Talk:Creationism

IMPORTANT - If you wish to discuss or debate the validity of creationism please do so at talk.origins, True.Origins Archive, or Wikireason. 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.

Archives
Archives 1 - 11 (November 2001 – March 2005 Archive 12 (May 2005) Archive 13 (June 2005) Archive 14 (September 2005) Archive 15 (August 2006) Is Creationism a theory (August/September 2004) What is wrong with the lead section (September 2004) History of Creationism (September 2004) Selection as a creative force (October 2004) Ranting (May 2005)

Archives

4+ archives are excesive 10+ archives are worse

I merged the archives, I think material discussed loses relevancy when broken. I simply cut pasted material together. Page will load faster than user can read even on a 56k machine. This page was 200+kb large. Excesive is an under statement. Archived all entries till april. -- Cat ^chi? 10:55, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I hope no one had an Heart Attack. Thanks. -- Cat ^chi? 11:03, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Archive 12

There seem to be a lot of discussions that have been adequately adressed. The topic on Salva could conceivably be moved there in a short while aswell, though I wouldn't mind it if this topic grew into a single archive that we could like to from the article on the creation-evolution controversy as an example of a typical discussion on the subject.

I moved Removal of two sections to creation-evolution controversy to the archive aswell, as a #New Criticism section has been created which continues the discussion. - Ec5618 18:13, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

I have now moved the Salva/Aaaagh monologues to this archive aswell. I'm trying to keep this page from cluttering to a point where new editors are scared off because of the mess. -- Ec5618

Have moved

• Merging with 'Origins beliefs'
• New critisism section
• Copyright status of image?
• Approaching Creationism

to /Archive 12 -- Ec5618 23:45, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

Truthteller ranting

Archived Truthteller ranting, as suggested by JoeD (/Ranting) -- Ec5618 23:45, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

Creationism and the supernatural

Lest an edit war ensue, let's discuss the wording of these 3 sentences:

• One of its principal claims is that ostensibly objective orthodox science is actually a dogmatically atheistic religion. Its proponents argue that the scientific method is incomplete, as it intentionally excludes certain explanations of phenomena, particularly where they point towards supernatural elements. This effectively excludes religious insight from contributing to understanding the universe.

Ramdrake deleted the 5 words indicated by HTML strikout, saying:

science can exclude the supernatural and **not** be incomplete.

I put them back, saying:

the sentence is talking about the views of Creationists - pls meet me in talk

Can we discuss this? --Uncle Ed 15:17, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

It is an irrelevant value-judgement to insert wording that science is "intentionally incomplete" because it excludes the supernatural. If you are that passionate about these five words, at least provide a verifiable cite for this sweeping claim. --ScienceApologist 15:22, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd say it's a pretty sweeping claim that Creationism's principle claim is that science is primarily atheistic, the whole paragraph is a pretty sweeping claim in of itself. I don't think "ostensibly objective orthodox science" (Is science even referred to as "orthodox", and what does ostenibly mean anyway) is dogmatically atheistic, I normally only hear that applied to evolution and theories concerning evolution whenever I read the subject coming up :/. Homestarmy 15:47, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Joshua (SA), are you saying that the POV of Creationists, that science is "intentionally incomplete" as you put it, is irrelevant to this article? --Uncle Ed 15:53, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

• Naturalism is the principle that all phenomena in nature must have a natural (material or physical) explanation. The assumption of naturalism specifically excludes any form of design (including creationism) as an explanation for the origin and diversity of life. The standards should state that biological evolution is a naturalistic theory that intentionally excludes design from consideration. Many scientists feel that naturalism should not be invoked as a guiding principle in origins science, since it restricts the objectivity of investigations. If naturalism is invoked as a principle, this should be explained to teachers and students. [1]

Well, that is merely one creationist viewpoint, the intelligent design creationism perspective. Intelligent design is not only a minority view within science, but within creationism as well. There is a spectrum of other creationist viewpoints that do not conflict with science. This seems a simple matter of assigning due weight. FeloniousMonk 17:46, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, now we're getting somewhere. Since you know so much about it, can you explain (preferably in the article) which Creationists accept the restriction of science to physical causes, and which Creationists object to it. Please include numbers or percentages, if you know them.

