Talk:Creationism

IMPORTANT - If you wish to discuss or debate the validity of creationism please do so at talk.origins or Debatepedia. This "Discussion" page is only for discussion on how to improve the Wikipedia article. Any attempts at trolling, using this page as a soapbox, or making personal attacks may be deleted at any time.

Claims vs. statements

Diff Weasel words are unsupported attributions, such as "It is said that" without naming who said it. Here the issue is about differences such as the one between "claimed" and "said" in contexts such as "...intelligent design, which was subsequently claimed to be a new scientific theory."

WP:CLAIM does not forbid the use of words such as "claim," but calls for them to be used judiciously.

In this context the word "claim" is correct, since the statement's credibility was indeed called into question in court, in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District. The judge's ruling explicitly stated that The overwhelming evidence at trial established that ID is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory.

__ Just plain Bill (talk) 12:51, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Agree. Also, replacing it with "says" or similar becomes quite clumsy when it is not an individual doing the 'saying'. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 13:52, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

'Says' and 'state' are more neutral. 'Claim', however, would be more appropriate in a sentence specifically about a trial and *only* about a trial. ^rossnixon 02:53, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Have put back two 'claims' that seem relevant. Have I missed any? ^rossnixon 03:05, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually, it would be appropriate anywhere the claim/statement has been discredited or heavily contradicted -- per WP:GEVAL. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:18, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not happy with this group of changes by Rossnixon, which appear to change "said" to "claim" everywhere discussing points of view opposite to creationism, and "claim" to "said" everywhere discussing points of view supportive of creationism. I don't believe that's what Bill and Hrafn were suggesting above, nor is it a change with the goal of neutrality in mind. I've reverted. Ross, please discuss such changes here before instituting them again, so we can agree on a scope under which to change the wording globally throughout the article. Also, Ross and Mthoodhood, there seems to be a lot of edit warring going on over this... please discuss the change instead. Edit warring is unlikely to accomplish anything productive.   — Jess· Δ♥ 05:34, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Neutrality does not mean giving two viewpoints equal weight. Can you provide some reasoning as to why you disagree with the changes.IRWolfie- (talk) 17:59, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Exactly, but you have it the other way around. rossnixon was making the changes as to subtly give more apparent credence to creationism. Anyway, those changes are months old. It has already been reverted.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 18:19, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Topic drift

The article claims that creationism rejects scientific conclusions. This claim is wrong. The truth is, that evolutionism rejects scientific findings, as anyone knows who is familiar with the topic. 18:33, 22 November 2011 (CET) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.162.68.39 (talk)

Without particulars supported by a reliable source, your assertion is just that, a baseless assertion. If you want to be taken seriously, please provide specifics. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 18:04, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Section titled "Christianity" - formerly "Judaism and Christianity

I propose a different name for the section... Judaism has its own section slightly further down the page that focuses more specifically on Judaism. The section that was formerly titled " Judaism and Christianity" seems to change focus from first Christianity (with a minor mention of old Jewish views; which are covered in the history section anyhow) then focuses entirely on the Bible. user:Mthoodhood brought the point up a month ago and suggested the two sections were consolidated... but there's nothing more than two sentences on Judaism to consolidate from the first section.

Maybe a little too bold in changing the name of the section to just "Christianity", but to include Judaism in the title seems misleading and confusing. Perhaps a better title would be something like "Biblical interpretation vs. Genesis", because the whole section and the sub-sections are about biblical interpretation and Christian views. Peter (talk) 17:09, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. You're right, the article's been needing that distinction for a while. Wekn reven i susej eht ^{Talk• Follow} 17:07, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

• The problem is that (i) as they share a common creation myth, the views of Judaism and Christianity overlap, & (ii) although the section in question is now titled 'Christianity', it still contains material on Judaism. I therefore think merging the Christianity and Judaism sections would make sense. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 08:49, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I do not believe that Jews and Christians share a creation myth. Many parts of the Jewish Creation Myth are in Genesis Rabbah and I have never seen any evidence that Christains give that any importance. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:21, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps unequal shares? From my limited understanding, the basis has a lot in common, but various denominations in each put a different emphasis or discards different bits, or hold differing interpretations. As in the interesting case of Philo who seems to be a Jewish scholar who had little or no impact on Judaism, but was very influential in early Christianity. Even if they misunderstood him. . dave souza, talk 23:59, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, if you are talking about News during the time of the Kingdoms or the Babylonian Exile, the Hebrew Bible provides examples of three different creation myths. if you are talking about Jews today, many Jews belive in a lot of things that are not in the Hebrew Bible, e.g. Genesis Rabah. Similarly, I think that the creation myth of most Christians includes a war with Lucifer leading to his change from being an angel in heaven to th ruler of hell - Jews do not believe in this at all. As for material specifically in the Hebrew bible, Jews certainly interpret it differently from Christians. As you probably know in Hebrew the story does not being "In the beginning;" for Jews the opening is more like "When God began creating the heavenbs and the earth" which is not at all the same thing ... Jews do not believe in "the fall." Philo is definitely a marginal figure in Judaism (although certainly of great interest to historians) - if anyone wants to know what nmost Jews think about creation, the first sources to look at are Rashi's commentary and Genesis Rabbah. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:34, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Sensu Strictu Creationism

