but instead bear a level of specified complexity normally attributed to objects we know to have an intelligent cause. And unlike creationism, ID relies on no sacred text to govern how any outcome must look like, or what the origin of the designer must be.

While ID proponents do write regularly in popular literature about the relationships and implications their ideas have on their religious worldviews, I see no substantial difference between them and the professional thinkers who regularly do so on behalf of their irreligious viewpoints. But we do not find it acceptable to link articles to atheism from Wikipedia's Evolutionary Biology pages, and for good reason: they would only serve to obfuscate the actual issues at hand rather than enhancing it. I think it would be entirely appropriate and acceptable to quote leading thinkers from the skeptical side to show that some do, in fact, make that association, but in the absence of any good reason to discount the distinctions I've presented above, may I suggest that ID be removed from the "Creationism" category?

Respectfully, Daniel.--—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.204.42.135 (talk • contribs) 19:03, 21 July 2007

There are several reasons to regard intelligent design as creationism:

an important federal case ruling stated that it was
a wide sweep of prominent academics, particularly those in the relevant fields such as biology, classify it as creationism
intelligent design uses the same textbooks as creationism
intelligent design uses the identical attacks on evolution that creationists do
almost all the leading proponents of intelligent design have been found, on the record, stating beliefs almost identical to creationists

It does not matter what public face intelligent design supporters want to present to the world. Their own propaganda, communications to their base, arguments etc betray their true beliefs and agendas. It is like Muslims claiming that Osama bin Laden is not a terrorist and never took credit for any terrorist attacks, ever and no muslim ever was involved in a suicide bombing. It does not matter what they claim; what is the evidence? So the Discovery Institute can claim anything it likes; we are not here to be a shill for them but to state the facts as we are able to determine and verify them. If you want more detail, just see the article intelligent design.--Filll 20:01, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

There are of course other sources, but for a carefully reasoned argument see s:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District/2:Context#1. An Objective Observer Would Know that ID and Teaching About “Gaps” and “Problems” in Evolutionary Theory are Creationist, Religious Strategies that Evolved from Earlier Forms of Creationism. Note that "The sole argument Defendants made to distinguish creationism from ID was their assertion that the term “creationism” applies only to arguments based on the Book of Genesis, a young earth, and a catastrophic Noaich flood; however, substantial evidence established that this is only one form of creationism", By this argument creation science as presented by Dean H. Kenyon wouldn't be creationism either, and like it the only reason for denying ID is creationism is an attempt to get it into US schools after Edwards. .. dave souza, talk 20:11, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Although some ID proponents are not "creationists", they are in a minority. It's just kind of hard to believe that there was an atheist-friendly Creator.

I'm not sure why you (viz Filll) attribute malice to the relabelling of creationism as ID. The intention, as I understand, is to let non-Christian anti-evolution-ists into the fold. Jewish creationists, for example, would not enjoy NT references. -- WolfieInu 19:45, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Well no, enlarging the creationist tent may have been a side benefit, but it was not the main purpose of ID. The main reason for the labelling (and the reason incidentally some of us see it as rather sinister) was to sidestep the issue of constitutional separation of church and state, and make it easier to sneak into public school science classes. ornis (t) 20:17, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, ... I won't pretend to understand that mysterious planet called America. :) -- WolfieInu 20:29, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

The emergence of intelligent design is essentially a legal strategem to sidestep some court decisions.--Filll 15:46, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello, is there any actual evidence to back up any of these arguments? Also, is anyone actually suggesting an edit here? I feel the discussion would be more productive with such a suggestion. Docleaf 01:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

<undent> An editor was objecting to categorizing intelligent design as creationism. And several of us were explaining why this was appropriate. And I believe that having been educated, the editor decided not to push this agenda.--Filll 01:41, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for filling me in. Docleaf 03:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Evolution and creationism, Can they go hand in hand???

The belief that the sum of all life in the world, the fact that the universe exits is be attributed to random chance in which nothing became something that formed the big bang is ludicrous. The idea that a "higher entity" created everything we see around us is also escapism and such beliefs hold us back. The proof that all living things change is irrefutable. The tectonic plates of the earths crust move and over very long times a certain land mass that was, say, in the equator is now at the south pole. The creatures that live in Antarctica would have had an ancestry that traced back to that time when the land mass was in the equator. Creatures that live in the equator often have less fur compared to others that inhabit artic regions. More fur means less loss of heat form the body and less fur equates to more loss. Black and white humans also show this trait. Black humans naturally inhabit places in which there is lots of sun light and the darker skin gives them some protection against ultraviolet light. Whites have lighter skin because they naturally inhabit darker regions like England. Sun light produces a vitamin in the human body which is required to produce healthy bones but too much light leads to cancer and skin damage. Darker skin stops more skin damage than lighter but inhibits this vitamin production.

So maybe god created us according to the environment in which we inhabited. But then take into account all the fossilized relics that have been discovered that have genetic links to us and other creatures but are slightly different from them. You are forced to realize that animals under go change in order to live in a certain environment. Those who don't realize this are ignorant or zealots of their faith. (Zealots are ignorant)

What I believe is that God created the light, the earth, carbon, helium, oxygen, hydrogen, lithium, and all the elements that make up our universe, and a code, similar to computer binary that was subject to change. More often than not that change is damaging. The organism with that change would die and the error would be paged. But every so often the change would be beneficial to that organism and it would thrive better than the others and pass it on to the next generation. And Gods hand guided this change to form modern man and through this process man gained knowledge and understanding of a world subject to change.

God, in any religion, defies logic as we know it. The fact that came down to earth him self (Christ) in order to better understand the existence he created is mind boggling in its own right. Such an entity is wise beyond us and beyond our comprehension. While I’ll admit belief in the existence of an omnipotent entity is counter productive, some things in the universe are beyond random chance. . Pathogen1 14:15, 28 July 2007 (UTC) 28/07/2007

That's called Theistic evolution. Do you have any suggestions to improve the article or did you just come to preach? ornis (t) 14:20, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

So i can't talk about a similar topic and how, in my opinion, its better? i thought that was the whole point of a discussion page. Pathogen1 15:18, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

You thought wrong. There is a notice right at the very top of the page, and had you bothered to read it, you would know this already. "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Creationism article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject." ornis (t) 15:23, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

so what, are you some kind of conformist police? if the editors care they tell me or block me from adding stuff. Pathogen1 15:31, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm an editor, and I'm telling you, either suggest an improvement to the article or stop wasting time. ornis (t) 15:37, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Pathogen. Like Ornis has pointed out what you are talking about is called "Theistic Evolution" which many Christians (and people of other faiths) accept as a merger of theism and science. Your first post appears to be a statement of faith, but does not add in any way to the article on Creationism. The function of this page (Talk or Discussion section) is to bring up possible major changes in the article or how to make the article in question (Creationism) more accurate. I hope you can contribute to the encyclopedia, this or any other article, in a positive way.

How would you change this article? Do you consider yourself more versed in Young Earth, Old Earth or any other type of Creationism? RiverBissonnette 15:45, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I have been watching this circus with some dismay. Please just include material here that has to do with improving the article. WP is not for debating.--Filll 15:54, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Pathogen, I'll ask nicely once. If you want to comment on your beliefs, take it to your talk page. If you want to help this article, then suggest away. All of us have read too many rantings from various editors on these pages. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 15:56, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

look guys that was my first post on this website and the fact that ive already got a good telling to more than earns me bragging rights. i do agree that this posting dosent add to this particular articial but i do beleve that is is relevent. plus if i was to contribute to and articals they would be extreamly biased. i mean for a start im a socialist. how ever in future postings i will attempt to stay in the restraints of this medium—Preceding unsigned comment added by Pathogen1 (talk • contribs) 16:03, 28 July 2007

Comrade Pathogen, your attitude is begging for a "Captain Disinfectant" (like OM here) to chase you off WP. It's good to hear that you plan on following the rules from now on ... but if you keep this up ... well, let's just say now's the chance to write your own eulogy. -- WolfieInu 17:04, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll take what you said as humor. I hope it was. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:04, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I see what you mean. Sorry, I'll add a :) in future. -- WolfieInu 15:56, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Answers by Numbers

Regarding the, ahem, argument about what "creationism" means, Antievolutionists and Creationists gives a brief and informative answer. "When the Origin of Species went on sale late in 1859, the term "creationist" commonly designated a person who believed in the special origination of a soul for each human fetus, as opposed to a traducianist, who believed that the souls of children were inherited from their parents. Although Darwin (in private) and his allies occasionally referred to their opponents as "creationists," for about seventy-five years after the publication of his book such adversaries were more typically called "advocates of creation" or, increasingly, "anti-evolutionists.".... It was not until 1929 that... the Seventh-day Adventist biologist Harold W. Clark, explicitly packaged Price’s new catastrophism as "creationism." In a brief self-published book titled Back to Creationism Clark urged readers to quit simply opposing evolution and to adopt the new "science of creationism," by which he meant Price’s flood geology. For decades to come various Christian groups, from flood geologists to theistic evolutionists, squabbled over which camp most deserved to use the creationist label. However, by the 1980s the flood geologists/scientific creationists had clearly co-opted the term for their distinctive interpretation of earth history" Looks like a good source for an update to the article, and other articles by him on that site are also useful....... dave souza, talk 17:32, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Creationism is the false belief that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe were created in their entirety by a deity or deities

Any objections to said alternate opening line, given the overwhelming evidence, it can hardly be considered npov as it is in fact scientific fact, and a statement that creationism is in fact, wrong, is no more incorrect than a statement that any fictitious tale isn't true (i.e. harry potter, lord of the rings). Philc 20:18, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, we all know that. But it is a religious doctrine (dogma, whatever), and as such, the neutral point of view requires the article to factually state the religious position. If the article tries to state that the wealth of scientific research and knowledge agrees with a Creation story, well then we have to revert that. So, my suggestion is that you don't make a big point about your statement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Orangemarlin (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Religion ". But Wikipedia articles on history and religion also draw from modern archaeological, historical, and scientific sources." Also I'd have to disagree that there is any real science, credited by the scientific community that would support a creationist theory. Philc 21:12, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Use of the word "false" cannot be justified. See WP:NPOV#A_simple_formulation. Your suggested change would assert something which is not a fact. Sheffield Steel^talkers_stalkers 20:47, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Well that's where I'd have to contest. As it is a geological, biological, and astronomical fact that the world was not formed in the way argued by creationists. Philc 21:12, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Even so, your change will never stick. In any case the point is made far more effectively, by presenting the creationist position in an unbiased tone, then showing with evidence, where it falls down and why. All that aside, if you're concerned about religious junk science, then polystrate fossil, flood geology, baraminology etc could all use attention. ornis (t) 22:31, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