By the way, am I reading you right or was that a typo up there, where you describe ID as being a view that is "within science"? I thought you were dead sure that ID was utterly outside of science! ;-) --Uncle Ed 17:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

It's a typo; as you already know ID claims to be science, but the scientific community rejects the claim. YEC and creation science both reject or accept parts of the scientific method and scientific evidence to the degree that they support a literal interpretation of Genesis. This is already covered sufficiently in the article. Creation science's offspring, ID, has at times explicitly rejected the scientific method, but again, it's not that simple. While at the same time intelligent design proponents condemn the scientific method as flawed, they also claim to be supporting science, as a complete reading of your cite given above shows. I think that using it to support the passage (lifted from the article of Ann Coulter's Godless: The Church of Liberalism apparently) "One of its principal claims is that ostensibly objective orthodox science is actually a dogmatically atheistic religion" is misleading; it really doesn't support the passage that was reverted. Citing Coulter here wouldn't be appropriate either, as she's not really a notable source of scholarly thinking on creationism if you know what I mean. FeloniousMonk 18:15, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't dream of quoting Coulter as an authority on anything - she's a polemicist and publicity hound - other than her own political ideas.

But let's return to the viewpoint that "the scientific method is incomplete, as it intentionally excludes certain explanations of phenomena, particularly where they point towards supernatural elements".

Thats only incomplete from a non scientific interpretation of what incomplete means. I mean from a scientific standpoint, the supernatural is not a serious possibility, so it can be complete despite the factr that religious theories remain uninvolved in its explinations for everything it encounters.80.192.59.202 18:38, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Are you attributing this POV to all Creationists generally, or to YECs and CSists only? Or to ID proponents mainly or what?

And again, which Creationists accept the restriction of science to physical causes? --Uncle Ed 18:29, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

2RR

sorry for typing through the above contributer's contribution. I was rather over eager to respond and hadnt checked the edit page properly in the dark:}80.192.59.202 18:49, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, 2RR's is my limit for today. If you all want me to discuss my changes, while you reserve the right to make changes without discussion, fine. Have it your way. But I question the propriety of acting according to such a double standard.

Saying that an addition to the article should be removed because it's tendentious is the same as saying it should be removed on the grounds that it advances a point of view. The ArbCom has asked contributors not to do this. So, unless you want arbcom scrutiny, you might to rethink this strategy. --Uncle Ed 16:21, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Edits that are poorly researched and unverifiable can and are routinely removed. What's tendentious is your continuing practice of making edits that are poorly researched and unverifiable as if to bait people into reverting them. --ScienceApologist 18:46, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Please provide a few examples of my "poorly researched and unverifiable" edits. I will research and verify them. --Uncle Ed 18:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

A poorly researched edit

Cut from intro:

In many religious traditions, creationism is the active promotion of an origin belief that humans, life, the Earth, or the universe as a whole were created by a supreme being or by another deity's supernatural intervention, usually in addition to or specifically opposed to scientific consensus on origins. (changes only partially shown, pls refer to the history)

This is incorrect, because it's still Creationism even when not actively promoted. And I think the scientific consensus angle refers to pseudoscience, not theology. See Larry's Big Reply - which I'll dig up for you in a moment. --Uncle Ed 15:48, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Creationism and pseudoscience are inherently entwined. You cannot whitewash to try remove the fact that it is at odds with science. — Dunc|☺ 16:14, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

If you can find a published source which says this, I'd be happy to see it added to the article.