So, if this article is about the 're-branding of anti-evolution which responded to the growing evidence for evolution and its general acceptance in science' (Dave Souza, an earlier post), where is the article on Creationism as a belief that a supreme being created the world (not necessarily restricted to modern times)? Should there be an in-article separation or two separate articles or no article...ideas, anyone? Wekn reven i susej eht ^{Talk• Follow} 14:10, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Genesis creation narrative and creation myth in general.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 15:25, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

GI. Thanks. Wekn reven i susej eht ^{Talk• Follow} 19:01, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

• Ex nihilo also covers this general topic. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 09:12, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Theistic evolution

Can we have a section on Theistic Evolution? It is the belief that God created everything by means of what has been discovered in science. Technically it is a form of Creationism, so is it possible for it to have a section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.228.223.184 (talk) 21:01, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually, we still have a section on creationism#Theistic evolution but for some reason the sections on old earth creationism, young earth creationism etc. have been rolled into creationism#Views in the United States. Less clear about the continuum of views and the sequence, not a good idea. . . dave souza, talk 21:11, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

The 'Creationism internationally' section is a complete dog's breakfast. We have TE & the Catholic Church tossed in there, as well as various individual European and Middle-Eastern countries listed independently of 'Europe and Middle East' and 'Islamic countries'. The forms of creationism are currently discussed as an (un-ToC-listed) section called 'Types of Biblical creationism' within the Christianity section. This is ludicrously improper WP:WEIGHTing. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:57, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

(The lack of ToC listing was due to a limiter-tag. I've restructured things so that they're hopefully in a more easy-to-find hierarchy -- with 'internationally' divided up by continent, and the forms of creationism no longer in a sub-sub-sub-sub-category.) Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:27, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Can we have a section on this that is more conspicuous? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.228.223.184 (talk) 03:48, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Not without giving it WP:UNDUE weight -- TE is after all a topic on the border of creationism, not at the center of the topic. It'd be a bit like giving the Straits of Gibraltar "conspicuous" listing in an article on Europe. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:55, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Except the Strait of Gibraltar much smaller in comparison to Europe than Theistic evolution to Creationism. Wekn reven i susej eht ^{Talk• Follow} 16:13, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Then substitute Mediterranean Sea for Straits of Gibraltar. The same argument applies. Currently TE gets the same level of prominence as YEC, OEC, etc, which are actually forms of creationism -- it is hard to see how it is reasonable to give a form of non-creationism greater prominence in an article on creationism than prominent forms of creationism itself. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 02:27, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually, Hrafn, I agree with you. Just happened to notice a bit of exaggeration. Wekn reven i susej eht ^{Talk• Follow} 15:07, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Andrew McIntosh

• Andrew McIntosh (professor) has no qualifications or experience relevant to evolutionary biology.
• Andrew McIntosh has no qualifications or experience directly relevant to highschool science education.
• Andrew McIntosh therefore has no expertise relevant to this article. Therefore for the purposes of this article he is just another ignorant Creationist (hardly a rare category). He is therefore a WP:QS and cannot be used for "unduly self-serving" claims (like "We are just simply a group of people who have put together ... a different case.")
• RichardDawkins.net is hardly a prominent source.
• Per WP:WEIGHT & WP:FRINGE, we do not give non-prominent-published fringe viewpoints any prominence.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 02:47, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Abrahamic God

