Talk:Neo-creationism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] NPOV

I've tried to reword some of this article to make it more NPOV. Please don't take any of the edits personally; I'm just trying to uphold a more encyclopedic tone. Particularly, I was looking out for the following things:

  1. Avoiding generalizations
  2. Making clear the opposing viewpoints without exhibiting bias toward one or the other
  3. Avoiding the use of extraneous wording/punctuation to cast doubt on a position ("so-called", "legitimate", putting quotes around "science", etc.)

Deklund 07:46, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Mostly a fair cop I'd say. I've replaced one or two of the changes that I think are fair to leave in. Your mileage may vary. --Plumbago 10:00, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
In an attempt to avoid generalizations you've added equivocations. It's no gernalization to say that all Neo-Creationists claim to present scientific theories while making thinly veiled religious allusions with an open and often hostile opposition to what they term "Darwinism." These points are what specifically distinguish Neo-Creationism from Creationism. It's simply not a matter of "most," "some," or "many" and "often": Either they they distinctions in their arguments, or they're not Neo-Creationists, but run-of-the-mill creationists. FeloniousMonk 15:57, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
Wow, talk about an absolute violation of NPOV... I especially like the parts about "Neo-creationists seek nothing less than the replacement of empirical and logical evidence with ideology and dogmatic belief." and "Motivating the neo-creationist movement is the fear that religion is under attack by the study of evolution." To say this article needs to be repaired would be a bit of an understatement. Izuko 03:15, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

PEJORATIVE POV The term "neo-creationist" is apparently never used by Creation Science or Intelligent Design. It was apparently coined by critics such as Miller. Its application to Intelligent Desin is considered pejorative or an insult, and an attempt to tag ID with "creationist".

RECOMMEND DELETING THIS TERM AND PAGE as foundationally contarary to NPOV principles and an effort by critics to tar Intelligent Design. DLH 15:25, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] From Darwin to Hitler

Just to head off any claim from Rich that the DI is not promoting his book "From Darwin to Hitler," a Whois search for the book's website domain name, darwintohitler.com, reveals that it was registered by the Discovery Institute: [1]. Additionally, the institute's name and logo are prominently displayed on the site's front page: [2]. FeloniousMonk 00:11, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Surprisingly enough though, it really is published by MacMillan. I saw that edit yesterday, assumed it was just another dash for respectability by the NCs, but it turns out to be correct. I don't know what MacMillan are thinking (apart from dollar signs). --Plumbago 09:33, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
By Weikart/130.17.182.200's own admission yesterday [3], From Darwin to Hitler was funded by the Discovery Institute, so MacMillan had little financial risk. As for being peer-reviewed, MacMillan lists it in its history/social sciences catalog. So peer review there is a very different thing that PR for scientific articles and books. FeloniousMonk 02:33, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

So basically, because Hitler and Streicher, et al, misunderstood Evolution (or at least twisted it to their own ends) that's proof that Evolution is evil? I don't know, the misunderstanding and twisting reminds me of a few IDists I've run across.

Jim62sch 02:18, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

The first two paragraphs (as you have formulated them) cancel each other out, logically. The first one concludes, "It aims to re-frame the debate over the origins of life in non-religious terms and without appeals to scripture." The second paragraph states that the complaint of Neo-Creationists is that science "effectively excludes religious insight from contributing to understanding the universe." To correct this problem I will alter paragraph two. Endomion 03:25, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

A lack of logical consistancy is one of the more common criticisms of neo-creationism. The passage was correct as it was and cites are availible to back it up. Sorry, but I'm reverting your changes. FeloniousMonk 03:45, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I was attempting to resolve your lack of logical consistency in authoring a putatively encyclopedic article. I'll wipe the dust off my sandals and leave you to get AfD'ed later. Endomion 03:57, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I think the author of this article misunderstands the underlying argument against Darwinism from the social advocates of intelligent design. The connection between Darwinism and social decline is this. Traditional norms of morality in Western society were viewed as immutable because of the belief that a creator God had set them as part of a universal law. Darwinism challenged this belief, resulting in a secular humanistic society where human beings, not some omnipotent creator, decideed what was right and what was wrong. Consequently, the argument goes as long as Darwinism remains a social concept, not just a scientific one, moral standards will continue to decline and anarchy could be the end result. Therefore, a plastic, atheistic morality has no standards to sustain itself other than people's good will, which is self-interested.