I'm pretty sure "Creation Science" is tagged with Category:Pseudoscience, is that what you meant? --Uncle Ed 16:23, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Talk.origins contains a large number of well written and scientific articles debunking the claim of creationism, including it's claims to be scientific. Jefffire 16:24, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Good, please add a reference to a claim of Creationism to be scientific. And distinguish between Creation Science - which is a specific attempt (or groups of attempts) and Creationism in general.

If some scientists exist who consider religious faith itself to be pseudoscientific, that's another story. Are there scientists who comment on matters of religious faith, in the context of the creation-evolution controversy? I'd be looking for something in the following form:

• Itzal Bilgewatre wrote, "The Jewish Bible says that God created the world from nothing, but that is patent nonsense. Science has shown that matter has to come from somewhere. Judaism is therefore pseudoscience. " <ref> --Uncle Ed 16:55, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Ed, you're confusing creationism with creation theology. They are not the same thing. --ScienceApologist 17:53, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I find it hard to see a difference between creationism and creation theology. Therefore I am tempted to remove Cat:pseudoscience. Perhaps someone has a reference/link that will change my mind? ^rossnixon 21:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

You know, looking at the creation theology article, it does claim that the two subjects are different, but doesn't appear to say exactly how. It merely appears that the creation theology article is wider in scope, as this one focuses more on the Abrahamic traditions, in addition to, of course, trying to make counting back geneologies trees sound like pseudoscience. Homestarmy 21:03, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the creation theology article could use some clean-up work. The basic idea is that creation theology centers around the theological implications of a God who creates the world. This is different from creationism which is the near-propaganda advocacy of a requirement that people believe in a world that was created supernaturally. Creation theology isn't as strident nor does it require people to believe in a literal narrative surrounding a supernatural source for existence/universe/earth/life/humanity. --ScienceApologist 00:29, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Not everyone claims creationism to be a science, or even thinks of it as a science. Some do, but you can't slap a derogatory (yes the term pseudoscience is often considered derogatory) label on this topic as a whole. I'll even support maintaining within the text of the article that some consider creationism to be pseudoscience. But to place the entire article in the pseudoscience category is to render an unfair and not universally accepted judgement on the subject as a whole. Dr U 00:23, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm rather neutral on the categorization issue myself. I see creation science as being the pseudoscientific branch of creationism (creationism in-and-of-itself may or may not have any scientific pretense). Nevertheless, as creation science is a part of creationism, it may be argued that a pseudoscience categorization for this topic is warranted. A poll might be useful here. --ScienceApologist 00:26, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

That would be analagous to placing the [Category:Fish] on the article Animals, reasoning that it is justified because some animals are fish. Clearly, that would be silly. If the whole doesn't fit into a category, it should not be lumped there simply because a subpopulation might qualify. Dr U 00:48, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

No, it's not quite that bad. It's more like placing the category "Conservatives" on the article about "United States Republicans". --ScienceApologist 11:27, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Creationism is the 'religious belief' alone. Creation Science is the optional 'pseudoscientific' support of Creationism. The other supports of Creationism are faith and Biblical evidence. ^rossnixon 01:45, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Correct. However, there are very few creationists who reject creation science. They probably exist, but they're not the easiest people to come by. Sorta like "liberal Republicans". --ScienceApologist 11:27, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

