Talk:Creationism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Creationism article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
Peer review This Philrelig article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia. It has been rated B-Class on the assessment scale (comments).
Creationism was a good article, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Delisted version: September 27, 2006
To-do list for Creationism: edit · history · watch · refresh
  • Add section on the differences/similarities/conflict between Intelligent Design and Creationism
  • Disentangle the two senses of creationism (1:Creation 2:anti-Evolution)which are still confused in the article - done
Priority 2  
IMPORTANT - If you wish to discuss or debate the validity of creationism please do so at talk.origins or Debatepedia. This "Discussion" page is only for discussion on how to improve the Wikipedia article. Any attempts at trolling, using this page as a soapbox, or making personal attacks may be deleted at any time.
Archive
Archives


Contents

[edit] 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)

  1. The point you are replying to is five months old
  2. 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. HrafnTalkStalk 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:
  1. Science refutes theories, it rarely refutes evidence. For that matter even theories are more frequently refined than refuted.
  2. 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.
  3. Your "modest proposal" would be a violation of WP:UNDUE.
HrafnTalkStalk 17:11, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Further:
  1. Wikipedia reports what is current, not what could happen. If things change, so will wikipedia.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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)

[edit] 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. HrafnTalkStalk 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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 Steeltalkstalk 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. HrafnTalkStalk 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] I removed truth fish logo because is innapropriate.

The Truth fish, one of the many creationist responses to the Darwin fish.
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.
  1. Logic is a hallmark of original research, which is barred from inclusion on wikipedia
  2. Your rational appears to be mostly opinion, which is POV, and wikipedia should not include POV edits.
WLU 19:09, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
It should be included. Period. RJRocket53 (talk) 03:12, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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]

[edit] 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 [1]) and what the actual personal claimed beliefs of those members of those denominations are [2]). It should be noted that there are large groups of African Christians and even some groups within the Catholic Church (see [3]) 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)

[edit] Holders of view

Want to note that the view is widely held within Haredi Judaism. See for example [4]. Best, --Shirahadasha 20:20, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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. HrafnTalkStalk 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. HrafnTalkStalk 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. HrafnTalkStalk 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. HrafnTalkStalk 16:40, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Many colors in the spectrum of thought

I wonder if we are paying enough attention to the details that distinguish the various creationist viewpoints. I've started reading this outline for a college course, and it seems to provide more detail than the article.

The chart in "Types of Christian creationism" is a good start, but does anyone else think our article should provide more detail? --Uncle Ed 17:12, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

It appears to be problematical on a few points, e.g.:

  • "Evolutionism: An attempt to draw philosophical and theological conclusions from macroevolution, e.g. that there is no Creator and no purpose to human existence." appears to be a heavily idiosyncratic definition
  • "Some arguments rightly point out the weaknesses in macroevolution..." would appear to be groundless
  • It appears to lump all forms of Old Earth creationism as "Progressive creationism" -- which is I suspect highly idiosyncratic

Overall however, there does appear to be some useful information here. I would have no problem using it where it does not contradict a more authoritative source (e.g. Numbers, or some other expert on Creationism). HrafnTalkStalk 17:43, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I would not mind using it as a reference, but it is not a peer-reviewed publication. The division we currently have is taken from several peer-reviewed publications. The danger is that we will make things confusing by including too much detail. This might be better left for a footnote.--Filll 18:07, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Creationism is Fundamentally a Philosophical Issue... Not Necesarily a Religious One

The Philosophy of Creationism extends all the way back to Plato in his dialog the Timaeus where he says:

"Now everything that becomes or is created must of necessity be created by some cause, for without a cause nothing can be created...was the world, I say, always in existence and without beginning? or created, and had it a beginning? Created, I reply, being visible and tangible and having a body, and therefore sensible; and all sensible things are apprehended by opinion and sense and are in a process of creation and created. Now that which is created must, as we affirm, of necessity be created by a cause. But the father and maker of all this universe is past finding out; and even if we found him, to tell of him to all men would be impossible." Quoted from this web page: http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/timaeus.html

To be from a NPOV we need to look at Creationism in the historical context where it has throughout time been discussed in a philosophical framework as apposed to our narrow minded American: Science vs. "Religion" framework. I say it is first and foremost a philosophical belief as apposed to a religious one because the existence of a creator can be determined using Plato's reasoning apart from culturally imposed religious views. Plato was a Philosopher not a theologian. Creationism is a philosophical belief from which many people draw religious implications.

Many scientists throughout history, including Galileo and Newton, worked under a creationist philosophy or rather a belief in a creator. This book looks at the philosophy of creationism and how it coexists with science http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=6lyoiNuypCUC&oi=fnd&pg=PR9&dq=philosophy+God+creation&ots=hrvQWDf5Tj&sig=JwbjdY8V4dvA5JjtMx0M4PlEh0k

Unfortunately, I don't have time right now to find many other sources discussing the philosophy of Creationism but I will try to find time later.Kwbagwel 09:06, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

You have failed to:

  • establish that Plato's views constitute a school of thought widely described as the "Philosophy of Creationism"
  • demonstrate how any of this is relevant to the modern meaning of the word
  • demonstrate any relevance of Galileo's or Newton's views when they (1) lived before the Theory of Evolution was postulated and (2) made no significant contribution to Biology
  • demonstrate why we should take the word of Nancy R. Pearcey & Charles B. Thaxton -- two Creationist cranks from the Let's Lie About Science Institute -- about absolutely anything

HrafnTalkStalk 11:00, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Logical Law of Cause and Effect: every effect must have an antecedent cause.
Logic: the science and art of reason.  4-25-08  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.195.196.19 (talk) 02:32, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] How interesting...