I should also point out that Darwinism was the basis of the Eugenics Movement and the racist theories of Social Darwinism that led to the Nazi holocaust of the Jews.

Also, it should be noted that ID is really more of a restatement of 18th century Deism than an affirmation of Christian cosmology because it surmises the existance of a creator, but that still doesn't prove the ID "God" is the deity worshipped by Christians and Jews.

Too much weight is given in this article to the opponents of intelligent design and not enough is given to its proponents' counterarguments.

Macroevolution, the evolution of one species into another cannot be tested in a laboratory, anymore than intelligent design. The supporters of ID, however, accept microevolution as scientific fact, evidenced by the different breeds of dogs or species of birds.

The opponents of ID fall into the trap of disproving a negative because they already do not believe in a deity; therefore, suggesting theoretical evidence, a hypothesis, that a deity does exist is false from the getgo. Scientists are not objective because they all begin with their prejudices and work from there.--204.108.237.194 21:45, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Forest, there are trees there. •Jim62sch• 00:55, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Afd FYI

There is no tag on the article page, and this article is not on the Afd page - but Endomion apparently created an Afd page for this article. I am completely confused by this. Feel free to do whatever seems appropriate. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Neo-Creationism KillerChihuahua 05:20, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Do they call themselves neo-creationist? vs PEJOATIVE PREMISE

The Darwinism article says:

  • The term is mostly used by its enemies. As biologist E.O. Wilson has noted, "Scientists don't call it 'Darwinism'." [Newsweek Nov 28, 2005]

Isn't it true for neo-creationists? Do the ID proponents call themselves neo-creationist at all?

Thanks, nyenyec ☎ 15:10, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

No, they don't. Proponents of Intelligent Design would, almost by definition, consider "neo-creationist" an insult. Kind of like the distinction between someone who calls themselves "pro-life" but is labeled "anti-choice" by their opponents. Is it true? Well, kinda. Depends on who you ask. Would they reject the label? Yes. Is it inflamatory? Absolutely. BradC 17:42, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Then the foundational premise of this page is POV! Needs alot of editing to put the perspective of both sides in.--DLH 02:20, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

DELETE Neo-Creationism as a pejorative description It appears that neo-creationism is a pejorative term coined by evolutionists to tar Intelligent Design with the tag "creationism." Apprently it is never used favorably by ID practioners of themselves. e.g. it is not mentioned at ISCID.org. It's only use at uncommondescent.com is in one quote of Miller's. The onlyl occurrence at IDthefuture.com is to the book Traipsing into Evolution on the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial and its use there by evolutionists against ID. Creation Science seeks to compare empirical evidence with the Bible. Intelligent Design only pressupposes that intelligent causes exist and examines empirical evidence for evidence of intelligence vs a closed system of natural causes.

e.g., in arn.org it occurs in "Darwinism, Design and Public Education" section IV Critical Response "Design Yes, Intelligent No: A Critique of Intelligent Design Theory and Neo-Creationism, Massimo Pigliucci."

Recommend DELETING "neo-creationism" as a descriptive term for ID and only mention its use as a pejorative term. DLH 12:55, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree that this entire article should be deleted. The term is not in common use, and appears to have been created merely to cause confusion among other views. It is not accurately describing anyone view. It violates NPOV. Schlafly 20:05, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