But could any of those creationists even want to accept creation science in the first place if they didn't have the religious belief first? Homestarmy 17:48, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Who knows? The answer to this question probably belies verifiability. Certainly some groups claim that you can evangelize by using science without appealing to the bible -- I would assume they are relying on "creation science" to do this. More than a few of the most vocal "convert Creationists" make the claim that they came to faith by considering the "evidence". I would dispute this as a bald fact, but if we assume they aren't lying, it sure looks like they are saying that you can believe creation science without believing on the bible and maybe there is a feeling that the overwhelmingly atheistic scientific community could be converted if they just carefully considered the evidence without their "atheistic sunglasses" on. --ScienceApologist 17:58, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Well then, if it defies verifiability, it seems to me that the position of Creationism can't always be confirmed to be based primarily on Creation Science, and therefore for any instance where one might find Creationism, it would seem to me quite a stretch to suppose it would always be rooted in "pseudoscience". Homestarmy 02:13, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Of course creationism isn't always rooted in creation science/pseudoscience. Some creationists base their claims purely on the Bible and reject "man-made science" outright. However, that doesn't necessarily mean that it is an incorrect categorization. Categorization isn't an "all-or-nothing" endeavor. The argument can be made (reasonably) that there is enough overlap between creationism and creation science that the pseudoscience tag is justified in the same way that one might make the argument that the article on US Republicans should include the Coservative Politics category even though there are Republicans who are not "conservatives". Sometimes focusing on exceptions as we are here (as in creationists who don't engage in pseudoscience) serve to illustrate general trends that might allow for an accurate categorization. I'm firmly neutral on the question of whether this article should be categorized as pseudoscience. I can see both sides. --ScienceApologist 13:51, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Another reason to not flag this as pseudoscience, is that there are creationists amongst Jews, Moslems, and I presume, other minor religions. These religions possibly never invoke science in support of their beliefs. Tell me if I'm wrong. ^rossnixon 20:49, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Other "minor religions"? That's just plain insulting. Hinduism is a minor religion? Sikhism? Buddhism? Taoism? Jainism? Only Abrahamic religions are "major"?

Second, your point is absurd -- "These religions possibly never invoke science in support of their beliefs". Do you know this as fact? Hell, Muslims were among the greatest astronomers and mathematicians because of their religion as they needed to properly reckon the beginning of Ramadan among other things. Would you please educate yourself before sticking your bible in your mouth. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 23:36, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Expanding on Jim's comment: Islamic and Jewish apologetics attempt to use science in the same way that Christian apologist do. Hinduism does a lot of that too (and in fact Hindus have tried to get their "science" put in the public school system in California in a way similar to what christian creationists have tried to do(and no I'm not being US centric, just making the point that almost identical behavior has occured even in the same countries)). JoshuaZ 23:49, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

The creationists of Turkey routinely use the creation science arguments to bolster their claims, so these Islamic creationists "invoke science" just as much as the Christian ones. --ScienceApologist 01:36, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I left Hinduism out of my list of major religions only because I was not aware that they believed in a "creation". Apparently "Brahman started the creation of an evolving planet and we who are part of Brahman are constantly evolving." - whatever that means. Do they use "creation science" to support that? Refs please. ^rossnixon 01:43, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[2] would be one. JoshuaZ 01:50, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Here's a good thing to remember. Creationism is not a scientific theory, but a religious belief. The opening to this article confirms it: "In many religious traditions, creationism is...". Creationism as a general term has nothing to do with modern science.

Creation Science is a recent movement which is more linked to science. Most people do consider it pseudoscience, but that issue belongs on the Creation Science article, not the article on Creationism, the religious belief that Creation Science supports. Tschel 02:10, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I was following you until you said "that issue belongs on the Creation Science article". Conceivably we could address the issue in both places. In fact, we probably should simply because creationism is so often conflated with creation science these days. That doesn't necessarily mean we must categorize creationism as pseudoscience, but the impulse does have merit. The best thing to do is consider the reader. Will most readers come here expecting to read solely about the religious belief of creationism or the pseudoscientific advocacy of creationism? I'd also point out that the difference between creation (theology) and creationism might be of use to this question. --ScienceApologist 14:07, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I think SA raises a very valid point here. Given the present political environment, especially in the States, I would venture to propose that most people looking up creationism will be less interested in the theology, but rather more interested in looking into creationism/creation science to see what all of the fuss is about. Thus, the impulse to flag creationism itself as PS is rather understandable, and given the conflation of the terms among the 'οι пολλοι, the media, and creation proponents themselves, unavoidable. It is, after all, "creation science" that is used in the attempt to validate creationism as an intellectual (or scientific, if you must) concept, rather than as mere theological dogma/myth. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 14:17, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Good points; however, the "pseudoscience" issue belongs only in the creation science sections. Remember, creationism has been around for thousands of years before the advent of modern science. If we categorize Creationism under "Pseudoscience," we are blatantly stating that the worldview of millions of people in ancient times, educated or uneducated, was "pseudoscience." That goes against the definition of pseudoscience, since their theological beliefs were never portrayed as science in the first place. Therefore, it is silly that all of the ancient traditions related to creationism should be thus categorized under "Pseudoscience." Tschel 17:25, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Creation Science section