While Wikipedia articles dealing with religion do draw from scientific sources occasionally, they do not draw only from scientific sources and are not only written with scientific sources in mind, and even if they were, what scientific reasearch has been done disproving the idea that God created the universe? I'd sure like to see it, I could use a good laugh.... Homestarmy 22:44, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Really, let's not discuss this here. Assuming good faith, the editor posed a statement, it was quickly handled. Time to move on. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:50, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I just logged on and the timestamps seemed fresh, I assumed the discussion was still current. Homestarmy 22:53, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I hardly consider my question as dealt with, all that has happened is that two of you have stated you disagree with it, I questioned why, you provided some weak responses which I attempted to debunk, and you appear to have left it there. An entity outside the universe interfering with its creation violates some basic laws in physics, whereas if he is within the universe, he could not have created it. It's not so much about directly disproving the theory, but that showing that it cannot acquiesce with our current scientific understanding. In which case it is truly illogical to argue that it is true. I bitterly dispute your use of the ad ignorantiam argument, that you can claim what you like it true until the scientific community can give proof to the contrary, I'd ask you to consider a more accepted form of discussion, instead of one based n logical fallacy. Whilst I am assuming good faith, I have no intention of accusing anyone of any misdeeds, I do believe the article doesn't really represent the current understanding that we have of the universe and its nature, and so should be changed to do so. Philc 10:23, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I forgot where I read that, but the best definition of NPOV I've seen is not being able to guess what side the editors are taking by reading the article. It means that articles should be factual, not editorial, e.g., you can't just claim that invisible pink unicorns don't exist unless you can provide a reliable secondary source that could be used to verify it. Reinis^talk 10:55, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I think the satirical value of the Invisible Pink Unicorn has completed gone over your head. It was concocted in mockery of situations just like this, as something outlandish and obviously utter rubbish, and applied an argument often used to defend religious texts to it, as a way of showing how pathetic that argument is. But clearly this article is written with a deliberate blind eye turned to the scientific community, on reading it you could immediately eliminate the possibility of it being written from sciences point of view, so it fails your NPOV test. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Philc 0780 (talk • contribs) 14:05, August 1, 2007

Russell himself was an agnostic atheist, and so are all the celebrity atheists I know of that are living today. It is my conviction that belief in the supernatural is unjustified too, but I wouldn't commit the fallacy of saying that science disproves any deities, ghosts or fairies under the garden. As Weinberg said, "Science does not make it impossible to believe in God, but it does make it possible to not believe in God." It means that science, dealing only with the observable, can't possibly offer positive proof against something that is defined as being beyond empirical study. Reinis^talk 11:27, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not contesting the existence of god, just the factual accuracy of the creation story. Philc 15:54, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

If you're going to tuck the word "false" into such a broad statement as the opening, the existence of God will be exactly what you'll be questioning. Reinis^talk 16:23, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

No it's not, I'm just contesting that any metaphysical entities, possibly gods, whether they exist or not, had no hand in the creation of earth or anything in the post-big-bang universe. You can concede that there is space for gods within the scientific model, without conceding creationism, that is not a paradoxical argument, it is perfectly legitimate. It is the point of view of many Christians that I know who do not take genesis literally. Philc 18:13, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Use of the word "false" cannot be justified (part 2). See WP:V. Your suggested change would assert something which is not attributable to a reliable source. Sheffield Steel^talkers_stalkers 13:05, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

The scientific community is a perfectly reliable source. Philc 15:54, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Then you should be able to provide a link to a source within the scientific community that says that creationism is false. Again, see WP:V. Sheffield Steel^talkers_stalkers 16:55, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I did, I cited the claim with a link to a page from the National Academy of Sciences on evidence of evolution that disproves creationism, it was still removed as NPOV despite being cited from an extremely reputable source. Philc 18:09, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with ornis. If you want to contribute, take a look at some of our other articles which are in dire shape. This minor change will not fly, and will waste a huge amount of time in a huge fight. Meanwhile, we have dozens if not hundreds of other articles on this general topic that are in sad shape, or badly biased (usually towards creationist views). So have at it! --Filll 13:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

[7] any problems with that edit to Creation biology? Philc 16:18, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Grammatically horrible, no glaring pov problems... dave souza, talk 17:44, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I find that obtuse, considering in your grammar edit, you left my grammar as it was, bar the replacement of exponent with proponent. Philc 18:04, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

To quote the first paragraph of flood geology "creationist presentations of what they believe is evidence are routinely dismissed out-of-hand ... flood geology is considered pseudoscience." So from this perspective those (or at least some of those) articles do have a balance which shows that they are crap. This article however does not have the same balance, it is far more in favour of the religious doctrine. Something which needs to be attended to, and required fixing, just like all those other articles, so why shouldn't I begin here? Philc 15:59, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Creationism isn't pseudoscience if it makes no claim to be science – this article deals with all the varieties of creationism. Please read WP:NPOV and WP:NPOV/FAQ with care and comply fully with all policies when making your edits. .. dave souza, talk 17:05, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

If it makes no claim to be science, then it cant justify itself, and it should attain no higher status than fiction, if it makes no attempt to justify itself, it should be considered no more factually accurate than for example Lord of the Rings. Philc 18:04, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

The word "belief" serves to adequately frame the epistemological status of creationism, whereas the word "false" asserts that something unprovable has been disproved. Sheffield Steel^talkers_stalkers 18:31, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

That is a fair point, I can respect that. How about illogical, or ignorant belief then? Philc 19:26, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

A belief, by definition, is beyond logic, "illogical" doesn't apply here. As far as "ignorant", that is qualifying millions, if not billions of religious believers as ignorant. That is demagoguery.--Ramdrake 19:32, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Beliefs don't have to be beyond logic, I can believe, due to the overwhelming evidence, that men did in fact go to the moon in '69, that is a logical rationalisation as well. Also regarding calling millions of religious followers ignorant, you are resorting to an ad populum argument, a common fallacy. Just because a belief is upheld by millions of people doesn't add to, or detract from, the credibility of the belief. So number of followers of a belief should not be considered when describing it. Philc 21:35, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I would guess that the only adjective that will get consensus to go before "belief" would be "religious". Sheffield Steel^talkers_stalkers 19:37, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

And wouldn't that be the most appropriate?--Ramdrake 19:39, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Most probably. Philc 21:35, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, well, what's next? "Heliocentrism is the informed belief that Earth orbits the Sun." Or perhaps, "Hollow Earth is the absurd idea that the Earth is hollow." This is why we have WP:NPOV, and not WP:TRUTH, as a core policy. :) Reinis^talk 22:32, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll just preemptively add that I completely agree that creationism is flatly contradicted by science and logic, but that doesn't mean you can't write a neutral encyclopedia article on it. Reinis^talk 22:45, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, I'm not trying to start some sort of tense argument here. Its just that the scientific community doesn't seem adequately represented in this article compared to the religious doctrine. Philc 22:55, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Well to an extent that's deliberate. The idea is that this article should be about creationism as a religious notion, leaving the science and pseudoscience, for more appropriate daughter articles. ornis (t) 23:50, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Well its wrong, as whether or not creationism tries to justify itself with its pseudoscience, it still makes outlandish contradictions to science as it is understood, therefore to give a balanced view, the scientific view should be allowed to defend itself within the article to prevent it becoming religious bias. Philc 00:11, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

<undent>Wrong that you may consider creationism to be, you can't add 'false' to the lead, and in any case, the worst you could say is that certain versions of creationism are unsupported by science (which it already does). You can't prove a negative, and God could be smart enough to create everything in ~~seven~~ six days, including a whole bunch of false evidence for evolution. Also, notice the opposition you are getting - other editors, dedicated editors don't think you should do so. Even were you working from policy, there's enough to accept leaving the current version as is. Finally, the article is about a religious concept, so of course it's going to be 'biased' (more accurately, non-condemming) towards the religious interpretation. Post-finally, your talk page says you've retired - you may want to update if you're back to long-term editing. WLU 17:24, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

What is most remarkable to me is that this proposal has united editors across the board - creationist, atheist, agnostic scientist or whatever - in opposition to it. I think it is an almost textbook example of POV-pushing, and I think that probably sums up the consensus of the editors here. Sheffield Steel^talkers_stalkers 17:43, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

It's six days, actually. Reinis^talk

United editors across the board? Are you 5 guys the full extent required to make a consensus decision? Maybe you should think about the motivation, the only people who would reply to my post are those who do have a vendetta, almost by definition anyone who replies is going to disagree with me, as that's the only people I asked to reply. Its not POV pushing its not my POV that creationism is wrong, it's scientific fact, just because it can't be proved that god didn't do it, is NOT evidence that he did. So I'd like you to AGF and stop making accusations that I'm only trying to push through my own opinions. ΦΙΛ Κ 12:56, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

f you don't believe us, you may want to open an RfC (request for comment) on the subjecgt, but I suspect you'll get the same result as here. It is one thing to say that creationism is scientifically wrong. Calling it a "false belief" (or an "ignorant belief") is insulting to those who practice religion. Demonstrating it is scientifically wrong is one thing and it's fair game; belittling the fait of others is demangoguery.--Ramdrake 13:08, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't questioning what you were saying, just the cocky arrogance with which you said it. Belittling me as some misinformed editor who is hell-bent on being counter-productive to the project, well sorry for trying to help. No wonder this project has gone to the dogs if this is hoe people are treated when they suggest change. Sorry but it is an ignorant belief, compare christians to trekkies, both obsessed with moulding their lives around something that is nothing more than fiction, that is much more my own opinion so I wouldn't ask you to include that in the article, but it is how I feel. ΦΙΛ Κ 13:45, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

"Are you 5 guys the full extent required to make a consensus decision? " - as five regular contributors united in their opposition to your suggestion, yes, we are. You may be very well informed about evolution and creationism, but you really should read up on WP:NPOV and make your comments based on policy rather than logic. Policy rules wikipedia, not logic. Your POV on Christians and Star Trek will never be placed on a mainspace wikipedia page because of WP:NPOV, so it's in your interest to read the policy. It'll save us, and yourself, a lot of typing and time. Plus it reduces the risk of you being labelled a troll. Also notice that there's not a single editor who agrees with you - presumably were there one, they would voice their opinion. Also note that wikipedia is not a battleground. Save us all the time, read the policies then come back with your suggestions. WLU 13:50, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

“

the only people who would reply to my post are those who do have a vendetta

”

(ri)The more I read this statement from Philc_0780, that harder I find it to believe that he is contributing to this discussion in good faith. The strong implication is that the original post was meant as a deliberate troll. The alternative interpretation, per WP:AGF, is that the editor genuinely believes that Creationism is false (although he has cited no scientific evidence that falsifies it) and also believes that any reasonable editor would agree. In this case, I concur with WLU and would suggest that in addition to WP:NPOV Philc undertakes a study of WP:V. Sheffield Steel^talkers_stalkers 14:17, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Non-creationists rushing to defend the creationism article from anti-creationist commentary ... don't you just love WP? :) -- WolfieInu 15:54, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Creationism is obviously false, and you want me to cite that? Isn't it obvious what I'm going to trawl up, why do I need to bother. And I do feel that anyone that has correctly considered the evidence, its reliability, its source, and its motivation, would agree. I'm not trying to troll this discussion, but I do feel bitter towards the way you have treated me, and it all floods back why I left the project. I have read NPOV I have read it many times, I fully understand wikipedia, I started here well over 2 years ago, and your telling me wiki-policy? Please stop treating me like a fool. I know what I am saying, I know why I am saying it, and you, you turn a blind eye to it, and simply berate me, and dismiss me as some sort of an idiot, all I receive is a barrage of what, in the best faith could be interpreted as laconic humour, but more likely some sort of scathing retort. Thank you very much for your time, but next time, spend it wiser. ΦΙΛ Κ 19:58, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

If creationism is so "obviously false", why are both believers and non-believers in creationism disagreeing with your suggestion that it should be described as such? If a reliable source exists that proves creationism false, why has no editor of this page seen it before? If you indeed "fully understand wikipedia" then why are you so intent on pursuing a textbook violation of wikipedia's core policies, WP:NPOV and WP:V? Sheffield Steel^talkers_stalkers 20:28, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Because these people havent considered all the evidence, such an act would take far more time than people are willing to devote. I didnt say a reliable source existed hat would instill a disbeleif of said tale, that you would have to consider all of the sapects of all of the evidence, not one magic source. (1) Its not my bloody point of view, its science. (2) I did bloody verify! With the Citation from NAS. ARGH. Stop making accusations, or your repeated breaches of WP:AGF will lead me to demolish WP:CIVIL. ΦΙΛ Κ 20:38, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I read that article, and did not see any disproof of creationism. Remember that creationism is a broad spectrum of beliefs including, at its extremes, the ideas that God directly caused the Big Bang and that he created the universe last Tuesday - both of which views are completely compatible with the evidence discussed in the NAS article you cited. Therefore claiming that it says "creationism is false" constitutes synthesis.

