Talk:Creationism/Archive 11

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

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

→

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). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 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)

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

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 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)

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." Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 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. ^ross ^nixon 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. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 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." ^ross ^nixon 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. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 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.) [[1]] 33.32% Christians 6.65 billion people live on Earth. [[2]]

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. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 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. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 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)

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. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 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). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 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 Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 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. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 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. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 01:39, 22 November 2007 (UTC)]

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)

Creationism is a scientific theory

Debate largely on the underlying merits off Creationism, and therefore off-topic

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I incorrectly was told to stop vandalizing this page when I was simply correcting the erroneous view that Creationism is merely a religious belief. To say that Creationism is completely religious is to ignore the truth and is not remaining neutral. Creationism has many scientific facts and theories. For example the Institute for Creation Research http://www.icr.org/ is actively researching and proposing new scientific theory based on Creationism. So Creationism is a scientific theory as much as Darwin’s theory of evolution is a scientific theory. They both require self evident axioms and both use deductive reasoning.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.163.247.1 (talk) 22:56, 8 December 2007

ICR is hardly a reliable source. And Creationism relies upon faith, cannot be falsified, and hardly satisfies any aspects of science. This has been discussed about 400 times.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 06:00, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

The articles that deal with the "scientific" aspects as you describe them are flood geology and creation science (and a couple more I think).--Filll (talk) 06:01, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

1. Why is ICR an unreliable source? Because it researches Creation? That's hardly a reason. That's just prejudice and bias.

The ICR is an unreliable source because it assumes its conclusions as tenets of faith, as well as a long track record of sloppy scholarship. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 03:26, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

The ICR has never had their research published in a mainstream scientific journal, so labelling something as extensively tested and documented as evolution as equivalent to research from the ICR is as WP:UNDUE as it gets. --AlexCatlin (talk) 23:00, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with 216.163.247.1, this article isn't nuetral. RJRocket53 (talk) 02:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

ICR is a reliable source for some things, like its employees and location. But it is not a reliable source for science. And the article strives to abide by WP:NPOV, WP:WEIGHT, WP:FRINGE, and WP:UNDUE.--Filll (talk) 03:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

"Creation science" is falsifiable; it makes falsifiable predictions about things like the origin of the Grand Canyon. And, of course, these predictions have been falsified. Creationism, on the other hand, is a theological concept...and it's the reason why the "creation scientists" hang on to their beliefs, despite the fact that their predictions have been falsified. 72.200.212.123 (talk) 06:12, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Falsifiability is not the only important criteria to consider when looking at the demarcation problem, that is, when trying to decide what is and what is not science. For example, consider the Daubert standard which does not include falsifiability in the "checklist".

Also, there are multiple reasons why creation science and creationism are not science, not all of which have to do with falsifiability, although they both fail the falsifiability test. Obviously, the theory of evolution has changed repeatedly over the last 2 centuries, as it has had to be modified to fit the new data. This is the hallmark of falsifiability and absolutely required for science. Creationism has not really changed at all in 2 centuries; this is why it is not science. It does not change to fit the new data that come in.

Probably the largest problem with creationism and creation science is that they require the introduction of magic as an explanation for physical phenomena. This completely violates the central tenets of science, and this requirement would be pure poison to science. The Muslim world did this about 1000 years ago when Al Ghazali published The Incoherence of the Philosophers and went from being the most advanced scientific and technological society on earth to one of the most backward. This is the future that creationists are trying to push on the modern world.--Filll (talk) 16:43, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Magic? How is that in creationism?

RJRocket53 (talk) 05:24, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Well it is all a game of semantics. Magic, Supernatural, Miraculous, Ethereal, Immaterial, Numinous, Preternatural, Mystical, Transcendent, Spiritual, Mana, Karmic, Orgonic, Auric, etc. Are these the same? Related? Different? The basic idea is that in creationism something nonphysical has to happen, and the laws of nature have to be broken. I do not care what you call it. And I notice that creationists etc do not always call it the same thing.--Filll (talk) 06:57, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

People do not understand, but this is probably the biggest problem science has with creationism. Once you say that no longer is one allowed to consider or look for physical or natural causes for things, science is dead and ceases to function. And at that point, empty your jails and let all your criminals go free; you will never be allowed to convict anyone ever again, since a foolproof defense is always available. The evidence does not exist, since a miracle or some magic happened to create it.--Filll (talk) 07:00, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Filll, the '"magic" was only in the first 6 days. Everything after that can be subject to scientific investigation. The one difficulty is that this is historical/non-observational science, so is influenced by the investigator's a priori assumptions. ^ross ^nixon 00:06, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the magic only continues for the first 6 24 hour days for some creationists. For other creationists, it continues much later and even operates presently. For example, I have read Kent Hovind claiming there is no such thing as electromagnetism, or gravity, or the strong or the weak force; Jesus is personally holding you on the earth, and personally holding the atoms together... Reminds me of that saying, either everything is a miracle, or nothing is.--Filll (talk) 00:18, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