I am endeavoring to amend the NPOV of the Creation Science introduction, as there has been a general consensus that the original wording is unacceptable. (See discussion page.)

This is not vandalism! If you don't agree with my changes, please try to amend them further, but reverting is not helpful in this case. Comments are welcome. Tschel 17:43, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Creationism in Islam?

With jihadist beliefs and idealogy asides, are there any information or links on creations or intelligent designs in mainstream Islam?

I know they have stuff of their own, because I googled for it once or something, and there was some Islamic site with Creation science on it :/. The one I found said something about butterflies, their arguments seemed to focus on different things than Creation Science in Christianity normally does. Homestarmy 16:19, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

See Islamic creationism, [3], [4], [5]. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 21:12, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

There's also five different links at the bottom of that wiki article, just so you're aware whoever started this section. Homestarmy 00:18, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd of thought you could look in the same Torah that christians and Jews look in for the Islamic view. Of course colour me wrong if thats not true Duckmonster 02:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Alas, Islam seems to of been created based on the idea that the Torah and Bible was/were corrupted. (Don't ask me how, I don't see how it would of been technically possible) Homestarmy 02:50, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

"try to incorporate" as opposed to "incorporate"

Ross and I seem to disagree which phrasing is better. I support "try to incorporate" because that doesn't comment on whether or not the incorporation is successful where as "incorporate" makes them sound like it was successful. Would simly "use" be a reasonable alternative? JoshuaZ 02:51, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

It's a moot point: SA deleted the sentence (and for good cause, I think). &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 17:19, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

ARGH

This only covers Christian and Jewish creationism, but mainly Christian. What happened to other forms of creationism? Zazaban 02:33, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Just needs someone to write it - how about you? --Michael Johnson 14:06, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not that informed about it unfortunately... I came here to educate myself on it. Zazaban 19:08, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Creationism is the "active" acceptance?

I'd be bold and change it, but i'm not heavily familiar with the editing atmosphere of this article, and i'm very curious as to how exactly "active acceptance" made it's way into the intro, it doesn't appear cited, and I don't understand why creationism would have to be "actively" accepted by someone for them to actually be a creationist. Homestarmy 16:28, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Good point, Homes. I'm not sure what passive acceptance would be. I removed it. Let's see what happens. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 23:19, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

GA Re-Review and In-line citations

Note: This article has a very small number of in-line citations for an article of its size and currently would not pass criteria 2b.
Members of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles are in the process of doing a re-review of current Good Article listings to ensure compliance with the standards of the Good Article Criteria. (Discussion of the changes and re-review can be found here). A significant change to the GA criteria is the mandatory use of some sort of in-line citation (In accordance to WP:CITE) to be used in order for an article to pass the verification and reference criteria. It is recommended that the article's editors take a look at the inclusion of in-line citations as well as how the article stacks up against the rest of the Good Article criteria. GA reviewers will give you at least a week's time from the date of this notice to work on the in-line citations before doing a full re-review and deciding if the article still merits being considered a Good Article or would need to be de-listed. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact us on the Good Article project talk page or you may contact me personally. On behalf of the Good Articles Project, I want to thank you for all the time and effort that you have put into working on this article and improving the overall quality of the Wikipedia project. Agne 22:47, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