Creationism, as a religious belief, is not falsifiable by scientific investigation (indeed, this is one of the reasons why, when it is used as the basis of certain assertions about the physical world, such may be labelled "pseudoscience"). I can think of only two possible events that would answer the question of whether Creationism is true or false: judgment day, and scientists solving the equation of the universe and using it to disprove the existence of God. Probably at least one of those is never going to happen. Sheffield Steel^talkers_stalkers 20:58, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

<undent> Please read #Answers by Numbers and the linked source. The belief isn't falsified by science, it's simply outside science. Where the conflict arises is when "creationism" is redefined to demand that science should support the interpretation of empirical evidence as providing "proof" of that belief, as was essentially done by the YECs. The intelligent design question is essentially whether religious dogmatism can redefine science to support supernatural explanations, rather than these explanations being beyond the essentially secular scientific method as accepted by most believers in Creation. Please also read WP:NPOV and WP:NPOV/FAQ with care and detailed attention, and accept the requirement of WP:TALK that this page is for improving the article and not for getting on a soapbox. Unless there are early signs of positive efforts to propose improvements which comply with policies, this off-topic ramble will have to be deleted or archived. .. dave souza, talk 21:17, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Note that AiG and CMI (Creation Ministries International), according to their own documentation, are not trying to prove the Bible with science but to base science on the Bible (and as far as the "historical" sciences are concerned, this will lead to a redefinition of the limits of extrapolating current trends backwards in time). Therefore creationism (and ultimately, any other concept of origins) is not falsifiable, because the past cannot be observed. So much for my POV.

Regardless, we can all agree that adding "creationism is false" to the article is a POV, because many sources exist that say otherwise, leaving aside for the moment the question of whether these sources are reliable. Since WP can only summarise existing sources as opposed to supporting a POV (even if it is the POV of mainstream science), the article as it stands is already NPOV.

Interesting to note that our antagonist (for want of a better word) has discernibly adhered to many of the ~~WP:ABF~~ "how to win an argument" guidelines, up to and including a fake retirement. I'm seriously considering the possibility that this is a joke, no offence intended. -- WolfieInu 10:48, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

If it is it's not especially funny. ornis (t) 11:33, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

books to consider

I would like to recommend to editors working on this article two books, not just to ass to the further reading list but as resources for editors to this article. Both are books by Philip Kitcher: Living With Darwin: Evolution, Design and the Future of Faith and Abusing Science: the Case Against Creationism. One was reviewed, and the other discussed, in an essay by H. Allen Orr in the most recent issue of The New York Review of Books. Orr is an evolutionary geneticist in the Biology Department of the University of Rochester; he has published in Science and Nature as well as other top peer-reviewed journals in evolutionary biology, so his credentials as a scientist are impeccable - and he argues that both of these books, while specifically polemics against creationism and ID, are also superb and accessible inroductions to the philosophy of science and evolutionary theory. Kitcher is himself the subjct of a Wikipedia article; he is a professor of philosophy (of science) who holds the Dewey Chair at Columbia University, and who has published on both creationism and sociobiology and has also published in a host of peer-reviewed journals. I have to say, I am especially impressed when a pracicing scientist heaps praise on a philosopher of science. Orr emphasizes that in addressing creationists Kitcher is really trying to lay out as clearly as possible the essence of scientific thought and the history of the development of evolutionary theory, as well as the history of creationist thought (including but not limited to ID). I do not have these books, but if any editors here has access to them they might provide us with helpful ideas not just of themes we might want to develop, but of ideas about how better to express certain ideas. I just read the review this week, and it really is an outstanding review, which is why I bring it up now. I would think that even advocates of creationism would want to consult these books - if they are interested in developing arguments to support creationism; a good argument for creationism would be strengthened if it could respond to the argumnts in these books. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:47, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Part of a title above is "Abusing Science", making me doubt that the arguments presented are likely to be objective. When will people understand that "Science" can't say what happened thousands or millions of years ago! Only pseudoscience underpinned with a particular world-view makes claims about what happened (this apply to all sides in the debate). ^ross ^nixon 02:54, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Yawn. "Objective" - don't make me laugh ^ross. Your pooh-poohing of both this book and historical/geological science is simply an attempt to put objective evidence on the same level as particular written works. Then you can turn around and claim that both views are equally valid. It won't wash here. Time and time again, creationists have blotted their copybooks by either taking science out of context (that is, abusing it) or by constructing their own untested or untestable allegories out of scientific language (abusing the scientific method). Kitcher's efforts to documenting these efforts objectively provides useful sources that we can cite here at Wikipedia. If you'd like to object to their inclusion here, please do so on less disingenuous grounds. Claiming that vast swathes of science that you don't approve of are simply pseudoscience is not enough. Cheers, --Plumbago 06:57, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, science (no capital S or quote-marks necessary, by the way) does tell us "what happened thousands or millions of years ago", and quite reliably too. It just cracks me up when you guys try to explain anything. Reinis^talk 07:44, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, astronomers at least, can see thousands of millions of years into the past. ornis (t) 08:07, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

With respect, we don't need to respoind to rossnixon's comment at all. Don't let him trick you into a meaningless tangential discussion about science. It does not matter whether the books are objective (inceed, our NPOV policy doesn't care about objectivity at all: it demands that different points of view be included, NPOV and by extension Wikipedia is agnostic about truth and objectivity and these questions should never enter into a discussion about how to improve an article) - rossnixon's point is based either on a well-intentioned misunderstanding of Wikipedia and its policies, or is just a red-herring meant to disrupt work on imporving the article. All that matters is that they are two books, both writen by a scholar with impeccable credentials, each published by a highly reputable academic press, bith well-reviewed by other scholars. Objectivity is irrelevant What is important is that this article include verifiable views from reliable sources. These books meet those criteria. Rossnixon's ignorance about science is not the issue (we will never succeed in teaching him what science is); the only thing that matters when discussing how to improve an article is his ignoraance of Wikipedia policies. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:53, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I was just making a point based on my broad knowledge of science and pseudoscience. There is no Wikipedia policy issue at all, unless you mean "talk pages are for discussing improvements to the article". Every editor breaks this rule. ^ross ^nixon 02:05, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

"... in addressing creationists Kitcher is really trying to lay out as clearly as possible the essence of scientific thought and the history of the development of evolutionary theory, as well as the history of creationist thought ...". Well, not to jump to unreasonable conclusions here, but that sounds vaguely like condescension. I think that is partly what irked Rossnixon. I know it doesn't sit too well with me.

Living With Darwin: Evolution, Design and the Future of Faith (subtext, "faith has become irrelevant to science - get used to it") and Abusing Science: the Case Against Creationism (subtext, "those evil fundies are perverting science for their own ends") - that's some highly incendiary titles right there. Though I admit neither side of the creation/evolution fence is completely innocent in that regard :)

Looks as if these books represent just one more installment in the academic flame war between creationists and evolutionists, with little to no actual science involved. Quite likely I'm misjudging Kitcher, but that's how it sounds to me. Perhaps a Wikipedian who finds the time should get these books and give us a summary. If they contain novel material, the article would definitely benefit, but if they're just another wave of extraWikipedian POV-pushing, I'm not interested. -- WolfieInu 21:32, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

New section

Thoughts on the new section? The main is a redlink.

Main article: Biblical Reality
Biblical Reality teaches that there are no “creation accounts” in Genesis, and that “Moses Didn’t Write About Creation”. What is actually being said is “Moses wrote about Restoration”. Before the advent of “Biblical Reality”, no faction of creationism could explain both the “first day” of Moses and the “Fourth Day”, all being 24-hr days, without either denying literal interpretation or “redefining” the scriptures.

WLU 01:04, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like WP:OR pending further information. ^ross ^nixon 02:48, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Looks to me like someone is trying to sell their latest book. Sheffield Steel^talkers_stalkers 02:54, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Main was also recently speedy deleted. WLU 06:23, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I have just removed a similar section from Old Earth creationism by the same author, citing "non-notable, original research, self-promotion". --Robert Stevens 11:53, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Interesting quote, though. Maybe I need context, but it doesn't make sense to me. A danger sign is the rather interesting use of capital letters (the seemingly arbitrary distinction between "first day" and "Fourth Day", for instance). It sounds like this "Biblical Reality" group(?) is a highly isolationist faction that has gone off on a tangent (sort of like certain evolutionists refusing to work with other evolutionists because they have another way to make the hominid family tree fit together). A very counterproductive attitude, and one not guaranteed to make you many friends. I suppose it's no surprise that "Biblical Reality" is almost completely unknown, and probably too minor to warrant inclusion in the article. -- WolfieInu 21:05, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Maybe it's an alternative reality to theistic realism – a Creationist multiverse! <ducks> . . .dave souza, talk 21:59, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

It is a tribute to the ingenuity of the human imagination. You take a book that has 4 separate creation accounts, 2 of which are in Genesis and different and you get interpretations like:

One creation and no contradictions
Two creations and humans before Adam
Two creations with billions of years in between
One creation account that is allegorical
No creation accounts
One creation account proved by the Big Bang Theory and evidence
One creation account that is threatened by the Big Bang Theory and evidence
One creation account that is threatened by evolution
One creation account that is a synthesis of previous creation accounts of ancient civilizations

and so on. People are amazing...--Filll 22:46, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Wait - 4 creation accounts? I count 2. Please explain.