MOS:CAPS#Religions, deities, philosophies, doctrines and their adherents states "In a biblical context 'God' is always capitalized when referring to the Judeo-Christian deity". This means that Abrahamic god should be replaced by Abrahamic God, and the former should probably be WP:RFDed. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:27, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I would argue (and have, along with several others, in my Edit summaries) that in the expression "the Abrahamic god", the word "god" is not being used as a proper noun. It is therefore improper (and quite odd) to capitalise it. HiLo48 (talk) 05:42, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Lacking the quoted bright line guideline, an argument could be made that "Abrahamic god" is the equivalent of "Norse gods", so should not be capitalised. Given the quoted guideline, and the patently obvious point that the "Abrahamic God" is "the Judeo-Christian deity", MOS is unambiguously that it should be capitalised. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:55, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I do wish people pushing religious POVs would be more honest here. Such dishonesty does your religion no credit. You are repeatedly avoiding the fact that the expression under discusion is "THE Abrahamic god". With the word "the" there it's just plain bad grammar to capitalise a word which is NOT a proper noun. HiLo48 (talk) 06:09, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Wait, Hrafn is pushing a religious POV? N^oformation ^Talk 06:12, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Could people, instead of accusing me of dishonesty for pushing the "religious POV" of Christianity (which it happens I apostated from 20 years ago), point to a reason why the MOS guideline I stated, and which would seem to be explicitly and directly relevant to this situation, is in some way inapplicable? I don't bloody well care if it's a proper noun or not because (i) it appears to be in a grey area between proper nouns and common nouns (which is probably why it gets its very own explicit bright line guideline in the MOS) & (ii) because whether or not it is a proper noun doesn't matter to the guideline I quoted -- which does not refer to "proper noun" but rather refers to "Judeo-Christian deity". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 08:40, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

An MOS should only be required when there is doubt. I cannot see any doubt. The word "god" in this context is not a proper noun, hence no capital. If you want to appeal to the MOS to override good grammar, so be it, but it will be sad for Wikipedia. HiLo48 (talk) 09:20, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not especially interested in what the MOS has to say on this point, but it seems to me that HiLo48's viewpoint has a lot to recommend it. Compare president in "President Obama" vs. "the US president" (though some might disagree with that usage!) or "the presidents of several UN member states". "God" in "the Abrahamic god" is not a title, just a word. If you capitalise God here, why not "the Abrahamic Deity"? SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 09:43, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Last I checked, unlike the Judeo-Christian deity, the former-senator-for-Illinois was not near-universally referred to in the English language simply as "President" (without any qualifier). "Yahweh" is not commonly used, "Obama" is. This renders your analogy/comparison more than a little unhelpful. As I said before, "God", as used in the English language for the Judeo-Christian deity, is therefore in the grey area between proper and common noun. We have MOS for a reason -- to create consistency and avoid unnecessary arguments, particularly in grey areas. So speaking for myself, I am interested in MOS, unless and until somebody presents a compelling reason for ignoring it. A bad analogy is not a compelling reason. But on the flip side, I have no intention whatsoever in getting involved (on either side) in any further edit-war over this side-issue -- and have probably wasted enough time on arguing it on talk -- so do as ye will! Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 10:24, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I think this can go either way: MOS says one thing, grammar says another. Ultimately it's not that important though as I doubt the public is going to notice it. N^oformation ^Talk 01:54, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I actually agree with Hrafn. I think it does need to be changed to "Abrahamic God". Zenkai251 (talk) 01:15, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Hrafn the Apostate: it has a nice ring to it. I agree with him too. PiCo (talk) 07:54, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

You lose a little thing like your religion 20 years ago and its still the only thing they remember about you. :P Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 08:00, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
(And its not as though I didn't find a couple of other ones to replace it with. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 08:04, 23 December 2011 (UTC) )
(Incidentally, Julian's byname is a tad inaccurate -- as there seems to be no evidence that he ever was a Christian. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 08:03, 23 December 2011 (UTC) )

Personally I never lost my religion - I never had one in the first place; I approach the bible purely as literature, which possibly makes me unique among editors of this group of articles. I've just seen the ambiguity in what I wrote above: I meant I agreed with Hrafn, not with Julian - though in fact I do agree with Julian, being pagan by nature. PiCo (talk) 08:09, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I tend to read it as a goldmine of anthropological information about the Jewish people, rather than simply as literature. Read in its historical context, it tells a lot about their fears and aspirations. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 08:23, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

The odd thing is that I'm more interested in, and know more about, the Bible now than I did either when I was a Christian or when I was losing my religion. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 08:30, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Per WP:MOS, I support User:Hrafn's proposal. With regards, Anupam^Talk 10:01, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

• Hrafn is correct regarding WP usage. Look over these search results for "the abrahamic god". In every instance except the current one under discussion, the entries read "the Abrahamic God" DonaldRichardSands (talk) 14:33, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Donald is right. Wekn reven i susej eht ^{Talk• Follow} 11:54, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Many times in my life I have been in a minority, and right. HiLo48 (talk) 23:17, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