The "Creationism" page has an "Evolution" section - links to talk.origins, evowiki, Dawkins and other notorious opponents of creationism, along with a nice "anti-creationism link directory" (sic) - in its links section. The "Evolutionism" page, other other hand, has virtually zero creationism-related links. Quite revealing, to say the least... - Zed, 17 November 2007


Not really. It's not "revealing", it's inevitable, per WP:UNDUE: "Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views." HrafnTalkStalk 14:05, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, revealing of a blatant violation of the stated wikipedia standard on minority views (and the tiny minority - 13% in the U.S - is not the creationists)
Note the use of "scientists" or the "scientific community" without every specifying which scientists (political scientists? computer scientists?) or community in what locale (city, country, continent ...) Z1perlster (talk) 19:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Do you want to qualify that statement further? In a 2004 Gallup poll, 45% of respondents chose "God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so,". Not a tiny minority, even if the rest of the english speaking world is added. rossnixon 01:19, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
We are talking evolution, so it is clearly the scientific community that is the relevant population. Given the proportion of Americans who believe (or at least answer polls) that the sun revolves around the Earth, can't find Florida on a map, etc, their views are hardly a reliable yardstick. HrafnTalkStalk 03:37, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
appeal to authority Z1perlster (talk) 18:56, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Right... that poll inlcuded all people from other countries, and all age groups (a five year old wouldn't do so good at finding Florida or astronomy).

Given the number of Wikipedians that believe that is a reliable statistic, they aren't a reliable yardstick either... by your logic, not mine. RJRocket53 (talk) 03:00, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore, a tiny majority of the English speaking world believes in Creationism (just sticking with the fact that this is an English encyclopedia). Oh yeah, Americans believe in Alien abductions too. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 08:31, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh yeah, Americans believe in Alien abductions too.

Right... I'm American so I have to believe in alien abductions... And actually, many people do believe in it, not a tiny minority. 2 BILLION people are Christian, and a majority believe in creation, a tiny minority theistic evo. Plus, only 18% of people in the world are athiest. (Not that only athiests believe in evolution.) It's not a tiny minority. RJRocket53 (talk) 02:59, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

There are numerous reliable sources discussing the problems with creationism from a scientific perspective. There are none discussing problems with evolution from a creationist perspective because creationism is not a scientific critique. Creationism is not discussed in peer-reviewd journals (the essence of a RS) except for philosophical/historical ones which are not eligible for inclusion regarding scientific and evidence-based issues. Creationism is a theological issue, not a scientific one, but by purporting to be scientific, it opens itself to criticisms and rebuttal from scientists. Evolution, one the other hand, does not portray itself as a theological issue, therefore there's no reason for theology or theologians to get involved. WLU (talk) 16:07, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Rewording the WP:Undue policy then... how does this sound? "Views that are held by a tiny minority of the "experts" in a subject should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views." rossnixon 01:04, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Feel free to attempt to get WP:UNDUE changed. In the mean time, we'll continue to apply it in the most reasonable manner, as specified above. HrafnTalkStalk 02:46, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

<undent>The post on 18 November states that there are no reliable sources discussing the problems with evolution from a creationist perspective. Two questions: If a PhD in a scientific discipline submits a paper to a peer-reviewed publication, is it possible that there is a bias in selection of articles (i.e. is peer review independent of bias)? Second, would it be acceptable to cite references to portions of peer-reviewed articles as being a valid scientific critique? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gryff (talk • contribs) 17:00, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Please see WP:REDFLAG, bullet four, and all the reviews of Behe's books. Though there is doubtless some reflexive rejection of creationism by many scientists, the lack of convincing evidence is the much more crippling problem. Creationism's hypotheses get attention from scientists, who generally demonstrate the evidence for the scientific mainstream view and lack of evidence for the creationist alternative. Johnson's argument that scientists reject the creationist viewpoint out of hand due to paradigmatic concerns is as indefensible as his attempts to deal with the evidence for evolution. WP:V states that we report what is extant, not unsourceable percieved problems with how peer-reviewing takes place. Sources count more than assertions, so if you have a source, present it. WLU (talk) 17:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
This thread died about three weeks ago, so posting opinions is a bit silly (in my opinion). WLU (talk) 19:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
"Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views."