Also I think that in your bulleted list, items 2, 3, and 4 refer to one thing and items 1, 7 (minus the "and evidence"), and 8 refer to another. But yes, you're right - people can imagine the darndest things. I think Star Trek, SETI and the Pioneer messages provide enough evidence of that... -- WolfieInu 12:27, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I was shocked to read about the 4 accounts in a book in the library. I might take it out again and then include it in the article. The other 2 accounts are not in Genesis.--Filll 17:53, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Introduction

We currently start with Creationism is the belief that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe were created in their entirety by a deity or deities (typically God), whose existence is presupposed. But is creationism really that (rather general) belief, or is it only the movement that promotes this view in opposition to other alternatives? Could we e.g. move to Creationism is the expressed belief that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe were created in their entirety by a presupposed deity or deities (typically God). The term is in particular used to denote the movement that promotes this world view over naturalistic explanations of origins? --Stephan Schulz 07:39, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't know, I think the second and third paragraphs cover that pretty well. The definition is purposefully broad to encompass notions like deistic creation and theistic evolution, neither of which are particularly political or opposed to ~~philosophical~~ methodological naturalism. ornis (t) 08:07, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

The term has the broader meaning which includes TE, and this article has to explain that at the outset. As stated in the Ron Numbers reference I mentioned in the talk earlier, it was co-opted around 1929 to refer to anti-evolution fundamentalism, so has both meanings now. By the way, theistic evolution is opposed to philosophical naturalism but in favour of methodological naturalism as is essential to modern science. ID proponents claim the two are essentially the same, calling both materialism, and want to impose supernaturalism on science. .. dave souza, talk 08:27, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

My mistake. Speaking of which, both philosophical and methodological naturalism, redirect to the same page, by the looks of it, as a result of an edit war between scienceapologist and ed poor. ornis (t) 08:36, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Had me worried there! Methodological naturalism redirects to Naturalism (philosophy), which covers both types but focusses on the methodological kind, and philosophical naturalism is a separate article for the atheistic kind. That was the outcome of some, eh, lively discussion a while back, and avoids the common confusion of the two by certain creationists... dave souza, talk 20:38, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I have a few fairly religious Christian friends and relatives who still shudder at the thought of being called "Creationsts". I don't know if the term is still used with such a broad meaning as we imply in the first sentence. --Stephan Schulz 20:12, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

This came up a while ago, when some editors favoured the title evolutionary creationism for their own position rather than theistic evolution, as the two positions are almost the same with just a few exceptional cases. It may be a national thing, in the same way that "evolutionist" was commonplace twenty years ago and seems to still be fairly innocuous in the UK, but has become politically charged in the US. .. dave souza, talk 20:38, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

The problem with this entire field, is that certain terms have acquired certain meanings and connotations, depending on time and location. So there is a huge confusion in the US about what the term "Christian" actually refers to, some of this done on purpose. To some, Catholics are not Christians, and Mormons are not Christians, Methodists are not Christians, Quakers are not Christians, etc. The only people that can call themselves Christians (to some) are those who subscribe to biblical literalism and even deny things like the golden rule (i.e., "love your neighbor as yourself"). The more you talk to people, the more you discover that many groups have their own very narrow definitions and want to claim certain terms for themselves, or apply certain terms to other groups. A similar thing is going on with the term "creationist" in the US at the moment, which is more likely to mean someone who believes that the bible is literally true, that the earth/universe is 6000 years old, that the earth/universe was made in 6 literal 24 hour days, that evolution and/or science is equivalent to atheism, communism, fascism, Nazism, racism, devil worship etc. So some terms acquire negative or positive connotations which they did not have before, in a process called pejoration or a euphemism treadmill (or a dysphemism treadmill). Under these circumstances, some might be uncomfortable about being called a creationist, or an evolutionist or a Christian etc.--Filll 20:52, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Eh, this is not a problem with "this entire field," but a problem in any language per se. Terms evolve over time and under stress into something completely different; "offend" has changed meaning between the KJV Bible and the 21st Century, as has the word "gay" more recently.

BTW: "[Creationists believe] that evolution and/or science is equivalent to atheism, communism, fascism, Nazism, racism, devil worship etc."? I know of no creationist group which claims this. [At most creationists claim that the acceptance of evolutionary theory (not science) leads logically to social degeneration.] References? -- WolfieInu 08:10, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Languages evolve? Heresy! Everyone knows they've stayed the same since the tower of babel, or are there "created kinds" of languages too? ;) As for references, well hhere's one there are others, the wedge document is pretty telling, as is most of AiG's propaganda.ornis (t) 08:26, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, languages evolve. Evolution works if there is an input of information, which can only happen if (an) intelligent being(s) is/are involved (in this case, mankind). And according to AiG, there are "created kinds" of languages, basically every "supergroup" of languages representing an original Babel language. But ... I was purposely angling for that reaction, I guess :)

That quote you linked to is by evolutionist Dr William B. Provine, and I was aware of it. My point, however, was that no creationist group (that I know of at least) takes the position that evolution directly "creates" the social evils listed by Filll. AiG, for example, maintains that Christians can be evolutionists (take Doctor Livingstone for instance), but they would have to be inconsistent in applying exegesis, thereby creating an internal conflict within the Bible.

But ja, sorry for letting the conversation drift like this. It's gone almost completely off topic ... except if we're establishing what constitutes US "fundamentalist" creationism ;) WolfieInu 16:48, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Doctor Livingstone I presume? Remarkably advanced for someone who was out of touch in Africa at the time the Origin was published, and died 14 years later after prolonged illness. Guid for the kirk. Anyway, there is of course an input of information all the time, as organisms interact with their environment including other organisms. And "fundamentalist" does of course mean the opposition to higher criticism. ... dave souza, talk 23:09, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Well we clearly know what side of the fence you are on, given that you use the term "evolutionist" which is currently only characteristic of creationists and their ilk (speaking of language with negative connotations...). And this is not the place to debate evolution or creationism themselves, but of course many ordered structures are just created by the laws of nature, and we have literally millions of examples. You are free to call the laws of nature an input of information if you like. Even of action by an intelligent being. Others are free to characterize it in a different way, and they do. However, you are not free to impose by force your views on others. Are we understood? As for some text supporting my claims above (with some references), consider:

It is claimed that many perceived social ills like crime, teen pregnancies, homosexuality, abortion, immorality, wars, etc. are caused by a belief in evolution.^[1] R. Albert Mohler, Jr., President of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky, wrote August 8, 2005 in National Public Radio's forum, "Taking Issue", that "Debates over education, abortion, environmentalism, homosexuality and a host of other issues are really debates about the origin — and thus the meaning — of human life.... Evolutionary theory stands at the base of moral relativism and the rejection of traditional morality".^[2]^[3] Creationist Ken Ham likens evolution to a horde of termites, weakening society's foundation. In Why Won't They Listen?, Ham suggests that "evolutionary termites" are responsible for pornography, homosexual behavior and lawlessness. He also writes, "I'm not saying that evolution is the cause of abortion or school violence. What I'm saying is that the more a culture abandons God's word as the absolute authority, and the more a culture accepts an evolutionary philosophy, then the way people think, and their attitudes, will also change."^[4] Former Texas Republican Representative Tom DeLay claimed that the Columbine school shootings were caused by the teaching of evolution. DeLay is quoted as stating that "Our school systems teach the children that they are nothing but glorified apes who are evolutionized [sic] out of some primordial soup."^[5] Henry M. Morris, engineering professor and founder of the Creation Research Society and the Institute of Creation Research, claims that evolution was part of a pagan religion that emerged after the Tower of Babel, was part of Plato's and Aristotle's philosophies, and was responsible for everything from war to pornography to the breakup of the nuclear family.^[6]

Rev. D. James Kennedy of The Center for Reclaiming America for Christ claims that Darwin was responsible for Adolf Hitler's atrocities. In D. James Kennedy's documentary, and the accompanying pamphlet with the same title, Darwin’s Deadly Legacy, Kennedy states that "To put it simply, no Darwin, no Hitler." In his efforts to expose the "harmful effects that evolution is still having on our nation, our children, and our world." Kennedy also states that, "We have had 150 years of the theory of Darwinian evolution, and what has it brought us? Whether Darwin intended it or not, millions of deaths, the destruction of those deemed inferior, the devaluing of human life, increasing hopelessness."^[7]^[8] Discovery Institute fellow Richard Weikart has made similar claims.^[9] Kent Hovind of Creation Research Evangelism blames the Holocaust, World War I, the Vietnam War, World War II, Stalin's war crimes, communism, racism, socialism and Pol Pot's Cambodian killing fields on evolution, as well as the increase in crime, unwed mothers, and other social ills.^[10] Kent Hovind's son Eric Hovind has now taken over the family business while his father is in prison, and claims that evolution is responsible for tattoos, body piercing, premarital sex, unwed births, sexually transmitted diseases (STDs), divorce and child abuse.^[11]

However, this is probalby a pointless exercise, since I am sure your mind is made up. And I am certain that if you were the least bit honest with yourself or objective, you would know what I said was correct.--Filll 17:02, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

As I said, "...creationists claim that the acceptance of evolutionary theory (not science) leads logically to social degeneration." In other words, evolution is not "equivalent to" these social evils, but leads directly to them if the ethical implications of evolutionary theory are carried to their logical conclusion. In your quote above, Ken Ham says: "I'm not saying that evolution is the cause of abortion or school violence. What I'm saying is that the more a culture abandons God's word as the absolute authority, and the more a culture accepts an evolutionary philosophy, then the way people think, and their attitudes, will also change." Perhaps I misunderstood your intention, and this is what you've been saying all along. If so I apologise.

Be that as it may, no creationist has problems with science, merely with this particular branch of it.

Two things confuse me: 1) you seem to be implying that I'm trying to hide my creationist views? I thought creationism was inherent in all my talk page contributions to date. 2) Also, in what way am I forcing my views on others? I'm just throwing some ideas around that will either change or enhance the current stance of the article. If I can make a case against you, then good! The article gets improved. If you can make a case against me, then good! The article gets improved. We're not debating the validity of creationism (except as a side issue - guilty, Your Honour :) but the nature of creationism, which is what the article is about. Either way a defendable argument on the talk page can lead to edits which will contribute to the overall NPOV. Isn't that what we're here for?

PS. Your response seems to carry with it a slightly offended air. If I've said something that you have interpreted as insulting, then please tell me and I'll try not to repeat it. -- WolfieInu 18:27, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

We are supposed to discuss the article itself, not the subject of the article. And if you want to avoid offense, I would be very cautious about use of the words "evolutionist" or "evolutionary". In some contexts and in some places, they can give offense, for a variety of reasons. I am completely confused about your arguments. Some say evolution leads to all these ills. Some say it is equivalent. It hardly matters, to be honest, in my opinion. You are free to split hairs, however you like. Creationists do not agree with each other on these matters, in my experience. All such claims basically amount to the same thing; that "evolution is a bad bad thing and an evil monster that we have to drive away with pitchforks and torches". And one way to do it is to identify it or associate it in one way or another with a huge range of other social and political ills. And what some creationists call "evolution" encompasses a huge amount of material in science like:

the entire basis of biology and immunology and paleontology
most of geology (and lots of the rest of the earth sciences)
most of nuclear physics
huge amounts of astronomy and astrophysics
all of cosmology
big pieces of chemistry and biochemistry
all of dendochronology
racemization
thermodynamics
geomagnetism
molecular biology
plate tectonics

and so on and so forth. So depending on the type of creationist a person is, they can end up rejecting a huge fraction of science in a frantic attempt to preserve biblical literalism, subscribed to by only a teeny tiny narrow minority of Christians and Jews, and questioned even by Thomas Aquinas and many others since then. And maybe you are not "forcing" your opinions on anyone. I do not know. All I know is that there is an immense movement in the United States to take tax money collected by force from people of all faiths and no faith, and then distribute it to creationists to teach narrow religious views of a tiny group of religious sects to children of all backgrounds and all faiths. And this is inappropriate, in my view and the view of the courts. And so therefore, when I state my views, I often will state my position on these issues. That is, you are free to believe what you want, and so am I. And I will not force you to believe what I believe. And you will not force me to believe what you believe. And in addition, in secular institutions, we will use and promote the use of our best secular knowledge. We will not promote religious agendas, since I do not live under the Taliban, and I do not think you do either. Clear?--Filll 19:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

<reply to dave souza> Hm, Doctor Livingstone. Now that you mention it, that story sounds suspicious. Maybe I'll have to recheck my sources.