"Magic" for the first 6 days only? Nope, that doesn't explain Noah's Flood. Nor does it explain how all the geological evidence for Noah's Flood mysteriously disappeared, nor does it explain the equally mysterious appearance of archaeological evidence for the various ancient civilizations who were apparently unaffected by the Flood. And as creationists have a habit of describing rock strata as "Flood deposits": it does not explain how the fossils in those "Flood deposits" became magically sorted into the evolutionary "Tree of Life" sequence of common descent (along with fossils of dessication cracks, footprints of land animals, and so forth). --Robert Stevens (talk) 11:17, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

...lack of marsupial carcasses radiating out from the mountains of Ararat to Australia, where all the water from the flood came from, how early farmers actually hooked dinosaurs up to their plows (were they docile enough for reins, or was some sort of harness used?), why God stopped with all the miracles and whatnot, why He deliberately arranged the world and universe to look exactly as if solely natural forces were at work in the creation of the world and evolution of life, why He created so many plantets but only one with life on it, the overarching question of why He's either actively deceptive or just stubborn in his refusal to provide proof of His existence, what's the deal with the devil and eternal damnation, why He restricted his appearance to one group of Semites in the Fertile Crescent rather than showing up at the doorsteps of all nations the world over, why He didn't make those nations resistant to the plagues brought by Bible-carrying Europeans during their vicious, un-Christian conquest and elimination of the other races... I think I've slid into soapboxing. Creationism is not science, and when it does interact with science, it's to shoehorn evidence onto a pre-published theory badly translated from Hebrew via Greek. WLU (talk) 14:53, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Your questions are all answerable, but this is not the place. Creationists believe that all information (including science) was designed. Evolutionists (majority of non-creationists) believe it came from nothing. Why is this not called faith? Science proves that nothing can exist from nothing and that a divine act had to have taken place. If, in an evolutionist's mind, creation can not be proven and evolution can not be disproved how can he/she assume that creationists think the same? Creationists enjoy seminars where creation is explained through science. Far less faith is needed to believing that all things were created by a designer rather than coming from nowhere. How can a creationist explain creation if people that disbelieve creation keep altering sections? Someone that disbelieves creation can not give input to this article. That would be like creationists making alterations to origin articles like Evolution, Big Bang and others as they see fit. The issue is not about looking for neutral ground, its about explaining a topic that is disbelieved by a few uncomfortable people. -Mosesandi 12:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mosesandi (talk • contribs)

No. It is Creationists who believe that "it came from nothing" -- creatio ex nihilo ("creation out of nothing"). In any case this has nothing to do with evolution, as evolution is about how things change, not where they come from (whether ex nihilo, from the invisible pink unicorn, a cosmic sneeze, or the Big bang). Your rants about "evolutionists" are thus non sequitors.
How can a drunk-the-koolaid true believer of the debunked, debased and dishonest delusion that is Creationism give WP:DUE weight to the majority scientific view that Creationism is without merit, and supported solely by cherry-picked misrepresentations of the scientific evidence which, when taken as a whole and in context, supports nothing of the sort? It is about "explaining a topic" that, although notable, is without the slightest shred of scientific merit.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 12:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

The "magic" if you want to call it that, would continue. And it does. I have witnessed people healed instantly. Terminal Illnesses leaving. Doctor have seen it too. Now, that is original research, so it wouldn't matter, but, it shows that there is something that causes it. You if a coin was tossed 100 times and landed on heads each time, your first assumption would be that someone caused it to do that. They might of made it double sided. They might have learned to control what it lands on. You wouldn't believe it did that randomly without evidence. Where is the evidence of something causing miracles? Kent Hovind is a christian scientist (the religion, not a scientist) right? To me, Christian Science is a cult, not Christianity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RJRocket53 (talk • contribs) 20:34, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Y'all are violating the instructions at the top of this talk page. Can I remind you all of the statement above that "If you wish to discuss or debate the validity of creationism please do so at talk.origins or Debatepedia." Much of this discussion has become quite disjointed from the requirement that "This 'Discussion' page is only for discussion on how to improve the Wikipedia article". Tb (talk) 20:42, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Creationism is as falsifiable as Darwin’s theory of evolution

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

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. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 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)

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)

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)

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. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 02:34, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

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. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 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. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 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. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 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. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 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). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 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. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 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..."

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 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. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 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)[3]

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. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 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:

Wikipedia articles are not of themselves reliable sources. However WP:NPOVFAQ#Making necessary assumptions may apply in some instances.
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.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 23:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Creation Research Society

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

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

Further input might be useful. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 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. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 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. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 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)

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. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 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)

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)

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. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 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)

Scientific critique

Again, another debate largely on the underlying merits of Creationism, and therefore off-topic

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I think the piece needs changing here to erase the statement that science cannot evaluate propositions from religious sources as this is incorrect.