Christians 33.32% (of which Roman Catholics 16.99%, Protestants 5.78%, Orthodox 3.53%, Anglicans 1.25%), Muslims 21.01%, Hindus 13.26%, Buddhists 5.84%, Sikhs 0.35%, Jews 0.23%, Baha'is 0.12%, other religions 11.78%, non-religious 11.77%, atheists 2.32% (2007 est.) [[5]] 33.32% Christians 6.65 billion people live on Earth. [[6]]

6.65 billion*33.32% = 2,215,780,000 people are Christians 6.65 billion*21.01% = 1,397,165,000 people are Muslims 6.65 billion*.23% = 15,295,000 people are Jews Total: 3,628,240,000 Realistically, about half believe in creation. That equals: 1,814,120,000 A tiny minority? RJRocket53 (talk) 23:51, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad somebody stuck those statisctics up there. Christians aren't the only people on Earth that believe in Creationism. And the existing Creationists are certainly NOT a minority. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.195.196.19 (talk) 17:12, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Being Christian, or Jewish, or Moslem, does not means you accept Creationism. I've met Orthodox Jewish rabbis that accept both the scientific fact/theory of evolution, along with Genesis. The funny thing, is even among my more religious Christian and Jewish friends, most (not all) have no problem accepting both the Biblical view of Creation and evolution (clearly not a scientific survey, and I don't mean to suggest my experience is meaningful, just anecdotal). And, not one accepts the Church-calculated age of the Earth. If you believe in Creationism, you need to accept the Bible literally, and then you should accept the calculated age of the Earth, n'est ce pas?
What I am trying to say, is these surveys are incomplete. You might see 45% that say they believe G-d created man, and you also might find 95% that think evolution is correct too (I have no idea what that number would be), as long as it is not presented as a biased either/or survey.Sposer (talk) 01:12, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
"Realistically, about half belief in creation." You are original research and I claim my £5. Don't worry if you don't get the reference. I could metaphorically throw a stone in this page and hit a couple of Jews, an atheist, and a Quaker who happen to not believe in Creationism, and that's just the ones I know of. Not to mention that The Catholic church officially does not require belief in creationism from its members (I believe the ref is still on the article page for that one). Also, was Sposer said. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 03:14, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Just to clarify: We cannot improve the article by making changes based on original research. We should be using this Talk page only for discussing improvements to the article. Apologies for any distractions. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 14:18, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
What do you, or Wikipedia for that matter, define as original research? I looked up those stats myself and there is a link to the CIA World Fact Book on the post. I would really like to know what everyone defines original research as because it seems like whenever a creationist brings up any kind of number it gets refuted as "original research" or "unreliable". What's the deal? 5-10-08 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.195.196.19 (talk) 01:11, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Read the policy WP:OR and WP:NOR to start with. That should get you started. It takes a while to understand it really however. To start with, the only thing you can put in articles is stuff with very good sources. And the CIA factbook is a good source.--Filll (talk) 02:07, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Original Research?

I see many claims about the pseudo-scientific nature of this article, but none have sources.

[That Creationism is pseudoscientific has been thoroughly established both in court cases and by the scientific & philosophy of science communities. You can find the more prominent of the former listed in Creation-evolution controversy. HrafnTalkStalk 01:39, 22 November 2007 (UTC)]

Strictly speaking, day-age creationism is not so much a creationist theory as a hermeneutic option which may be combined with theories such as progressive creationism.

No source

[Per WP:NPOVFAQ#Making necessary assumptions, references can be found on the cited main article Day-Age Creationism, which this section summarises (in an unhelpfully jargon-ridden manner, unfortunately). HrafnTalkStalk 01:39, 22 November 2007 (UTC)]

This view of natural history runs counter to current scientific understanding, is unsupported by peer-reviewed articles in respected scientific journals, and is considered pseudoscience.

No source.

[See above HrafnTalkStalk 01:39, 22 November 2007 (UTC)]

Neo-Creationists intentionally distance themselves from other forms of creationism, preferring to be known as wholly separate from creationism as a philosophy. Its goal is to restate creationism in terms more likely to be well received by the public, education policy makers and the scientific community. It aims to re-frame the debate over the origins of life in non-religious terms and without appeals to scripture, and to bring the debate before the public.

No source, unverifiable, and prejudiced.

[Per WP:NPOVFAQ#Making necessary assumptions, references can be found on the cited main article Neo-creationism, which this section summarises. The claim is most certainly verifiable -- as its basis can be found in a direct quote from Phillip E. Johnson (the 'father' of the neo-creationist Intelligent design movement) in his article. HrafnTalkStalk 01:39, 22 November 2007 (UTC)]

Should we add original research?

God in the Bible, and his Baconian method introduced the empirical approach which became central to modern science.[26] Natural theology developed the study of nature with the expectation of finding evidence supporting Christianity, and numerous attempts were made to reconcile new knowledge with Noah's Flood.[27]

It says numerous attempts were made, but not if they succeeded. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.115.130.174 (talk) 00:35, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

[Most probably not, or the movement wouldn't have died out. Read Natural theology to find out. HrafnTalkStalk 01:39, 22 November 2007 (UTC)]

[edit] I'm the one who posted the Original Research

I know I can read those and find the answers.