<to Filll> This isn't "hairsplitting". Let me say it once and for all: creationists do not believe that "evolution = [list of social evils]", but that the application of the implications of evolution (e.g. "kill off the opposition for a better future") will lead to some sort of social evil. There is a distinction, and that was what we were talking about (or at least I was responding to your posts with that assumption).

And again, the elephant-hurling "creationists reject science" bit. Have you ever actually read creationists' positions in creationist journals (e.g. CMI's Journal of Creation)? No "pitchforks and torches", I can assure you. And might I add that I resent your deliberately confrontational tone. It's obvious that something in your life has severely prejudiced you against creationists, and I'm sorry about that, but I had nothing to do with it.

If I have to avoid the words "evolutionist" and "evolutionary," what do I replace them with? If you checked my user page you'd see that I'm not American. I'm not versed in the finer points of the American insult, so if these terms have acquired negative meanings in the US, I don't have those mysterious connotations in mind when I use them. Please provide me with replacements for the offending terms if this is important to you.

I don't "live under the Taliban" either, and I can't see what that has to do with anything. Now what were you saying about "identifying or associating [the opposition] in one way or another with ... social and political ills"?

As you so rightly point out, this no longer has anything to do with the article. If you like we can either stop now, or move the discussion elsewhere and try to resolve the issue. (No, I mean it - "resolve the issue", not "continue the argument".) -- WolfieInu 08:57, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I will move this discussion to User:Filll/Creationism Discussion

Catholic position

I updated the Catholic position. The original source was somewhat in conflict with the actual views expressed by the Church. I included a fork to evolution and the catholic church for a better discussion of the issue. (Runwiththewind 14:48, 15 August 2007 (UTC))

Your reading of the sources seems to have confused religious teaching and scientific teaching, so I've clarified the summary to reflect what the sources actually say. ... dave souza, talk 21:30, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I restructured your edit so that the religious teachings preceed the information about schooling. I also reworded the statement on the Catechism to show that it indirectly implies evolution. (Runwiththewind 22:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC))

Not very informative, so I've shown more exactly what the source says. .. dave souza, talk 07:07, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

First and lead-in sentence about the the belief that it is from tradition

I edited that this main and basic belief which leads into the article, is not something restricted to creationists, but that they belong in a broader group of people with this very ancient traditionalist worldview that life is created. And this is a broad general basic very traditional outlook on life on which the movement in whole is based on. I am not saying the movement in itself is traditional, indeed they themselves deny this. All i am saying is that the general point of their belief system is based on tradition, which some of their leading figures claim is strict and pure science--יודל 18:37, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

There needs to be a more coherent argument for the changes you were proposing, which in my opinion were not an improvement. How can you have non-religious belief in a deity? Perhaps you're confining your definition to the modern US co-option of the term by anti-evolutionists, but this article has to cover the broader view. The reference to "some of their leading figures claim is strict and pure science" needs to be explained – whose leading figures? If it's the ID crew, their "strict and pure science" is, by their own definition, different from the science used by the scientific community and defined by law in relation to separation of church and state. ... dave souza, talk 19:37, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

sorry please lets keep it to the basic point that this think is not new it is an old and ancient beleave, and the beleife that the world was created is not limited to any group. is that better?--יודל 20:00, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

According to WP:RS, the creationists aren't a reliable source on themselves, and the lead you are editing has been stable for a long time, so please back down and reread what was said. Reinis^talk 19:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

nobody tries to bring here any sources you are twisting words of reasoning. forget those words. fact is this belief is nothing new it may be evolved by some secular scientists but it is an old ancient belief, do u challenge this fact?--יודל 20:00, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

<undent> To assert a "fact", you must comply fully with WP:A, WP:RS and WP:NPOV, and explain yourself coherently in English. Revealed truth and partisan primary sources won't do. .. dave souza, talk 20:07, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

all i am asking is, does somebody think that this can be challenged as fact? and please note that on thinks that will never be or could never be challenged there is no need for sources.--יודל 20:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but it has been challenged already the first time it was reverted. Reinis^talk 20:33, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

A revert by simply saying vandalism or bad edit is not a challenge, when u write in that instant that u r not familiar in the subject nor do u understand the edit, and to make it the top of the creaming to declare on your user page that you have some issue with creatinitss, all this makes it not a challenge but rather a prank of wasting time of other users. Again i am asking you do u challenge or do u really believe somebody could ever challenge this premise that believing in a creator is a very old and traditional belief?--יודל 20:41, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I am challenging it on the grounds that it is redundant, and that the prose you added was bad, and that you have no sources for the claims that creationism isn't always religious. I also never said that I didn't understand your edits, but that your English was poor and writings barely coherent. Reinis^talk 21:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

i Except your challenge that it is redundant thanks for clarifying. i will fix the language.--יודל 21:12, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

<undent> -User:Yidisheryid, please ensure that you "fix the language" in talk pages and don't try making unsourced edits to articles. I've challenged your premise above, and will continue to do so until you VERIFY clearly what you're claiming, at which point we'll then have to consider the arguments presented for WP:NPOV generally, and undue weight in particular.. . .. dave souza, talk 21:20, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Please tell me what have you challenged. i have fixed what an other user has challenged. now what exactly are u challenging. and i will erase. in my mind i have add nothing that can be challenged if yes please tel me what it is? thanks--יודל 21:23, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

All of it. Adding the qualifier "traditional" doesn't substantially aid the readers understanding, and makes the definition far too specific. ornis (t) 21:48, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

ok i gather the wording is too probelmatic. i will now brainstorm a definition that wont include all of them as being traditionalists, but still aid to the readers understanding that this view isn't something wacky and lunatic like the anti-religious crusaders try day and night to paintbrush them. I beg somebody to help me in clarify this point. I appreciate your point.--יודל 21:54, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Right, in my opinion the edits you've been making didn't achieve your aim, so the best idea will be to clarify your concerns here, and put suggestions on this talk page. In a broad sense we've to include those who are religiously creationist without having problems with findings of modern science, including evolution. We also have to point to the various positions opposing aspects of science, and note the now common use of the term to refer specifically to anti-evolution ideas. Look forward to seeing your comments here, and will think about it in the morning. .. dave souza, talk 22:14, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

NPOV

Excellent job on the NPOV folks. This article seems to strive to present material in a factual manner without making judgment calls as to what is correct, which is the proper role of an encyclopaedia. 70.16.1.207 14:47, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

A compliment? That's so rare on here, I might have to sit down and catch my breath. I haven't done much editing to this article, but I think your comments are breath of fresh air.Orangemarlin 19:11, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

No, but you spend a lot of time deleting posts in talk topics. For someone makes a mockery of Religion, God and all those who believe because of both faith and scientific evidence, you sure spend a lot of time on a topic that is repugnant to you.

This article is merely "ok", except for the obviously biased and disgustingly unfair critique section that the extremist left wing Editors will not allow in their precious "Evolution' article. Ymous 17:18, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

The above post seems to be little more than a personal attack on Orangemarlin. I think it might be a good idea for Ymous to withdraw it. SheffieldSteel 17:50, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I can not agree that the Creationism article is NPOV. As a simple example, notice that the Structure does not match the Evolution article. It appears designed to emphasize the variation of views, sociology, and controversies rather than a fundamental description or comparison of evidences. In any real discussion of evolution, the same diversion from the initial claims is at least as possible. mamgeorge 17:18, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

The point you are replying to is five months old
There is no evidence for creationism, that's the problem. Every single piece of evidence provided by creation 'scientists' has been refuted. thus. WLU 17:23, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

The reason it does not follow the same structure as Evolution is because Evolution is Science, whilst Creationism is Pseudoscience. This means among other things that Evolution is fairly unitary and internally consistent (give or take some arguments around the edges), whilst Creationism is a cacophony of conflicting views. This makes some major structural differences necessary. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 17:28, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

First, thank you for your terse and rational replies. I appreciate what talk origins attempts to do, and the particular details it makes available for this discussion. With that in mind, please consider the following thoughts.

It appears you have made your judgment. Historically, however, science continually changes. Could it not be said 'Every single piece of evidence provided by scientists has been refuted'? All evidence is refutable, because observations continually change. Of course Creationism has evidence. But the evidence alone does not make it true. The issue is whether it has a valid (or possibly useful) interpretation.

I do not write that to play a polemical game. Is it not fair then to question your conclusion? Perhaps now your particular objectivity? 5 years ago who would have doubted how many planets there were? Do we know now? The correct answer is: no, and until we can see every place a planet could be, we will only reduce the probability of our error. Todays observations will probably change within 50 years. Is it really your goal to merely perpetuate your judgment? This is not NPOV. It is clearly a POV with a direction towards a sociological goal. Is not this what you criticize as fundamentally flawed within Creationist arguments? Is science really only about the affirmation of conclusions?

Consider the implications or redefining our entire universe as a byproduct of dark matter/energy. This is much more than a paradigm shift. Every observation is fundamentally altered with this view. In another 50 years, what other paradigm shift may require reinterpreting our observable reality? Does teaching that a viewpoint which is fundamentally and continually in flux have any inherent rational challenges?

It is the insistence on not representing the arguments that exposes the POV. For those that consider the details of Creation outside observation, Creationism must be classified as unscientific. Would doing so preclude its reality, or its usefulness at questioning scientific results? This does not imply that such questioning would help the scientific process (not inherently bad, presuppositionally). But if discovery has no final object, and observations change continually, what is science really providing anyway? Can faith issues (in relative and fluctuating scientific conclusions) really be removed?