The entry portion currently assumes science classifies propositions in relation to their proposers and where the proposers are religious faith sources science somehow is blocked from action. This is manifestly incorrect as science does not exclude evaluating proposals from religious faith, or indeed any, source.

There is no inherent difference in the scientific treatment of proposals from any source including religious faith or those who propose supernatural activity.

In dealing with proposals from religious faith origins one tends to deal with the existence or otherwise of some phenomena that is being proposed, perhaps an angel or a demon or a goul or whatever. This is very basic stuff often and to purport the existence of something it is incumbent on the proposers to provide objective evidence to support their proposition. Until such evidence is supplied science cannot validate the existence of the item and the proposition then fails by default. The usually disappointed proposers sometimes fall back on the argument that science has not disproved said existence but this is a false avenue as it must rest with the proposers to show their proposal is valid before they can then act as if it is valid.

So, in this way science does indeed both address, and usually dismiss, proposals from many sources that claim the existence of all manner of possibly interesting items from basilisks to demons and souls to pink elephants.

Where however science cannot evaluate is in questions related to the properties of objects that have yet to be proven to exist, for example, science could not enter the debate about how many angels might fit on a pin head until it is first shown that angels exist (we have already shown that pins exist!).

In conclusion then I think the piece needs changing to correct the impression that science cannot deal with propositions put forward by religious groups or propositions that include supernatural intervention in natural events as all these are in fact equally evaluable by the scientific method. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.243.79.189 (talk) 20:21, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for contribution. I cannot quite understand you. Give me an example of one sentence you would propose changing, and how you would like to change it.--Filll (talk) 20:34, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I think 89.243.79.189 is saying that some creationist claims can be evaluated by science, and some can't. IMO, that's correct. The notion of (a) God as a prime mover acting by some unspecified method is not testable, but several of the spcific claims made by different creationists are. These are e.g. the idea that you can measure the age of the earth by mineral content in sea water, erosion of the Niagara falls or sediment layer thickness. Almost all claims beginning with "there is/are no..." can alse be evaluated by science, and have indeed often been evaluated and disproven. Suggestion: After the first sentence add "Some creationist claims can be tested by science, and when tested have been proven wrong. These include....".Sjö (talk) 12:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Well there is a certain truth to that in theory, but it does not work in practice. The claims of creationists have been proven wrong for many decades, and they do not abandon them. Why, if they are making testable falsifiable predictions? After all, that is what science does. And when the predictions are shown to be wrong, the premises leading to them are abandoned.

All that happens with Creationists though is they come up with more and more contrived explanations to not abandon their initial assumptions. And many state they will never abandon their initial assumptions. And they always have a trump card, because no matter what, an all powerful God can make the earth look old when it isn't, or can put evidence there when the event did not happen. Clearly, when dealing with this, science cannot really test anything, because we are dealing with things outside of science.--Filll (talk) 13:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Sure creationist DO abandom claims that are proved wrong. Examples: The depth of dust on the moon. The Paluxy River tracks. And when will evolutionists abandon their initial assumptions? (Evolutionary theory is extremely accomodating to difficulties). ^ross ^nixon 01:14, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Like what assumption? That there is a natural explanation for natural events? That is the main assumption. If someone demonstrated that one had to discard natural explanations, then I am sure they would be discarded. But for the last few centuries, this assumption has stood us in good stead.--Filll (talk) 01:53, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