The most obvious reason to me, for the low number of in-line citations, is that this is sort-of a "super article". By that I mean that in is has a wide general "scope"; covering issues raised in many other articles, such as Creation science, various religious views, creation-evolution controversy, and others. I expect the more specific articles will have the majority of the in-line refs. ^rossnixon 01:57, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps its too wide if much of it can't be inline cited.... Homestarmy 02:03, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Preposterous. That kind of attitude specifically conflicts with Wikipedia:Summary style. --ScienceApologist 21:05, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Uhh, the summary style says to make paragraphs shorter and relate to a new article when they get too long, how is that supporting making articles wider and wider in scope? Homestarmy 00:56, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I have made a request regarding this issue here. --ScienceApologist 21:04, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

You know, looking at some of the refs inside the list, some of them actually do list the page numbers and seem to cover a topic which would be in a specific spot of this article, I dunno why they aren't already inline :/. Homestarmy 21:07, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Because the article is OLD and there were many more styles for referencing before someone came up with the ref tag. Please fix them yourself if you have the time. --ScienceApologist 21:09, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

TOCleft

I vaguely remember discussing this before, but why is the TOCleft being used? Particularly under the creationism template which is pushing it well into Overview. It is inconsistent with Wikipedia TOC positioning and is a bit confusing. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 23:55, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I see no reaosn for this either. For this article, the TOC worked perfectly well in its default position. -Silence 08:22, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Unverifiable

Adding boilerplate and tags is not a useful way to discuss the article. Please be specific with the problems of the article. Keep in mind that this article is about creationism, not advocacy for (or against) creationist beliefs about origins. It probably can use some more references, but I don't thing a general tag is warranted.--Stephan Schulz 23:56, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I do NOT want advocacy. I simply want an article that readers can trust. This article needs to comply with the Wikipedia content policies - WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV - and although there's obviously been an effort to comply with NPOV, there's a serious deficiency in WP:V. Unless and until any reader can determine that any fact presented has previously been published by a reliable source, the tag both warns readers that the contents do not meet Wikipedia quality standards, and it recruits editors to perform the work needed to bring the contents up to snuff. ClairSamoht - Help make Wikipedia the most authoritative source of information in the world 00:55, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

You've responded to a complaint about using boilerplate responses with a response which is practically boilerplate. If you cannot take the time to specify which parts of the article you think needs sourcing then you should probably not think anyone is going to bother trying to decipher exactly what you are referring to. The article has 11 in-line notes, 13 in-line hyperlinks, and 15 references at the end of it. Much of the article is actually Wikipedia:Summary style with the bulk of the actual content existing in other articles which have their own references. And for the record, Wikipedia:Citing sources does not specify that any fact needs to be cited. If there are specific facts you think need to be cited, please take the time to indicate them. If there are sections in particular which need citation, label those with the appropriate tags. Blanket tags are not helpful. You are wasting a lot of people's time at the moment.

You do not recruit anybody to anything but confusion and frustration when you do not take the time to be specific. If you are genuinely interested in improving articles I recommend you try another approach. At the moment you have just irritated people, and I still do not really know what in particular is bothering you about this article. --Fastfission 01:10, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that YOU NEED TO CITE YOUR SOURCES.

"This divine intervention may be seen either as an act of creation from nothing (ex nihilo) or the (re)-emergence of order from pre-existing chaos (demiurge)." Says who? You need to cite a source.

"As such, creationists hold to additional beliefs that go beyond scientific descriptions of nature." Says who? You need to cite a source.

"Various forms of creationism are found principally in religions of the Abrahamic faiths and in Hinduism, although such beliefs can in theory be found in many other religious traditions." Says who? You need to cite a source.

"In modern usage, the term creationism has come to be specifically associated with the brand of conservative Christian fundamentalism which rejects various aspects of evolution, cosmology, and other natural sciences that address the origins of the natural world." Says who? You need to cite a source.