A modest proposal: a list of the top ten Creationist arguments with their reasoning. Links (not debates) at the end of each to show their weaknesses. Surely that would be more objective; surely that would provide more direct points to debate. And for those that must look cynically at Creationism, surely that would be the best focal point of evolutionary proofs.

mamgeorge 16:59, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Three points:

Science refutes theories, it rarely refutes evidence. For that matter even theories are more frequently refined than refuted.
I've yet to see a genuinely "useful" Creationist criticism of science. At best, Creationism occasionally distracts scientific attention from other avenues of research towards research that refutes its claims. It is however highly questionable whether this leads to an efficient allocation of research resources.
Your "modest proposal" would be a violation of WP:UNDUE.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 17:11, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Further:

Wikipedia reports what is current, not what could happen. If things change, so will wikipedia.
Wikipedia is not the place to prove the fallacy of creationism, so the discussion of all the flaws is precluded, unnecessary, and contrary to policy. In addition to Undue, WP:OR, WP:SYNTH and WP:NPOV would probably be violated.
We would need to pick out the top 10. If someone else discussed the top 10, we could post that. For us to do so is OR, irrespective of our criteria.
I'm not really sure of the rest of your argument - what problem do you see with this particular article? Is there something missing? Are there errors? What do you think needs to change? Please start your reply in a new section as this one is quite long. WLU 17:19, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

This article has greatly improved in its NPOV-ness since I last viewed it, but it has a few points that come close to attacking creationism without supporting it whatsoever. Creationism's greatest support is that it has logical thought behind it, it trys to explain the worlds creation in a way that matches both fact and theology. it does NOT reject all evidence that seems to undermind previously held creation theories, it only questions the evidence. Nonetheless, good work people. Thisflame 05:26, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Contrast to Evolution

I recomend that a section be given to contrast creationism and evolution. For example the opening statments state that creationism presupposes there is a God. Evolution presupposes that there is not one.Fbc215 19:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

The Pope seems to be okay with the idea of evolution. SheffieldSteel 19:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Straight from the horse's mouth: "Concerning biological evolution, the Church does not have an official position on whether various life forms developed over the course of time. However, it says that, if they did develop, then they did so under the impetus and guidance of God, and their ultimate creation must be ascribed to him." http://www.catholic.com/library/adam_eve_and_evolution.asp SheffieldSteel 19:42, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Hm? Maybe it should be stated that evolution makes no claims on anything supernatural. Evolution neither supposes or denies a god, anymore than heliocentrism supposes or denies a god. 74.14.122.167 (talk) 13:43, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

The Pope is not in charge or president of Christianity. The Pope is a religious leader of Catholics. There is also Protestantism. Also, 90% of the worlds population belives there is a higher power, that is God. Fbc215 23:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I do not cite the Pope as a spokesperson for all Christianity, but as an excellent example of a prominent and notable Christian, and the head of a prominent and notable Christian church. If evolution indeed presupposes, as you assert, that there is no God, why do you suppose that the Pope, and the Catholic Church, are so willing to consider it? Shouldn't the Church be invoking infallibility and condemning the very idea of evolution rather than using such tentative and thoughtful language as in the quote above? SheffieldSteel 23:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

The supposed presupposition there is not a God is not, in fact, true. The only presupposition is that the world works in a logical, elucible manner. Adam Cuerden ^talk 03:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Adam is correct. Evolution makes no statement about the existence or nonexistence of God. What it does provide is a simple, straightforward explanation for the development of life on Earth, without the need to resort to miracles or supernatural explanations. — Knowledge Seeker দ 05:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

"Also, 90% of the worlds population believes there is a higher power, that is God." Please quote a reference for these ridiculous numbers. Firstly 90% of the worlds population will say anything the are told to (90% of "educated" Americans apparently believed in weapons of mass destruction) secondly nobody has spoken to 90% of the worlds population and thirdly 90% of the worlds population may believe in some higher power because they are prevented from being educated that there is no higher power or god by people who have a vested interest in this superstitious imaginary friend nonsense continuing. user :cdxp

'[S]uperstitious imaginary friend nonsense'? Hey hey, calm down. Nobody is challenging anybody's atheistic religion, this is just a discussion page. Please stay friendly. - WolfieInu

Can someone clarify? Does 'evolution' assert that only natural forces shaped living things and asserts that there was no 'intelligent entity' influencing the development of life in any way? 69.211.150.60 13:07, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

That is a slightly different question. The theory of evolution does indeed state that the observed fact of evolution is explained by physical mechanisms alone. As such, it does not require or assume the existence of a god, but this is not the same as saying that it requires or assumes that no god exists, which was the claim made above by Fbc215. If that were the case, all Christians, Jews, and Moslems would have a religous duty to view evolution as fundamentally opposed to their religion. Only a small minority of these groups have thought it necessary to take that position. SheffieldSteel 13:41, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Evolution is a only a theory backed up by circumstantial evidence, which in retrospect, it also applies with creationism. The only difference is that evolutionism is more plausible due to scientific observation of mutation and perhaps natural selection. Religion and science does not have to be a stepping stone for debateable conflict. Through history, science has only applied a new perspective of religion. It could be possible that maybe the first single cell lifeforms were created, and through millions of years of natural selection, came humans. Idealist101 23:48, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

No. There are two types of scientific theories. Some are by observation: Energy that goes into a spring or a battery or a flywheel, etc. seems to be completely released when the system returns to its original state. Nobody has ever observed energy appearing or disappearing. Therefore, we have a theory of conservation of energy. There is no underlying theory as to why, it's purely observational; these are usually referred to as laws. Other theories are, however, by deduction: We have models of aerodynamics which lead inexorably to the theory that if you have a flat surface of sufficient size which moves through the air at a certain angle, it will lift a certain weight off the ground. Thus, numerous people around the beginning of the last century came up with the same theory of powered flight, and it was just a matter of applying it. The theory is based on logical implications of fundamental physical laws; if somebody should build an airplane of correct design and it refuses to lift off the ground, then that will shake the laws of physics. Evloution is of this latter type. If you believe in heredity, and you believe in genetic variation, and you believe in organisms' competing for an ecological niche, then evolution is an inevitable logical consequence. It is not a matter of "plausibility", it is required by our current understanding of biology, and if it is not true, then we are seriously barking up the wrong tree. Gzuckier 14:52, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

There is a difference between presupposition of a diety and the willingness to not rule out a diety as an a priori assumption. Many creationists hold the view that, when considering the origin of life, naturalistic assumptions related to causality should be relaxed because the nature of the inquiry is forensic in nature.Gryff (talk) 16:35, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

That is fine. A creationist or religious leader can believe anything they personally want to. However, science does not include magic and witchcraft and supernatural etc. It is not that such things do not exist, however, they are not part of science. Moreover, there is little evidence if any that such things exist and has never been demonstrated. Religion can not require science to redefine itself, just as science does not dictate to religious believers what they should include in their doctrines. You are free to believe whatever you like, but you are not free to force it on others. Thanks.--Filll (talk) 18:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Can you point to any existing "forensic inquiry" where "naturalistic assumptions related to causality" have been similarly "relaxed" by mainstream science? No, I didn't think so. So this whole "forensic inquiry" line of 'argument' is a complete non sequitor. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 18:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Hrafn. In forensic science itself, do you see anyone walking away from materialism? Try to convince a court of how reasonable this is. Or a police detective.--Filll (talk) 18:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Look, Creationism relates to the origins of the universe; Evolution does not. You cannot contrast the two because they do not relate. 4-13-08 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.251.225.58 (talk) 21:31, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

In a certain sense you are correct. Biological evolution is a much more narrow set of ideas than creationism encompasses. Creationism also deals with the origin of the universe and the origin of life and the creation of planetary bodies and their characteristics and the creation of stars and many other features, all of which are outside the purview of evolution.--Filll (talk) 23:04, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Council of Europe - Resolution 1580

I'm not sure exactly what the effect of thisresolution is, discussed on 4 October 2007. Is it a non-binding resolution? Does it hold any legal weight on what can and can't be taught in public schools?

Some excerpts:

2. For some people the Creation, as a matter of religious belief, gives a meaning to life. Nevertheless, the Parliamentary Assembly is worried about the possible ill-effects of the spread of creationist ideas within our education systems and about the consequences for our democracies. If we are not careful, creationism could become a threat to human rights which are a key concern of the Council of Europe.

3. Creationism, born of the denial of the evolution of species through natural selection, was for a long time an almost exclusively American phenomenon. Today creationist ideas are tending to find their way into Europe and their spread is affecting quite a few Council of Europe member states.

19. The Parliamentary Assembly therefore urges the member states, and especially their education authorities:

19.1. to defend and promote scientific knowledge;

19.2. strengthen the teaching of the foundations of science, its history, its epistemology and its methods alongside the teaching of objective scientific knowledge;

19.3. to make science more comprehensible, more attractive and closer to the realities of the contemporary world;

19.4. to firmly oppose the teaching of creationism as a scientific discipline on an equal footing with the theory of evolution and in general resist presentation of creationist ideas in any discipline other than religion;

19.5. to promote the teaching of evolution as a fundamental scientific theory in the school curriculum.

-- MacAddct1984 14:55, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately not: the Council of Europe is pretty much a talking shop. This is not a binding statute.--194.81.254.57 10:39, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's desperately unfortunate that the council of Europe cannot suppress someone's right to expound their beliefs. 199.71.183.2 14:31, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

This is completely a red herring, in Europe and the US. This s not a free speech issue. Creationism is not science, so it should not be taught as science. It can be taught as something else like philosophy or religion quite easily.

And no one should be prevented from expounding their beliefs. However, there is a point at which the right to expound your beliefs crosses over into coercion of others. No one should be forced to accept the beliefs of others. Period. Live and let live.

If you want to just learn enough science to pass the tests in school, and not believe what is taught, then fine. People have been indoctrinated into religions they do not believe for centuries with no ill effects. You have other alternatives, like private school and religious schools of course where you might even be able to evade science completely if you choose..--Filll 14:43, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

It's a statement of position, and thus notable. It was mentioned in the last issue of Reports of the National Center for Science Education, actually, but I thought I'd wait on the vote before quoting it. Adam Cuerden ^talk 14:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

In America, the US couldn't say that, becuase of freedom of religion. This whole section is very offensive to me actually.

No one should be forced to accept the beliefs of others.

I agree. Abiogenesis shouldn't be taught either. It's just a belief, no evidence exists for this "soup" that "existed." Just my thoughts. RJRocket53 (talk) 03:07, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually it is a hypothesis, and should be taught as such. Unlike evolution there is considerable debate within the scientific community about the accuracy of abiogenesis, though there is evidence that the 'soup' existed it is not conclusive that life originated in it.--AlexCatlin (talk) 11:18, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes it is a theory, I know. But reading a textbook, I found nothing that said it was a theory. It said, this happened... then this, with no mention of it being just a theory. I have no problem with teaching it, as long as it is taught how it is, not dis-honestly. RJRocket53 (talk) 23:38, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

That's just it--it isn't a theory. It's a hypothesis. There's a significant difference, and part of the problem stems from people misunderstanding the respective terms. It's confusion and imprecise use of language of this sort that leads to the "just a theory" argument. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.186.174.14 (talk) 23:56, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Presupposition

I removed a statement that "existence of a deity was presupposed". Patently if someone believes that they have deduced the existence of a deity (which many people believe) and that from that they deduce that Creationism is true, then they are not "presupposing" existence of a deity, and more than Evolution is "presupposing" the age of the Earth. There was a reference, but to a general book with no page number given and hence impossible to track down. 199.71.183.2 14:36, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

"religious belief...created by a deity". Does anyone want to explain why the world "religious" is needed here? It's an obvious tautology. 199.71.183.2 15:00, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

It might be slightly superfluous but I do not think it is bad English.--Filll 15:09, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

If it is superfluous, why should we not remove it? Fewer words are always better then many, if the extra words add nothing. 199.71.183.2 16:07, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

religious belief is not a tautology? a tautology is an unnecessary (and usually unintentional) repetition of meaning, utilising different words, i.e. saying the same thing twice.