In answer to rossnixon's question, scientists will abandon their science-wide underlying methodology when several centuries of experience cease to show this methodology to be productive. Science produces demonstrable and useful results. Creationism only produces apologetics for a specific and sectarian worldview. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 02:06, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Can I remind you all of the statement above that "If you wish to discuss or debate the validity of creationism please do so at talk.origins or Debatepedia." Much of this discussion has become quite disjointed from the requirement that "This 'Discussion' page is only for discussion on how to improve the Wikipedia article." Tb (talk) 03:32, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Answer to Fill 13:03, 12 March 2008: Well the same can be said about many issues, especially when it comes to health or paranormal claims. Goal post-moving and denial are common among the supporters of "alternative" views, just as among creationists. This doesn't change the fact that science can evaluate alternative medicine and supposed paranormal abilities, it's just that those outside the scientific community don't always accept the conclusions. Sjö (talk) 11:21, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I have a question. If Creationism can and has been proven false by science then why did Isaac Newton and his compatriots believe in it and why even did the inventor of the Scientific Method Francis Bacon hold to this supposed false and unscientific belief? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.195.196.19 (talk) 17:18, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Because Newton died in 1727 -- long before most of the discoveries of modern geology and biology, that proved it to be false, were made. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 17:43, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Please explain how geology and biology prove creationism false. Geology and Biology are the studies of life and the Earth. They operate on an observational basis. You are using the present as a key to the past, which is logically false (Assuming the Antecedent). You cannot use modern biology and geology to study the how the universe came into being since they focus on things already existant or that have ceased to exist. 5-12-08 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.195.196.19 (talk) 22:36, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Various aspects of biology (such as DNA analysis) demonstrate common descent, and hence disprove Biblical creationism. Geology demonstrates the lack of a worldwide "Flood deposit" from Noah's Flood, and demonstrates that the Earth is many millions (actually, several billion) years old. And paleontology demonstrates both a great age and the common descent of species, via the fossil record (all those embarrassing "transitional fossils" that shouldn't exist if Biblical creationism were true). In scientific terms, Creationism is a thoroughly falsified hypothesis: which is why scientists abandoned it a couple of centuries ago (in modern times, the wealth of evidence that contradicts it has merely made creationism ever more untenable). --Robert Stevens (talk) 22:51, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, could you be a bit more specific because I haven't heard of any kind of transitional forms being discovered in recent years (I've actually read about a decrease in supposed ones), and DNA analysis doesn't really help out at all with "common descent" due to the individual proteins of each organism and their mismatches, and the geological column and carbon dating are hardly accurate in a truly definite sense. Secondly, even if you find the remains of a creature that is a "transitional form", logically speaking, all you have done is proven the existence of that particular creature, not where from or how it came to be. And, even if you somehow prove self-actuated evolution to be a possibility, there is no way to prove that that is what happened to creatures of old. In a concrete scientific sense, you can only speculate and theorize about how these ancient creatures came into being. If you bring logic into the equation, all you do is tear apart your own theory, which is why (I think) you seem to have avoided what I said earlier. 5-12-08 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.195.196.19 (talk) 03:56, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Can I remind you all again of the statement above that "If you wish to discuss or debate the validity of creationism please do so at talk.origins or Debatepedia." Much of this discussion has become quite disjointed from the requirement that "This 'Discussion' page is only for discussion on how to improve the Wikipedia article." This is not talk.origins; it is not appropriate to use this talk page as the place to discuss evolution. Tb (talk) 04:01, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Just a note, Talk.origins isn't neutral. For anyone who doesn't know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.195.196.19 (talk) 01:57, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

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)

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 [4]. 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)

I was walking down the street last week and saw a dog evollve into a cat if thats not marco-evolution then what is??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.17.182.155 (talk) 02:06, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

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)

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".
The overview sentence contains the word "generally" and therefore does not attempt to exclude any belief or speak for all creationists.

Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 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)

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)

98.195.196.19: article is biased

Arguments on the merits of scientific creationism are not useful to improve this article

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I'd like to put into question the neutrality of this article. It seems completely biased against itself and like an essay you'd see on talk.origins. 5-14-08 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.195.196.19 (talk) 13:16, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Read WP:UNDUE. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 13:57, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Don't tell me you're going to go through the whole minority thing again. 5-14-08 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.195.196.19 (talk) 22:43, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Read WP:UNDUE again. Creationism has no WP:RSs supporting its case, therefore the coverage of it cannot help but be negative. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 02:33, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if creationists do get credible sources because none of yall will believe it. 5-15-08 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.195.196.19 (talk) 15:35, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Lacking such WP:RSs, the topic is WP:CRYSTAL speculation. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 15:54, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