But, I am posting that so people reading the encyclopedia will have all the sources without having to look in different articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.115.130.174 (talk • contribs) 19:16, 1 December 2007

We sign our posts. And we do not make claims that we cannot back up with sources. Learn how Wikipedia works next time.--Filll 20:24, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Why is signing Filll any better than signing with an IP address? As for sources, I notice that even the bible is admitted as a source, so anything goes! Mike0001 13:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Firstly, you are free to sign with an i.p. address and no-one said otherwise. The first comment was not signed with anything, so it had a tag added afterwards. Secondly, the Bible can be used as a cite of claims that the Bible makes, but it cannot be used as a scientific or historical resource as it's accuracy is fairly dubious on such matters. Refer to WP:Cite for more comprehensive guidelines. Jefffire 13:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
I can back that up with sources, and that time I just didn't log in.

76.115.130.174 02:24, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Sound good. Make sure the sources are reliable and authoritative. Jefffire 13:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Creationism is a scientific theory

[edit] Creationism is as falsifiable as Darwin’s theory of evolution

[ Uncited & non-specific WP:SOAPbox rant deleted.] HrafnTalkStalk 06:54, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Types of Christian creationism

Isn't the table under the 'Types of Christian creationism' a little inconsistant if you look at the intelligent design movement? Like 'earth >10000 years, scientific age, scientific age' and suddenly it becomes 'divine interventor' with the ID... 62.41.69.18 (talk) 08:45, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Not really -- ID has a conscious 'big tent' approach of not saying anything to contradict any claim from other creationists on age of earth/universe/etc, or make it obviously creationist, so avoids saying anything about who/what/when/etc. HrafnTalkStalk 09:42, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Pretty much, ID is about what created the world, not when, so saying when wouldn't really help them. RJRocket53 (talk) 23:32, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pharyngula link

Concerning the link which I fixed that previously went to the wrong page, but which another has since removed because the article is posted on a blog, could I suggest that someone with a website post the article on a non-blog webpage of its own. Then it can be linked to. It is a good quality article from a reliable source. 63.196.193.29 (talk) 17:05, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Not even sure what this is.--Filll (talk) 19:09, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] irreducible complexity

In the graph that contrasts YEC, OEC, IDC, etc there is a mention of "irreducible complexity":

"Divine intervention at some point in the past, as evidenced by irreducible complexity"

This begs the question - What evidence exists for irreducible complexity? There is no evidence. Any informed person knows irreducible complexity is a bogus concept rooted in pseudoscience (or ignorance, take your pick) and that there is no evidence for it. Correct me if I'm wrong but irreducible complexity is nothing more than a figment of Behe's imagination and somewhat of a cornerstone in the IDC movement. However, without an explanation in the article of what irreducible complexity actually is the reader might mistakenly assume irreducible complexity is a valid scientific concept/argument. I think it's important that some details are given. I'll let the experts on irreducible complexity weigh in on the subject and make any changes that might benefit the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.233.178.253 (talk) 17:39, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

You are misreading the table. Of course irreducible complexity has never been demonstrated, and even if it was, it does not mean this is evidence of divine intervention. However, the table text does not imply this.--Filll (talk) 17:58, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
I beg to differ, my reading skills are actually pretty good. I made a change to the article concerning this, have you had a chance to look it over? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.233.178.253 (talk) 18:00, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


It is ok, but I think I will wait to discuss it with others and see what the consensus is.--Filll (talk) 18:04, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Sounds fair, I'm all for consensus. And let's assume my reading skills are in fact impared. it would stand to reason I am not the only Wiki reader who is challenged in this area. That is even more reason to clearly indicate what irreducible complexity actually is (a term the IDCers use, not one that legit science uses). I'm completely satisfied with the change I made. It let's the reader know irreducible complexity is a concept the IDCers believe in and does not suggest it's a valid concept. Not sure if this makes sense but again, I think my edit lets the reader know irreducible complexity is an IDC concept. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.233.178.253 (talk) 18:09, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
If you want to put that, include sources. Plus, this is a table about beliefs, not science. Otherwise, go ahead. But, in it's defense, irreducible complexity doesn't just apply to creationism, it applies to other things too. (Like engineering). RJRocket53 (talk) 19:20, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestion to address POV in first paragraph

I'm new to this article (and to Wikipedia), but it seems to me that the very first paragraph of this article introduces a strong POV on creationism.

"Creationism is a religious belief that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe were created in their original form by a deity or deities (often the Abrahamic God of Judaism, Christianity and Islam), whose existence is presupposed.[1] In relation to the creation-evolution controversy the term creationism (or strict creationism) is commonly used to refer to religiously-motivated rejection of evolution."

Thoughts:

1. Creationism merely implies, first and foremost that the universe did not come about by mere random happenstance, that it was somehow created, or that some form of creative force-which-we-don't-know-what-it-is-yet was involved. Many non-religious scientists, for example quantum physists like John Wheeler and Louis Crane have advanced views that argue for some form of non-random chance involved on purely scientific grounds, and this form of "creationism" is not then a "religious belief".
2. Only a subset of creationism advocates assert that "humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe were created in their original form"
3. There is a significant body of research and opinion that does not rely on a "presupposed" existence of a creator, but rather arrives at the idea of some creative force or as yet undiscovered natural law acting in the role of progenitor, based on scientific analysis that concludes "spontaneous emergence" of the universe in the absence of such a force is mathematically improbable in the extreme. The famous mathematician Blaise Pascal is among many scientists who arrived at the idea of a creator after many years of scientific pursuit.