"religion" and "belief" do not have the same meaning? Teapotgeorge 16:16, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

"Belief is the psychological state in which an individual is convinced of the truth of a proposition." this is a defintion. A person can believe that water will boil at 100 C because they have evidence that it will. Also a person can believe there is a G_d because they intuit it. Not a tautology. A religious belief is different than a belief in a logical inference. Imbrella 16:32, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

"religious belief" is not a tautology, but "religious belief in a deity" is a tautology. That's what I was talking about. 199.71.183.2 17:29, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

The word "religious" precedes "belief" because it's a very good way of characterising Creationism at the very beginning of the article. To an extent, it's included for historical reasons (various POV pushers tried to insert the word "irrational" and even "false" in that place, when really only "religious" can be argued to be accurate and neutral). I wouldn't oppose removing the last clause, since it is so common for things to be "presupposed to exist". Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 17:43, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

It's not, strictly speaking, tautological. I can believe in a deity as an abstract concept revered by some without believing that this deity has any tangible existence. --Stephan Schulz 17:53, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be very hard to imagine a case where "belief that the universe was created by a deity" was not religious. 199.71.183.2 18:02, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Tell that to the Intelligent Design cre(a)ti(o)nists. (RJRocket changed to keep you from offending someone by calling them a cretinist) Odd nature 18:28, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

"religious belief in a deity" is not a tautology, as there exist religions (e.g. the more primal forms of Buddhism and Taoism) that do not believe in a deity. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 17:43, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I find it ironic that Imbrella would compare belief in a diety to logic. Firstly, whether or not you believe in, or presuppose, the existence of something does not make it true or false. That being said, the existence of a deity can easily be proved by the Law of Cause and Effect: "every effect must have an antecedent cause". Now you may say "what caused a deity into being?" Well, a higher deity, as held by many religions as an intelligent designer, is not n effect; it is a cause. 4-16-08 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.40.236.1 (talk) 14:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Recent edits regarding YEC being discredited

[FIRST TWO COMMENTS COPIED FROM USER TALK:DIEGO]

Actually, as per WP:WEASEL, I disagree. I reverted again 'cause I didn't realize there was a discussion, but I won't revert again until this is resolved. Though the existence of criticism should obviously be mentioned, it really doesn't belong in the lead, even if cited. Gscshoyru 22:29, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Gscshoyru, I'm a little confused. Your recent reversion of my edit doesn't seem to have anything to do with the discussion above. Does it? The above comments were in reference to a phrase that redundantly mentioned "religious" and "deity" in the same sentence. Your edit, on the other hand, seemed to involve a statement asserting that young earth creationism had been largely discredited. It was [citation needed] tagged, then promptly deleted. I agree that the wording could be clearer to avoid weasel words, but again, does anyone actually contest that statement (from a scientific perspective, not a theological perspective)? Is there really anyone who could say with a straight face "the majority of scientists actually think that young earth creationism is a valid interpretation of the evidence" or "modern cosmological and biological theories, which are supported by an overwhelming majority of scientists, are totally compatible with young earth creationism"? No. Because modern scientific theories have discredited young earth creationism as a valid explanation for the evidence. Belief in YEC requires faith. I don't think mentioning that it is overwhelmingly discredited by scientific evidence is overly critical to put in the lead, as long as it is clear who or what has discredited it as a viable evidence-based theory. Creationists often seem to reject science outright and turn to faith as the sole rationale for their beliefs, so how is the view of the majority of scientists overly critical? If creationists are right about science, then scientific criticisms of creationism would actually be silly and meaningless. YEC, as a theory explaining the origins of the cosmos and life on earth, is in direct conflict with the evidence (and the people who study that evidence). That may or may not be important to some people. How about presenting both sides in a factual way that does not give undue weight to any single opinion and let readers decide for themselves? Isn't that what NPOV is all about? Either way, I think we can move this discussion to the article talk page, since it involves the article. Thanks. — DIEGO ^talk 00:22, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I removed truth fish logo because is innapropriate.

File:Truth fish.JPG

The Truth fish, one of the many creationist responses to the Darwin fish.

Ironically, this is actually an accurate sentiment from the perspective of those supporting evolution as it suggests evolution can be digested by truth, while Creationism cannot be. Any person with a sold grasp logic would immediately see the implication, yet those who use these bumper stickers are completely oblivious to the fact that they are implicitly pointing out the irrelevence of their "theory". Annoyed with fanboys 19:06, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I reverted the removal. It's a creationist response to the 'evolutionist' response to the Jesus fish.

Logic is a hallmark of original research, which is barred from inclusion on wikipedia
Your rational appears to be mostly opinion, which is POV, and wikipedia should not include POV edits.

WLU 19:09, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

are you really arguing that no one on wikipedia is allowed to use logic? That surely can't be what you're trying to say. User:Jonwilliamsl(talk|contribs) 14:09, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

It should be included. Period. RJRocket53 (talk) 03:12, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Capitalisation of "Biblical"

All proper adjectives in the English language are capitalized. For example, we write "Quranic" and not quranic, "Vedic" and not vedic, "Australian" and not australian, so why must "Biblical" be a special exception? It makes no sense at all. If you check the history of the usage of the word, you will see that "Biblical" has always been more common than "biblical" according to the OED, notwithstanding what a few recent style guides like Chicago may attempt to impose. Til Eulenspiegel 14:19, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, Wikipedia generally follows "recent" (i.e., first published in 1906)style guides like Chicago (see the Bible article for examples). Also, the OED is not a style guide, it is a dictionary. Whether or not you agree with the rationale, its important to be consistent, hence the lowercase b on biblical and capital B on Bible. I noticed your spelling of "capitalisation" on the heading, and I'm wondering if this is yet another British vs. American spelling difference. Either way, don't go randomly changing from one to the other. Thanks — DIEGO ^talk 14:24, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia has no such specific policy to write "biblical" while at the same time writign "Vedic" "Talmudic" and "Koranic", etc. If you can, please show me this policy. This is a grave injustice that needs to be dealt with, and it is perhaps indicative of the special vehemence certain POV scholars and academics hold for the Bible alone, as opposed to the Koran, Talmud and Veda, to supposedly make "biblical" the only proper adjective in the entire language NOT to be capitalised. Til Eulenspiegel 14:29, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a guideline to maintain consistency within an article or related group of articles (WP:STYLE). The word biblical is simply not capitalized in the vast majority of printed sources published within the last 50 years. That counts for something. This is not a "Wikipedia-specific" issue, it is a matter of common usage. Like I said, you may not agree with the rationale, but that doesn't mean it is appropriate to go around adding a capital B to biblical. A quick Google search will reveal millions of examples of biblical (small b). These are not all errors, that is just the way it is spelled. I don't know why Vedic is capitalized but biblical is not. I'm neither a linguist nor a high school English teacher. But it doesn't really matter why, it only matters what is. Do you spell "quixotic" with a capital Q? Just curious. There are plenty of proper adjectives that are not capitalized. Where is the "grave injustice" here? This is just spelling. Capital letters are not an indication of inherent respect. Not capitalizing biblical is not disrespectful to the content of the Bible, it is simply a convention of language. Also, if you really believe this is a grave injustice, take up the issue with the style manuals, the Associated Press and the millions of people who write 'biblical. I repeat this is not a "Wikipedia" issue. The article simply follows actual English usage. — DIEGO ^talk 14:37, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

This is prejudice and will obviously have to be dealt with to establish a specific, fair site-wide policy. I would also dispute that the uses of "biblical" as opposed to "Biblical" are or ever have been in the majority. Siding with style guides that single out just one proper adjective is not neutral, and unfair. BTW, "Quixotic" is capitalised when it is used as a proper adjective, that is, to refer to the accompanying proper noun, eg. "in Quixotic literature" perhaps. But it is not capitalised when used as a common adjective, to describe an abstract quality. Til Eulenspiegel 14:43, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Where is the prejudice? Whether I call something Biblical or biblical, the content of the statement does not change. Whether I refer to a man as Black or black, the content doesn't change. Please provide evidence that capital B is more prevalent today (not over the course of history -- that's not how style and usage decisions are made). Which current style guides (not dictionaries, which do not prescribe usage)recommend a capital B? Where are the examples of Biblical being used on Wikipedia (not in the first word of a sentence, obviously). I don't honestly understand why this is a problem, and I especially do not understand how you can find "prejudice" and "grave injustice" in a simple style issue. Please try to take the emotionality out and look at the facts. And by "facts" (see today's FA, Truthiness), I mean "how is the world actually spelled in the majority of recent publications?" If this were really a "grave injustice", why are you the first person to take issue with it so strenuously? Where is the Christian lobby demanding a capital B on biblical? I imagine they have more important things to feel insulted about. Thanks. — DIEGO ^talk 14:56, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

It is obvious prejudice to single out one book from all the books of the world and give it special treatment in this way, while continuing to write "Vedic", "Talmudic", etc. This is now being taken up at WP:BIBLE. Til Eulenspiegel 15:01, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

[THIS DISCUSSION HAS MOVED TO Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bible#Specific policy needed on capitalisation]

Oriental Orthodox position on Creationism

Does anyone seriously doubt that the Oriental Orthodox Churches are a huge group (predominantly found in the Middle East) who unambiguously teach that God created the Earth around 6000 years ago? I wanted to correct the fiction that "47% of Americans", or USA Protestants, or whoever, are the only group in the world to take this position. But I have run into some roadblocks in correcting this article that I have a hard time understanding. There are very likely other groups or sections just as large in the Muslim and Jewish worlds who also take this view, so let us attempt to look past our own noses and take accurate note of what various other people around the world believe, instead of focusing exclusively on Americans and pretend that others either do not count or do not exist. Til Eulenspiegel 18:09, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

All you have to do is include a reference to a WP:RS stating that YEC is part of church doctrine for all OO churches. The only reason I challenged this is because the OOC is a group of diverse churches rather than a single governing body. Therefore, making a statement that applies to all, yet goes beyond the widely acknowledged shared characteristics among these groups could easily be questioned. Not to mention, I have several Armenian Orthodox friends who don't seem to think that their church teaches young earth creationism as a matter of doctrine. Of course they could be wrong, which is why I requested that you support your statement with an inline reference in the article in question (Creationism). Thanks. — DIEGO ^talk 18:25, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, I am not sure about the Armenians and will look that up, but my sources can at least verify that the Coptic, Ethiopian, and Eritrean Churches all agree on this. Til Eulenspiegel 18:28, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I am quite interested in this and would put it in other articles if we could track down better references. I am interested in exactly what denominations subscribe to biblical literalism, biblical inerrancy, biblical infallibility and subscribe to various forms of creationism (see [8]) and what the actual personal claimed beliefs of those members of those denominations are [9]). It should be noted that there are large groups of African Christians and even some groups within the Catholic Church (see [10]) that are creationist or even YEC in nature.--Filll 19:06, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I have found one Armenian Church website sthagop.com/Looys.pdf that seems to confirm what Diego said about their not being necessarily literalist YEC, while at the same time, affirming their strong belief that only God created creation (they allow that it may not have been literally around 6000 years ago, but possibly far longer ago, in accordance with Evolution theory.) So, it appears that they do not share the definite, staunch YEC position of the Coptic Church and daughter churches in Ethiopia / Eritrea. I still have not researched the Syrian and Indian branches of the OOC yet. Til Eulenspiegel 20:28, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

It strikes me that it might be useful for us to compile all this information into a daughter article with a few citations. I do not know if there is room for it in this article, but I think if we could document the positions of a few major faiths in christianity and perhaps in Islam and Judaism on this, possibly with a reference or two to the Hindu creationists and maybe some others, then it might be a useful article. What do you think?--Filll 20:46, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

My views aside, I found this article by bouncing around, as many do, following somehow Til Eulenspiegel's 3rr problem nad discussion thereof. I note that he does appear to have satisfied some aspects of citation as relates to the OOC. Cna another editos work with him to include the cited information he did acquire for the article? That or gather a set to build into a section back here, then add? Either way, I think his information adds valid, on topic, information to the article. ThuranX 20:58, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Filll that this information is both fascinating and complicated enough to warrant an article of its own. As he indicated, church doctrine does not always match the beliefs of individual adherents, which adds an interesting wrinkle to any attempts to pigeonhole certain faiths into certain beliefs, given the wide spectrum of Bible interpretations as well as the spectrum of beliefs often lumped together under "creationism".