If reliable sources say God created the universe, we'll report that. That's what we do. Was there anything else that needed discussion? SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 15:56, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Van Andel Creation Research Center, Center for Scientific Creation, Crying Rocks Ministry, Institute for Creation Research,Creation Resource Foundation, South Bay Creation Science Association, The Biblical and American Archaeologist, Creation Science association of Ventura County, 4th Day Alliance, Fish Don't Walk, S8int.com, Biology Versus Evolution, Censored Science-Evidence of Creation, Creation Science Evangelism, Creation Education Resources Inc., Creation Worldview ministries, Common Sense Science, Creation Science Defense, Foundations of Genesis in Idaho, Midwest Creation Fellowship, Creation Concepts, David D'Armond, Creation Evidence Expo, Master's International School of Divinity, Creation Consulting Services, Creation Resource Library, Creation Social Sciences and Humanitarian Quarterly, Answers in Genesis, Origins Resource Association, Mr. Stephen Caesar, Truth and Science Ministries, Evidence of Creation.com, TCCSA, SMAC, Creation Science Seminars, Creation Science Assiciation for Mid America, Missouri association for Creation, Tri-County Association for Creation, Creation Instruction Association, CRSEF, The Ark Foundation of Dayton, Arkon Fossils and Science Center, OVCEA, Association for Biblical Astronomy, Creation Truth Foundation, X-Evolutionists.com, Creation Compass, Northwest Creation Conference, Design Science Association, Creation Engineering Concepts, Thomas F. Heinze, Institute for Scientific and Biblical Research, Bible Science Lectures, Creation Science Fellowship Inc., Associates for Biblical Research, Sioux Falls Creation Fellowship, Creation Research, ESA, EF Inc., Project Creation, Mt. blanco Publishing Co., Creation Evidence Meuseum, Greater Houston Creation Association, Texans for better Science Education, San Antonio Bible Based Science Association, the True Origin archive, Origin Science Association, CAPS, Mt. St. Helens Creation Info Center, Bible and Science Ministries, Kanawha Creation Science Group, Lutheran Science Institute, Creation Education Association, Creation Science Society of Milwaukee Inc., Creation Research Australia, Creation Ministries International, World Wide Flood, CreaBel(Belgium), Sociedade Creasionista Brasileira (Brazil), Sociedade Origim e Destino (Brazil), Associocao Brasileira de Pesquisa da Criacao (Brazil), Creation Science Association of Alberta, Creation Discovery Project, Answers in Genesis Canada, Assoc. de Science Creationniste du Quebec, Creation Science Manitoba, Creation Research Canada, Creation Science of Saskatchewan Inc., CSABC, Big Valley Creation Science Meuseum, Mensa-International Creation Science SIG, Assoc. au Commencment (France), Lebendige Vorwelt (Germany), SG Wort und Wissen (Germany), Creation Research and Apologetics Society of India, Creation Science Science Association of India, Centro Studi Creazionismo (Italy), Answers in Genesis Japan, KACR (Korea), CREAVIT (Creando Vision Total) (Mexico), Cientificos Creacionictas Internacional (Mexico), Degeneratie of Evolutie? (Netherlands), Drdino.nl (Netherlands), Schepping of Evolutie? (Netherlands), Answers in Genesis (New Zealand), Creation Research (New Zealand), Polish Creation Society, Tudomanyos Kreazionismus (Romania), ARCTUR Geological Research Lab (Russia), Society For Creation Science (Russia), Seonska Truba (Serbia), Sedin-Servicio Evangelico Coordinadora Creacionista (Spain), Centre Biblique European (Switzerland), Christian Center for Science and Apologetics (Ukraine), Creation Science Movement (UK), Biblical Creation Society (UK), Answers in Genesis UK, Edinburgh Creation Group, Creation Resource Trust, Creation Research UK.

Need Any More? No wait, let me guess, they are not reliable? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.195.196.19 (talk) 18:27, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Correct. Please read Wikipedia:Reliable sources for more information about this. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:38, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

How many of those did you look up? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.195.196.19 (talk) 18:52, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

None. You? SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:57, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

All of these appear to be Creationist Christian apologetics organisations. Have you any evidence that any of them would be considered a reliable source for scientific information? If so, you're welcome to take it to WP:RS/N. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 19:05, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

The IP address apparently wants us to add the text "God created the universe" to the article, but has yet to provide a source. Wikipedia policy is quite clear on this: The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:12, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

First Steel, as a matter of fact I have and I study Creation Science myself. Secondly, the policy you brought up states that minority and fringe sources should be kept out of the general discussion. However, the CIA World Fact Book, which is a reliable source, says that over half of the Earth's population belongs to a creationist religion. Which means all of those organisations and groups I listed are fully valid in an arguement. The numbers also demonstrate that Creation Science is NOT a minority view, and therefore is a valid view held by many people and scientists around the globe, and it is also fully debateable scietifically.

Second, Hrafn. Are you even aware that Logic, the science and art of reason, is an acceptable art that applies to evrything that deals with real-life fact? Despite popular belief, logic is NOT common sense and logic is not relative to how each person feels. There are a number of rules and laws that every science must correspond to lest they be false. If you would like an example, here is one that everyone can appreciate: the Logical Law of Cause and Effect. It's Definition is "Every effect must have an antecedent cause". Now before you say it, nothing caused God because God is not an effect. Now as for online citations, I will get back to you in a short while. Oh, and I am not telling anybody to put "God created the universe" in the article. I am merely validating creation science as an acceptable, debateable worldview. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.195.196.19 (talk) 19:22, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Please review the Talk Page guidelines. This page is for discussing improvements to the article, not for general debate - not even for debate about the article topic. It does not matter who believes in creationism. The inclusion criterion for Wikipedia is Verifiability, not truth. If you have sourced material you wish to add, provide a source. Otherwise, I don't see how this discussion could be productive. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:28, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Criticism of polling techniques?

In the section on 'Prevalence - The western world outside the United States', a poll is criticised as follows:

"The poll had the effect of reinforcing a culture war false dichotomy on the subject in an attempt by the news organization to demonstrate the extent of the controversy. As the poll lacked nuanced survey techniques and equivocated on origin definitions as well as forced participants to make choices as though there were only three options, its results do not necessarily indicate the views of the general public concerning mainstream science or religious alternatives."

This is the only poll that is attacked in this way - other polls referred to throughout the article (numerous examples) are accepted without comment. The poll was conducted by Ipsos MORI for the BBC (two reasonably reputable organisations), and seems to be broadly the same as other polls mentioned in the article, posing a multiple choice question to members of the public. I can't see why it's been singled out for criticism. Does anyone mind if I remove the criticism (the alternative would seem to be to investigate and critique all the other polls mentioned in the article in order to be fair!) Girth Summit (talk) 19:11, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Go ahead. Otherwise it's not neutral. --Pwnage8 (talk) 20:49, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

The core problem isn't its lack of neutrality, it's the fact that it's pure WP:OR commentary on poll. As such, NPOV or POV, it has no place in the article. I'm removing it. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 04:45, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Pastafarianism

Why was this section removed?