So, if there is agreement here, I'd like to address this by suggesting that the article begin with:

"Creationism refers to any of a number of belief systems which hold that the universe came into existence by some process other than purely random chance. Some creationist viewpoints expressed by religeons hold that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe were created in their original form by a deity or deities (often the Abrahamic God of Judaism, Christianity and Islam), whose existence is presupposed.[1]"

I'll wait for some feedback before making the change.

riverguy42 (talk) 00:33, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

As it says at the top of the page: "Creationism" can also refer to creation myths in general, or to a concept about the origin of the soul.
This article mostly deals with the creationism of the Abrahamic religions, not with the Chinese creation myths, for example. -- Ec5618 01:28, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
"Creationism" as it is generally conceived by the academic community (e.g. in Ronald Numbers' The Creationists) is a rejection of scientific explanations of the origins of humanity/the diversity of life/the universe (and most particularly and frequently evolution) in favour of incompatible religious ones. HrafnTalkStalk 02:34, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed Day-Age addition

Wndl42, who for reasons I cannot fathom chooses to sign themselves himself riverguy42, has repeatedly attempted to introduce this paragraph into the Day-Age section:

  • Repeatedly???? I made ONE edit to expand "Day-age", and I described why, as the "Day-age" section was under-represented in comparison to other "creationist" viewpoints. My edit attempted to (a) summarize/paraphrase the broader viewpoint found at Day-age creationism, and (b) introduce an additional aspect not yet incorporated there. You reverted the entire edit as "unsourced". I then restored my edit with added sources (as I thought appropriate) to solve your issue with "unsourced", and then I visited your talk page and politely asked for clarification and help if you had further issues. Instead of working with me, you reverted the entire edit again, and now launch into this diatribe against me. riverguy42 (talk) 04:19, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Re-peatedly. Your entire edit was unsourced. Your "added sources" were grossly inadequate, so I reverted again. HrafnTalkStalk 05:14, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
  • My signature is different from my user name. This is commonplace on WP. How is your inability to fathom this germain to the discussion other than as some way of discrediting me or accusing me (as "themselves") of some kind of subterfuge. All you have to do is "click" to get to my page and talk to me. riverguy42 (talk) 04:19, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
It was necessary to explain who the heck I was talking about. Most users use a different signature when their preferred nick is taken -- I rather doubt if that applied to "riverguy42". There is nothing illegitimate about it, but it does tend to confuse, hence my explaining your identity in detail. HrafnTalkStalk 05:14, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Day age creationism theories also take support from a unusually literal reading of the first chapter of Genesis, one which adds further focus on the literal order in which creation occurred, and the literal process by which creations occur. Pointing out that God creates the physical universe through a repeated process starting with a state of wholeness and namelessness followed by separation and naming, this literal reading asserts that God defines as He creates, and so God defined a "day" on day one immediately after separating "light" from "darkness". Thus, the primary definition of "day" is nothing more than the presence of light and the absence of darkness. As no time period has yet been defined or implied, subsequent days are merely cycles through conditions of light and darkness according to the primary definition. Moreover, this definition is taken to be stated from a perspective of an infinite mind which spans (or is outside of) all of space and time simultaneously. According to this reading, the "primordial" day becomes the primary and sole definition, and is independent of time. Further down this line of reasoning, in the context of Genesis, a refutation of the 24 hour day itself is found in the argument that no 24-hour day could even have existed prior to God's creation on the fourth day, on which the mechanical Solar and Lunar clockwork was created and set into motion. Therefore, as God defined a "day" on day one to be a light-dark cycle, and did so from a perspective that is outside of time itself (working for three full "days" before creating a "clock"), and pointing out that God does not later re-define a "day" in terms of time, the very notion of a 24-hour day in the context of Genesis is therefore a merely human creation, a by-product of the limited point of view from which humans observe God's creation.

I have reverted it for the following reasons:

  • Much of it appears to be WP:OR, particularly the first few sentences.
  • Appearances can be deceiving. Paraphrasing (as I did) may LOOK like WP:OR, but it's not.riverguy42 (talk) 04:19, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
  • It gives every appearance of going well beyond mere "paraphrasing" into synthesis. See specific point below.
  • I would also point out that the DAC POV in Day-Age Creationism is almost entirely uncited (with the majority of cites being for YEC views), this makes it a rather problematic source even if your edit were a mere paraphrase. HrafnTalkStalk 05:22, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
  • The statement that "Day age creationism theories also take support from a unusually literal reading of the first chapter of Genesis" would appear to be erroneous. Their interpretation is less literal, though arguably literal in a more idiosyncratic way than YECs, as they only take the ordinal value of the days literally, not the cardinal value.
  • Erroneous? It's a summary of the ideas at Day-age creationism. So, replace my "unusually literal" with your idiosyncratic and we'd be in agreement? I think my characterization is less pejorative and more neutral POV, but I'm open to suggestions, as I requested on your talk page.riverguy42 (talk) 04:19, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
  • No it is not a "summary" -- Day-age creationism does not call the position anything like "unusually literal". It mentions "literal" in only once: "an effort to reconcile the literal Genesis account of Creation with modern scientific theories". That it is in any way "unusually" so is merely your WP:OR interpretation. HrafnTalkStalk 05:14, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
  • www.christiananswers.net is a clearing house for YEC apologetics, making it a partisan, unscholarly and thus unreliable source.
  • I think that the source I cited represents the POV of Day-age that this under-represented section was lacking. If you want a better source, why don't you talk to me, or tag my source, instead of repeatedly blanking?riverguy42 (talk) 04:19, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
  • The organisations underlying Christian Answers are explicitly Creation science/Flood geology YECs. They do not represent "the POV of Day-age", they are opposed to it. I would suggest you attempt to learn who the main advocates of this viewpoint are before you attempt to source statements about it (even disregarding issues relating to WP:PSTS). HrafnTalkStalk 05:14, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
  • The two 'citations' were performed via easter-egged pipes of URLs, rather than more conventional methods, making it unclear as to what points they were covering, as well as being bad style.
  • Yep, I'm new here. I have seen this style used (and recommended) elsewhere on Wikipedia, but now I see that my presentation of sources was non-intuitive according WP guidelines on sytle. That's no reason to blank my entire edit.riverguy42 (talk) 04:19, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
No, I was merely mentioning this in passing -- the first two reasons were the reasons why I deleted it. HrafnTalkStalk 05:14, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Finally, it appears to present the YEC/Christian Answers POV as fact, in violation of WP:NPOV.
  • How, exactly, did I present "as fact"? I presented a summary of the "Day age" POV and argument and clearly presented it as such, interspersed with "according to" and "line of reasoning" etc. Generally, a collaborative editor would edit the presentation to help reduce percieved NPOV issues, rather than blanking, right?riverguy42 (talk) 04:19, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
  • E.g. "Pointing out that God creates the physical universe through..." instead of "Day-Age advocates state that God creates the physical universe through..."

HrafnTalkStalk 03:21, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Hrafn, I still don't see as you've made a good case for blanking my edit...riverguy42 (talk) 04:19, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I reverted an edit that was in violation of WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:RS & WP:NPOV. I don't think I really need more reason than that. HrafnTalkStalk 05:14, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
No, you don't Hrafn, if the edit was legit the editor had a chance to add sources. •Jim62sch• 20:58, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Summary: Hrafn - you make a number of good (or at least reasonable) points and I agree that my edit can be improved in some of the areas you detailed. I don't think the problems with my edit were so great that a simple "tag and talk" would not have sufficed. I am quite frankly surprised that this edit causes you so much heartburn, I did not think that what I added amounted to an exceptional claim, but perhaps these DAC viewpoints are new and surprising to you and perhaps to others. In the interest of consensus and conservation of effort, I will concede that my edit introduced an exceptional claim (though I remain unconvinced), I will now focus on treating the topic and sourcing it as if it were an exceptional claim.

On the other hand, the points you make are made in a manner that is quite unnecessarily disruptive. The vast majority of my addition was sourced appropriately, yet you continue to repeat "entirely unsourced" ad nauseum. All of my edit is quite verifyable, and please remember that the "threshold for inclusion" according to WP:V is that additions be verifyABLE, not verified (unless exceptional). riverguy42 (talk) 20:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[7]

riverguy42: "tag and talk" is an appropriate mechanism for dealing with pre-existing content, where the original author may not even be around to defend/provide sources for it. Where new content is introduced a more stringent view is taken: that it should be well-sourced before it is allowed in. This view in necessary to prevent un-/poorly-sourced content from accumulating. If the proposed content is sufficiently lengthy/complex/time-consuming to source, then create a sandbox in your userspace in which to develop it (we'll create one for you if you don't know how). This view is particularly relevant when given that you appear (above) to be confusing the YEC & DAC POVs. The "vast majority of [your] addition" was not "sourced appropriately" -- your only sources were to a website taking the opposing YEC viewpoint and to the Day-Age Creationism‎ article, which is entirely uncited for the DAC viewpoint (as well as bearing questionable resemblance to your addition).

Please stop making large-scale alterations/deletions from the talkpage -- it makes it dificult to hold a coherent conversation with you and is disruptive editing. If you wish to withdraw a comment then strike it instead. HrafnTalkStalk 22:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Riverguy, as much as I appreciate your enthusiasm, I would like to see if we can get you set up to contribute in a more productive way. What you should try is to start the addition to the article or a new article in a sandbox. Avoid inline citations as those you used; use footnotes instead. Try to learn what a reliable source is, and aim for reliable sources only. We will be glad to help you since the more people helping the better. --68.55.55.177 (talk) 22:24, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Two further points on reliable sources:

  1. Wikipedia articles are not of themselves reliable sources. However WP:NPOVFAQ#Making necessary assumptions may apply in some instances.
  2. As a pre-emptive response to one of your self-reverted comments, Leet is only a reliable source for matters of English literature (her area of expertise) and as a primary source for her own idiosyncratic interpretations of the kabalah.