This objection was already covered in a previous failed AFD. The article survived as the claim of lack of notability was found to be specious. The interesting thing here is that belying the claim that the article is POV is the fact that it's only ID proponents and other creationists who try to claim it's not a notable term, i.e.; those here who only represent one particular POV. And a POV that would no doubt benefit from seeing the article deleted. FeloniousMonk 20:43, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Concur with FM, this is inflammatory trolling IMNSHO. Please limit comments on talk pages to how to improve the article. KillerChihuahua?!? 20:45, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Agree with FM and KC. This is beyong inflammatory trolling, it is more a matter of being utterly clueless. Not in popular use, eh -- then why does it generate 240,000 hits? Troll somewhere else please, there's nothing to pee on here. •Jim62sch• 21:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Jim62sch: "neo-creationism" has 1,400 hits in Yahoo vs 4,020,000 for "Intelligent Design" i.e., 2870:1 Similarlly 10,700 for "neo-creationism in Google compared to 16,800,000 for "Intelligent Design" i.e., 1570:1. 0.03% is clearly a minority perspective on this. Please recheck you numbers.DLH 04:35, 7 June 2006 (UTC) Please explain AFD and cite your sourceDLH 04:39, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

PS Jim62sch I consider your statements to be ad hominim See: WP:ATTACK Please withdraw and conduct a civil discussion.DLH 04:35, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
AFD = WP:AFD. Um, again DLH, as I've pointed out to you before elsewhere, both your numbers and reasoning here are flawed. "neo-creationism" + "intelligent design" = 781 hits on Google: [4] "neocreationism" + "intelligent design" = 3,790 hits on Google: [5]
Aside from the numbers all that is necessary for the article to be justified is us to show that parties significant to the topic use the term in a signficant way (permitting attributing the term per WP:NPOV), which we already do: Pigliucci uses it often, [6], as does Matt Young [7] , even Henry Morris [8], and the NCSE: [9]
This is more than sufficient to justify it's own article, much less mention in other articles. Just because it's profoundly unpopular with those it describes is not evidence that it is not a useful term. Fundamentalists generally object to be called fundamentalists, but that doesn't alter the meaning or significance of "fundamentalist" after all. FeloniousMonk 05:38, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Science and neo-creationism

Cut:

Much of the effort of neo-creationists in response to science highlighting gaps in understanding or minor inconsistencies in the literature of biology, then making statements about what can and cannot happen in biological systems.

This sentence, previously the topic sentence of the Tactics paragraph, states that people are responding to science, which implies that Neo-creationism is "anti-Science". At best, this claim needs attribution (i.e., if it's a fact); more likely, it's just some critic's POV (in which case it still needs attribution). --Uncle Ed 17:57, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think you know the subject Ed if that seems like pov to you. Can you give us one example of a significant neo-creationist argument that does not involve polemical exaggerations or misrepresentations of minor disputes or inconsistencies in scientific literature? Just one would be fine.
Polemical attacks evolutionary theory using conflated, contrived "controversies" or misrepresentations of trivial inconsistencies in scientific literature are the single unifying hallmark of neo-creationsim, Ed. The passage is not a viewpoint and needs to stay in the article. FeloniousMonk 18:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Please don't change the subject. The problem with the sentence is that it states that people are responding to science, which implies that Neo-creationism is "anti-Science". I don't object to the "effort ... consists of polemics" part.
The sentence needs repair, and then it can be put back. --Uncle Ed 18:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
No, Ed, the sentence is accurate and I've restored it. You haven't made a case here that it is and you are clearly unread on the topic. FeloniousMonk 19:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Ed, the sentence strikes me as accurate. Furthermore it doesn't seem to have the implication you associate with it anyways, since people respond to science all the time in ways that are science and ways that are not science. JoshuaZ 19:06, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't see any problem with the sentence either, it is obviously accurate to anyone who has studied the issue. •Jim62sch• 21:24, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
I've added cites to sources supporting the various passages Ed has objected to here. FeloniousMonk 21:44, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Ed here, and the ad hominem attacks against him are uncalled for.
The whole article is a straw man attack on Philip Johnson and a couple of others as being anti-science. Johnson claims to be pro-science, so it is certainly a POV to say that he is anti-science.
There is an article on Johnson, and plenty of criticism there. I even agree with some of those criticisms, but that is beside the point.
An article on neo-creationism should present the theory of neo-creationism by those who call themselves neo-creationists, and then have criticism in a section afterwards. This article does not even present the neo-creationist POV, or even make a good case that there is a neo-creationist movement. If Johnson calls himself a neo-creationist, then perhaps the article could refer the reader to the article on Johnson for more info about him. As it is, the article reads like a sneaky way to attack Johnson without having to say what his views even are. A fair article would present a balanced view and let the reader decide. Roger 09:28, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Neo-creationism" as pejorative