HiLo48, this discussion is not about whether this Wikipedia usage is right or wrong. It is more, when you are in Rome, do as the Romans do. An encyclopedia is "better" if it follows an internal consistency. Wikipedia could just as easily go the other way, but it hasn't. Also, the right and wrong here should not be viewed as moral right or wrong. This Right or Wrong applies to the Wikipedia universe only, not all universes. Wikipedia could be persuaded to change policy on this, but that is a different matter indeed. :) DonaldRichardSands (talk) 13:14, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Or: when on Wikipedia, edit sensu Wikipedia. Wekn reven i susej eht ^{Talk• Follow} 13:21, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

I say again, the ONLY time one needs a Manual of Style is when there is doubt in normal grammar. I see no doubt. It's only selfish Christians who create doubt by wanting to impose an artificial rule on others, demanding that their god is somehow more significant than all others. And therein lies a BIG problem.... HiLo48 (talk) 13:58, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Whack!

(i) I am not a Christian ("selfish" or otherwise -- as most regulars on this article are aware). (ii) I (a) believe their is "doubt" due to "God" in the English language being in the grey area between proper and common noun, and am in favour of following MOS on this.
All of which means that HiLo48 is completely talking out their arse. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 14:17, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

I HATE the use of the word "their" in that expression. Another ugly piece of grammar! And I did not accuse you of being a Christian. I said the doubt (in your mind and others') was created by selfish Christians. It's certainly not normal grammar. HiLo48 (talk) 14:23, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

(i) It is standard English grammar to use "them"/"their" for third-person-singular-of-unknown-but-non-neuter-gender -- so live with it. >:) (ii) You said "only", and I have been explicitly stating that there is doubt, which means, yes you were calling me a "selfish Christian" -- so yes, I feel insulted. At least you could have called me something interesting like a 'sociopathic Thoth-worshiper'. If you keep this up, I'm going to get out the Random Shakespearian Insult Generator -- and then you'll be for it! Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 14:40, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Woah! Lets keep it calm. Wekn reven i susej eht ^{Talk• Follow} 16:34, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

I've now realised that Hrafn and I are speaking of different variants of English. I'm Australian. Nobody here would say "HiLo48 is completely talking out their arse". If someone was that cranky with me, and didn't know my gender, it would be "HiLo48 is completely talking out of his or her arse." It's one of those English language things. Many versions around the world. Maybe the issue of capitalising god when it's not a proper noun is also in that area of difference. I'm guessing Hrafn is American. (Apologies if it's a bad guess.) America is a very Christian country. Australia is not. It could explain the whole issue of our different perspectives on this. So, where to go? Do we make this American Wikipedia, rather than English Wikipedia, or do we attempt to ascertain usage among all English speakers around the world? HiLo48 (talk) 22:43, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Given that I lived in Aus for a few years (nice people, interesting fauna, crazy political system), and am fairly Anglophilic in my reading & watching habits, I rather doubt if it's a dialect thing. PS, Wekn et al: a little hint, the chance that anybody talking about sociopathic Thoth-worshipers and the Random Shakespearian Insult Generator is being in the least bit serious is about the same as a snowball's chance in hell. What do I have to do to get a laugh around here, break into The Philosophers' Song? Sheesh -- tough crowd. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:31, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

My name's not Bruce, but I do have a brother-in-law of that name. We shared a few beers over Christmas. HiLo48 (talk) 06:57, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, the Pilosopher's Song would be nice, thou fusty clay-brained haggard! =) Wekn reven i susej eht ^{Talk• Follow} 14:41, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Ok, that's just a fairly daft debate. It's THE abrahamic God; i.e. there is only one. And His commonly used name is "God". If I had a pet cat whose name was "Mongommery the Third", but whose nickname was "Cat", it would be perfectly reasonably for me to use "Cat" as ether a proper noun; "my tabby Cat" or a common noun; "my tabby cat". Plus, God is that accepted usage. Grammar is full of exceptions/compromises. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.101.50.102 (talk) 22:16, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Note It seems like most people are in favor of the change. Have we reached a consensus? Zenkai251 (talk) 21:27, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Certainly not unanimity, but I'm used to certain cultural biases in Wikipedia, so I guess I can put up with this one too. HiLo48 (talk) 22:30, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I really don't think that this is a cultural thing vs. a MOS thing. Being raised in America, I would use your style because it's the grammatically correct one. If you started a discussion or RfC on the subject at WP:MOS I would probably back the change. N^oformation ^Talk 22:35, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

So, will someone make the change now? Zenkai251 (talk) 03:53, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I guess I'll do it. Zenkai251 (talk) 03:13, 7 January 2012 (UTC)