HrafnTalkStalk 23:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Creation Research Society

I've got an editor on this article claiming that:

  1. Ronald Numbers' The Creationists is "extrememe[sic] POV"
  2. that OECs are "evolutionists"

Further input might be useful. HrafnTalkStalk 03:11, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
[Two points of clarification: (1) he was claiming that OECs=evos was a YEC view, but that it was okay to make statements that implicitly assumed this viewpoint; (2) I was seeking "further input" in that article (as opposed to here) to get some form of wider consensus there, rather than just two editors violently disagreeing and edit-warring. HrafnTalkStalk 18:36, 12 January 2008 (UTC) ]

I did respond there as you requested of course, but then I was told to back off and so I withdrew my response. I guess it is really ill-advised these days to respond to such attacks.--Filll (talk) 04:23, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Assuming extreme POV is POV held by a small minority, the favorable reviews listed in the article by sources such as Science, NCSE and the Financial times show this to be untrue. I dont see why you would have to be a YEC to be able to document the history of creationism.--AlexCatlin (talk)


We have several scholarly references that show there are a good half dozen or more major branches of creationism. OEC is one of them. Less major branches include those who believe that there were two separate creations (corresponding to the two creation accounts in the bible) or those who believe in a race men before adam (preAdamites) and so on. Maybe those less prominent branches should get at least mentioned here. But I do not think it is reasonable to restrict creationism to YEC under any circumstances.--Filll (talk) 18:16, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Another common creationist stream is that humans were not subject to evolution, but all other life forms are and were.--Filll (talk) 18:17, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


Any comments or suggestions about including these more obscure variants of creationism, if only in a sentence each?--Filll (talk) 19:45, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Hrafn - if it's still restricted to you and the other editor, you could go for a third opinion.
Filll - I'd say add and link if there's a wikipage for the other beliefs, if not, I'd lump them into a single sentence saying 'various beliefs about creationism depending on interpretation of specific sections of the bible' or some such. Perhaps an easy example also, but the page is already huge and if it's not notable enough for it's own wikipage, why add to an already long version? WLU (talk) 19:55, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

There was a stub on 'Adamism', but it was recently deleted (by a prod-delete I seem to remember, so it shouldn't be too difficult to resurrect, if anybody's interested). There are at least a couple of (stub) articles on historic Adamist organisations around: World Christian Fundamentals Association, Anti-Evolution League of America. HrafnTalkStalk 04:06, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I think Adamite still exists but they are not creationists. The preAdamites are arguably creationists. I think Harry Rimmer or maybe another creationist I read about in some of Numbers publications believed in two separate creations. I do not know if there is a special name for them. I also read in Numbers that William Jennings Bryan believed in evolution for all species but humans, and I have occasionally read of other groups that subscribe to the same thing (at one time some Catholics did I think, maybe??).--Filll (talk) 04:16, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Richard Dawkins Foundation EL

This external link seems to be to a page that is more about providing information on, and advertising the activities of, this foundation than in providing any information about Evolution or Creationism. Dawkins may be a major figure in Evolution, but that doesn't mean that every site connected with him will be relevant. Please look at the site rather than simply Dawkins' name. I think this link should go. HrafnTalkStalk 16:34, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Note that I reverted this change in order to gain consensus. I have no opinion myself. BLACKKITE 18:10, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm with Hrafn on this one - the EL section is already overloaded. WLU (talk) 17:11, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] CreationWiki

Seems to have been uncreated. Is there a new site? Jackiespeel (talk) 18:49, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I noticed that. I see that one or two other creationist sites might be hosting it eventually, but for now it seems to be down. I was going to ask around at EvoWiki etc and see what I could find out, but I have not yet. Maybe Conservapedia has a line on what happened to them? I do not know if it is related, but our article about them was speedy deleted some months ago and I never caught it and now it is gone. These deletionists just get to be annoying sometimes.--Filll (talk) 19:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Well you know, when you can't refute something the next best thing is to delete it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.195.196.19 (talk) 17:15, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Creationism and Oxford study of religious belief

As creationism makes the assumption that (a) there is a creator and (b) that creation is an active and not a passive process, and the Oxford study is to be into religious belief, and I guess (a) and (b) are religious beliefs, I think it follows that the study is relevant to creationism, which is a religious belief? Are there any non-religious believers in creationism? Mike0001 (talk) 09:48, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Creationism is a specific type of religious belief, and there is no evidence that the Oxford study covers this specific type of religious belief. Until you can find such (WP:RS) evidence, it isn't relevant. HrafnTalkStalk 09:56, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


The vast majority of anti-evolutionists are creationists of one stripe or another. There are a very few anti-evolutionists that are not creationists, but they are so few that they are not really notable yet, or recognized much. One person who talks about a sort of nonreligious anti-evolutionism is David Sloan Wilson, but he is mainly talking about applications of evolution to behavior, not really biological common descent, etc. Also some of the intelligent design supporters purport to be agnostics or atheists, so are not really creationists in the traditional mold if this is true. One might argue that some of the panspermia people are anti-evolutionists but not really creationists, but that is a pretty weak argument since I think most panspermia advocates favor evolution but believe that the initial steps for life took place in space or were brought to Earth by extraterrestrial beings to seed it with life, and abiogenesis is not part of evolution.--Filll (talk) 17:37, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Scientific critique