I see by the dispute above that this is a touchy subject, so I'm going to the talk page first. I don't think this article should be deleted as it certainly does have some currency of usage. However, as far as I can tell, the term is used exclusively or almost exclusively by critics of intelligent design. Here is my suggestion (to which I invite replies): There should be a section in article, or it should say in the opening paragraph, that "neo-creationism" is mainly a term used by its critics, roughly analogous for the opposite reason to the usage of "Darwinism," and that no proponents of intelligent design use it to describe their own positions (see, e.g., [10]). Thoughts? Simões (talk/contribs) 22:03, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, of course this article is a completely one-sided attack on Intelligent Design (ID). No one :calls himself a neo-creationist. The was invented solely to attack ID, and to try to take advantage of court rulings against creationism. The term neo-creationism is not comparable to Darwinism. There are Darwinists who happily call themselves Darwinists, and Darwinism has been in the dictionary for a long time. Neo-creationism is not. It is just a meaningless epithet. The article makes all sorts of silly claims, such as saying that the neo-creationists reject modern science and that they are motivated by fear. An article on neo-creationists with a neutral POV would feature the opinions of the neo-creationists, if there are any such people. If there are no such people, then no article is needed. There are lots of other articles on this subject matter, such as Creation-evolution controversy. I suggest removing this article as hopelessly biased. Roger 23:21, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Some agreement with the above. At minimum it should be noted in the article that no one calls themselves neo-creationist. JoshuaZ 23:28, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Glad to hear that we agree on something. Go ahead and make the edits. Just to give you an idea of what I think would be a more NPOV, I inserted this first paragraph:
Neo-creationism is a neologism used by Eugenie C. Scott and a few other evolutionists to describe those who oppose her political campaign to promote the theory of evolution in the schools and to extinguish the criticism that they claim to be religiously motivated. They attempt to relate the Intelligent design movement and other non-mainstream views of evolution to earlier movements that lost American court battles under the name of creationism. What follows is a description of neo-creationism from the point of view of those who think that it is the work of the devil. Roger 22:05, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, that was certainly more neutral. •Jim62sch• 22:22, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, it was more neutral. I defend my edits on the discussion page. Can you? Exactly what is wrong with the paragraph that you deleted? Roger 22:29, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
You are kidding, right? -- "What follows is a description of neo-creationism from the point of view of those who think that it is the work of the devil." 'nuff said. •Jim62sch• 22:34, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
No, I am not kidding. What follows is certainly from the pov of those who hate neo-creationism. It does not include material from the neo-creationist pov, if there is such a thing.
What about the other sentences that you deleted? Are they correct or not? If incorrect, what is the error? Roger 22:47, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
It uses non-neutral language and applies undue weight, that's what. FeloniousMonk 22:57, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
You find a significant, credible source per WP:V and WP:RS that rejects the term and makes the claim that it is a perjorative and it will be added to the article, using appropriately neutral language, of course. FeloniousMonk 23:26, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
No one calls themselves "Judicial Supremacists" or "Leftist Evolutionists," either...[11] And you want to talk about one-sided attacks and meaningless epithets? The article is well supported by cites of the term being used by both secular and non-secular sources. The use of the term neo-creationist is alreadr attributed to it's source and those who use it, meaning the objections here are baseless. FeloniousMonk 22:57, 7 October 2006 (UTC)


I'm not going to comment on Schafly's attempt at rectifying this issue other than to say it was not at all from a NPOV. How about the following as an opening?