As far as I am aware it is a non-christian instance of creationism.

Let's not discriminate here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.229.161.188 (talk) 10:48, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Pastafarianism isn't creationist, it's cryptoanticreationist. Of course if you can find an RS stating that it is in fact pseudocryptoanticreationist, we will consider it. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 11:46, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, are you insulting my beliefs? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.229.161.188 (talk) 13:53, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

It's a joke religion and doesn't pretend to be anything other than a joke religion. That's an important point, you seem to have overlooked. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:57, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't see why this can't be mentioned in the article as long as it's identified as an example coming from a parody religion. --Draco 2k (talk) 13:56, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE would appear to apply -- unless you can find a reliable secondary source that lists Pastafarianism as a prominent and non-parody articulation of creationist views. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 14:43, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

It *IS* a parody, and a very prominent one at that. I'm sure it deserves a mention as it's more than relevant to the article's subject, even though it can't be given too much emphasis. --Draco 2k (talk) 15:28, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree. It has gained significant notoriety as both a parody and a commentary on Creationism and the push to force it into the public school curriculum. --FilmFan69 (talk) 15:51, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Misrepresentation

Article said:

Another example is that of Liberal theology, which assumes that Genesis is a poetic work, and that just as human understanding of God increases gradually over time, so does the understanding of God's creation

"Poetic work"? (Sniff!) Liberal theology provides the hermeneutics pattern: many interpretations provide a hint of the underlying truth. And then the high criticism: "who said that when?" What they thought and did, their feelings and thinking, is to be the normative basis for reinterpretation to our age. Liberal theology claims nothing at all, since it is not a theology, it's a "mind-set", that may be used in other contexts, combined with other "mind-sets", according to the common-sense of the individual. I'll fix this mis-representation: "some Liberal theologists might have said"... Said: Rursus ☻ 07:01, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Now the ultimate truth (irony) for everyone: "listen to the astronomers and cosmologists!". Said: Rursus ☻ 07:16, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I can understand your point, but the new wording isn't particularly clear, and thus not particularly helpful. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 08:30, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

In the context of responses to Darwin's publication of his theory in 1859, this isn't "another example" but rather the theological developments from the late 18th century onwards which were published and discussed before 1859, and led to a huge controversy in 1860 with the publication of Essays and Reviews overshadowing the minor kerfuffle about On the Origin. Suggest rephrasing on the lines of "These ideas were preceded by the development of Liberal theology which applied higher criticism treating scripture as historical documents rather than inerrant revelation, and saw the creation story in terms of symbolism in beliefs of the time of authoring Genesis, the cultural environment, and comparison to non-Jewish "cosmologies" of that age." The links are included in the history section. . . dave souza, talk 09:26, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

In their original form

I may be misunderstanding something here, but saying (Creationists believe) "life, the Earth and the Universe were created in their original form by a deity" seems to be tautologous. By definition their "original form" is the form they were created in (if they were created at all). Do we mean something else? Is this a misprint? DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:31, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I believe this outlines creation "as it was back then" as opposed to creation "as it is now" (I.e. God didn't create modern civilisation, but rather Adam and Eve, etc.). If you think it needs rewording, please, be bold and make any necessary edits or post your drafts here for discussion if needed. --Draco 2k (talk) 17:55, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Two proposals:

Simply remove the words "in their original form";
Replace those words with "out of nothing", so it reads "were created out of nothing by a deity"

DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:37, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Might be a good idea. Though it seems that the first would be removing potential clarification and the second proposal pinches a nerve as being not particularly encyclopaedic... Sounds good.

Is there really any other way to say, "In their original form"? --Draco 2k (talk) 17:32, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that "in their original form" adds anything (things can't be created in any form other than their original one - that's what original means). I still have a suspicion that someone meant something else, but I don't know what. "out of nothing" is A semi-theological term (usually rendered ex nihilo, and commonly used in creation discussions) aiming to distinguish this kind of creation from the kind where a 'creator' takes pre-existing matter and forms it. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:45, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

How about just "Originally created by a deity"? It's still a bit tautological at first glance, but it actually excludes "Before God there was..." scenarios. "Out of nothing" point might also be a good thing to mention. --Draco 2k (talk) 17:54, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Theistic evolution vs Evolutionary creationism