Til Eulenspiegel, I'm sorry if I left you with the impression that I objected to the inclusion of OOC information in the article. I had no problem with you adding the statement, I just wanted you to include a reference because the statement didn't match my understanding of the OOC as a whole (particularly the Armenian Orthodox Church). I think any well-sourced information that can put creationism into a more global perspective is helpful to the article. I appreciate your effort to find sources and clarify the statement. Thanks — DIEGO ^talk 23:57, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Holders of view

Want to note that the view is widely held within Haredi Judaism. See for example [11]. Best, --Shirahadasha 20:20, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

"biblical" or "Biblical"?

Biblical or biblical? Should Wikipedia adopt a style guideline favoring one over the other when used as an adjective referring to the Bible (e.g., Biblical scholar, biblical exegesis, Biblical foundation, biblical support, etc.)?

Please comment on the RFC at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bible#RFC: "biblical" or "Biblical". Thanks — DIEGO ^talk 18:22, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Any proper noun that is used as an adjective would be capitalized, according to grammar. RJRocket53 (talk) 02:52, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Suggested changes:

Removed to User talk:Dontletmedown#Suggested changes.

ScienceApologist 01:09, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Off-topic trolling removed again to User talk:Partgreen, a confirmed sockpuppet of User:Raspor (see Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Raspor). — DIEGO ^talk 16:20, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Rejection of evolution

It's not clear what "rejection of evolution" means. Are we talking only about the Young Earth Creationists who say all forms of life are 10,000 years old? Or do we also include Old Earth Creationists who believe in some aspects of evolution like the gradual appearance of forms of life over hundreds of millions of years (as in progressive creationism)?

Clearly in America 15% accept evolution completely, while 40 to 45% reject it completely. But what about the middle group? Do people who say things like "Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process" *accept* or *reject* evolution?

Is acceptance or rejection an either/or thing? Or do American adults pick and choose which parts of the various viewpoints they accept or reject? --Uncle Ed 01:16, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes I agree. To say 'creationists reject evolution' is not an accurate statement. For instance does and old-earth creationist reject theists-evolution. It is too much of a blanket statement. It is a continuum and grey scale. Massachew 14:49, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Young Earth creationists reject descent with modification (which currently redirects to "Evolution") and natural selection, right? If so, this should be made clear in the article.

Perhaps it is not clear whether "descent with modification" is PART of evolution or is IDENTICAL with evolution. I think evolution has various aspects, which need to identified as distinct yet related elements. The various creationists differ in which of the elements or aspects they accept or reject. --Uncle Ed 15:08, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

This has been argued ad infinitum on these pages. And it is clear in the text and the cited references. Different creationists believe different things. And all creationists, except for maybe those classed as subscribing to "theistic evolution", reject one part or another of the standard current scientific view. And therefore creationists are classified roughly into different categories, in the cited references and in the text here.

Why is this so hard for people to understand? Do people just resist reading and understanding the text? This is not rocket science; different creationists believe different things. But all of them reject some part of evolution, except maybe for the largest group, those who subscribe to theistic evolution. --Filll 15:27, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

"while Old Earth creationism accepts geological findings but rejects evolution." We are trying to make articles accurate and easily understood by new people. This sentence seems to indicate that OECs reject all aspect of evolutionary theory which they do not.

'while Old Earth creationism accepts an earth of billions of years of age but do not accept all of the tenets of evolutionary theory.' Massachew 15:55, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Filll,

It's probably hard to understand because various writers have interpreted the percentages of Americans who "reject evolution" differently. If "evolution" means that new forms of life appeared gradually and that God had nothing to do with it, then Old Earth and Young Earth creationists both reject it (37% + 43% = 80%). That leaves 15% supporting evolution and 5% undecided.

But if the viewpoint of theistic evolution means the belief that "evolution and creationism are compatible", then it would appear that evolution can mean simply that new forms of life appeared gradually. This second usage leaves the question of God's intervention as an open question.

When you referred to the largest group, did you mean "godless evolutionists" (no disrespect intended :-) + "progressive creationists" (15% + 37% = 52%)? If so, then I'd have to agree with you, because 52% is larger than 43% (Young Earth creationists). --Uncle Ed 15:58, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

All Creationists (excepting Theistic evolution‎ists, who are not, generally, considered to be creationists) reject some/all central tenets of the Theory of Evolution (and the scientific facts of evolution underlying it). Young Earth creationists do so openly and unequivocally, Old Earth creationists and Intelligent design advocates often obfuscate and equivocate their disagreement. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 16:09, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe that's accurate, if a Theistic evolutionist believes that some higher power created the universe, that makes them a creationist in a broad sense, irregardless of whether or not they are considered mainstream. Plus, it makes no sense at all, why would believing that the universe was created by something/someone automatically make it impossible to believe in the theory of evolution? Homestarmy 16:17, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Believe whatever you like -- it's what you can substantiate that matters. Ronald Numbers doesn't include Theistic Evolutionists in his The Creationists (arguably the most authoritative history of the Creationist movement), I would suspect that none but the most ardent of atheists would call Kenneth R. Miller (who is listed in the Kenneth Miller disambiguation as "U.S. biologist known for his opposition to creationism") one. Likewise I've yet to see any creationist group that accepts TEs as "one of us". "believes that some higher power created the universe" is not a useful definition of "Creationist". And please don't use "irregardless" -- it is not a word, it's a meaningless double negative. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 16:27, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Progressive creationism ... posits that the new "kinds" of plants and animals that have appeared successively over the planet's history represent instances of God directly intervening to create those new types by means outside the realm of science. Progressive creationists generally reject macroevolution as biologically untenable and not supported by the fossil record, and they generally reject the concept of universal descendence from a last universal ancestor.

-- Progressive creationism
Progressive creationism thus rejects evolution. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 16:19, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

First of all, the word "generally" there means there are exceptions, thusly making the "all" in your statement suspect. Second of all, quoting the Wikipedia article definition alone isn't very helpful, since Wikipedia isn't supposed to reference itself. Besides, why does a Theistic evolutionist have to believe that God directly intervenes in the process of evolution? If someone believes that existance was created by some higher power, they are a creationist, period. Though, with the lead of this article focusing mostly on the United States and mainstream Protestant opinion, I can understand how a reader might miss that. Homestarmy 16:25, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

No -- "Progressive creationism ... posits that the new "kinds" of plants and animals that have appeared successively over the planet's history represent instances of God directly intervening to create those new types by means outside the realm of science." This is explicit rejection of evolution. A Theistic evolutionist does not "believe that God directly intervenes in the process of evolution" -- at least not in any way that is detectable or distinguishable from randomness. If you cannot cite a WP:RS that "if someone believes that existance was created by some higher power, they are a creationist", then your opinion is inadmissible WP:OR, period. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 16:40, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

^ Morris, H (1982). The Troubled Waters of Evolution. Master Books. ISBN 978-0890510872.
^ Mohler, RA (2005). "The Origins of Life: An Evangelical Baptist View". NPR. Retrieved 2007-03-24. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help)
^ "The Result of Believing Evolution". Living Word Bible Church. Retrieved 2007-03-24. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help)
^ Ham, K. Why Won't They Listen? A Radical New Approach to Evangelism. Master Books. ISBN 0890513783.
^ Raymo, C (1999-09-06). "Darwin's Dangerous De-evolution". Boston Globe. Retrieved 2007-03-24.
^ Morris, HM (1989). The Long War Against God: The History and Impact of the Creation/Evolution Conflict. Baker Book House. ISBN 0-89051-291-4.
^ "Darwin's Deadly Legacy" (PDF). Center for Reclaiming America for Christ. Retrieved 2007-03-24.
^ Martin, A (2006). "TV Producer Defends Documentary Exposing Darwin-Hitler Link". Agape Press. Retrieved 2007-03-24. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
^ Weikart, R (2004). From Darwin to Hitler: Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics, and Racism in Germany. Palgrave Macmillan. ISBN 978-1403972019.
^ Cite error: The named reference hovinddvd was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ Creationist Links Origins to Faith, Everyday Life: Says outlook on Genesis account affects every aspect of life , Bob Ellis, Dakota Voice, 5/7/2006

[1] Morris, H (1982). The Troubled Waters of Evolution. Master Books. ISBN 978-0890510872.

[2] Mohler, RA (2005). "The Origins of Life: An Evangelical Baptist View". NPR. Retrieved 2007-03-24. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help)

[3] "The Result of Believing Evolution". Living Word Bible Church. Retrieved 2007-03-24. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help)

[4] Ham, K. Why Won't They Listen? A Radical New Approach to Evangelism. Master Books. ISBN 0890513783.

[Raymo-5] Raymo, C (1999-09-06). "Darwin's Dangerous De-evolution". Boston Globe. Retrieved 2007-03-24.

[6] Morris, HM (1989). The Long War Against God: The History and Impact of the Creation/Evolution Conflict. Baker Book House. ISBN 0-89051-291-4.

[7] "Darwin's Deadly Legacy" (PDF). Center for Reclaiming America for Christ. Retrieved 2007-03-24.

[agape_press-8] Martin, A (2006). "TV Producer Defends Documentary Exposing Darwin-Hitler Link". Agape Press. Retrieved 2007-03-24. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

[9] Weikart, R (2004). From Darwin to Hitler: Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics, and Racism in Germany. Palgrave Macmillan. ISBN 978-1403972019.

[hovinddvd-10] Cite error: The named reference hovinddvd was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[11] Creationist Links Origins to Faith, Everyday Life: Says outlook on Genesis account affects every aspect of life , Bob Ellis, Dakota Voice, 5/7/2006

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]