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.

Identical chart appears twice in article

The chart Response to the Statement, "Human Beings, as We Know Them, Developed from Earlier Species of Animals appears twice in this article, first at Creationism internationally and then again at Prevalence. I haven't even attempted to read this whole article, but it appears there's at least some overlap or duplication of discussion as well. My impression is that some general cleanup and organizing of the whole article would help a great deal. Milkunderwood (talk) 05:38, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Fixed it. Wekn reven 17:17, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Creationism is not co-terminous with Christian belief

The article is POV if it suggests that all Christians are by definition Creationists. The dictionary definition indicates that Creationism is specifically belief in the literal interpretation of the Creation Account in Genesis, or specifically that Creationism is the counterpoised to evolution. It therefore gives the inaccurate perception that all Christians consider that the Creation account is to be interpreted literally and that evolution is not accepted in Christianity. This is clearly not the case, certainly as far as mainstream Christianity is concerned and it is misleading to give the impression that all Christians are exclusively ideologically Creationist. JohnArmagh (talk) 16:42, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

You're introducing a new inaccuracy if you imply that all Creationists believe in the literal interpretation of the Creation Account in Genesis, or specifically that Creationism is the counterpoised to evolution. As the article notes, the term means different things to different people, and there is a spectrum of Creationist beliefs. Intelligent design is creationism, while avoiding any specific biblical belief, but its proponents commonly deny that by seeking to limit creationism to YEC. Similarly with theistic evolution, "in America, creationism has come to mean some fundamentalistic, literal, scientific interpretation of Genesis. Judaic-Christian faith is radically creationist, but in a totally different sense. It is rooted in a belief that everything depends upon God, or better, all is a gift from God." See the section in the article. . dave souza, talk 17:20, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

All Christians believe in Creation by the Abrahamic God - but to infer that means they are Creationist is misleading. If anything the lead should be simplified - as it is it infers something which simply is not true. JohnArmagh (talk) 17:25, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Ah, lede editing again. One of the reasons why it is so difficult to get a consensus on how they should sound is that most everyone has already formulated their own ideas about the definitions and key concepts of the topics being introduced. Just a forewarning in case such a discussion should ensue, be sure to invite a number of editors that might be frequently involved in editing the article and other closely related ones. Wekn reven 18:34, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

• There are multiple definitions of "creationism", as the article shows, backed up by A Spectrum of Creation Views held by Evangelicals and The Creation/Evolution Continuum | NCSE. Even "belief in the literal interpretation of the Creation Account in Genesis" is contested: for example, an OEC "controversial, lesser known literal interpretation of the Genesis narrative that does not contradict the scientific evidence for an Old Earth.". Both YEC and OEC use the term for their respective interpretations. It may be common for the term to be used of YEC beliefs, or anti-evolution beliefs, but the range of views exists and must be clear from the outset. Having said that, it may be possible to find a form of words and sources supporting the more literal positions as the commonest use these days. . dave souza, talk 19:55, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

At the very least the lead should categorically state that its description of Creationism is "in the broad sense", and that that sense is by no means a universal definition

Example Sources:

• http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/christianity/beliefs/creationism_1.shtml
• http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wic.html
• http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/topic/arguments-we-dont-use
• http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/creationism/
• http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7613403.stm
• http://www.thefreedictionary.com/creationism
• http://www.thefreedictionary.com/creationist

JohnArmagh (talk) 20:05, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Just looking at a few, these support the complexity I'm describing: ToA usefully notes "creationism" refers to a wide range of beliefs, "The differences between types of creationism are not minor. Most of the creationist beliefs described below are mutually exclusive, and often their differences are as great as their differences with evolution. Many creationists disagree as much with other creationists as they do with evolutionists." It also notes non-Biblical creationism in other cultures, something our basic definition should allow. . .dave souza, talk 20:37, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I think Scott's model represents everything the best, although I must point out one can be both a Geocentrist and a "Flat earther", but simultaneous belief in both YEC and OEC is nearly impossible, unless you doublethink. Intelligent Design on its own as a belief is really agnostic (not sure where to place that in a model), and a fine line should be drawn between "Atheistic" or "Agnostic" evolution and all the rest, because they fall into the Naturalistic belief system. Wekn reven 15:52, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Philosophically there is a line between theistic beliefs and "Atheistic" or "Agnostic" philosophies (or beliefs, in some cases), but the latter two accept exactly the same evolution science as theistic evolution, which includes varieties of creationism in the broad sense. ID is essentially theistic with the proviso of half-heartedly allowing the potential of substituting the aliens of Raëlism for the God of all its leading proponents, and doesn't fit well with our various definitions of Agnosticism. . . . dave souza, talk 17:30, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps a suitable rewording of the lead could be along the lines of: Creationism, in its broadest sense, is the religious belief ...." JohnArmagh (talk) 12:04, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I think it would be best to start of with the narrow sense, and mention the broad sense at the end of the lead. The term is much more often used in the narrow sense than in the broad sense. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 12:07, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