"Evolutionary creationism" is a very rarely used term (I only got 29 hits on Google Books). One of the more reliable of these explicitly distinguishes it from Theistic evolution (and places even EC in the 'Evolution' camp of 'Evolution versus Creationism'). I have therefore placed this distinction in the article. I would also question whether we have a reliable source placing TE within Creationism. I suspect that it was placed there simply on the strength of the "Creationism" in EC and conflation of the two terms. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 17:19, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Frankly, if it gets that little amount of hits, it's probably not worth mentioning in the first place. Other than that, the terms sound interchangeable even on the lexical level - though I'm not an expert in the area. --Draco 2k (talk) 17:34, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I put it in (i) for completeness (ii) because the article previously equated TE & EC (and its easier to get the difference to 'stick' as a cited addition, rather than as a simple deletion) & (iii) because it helps crystalise the question of whether TE itself belongs in this article. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 17:59, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

You cite the only difference between TE and EC as being "theologically more conservative in that it views God as being more active in evolution than do most Theistic Evolutionists". This sounds an awful lot like a personal opinion rather than rigid classification and, coupled with source given, I assume it is. Thus, it should be attributed as such.

The opinion is contained in the cited source, which cites it to personal conversations with Denis Lamoureux. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 18:17, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think Theistic Evolution should be removed from the article - it's not notable enough on it's own, but there's still quite a few sources mentioning it. The bit about EC, however, could probably be removed under this premise. --Draco 2k (talk) 18:09, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Many sources mention TE. Can you find any explicitly stating that it is a form of "Creationism"? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 18:17, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I assume it was a bit of OR, placing it under the label of "Creationism" since it's a belief that God did X and Y. I can't comment on the exact notability, but the term gets a decent amount of mentions in reliable sources and in google tests, so it doesn't seem right to remove it altogether. --Draco 2k (talk) 18:24, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Notability is irrelevant to this issue. Metaphysical naturalism likewise "gets a decent amount of mentions in reliable sources and in google tests", but it is not included in this article because it is not Creationism. Unless you can find a RS stating that TE is Creationism, it likewise does not belong in this article (but retains its own article, as well as mention in Creation-evolution controversy‎). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 18:33, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Good point. However, it is not totally irrelevant as it still describes a belief in the form of Creation - through evolution. --Draco 2k (talk) 18:38, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Recent edit.

A recent edit by Hfran added the following section:

Evolutionary Creationism

Despite the "creationism" in its name, evolutionary creationism is a type of evolution. It states that the Creator God uses evolution to bring about his plan. It is hardly distinguishable from Theistic Evolution a scientific viewpoint, but theologically more conservative in that it views God as being more active in evolution than do most Theistic Evolutionists. (ref)

I reverted the edit, though I could be a bit hasty about it. Main points being:

What rationale is there to say that Evolutionary creationism is different from Theistic evolution? (I can't verify the source right now)

Is it actually notable? Google test returns only 7,000 hits.

There is no such thing as a "Type of Evolution".

Creationism is not science.

Could the original author clarify/reword this before making any hard edits? --Draco 2k (talk) 17:23, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

My fault I'm afraid. Hrafn has been trying to expound his definition of "Creationism" at Answers in Genesis, insisting that Creationism doesn't include anyone who believes that evolution occurs (whether or not they believe the Universe was created). I recommended him to come here to look at the more widely used definition of creationism, and it seems he took that as a challenge to edit the article to conform to his views. I concur with the reversion. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:26, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying the situation. --Draco 2k (talk) 17:29, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you ever so much for assuming good faith Clayworth. The views contained in the edit were in fact not 'mine' but rather those of Eugenie Scott, who has written extensively on the subject of evolution and creationism. Instead of altering them to remove satements made in that source and add statements not in that source, I would suggest that you (i) read the source (it's available on Google Books) & (ii) if you disagree with it, come up with multiple/more-reliable sources for your contrary view. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 17:55, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure Scott's views would make a nice addition to the article, but they should be attributed as such and be notable enough to guarantee mention.

Weasel words or factually false data should not be in the article at all though. --Draco 2k (talk) 18:03, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Eugenie Scott is a published author and expert on the Creation-evolution controversy‎. As such she is a WP:RS (without the need for attribution) for definitions of viewpoints -- particularly when no WP:RS contradicting her definition has been presented. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 18:21, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Just because a person is considered a reliable source does not mean their views are presented as fact, especially if there are differering views within whatever community exists. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:41, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

It does on simple definitional matters if that source is not contested. You have not presented any WP:RSs demonstrating "differering views". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 19:27, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Whether they're contested or not is irrelevant. Personal opinions should not be cited as facts. Just attribute it properly if you really need to. --Draco 2k (talk) 19:30, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