[edit] Protection

Because of the quite high rate of IP vandalism of this page, I have requested it be semi-protected. Tb (talk) 04:37, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Creationism on Other Pages

Everyone will have to excuse me. I'm new to WP, and am still where to go for the proper information. I have a problem with the Expelled page. It seems to me that there is a big debate about creationism going on there. I feel that anything concerning the validity of creationism should be redirected to this page, and keep Expelled as a strict movie review page. If anyone can give me information how to implement such changes, please let me know. Infonation101 (talk) 20:21, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

The page Expelled:_No_Intelligence_Allowed is not intended to be a movie review. It's an encyclopedia article about a movie. Yes, it may contain information from reviewers, but it may contain other content as well. Since the movie is related to creationism, there may be some overlap. But you're right about one thing- no page on Wikipedia is the right place for a big debate about creationism. Talk pages are for discussing the article rather than the subject of the article. Friday (talk) 21:33, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Understood about the overlap. It looks like you have gone over the page, and does it seem to you there is a debate going on in the main page? Infonation101 (talk) 21:56, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah. Infonation101, you don't seem to have grasped various aspects of WP:NPOV and WP:NPOV/FAQ, both of which are policies. In particular, please note NPOV: Pseudoscience – "any mention should be proportionate and represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view; and, moreover, to explain how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories." A film promoting pseudoscience has to be described in that context. .. dave souza, talk 22:35, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but you have misread my post. The dispute I have posted here is that what is going on in Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed is not up to par with the research that has been done on this page. I see that there should be overlap, but macro-evolution is being portrayed as unconditionally accepted by the scientific community when it's not. Given they say 90% of scientists believe in macro-evolution, that is not 100%. I'd prefer terms like "widely accepted" in place of "unequivocally accepted". Infonation101 (talk) 23:09, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Macro-evolution is unconditionally accepted by the scientific community. Alternative views are distinctly fringe in the scientific community. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:26, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Whatever. You keep your standpoint, but please site me a third-party published source that leads you to this. Infonation101 (talk) 23:34, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
See [8]. Some excerpts: "In its modern form, [the theory of evolution] remains the only explanation for the diversity of life on this planet that is acceptable to the scientific community" - Academy of Science of the Royal Society of Canada; " the evidences in favor of the evolution of man are sufficient to convince every scientist of note in the world" - American Association for the Advancement of Science (and that was 1923); "The theory of evolution is the only scientifically defensible explanation for the origin of life and development of species" - American Institute of Biological Sciences. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 01:02, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Infonation101, you have not grasped WP:NPOV/FAQ#Pseudoscience. Regardless, your concern isn't relevant here, since it has nothing to do with Creationism. Tb (talk) 00:05, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Misleading

The article now starts: "Creationism is a religious belief that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe were created in their original form by a deity". This is true only for some creationists (strict creationists). Later, the article discusses and references progressive creationism and theistic evolution which allow for life forms to have changed over time and some degree of common ancenstry. Likewise the Oveview sectcion states "The term creationism is generally used to describe the belief that creation occurred literally as described in the Book of Genesis". Again, this is only for strict creationists. These sections need to be corrected to clarify that creationism is a belief in a Creator whether by direct intervention or by general guidance and direction. All creationism is not strict creationism. Rlsheehan (talk) 18:18, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

  1. Because the first sentence includes the phrase "created in their original form" it does not preclude theistic evolution or progressive creationism. There would only be a problem if the phrase was "created in their current form".
  2. The overview sentence contains the word "generally" and therefore does not attempt to exclude any belief or speak for all creationists.

Sheffield Steeltalkstalk 20:37, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Progressive creationism and theistic evolution allow for creation to have continued and keep continuing - not just limiting creation to a single creative act. Rlsheehan (talk) 20:19, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Material based on unreliable sources

This sentence from the introduction should be removed:

When scientific research produces conclusions which contradict a creationist interpretation of scripture, the strict creationist approach is either to reject the conclusions of the research,[1] its underlying scientific theories,[2] or its methodology.[3]

The sources are promotional of creationism, hence not Reliable per WP:RS and WP:V. Claims from questionable sources which are contentious or self-serving may not be referenced in wikipedia per WP:SELFPUB. 80.108.244.154 (talk) 19:14, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

The sources are not cited as evidence of the claims made by the sources, but only as evidence that creationists make such claims. The sentence in question is a key part of the explanation of why creationism is not legitimate science. Tb (talk) 20:17, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
See also Talk:Young Earth creationism where this has been repeated explained to presumably the same WP:SELFPUB-obsessed IP editor. silly rabbit (talk) 21:25, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Also, editors please note that this IP is from an open Tor proxy. silly rabbit (talk) 21:42, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 98.195.196.19: article is biased