OK - I've taken a look at an equivalent scenario - the article Evolution is purely narrow-sense - with a link to a disambiguation page for links to other uses - one of which being Evolution (term). The lead as given in Creationism is more appropriate for a page Creationism (term), which itself may be appropriate for Wiktionary (as noted on the tag on Evolution (term)) JohnArmagh (talk) 17:25, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

"Creationism internationally" is full o' bull

In the "Creationism internationally" paragraph, it is stated that creationism has an effect on scientists, universities or society in European countries. No, it does not have one. Not at all. The whole paragraph should be deleted until proof can be shown that officially approved European educational institutions such as legal universities even have creationism as a topic of their scientific research. Otherwise, this whole article is totally biased junk and a marketing tool for a cult. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.157.55.84 (talk) 16:03, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Can you back up this claim with reliable sources? Wekn reven 16:56, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Skimming the article, I don't see where this claim is made: could you point out the relevant wording? . dave souza, talk 17:33, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Exactly! Wekn reven 17:39, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Creationism Internationally / Prevalence

It seems odd that these two sections are separate, let alone have a whole load of material between them. Is there a particular reason for this that I'm missing? If not, I'd suggest making the latter a subsection of the former, possibly moving the last part of "Prevalence" on the education issues in the US elsewhere or making it into a separate section.Dr Marcus Hill (talk) 12:57, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually, what bothers me is the weight problem. Creationism is rarely an issue in Europe, and when it is, it's usually isolated incidents by isolated cranks that soon get ignored. A good case in point is Poland, where MPE Maciej Giertych made a fool of himself and the whole country by pushing it on the floor of the European Parliament, and proposing that it be taught in Polish schools. The proposal was immediately shot down by his own son, who was Minister of Education at the time, and is as far right wing on the political scale that you will find without turning over large rocks.

Also polls showing popular support should be treated with extreme suspicion, as the response ususally depends on how the questions are worded.

That's the only time I have ever heard about creationism in the Polish press in the ten years I've lived here. Even placing the single word "Poland" in the article is not justified, as it gives the impression that it is a seriously debated issue here. I suspect the same is true for most, if not all, of the European countries mentioned. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 13:08, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

True. Whilst there are well funded organisations trying to push creationism in the UK, any politician who likes getting votes roundly condemns them - unlike in the US, where strongly pushing for evidence based scientific education is a vote loser in a lot of places.Dr Marcus Hill (talk) 09:04, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Evolution in Hinduism

British geneticist and evolutionary biologist, J B S Haldane, observed that the Dasavataras (ten principal avatars of Lord Vishnu) are a true sequential depiction of the great unfolding of evolution.[8] The avatars of Vishnu show an uncanny similarity to the biological theory of evolution of life on earth.[9] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.26.223.225 (talk) 12:03, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, cut and pasted sequences with no attribution (so we can't find the original source) and no reproduction of the sources cited internally are less than useful. Secondly, and I'm no scholar of Hinduism so I'll gladly retract this if I'm wrong, but I don't think that Vishnu's avatars are part of the creation myth, they're just how he appeared in the already-created world (and a quick perusal of Daśāvatāra seems to bear this out), so even if it were properly sourced, it doesn't belong in Creationism.Dr Marcus Hill (talk) 16:05, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Denialism category

This article pertains solely to a religious belief. We do not categorize theism as "denialism" or any other religious belief as "denialism" because this runs up against WP:NPOV. It is not our place to judge the truth of any particular religious view. Creationism can encompass young earth creationism or theistic evolution so it is even worse, but even if it was just the young earth variety the "denialism" category would be inappropriate. Religious beliefs should not be categorized as "denial" under any circumstances.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 19:44, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

This isn't an article about theism. It's about creationism, a belief that runs directly opposed to evolution. It is, essentially, denial of scientific evidence of evolution. Regardless, categories are there because the article might be of interest to people who are interested in that category. The LGBT category would be appropriate on, for example, the article about Benedict XVI, not because he's gay, but because he has teachings directly related to the LGBT community. By putting this article in the denialism category, we are not saying that creationism IS denialism. Rather it saying that creationism may be a subject of interest to those interested in denialism. Farsight001 (talk) 20:33, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Categories are about what any category is about. It is about grouping items together based on shared characteristics. A religious belief should not be categorized as denialism because it implies that a characteristic of the religious belief is that it denies reality. That is where the NPOV issues come up. Most religious beliefs lack scientific proof. Should the article on miracles be categorized under denialism?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:08, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

"Denialism is choosing to deny reality as a way to avoid an uncomfortable truth. Author Paul O'Shea remarks, '[It] is the refusal to accept an empirically verifiable reality. It is an essentially irrational action that withholds validation of a historical experience or event'." So, is the truth "uncomfortable", is it empirically verifiable, is denying it essentially irrational, and does it withhold validation of a historical experience or event? You decide, then I'll comment on your decision if I see anything wrong with it. Wekn reven 08:21, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Creationism is a religious belief. Labeling it "denialism" implies that the belief denies a "truth" that says the belief is wrong. That violates NPOV. Some creationists don't even disagree with evolution or the big bang and those people are explicitly mentioned in the article. Labeling creationism as denialism thus ends up applying to the belief that God is the cause of the universe and life as we know it.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 14:20, 24 February 2012 (UTC)