<undent> Scott's The Creation/Evolution Continuum uses this as a separate category on the continuum of views, "Despite its name, evolutionary creationism is actually a type of evolution. Here, God the Creator uses evolution to bring about the universe according to his plan. From a scientific point of view, evolutionary creationism is hardly distinguishable from Theistic evolution, which follows it on the continuum. The differences between EC and Theistic evolution lie not in science, but in theology, with EC being held by more conservative (evangelical) Christians (D. Lamoreaux, p.c)." Denis Lamoureux has a web page setting out his idea that "Evolutionary creation claims the Father, Son and Holy Spirit created the universe and life through an evolutionary process. This position fully embraces both the religious beliefs of conservative Christianity and the scientific theories of cosmological, geological and biological evolution. It contends that God ordains and sustains the laws of nature, including the mechanisms of evolution. More specifically, evolution is 'teleological,' and features plan, purpose and promise......" There's also a weird Jewish claim to the term,[5] that was in the article at one time but it's questionable if it's notable, and there also seems to be more recent use of the term by some Christian group,[6] though their interpretation is less clear. .. dave souza, talk 22:25, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Theistic Evolution, Evolutionary Creation, Evolutionary Creationism and Creationism

Scott's source on this, Denis Lamoureux, states in Evolutionary Creation that 'Evolutionary Creation' (not 'Evolutionary Creationism') is equivalent to TE, but states that the latter term is "unacceptable to evolutionary creationists", despite its widespread use by self-identifying 'theistic evolutionists' (including the Catholic Church). This difference of opinion on labelling and the "order of priority" of the terms it implies, would appear to support Scott's claim of a slight theological difference between the two.
'Evolutionary Creation' appears to be a far more frequently used term (611 Google Book hits compared with 29 for 'Evolutionary Creationism'), only slightly behind 'Theistic Evolution' (675 hits).
We currently appear to have no justification (other than the mistaken "-ism" in 'Evolutionary Creationism') for placing either TE or EC within the realm of 'Creationism'.

I would therefore like to suggest the following:

That 'Evolutionary Creationism' be replaced (both here and in Theistic evolution by 'Evolutionary Creation', as this would clearly appear to be the more common and correct usage.
That we use either Scott's distinction between the two, or Lamoureux's 'they're the same but EC's don't want to be called TE, though TE's are quite happy with the term', to contrast the two terms. To my mind, they're merely two ways of describing the same theological hair-splitting -- so I really don't care which one we use, but would strongly suggest that one or other is needed. Either way, I would suggest that this is done without attribution, as requiring such for experts on points of definition and classification is highly WP:POINT.
That lacking a WP:RS for placing either TE or EC within Creationism, neither should be placed in 'Types of Christian creationism' (though they may be included in the article as contrasting viewpoint to Creationism).

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 04:46, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, The Oxford Handbook of Religion and Science (p192) distinguishes between Evolutionary Creationism & TE -- having them give different answers on the question of a historic Adam (EC yes, TE no). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 07:49, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure (1) is a good point to mention, and (2) is might be more than a good idea. However, if Scott and Lamoureux are really the only people even mentioning this thing, it'd be wise to attribute the sources properly instead of implying consensus. And if their definition conflicts with Oxford's one... It's a bad thing altogether.

As for for (3), as I've already mentioned, it's not necessarily a form of Creationism by definition - might be a good distinction to mention - but it's certainly relevant to Creationism. One could also move terms away from this article and into respective Stubs, but a mention of the terms would still be nice to leave in. --Draco 2k (talk) 11:03, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

The continuum set out by Scott has been generally adopted, and the other sources concur on it being essentially a theological difference while both EC and TE agree on the science. No problems with changing from evolutionary creationism to evolutionary creation, since that's the self-description and seems more common. As Numbers says, cooption of the term to mean anti-evolution has become common and indeed predominant since the 1980s, so it's a good idea to make it clear that these positions are not anti-evolution by separating them in some way – this could be clarified in the opening statement under #'Types of Christian creationism' and the table modified to separate out the last section. The #'Theistic evolution' section could become a section on its own rather than a subsection of #'Types of Christian creationism'. . dave souza, talk 11:56, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I support all of the above. Let me see if I can edit the article up a bit according to this. --Draco 2k (talk) 12:07, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah... It's somewhat hard to move out a whole section from under Christian Creationism if it still refers to Christian God. I'll add a mention of that to the opening for the time being. --Draco 2k (talk) 12:10, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I re-arranged a few words here and there, but it doesn't seem to accomplish much for now. --Draco 2k (talk) 12:21, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

<undent> For info, quite an interesting review of Lamoureaux's ideas from an Evangelical viewpoint at An Evangelical Palaeontology student reviews Lamoureux’s Evolutionary Creation. . . dave souza, talk 03:43, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

The impression that I get from reading this & Lamoureux is that TE & EC don't differ much (and possibly not at all) in their end-point (acceptance of the science of evolutionary biology and of the scientific consensus on Earth's history), but rather in how they get there. EC's journey appears to be far more agonised, probably due to the principle (still dominant in more conservative branches of Protestantism) of sola scriptura (which led Martin Luther himself to reject Heliocentricity). The TE viewpoint seems to be more casual, taking the compatibility on faith, rather than having analyse and harmonise each Biblical passage. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 04:37, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

[1] Flaws in dating the earth as ancient

[2] ttp://www.creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/tj/v17n1_proteins.pdf

[3] ‘It’s not science’

[1]

[2]

[3]