"Neo-creationism" is a term primarily used by critics of intelligent design with the intent to more revealingly label the activities of the intelligent design movement. The word is generally not used by anyone to describe their own position, and proponents of intelligent design often consider it a pejorative <ref>Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness Club at the University of Texas, Dallas "Some members of the scientific elite purposely misrepresent ID theory, by associating it with a host of pejorative phrases. Intelligent Design theory is by no means 'Creationism Lite,' 'Intelligent Design Creationism,' 'Neo-Creationism,' or 'Stealth Creationism,' as such labels are misnomers of ID, and they don't convey the true presumptions of ID theory."</ref>. The movement itself exists to restate creationism in terms more likely to be well received by the public, policy makers, educators, and the scientific community.

Simões (talk/contribs) 00:14, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I actually think that you first 2 sentences are an improvement over what is currently in the article. The last sentence is biased because it only states the POV of the critics. Those in the intelligent design movement vigorously deny that they are just restating creationism. The sentence should not be in the definition of neo-creationism, although a later paragraph could say that critics make that accusation. Roger 01:55, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
The last sentence is mostly in its original form. And while members of the movement publicly deny that they are merely restating creationism, the Wedge Document shows they are doing precisely this among other things. Simões (talk/contribs) 02:24, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


You may think that the ID folks are disingenuous, and they may think that E. Scott is disingenuous. Republicans may think that Democrats are disingenuous, and vice versa. NPOV requires describing peoples' views based on what they say that their views are. Yes, I know about the Wedge Document, and other WP article discuss it in detail. Roger 03:02, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Then I'm not sure what the problem is. If you know about the Wedge Document, then how can you claim it's only the opinion of ID critics that "[t]he movement itself exists to restate creationism in terms more likely to be well received by the public, policy makers, educators, and the scientific community?" As revealed by the Document, this is also the opinion held by the major proponents of ID (by virtue of "see[ing] intelligent design theory as an accepted alternative in the sciences and scientific research being done from the perspective of design theory," which serves one of the "governing goals" of "replac[ing] materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God"[12]). It seems pretty cut and dry if you ask me.
Finally, these complaints of yours have nothing to do with my purpose in starting this section, which is to find an acceptable way to add the information that "neo-creationism" is used mainly as a pejorative. You can start new sections for other issues you have in mind. Simões (talk/contribs) 03:38, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

The problem with Simoes' proposed intro is that it completely ignores notable usages of the term neo-creationism by fellow theist's like Henry Morris: [13] FeloniousMonk 04:22, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I've added "Neo-creationists generally reject the term "neo-creation," alledging it is a perjorative term." to the article. But it still needs a cite from a source to support it. Anyone here have one handy? FeloniousMonk 04:17, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Henry Morris isn't a neo-creationist, though. He's a "paleo-creationist" and enjoys watching ID proponents squirm ("It is certainly amusing to see the rug pulled out from under the feet of Catholic creationists such as Michael Behe."). If a DI affiliate used the term in self-description, we'd have a case of it not being used by critics.
  • For a source, the UT-Dallas intelligent design student group cries pejorative on their FAQ: http://www.utdallas.edu/orgs/idea/faqs.htm . I'm still looking for others (preferably from DI-proper sources). Simões (talk/contribs) 04:36, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I understand your point, but the current intro rightly carefully avoids the issue altogether. Why? Because any movement who's goal is to avoid being recognized as a form of creationism but rather to be viewed science is by necessity required to reject being identified for what they actually are, a form of creationism. There's no news there, the very nature of their position demands neo-creationists reject any linkage to creationism whatsoever. But this all too much detail and nuance upfront to deal with the intro. This is properly dealt with in the 'Tactics' section, where you'll find it now. FeloniousMonk 05:23, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Neo-creationisms other than intelligent design?

What other ones are there? Simões (talk/contribs) 19:13, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

FSM? •Jim62sch• 23:25, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV Again

The 'tactics' section reads like an indictment of anyone associated with the ID movement. There is a decided lack of anything approaching a 'both sides' viewpoint. --ElaragirlTalk|Count 18:09, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

This article is a dispassionate description of the topic. If there are any glaring ommissions from either side then let's correct that. Exactly what content from the ID-side is missing and what sources for do you have? FeloniousMonk 19:02, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../n/e/o/Talk%7ENeo-creationism_050e.html"