That's just the first paragraph. Do you need me to go through the entire article, sentence by sentence? According to WP:V, any editor can remove content without sources; that'd be a lot easier for me. And according to WP:V, you'd have to come up with the cites in order to put it back in. The rules say the burden is on the editor wanting to include the content, not the editor wanting to exclude it.

But I don't want to destroy the article. All I'm asking is that it be improved to meet the Wikipedia standards for acceptable content: WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. ClairSamoht - Help make Wikipedia the most authoritative source of information in the world 02:11, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

The article has a solid list of supporting references, and links to a wide variety of websites. There is no need to cite any and every line of the article, that would make it unreadable. Do you honestly believe the statements are not supported by the cited references? --Michael Johnson 03:30, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Um yes. For example, which reference refers to Hinduism? Addhoc 12:55, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Looking at this article again, I'm afraid that a lot of it is poorly sourced and there are a good number of very contentious statements. To go through them all would be very, tedious - I've put in a few tags and adjusted some of it to neutral language. NBeale 07:16, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality from the viewpoint of an apolgist? &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 02:41, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

...Or Neutrality from the viewpoint of an skeptic? :D It's what ends up in the article that matters, not whether any of us are apologists or skeptics. Homestarmy 03:07, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I think the point of neutrality is that it should be pretty well impossible to tell which parts of the article were written by whom. NBeale 07:25, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Sermon?

Someone has tagged the St Augustine quote as a Sermon. Really? The writings of a Saint read like a sermon? You shock me. I don't think this is what the Sermon tag was intended for, and should be removed. If the editor doesn't think the quote should be there, then that is a different matter, and could be discussed. --Michael Johnson 06:09, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, the section should be removed along with the tag. Wikipedia articles should quote relevant secondary sources to explain the subject, and not finish with a quick sermon by someone's favourite saint. Addhoc 09:08, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

If you are going to reintroduce this section, could you include a secondary reference or explain why this section doesn't require a secondary source in terms of WP:V and WP:RS. Thanks, Addhoc 09:34, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

"Creationism" (immediate divine creation) v. Traducianism

This otherwise quite good article fails to contain a section on "Creationism" (immediate divine creation). This is the "creationism" that contrasts with Traducianism. Please see point #3 at http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04475a.htm for more info on "creationism" (immediate divine creation). I may have time to add this section but would be pleased if someone beat me to it. :-) CyberAnth 03:45, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeast and Chimpanzees paragraph

The reference for the 96% of chimp DNA is fine. However the following sentence "Even if the theory of evolution was disproved, this would not imply separate human creation, which is feature of creationism in the Abrahamic religions" isn't supported by this reference. Again, the next sentence isn't supported "It is exclusively in the public sphere, where young Earth creationists (especially in the U.S.) have fought for recognition of their world view, that the debate about creationism and evolution continues." Accordingly, I suggest this paragraph should be removed unless references are found. Addhoc 15:43, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

The first of these sentences is obviously true (disproving evolution does not imply special creation) and does not need a cite. For the second one, it would be nice to have one, yes. But the current tag is misplaced. --Stephan Schulz 16:44, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, as it happens I agree the first sentence is obviously correct, however my reading of WP:V is that it would still require a citation, due to the approach of verifiability, not truth. Regarding the second sentence, I gather this implies there is no longer any meaningful debate in the scientific community about whether evolution happened. Again, this may be correct, but a citation would be appropriate. Finally, I'm not sure why you think the current tag is misplaced. Addhoc 17:36, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the first sentence is obviously true under Wikipedia:Common knowledge. For the second, I apparently looked at an old version. Still, the tag should be at the end of that sentence. And yes, I think your interpretation is correct (the basic facts of the ToE, i.e. common descent, descent with modification, natural selection, ... are accepted in the scientific community)--Stephan Schulz 18:58, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

This comment may need to be deleted, as I just skimmed through this article. However, I think there needs to be a distinction between hardware and software here, if that is even a valid analogy. (how do I put ip and date in? maybe i shouldn't be commenting here...)

American Point of View

It seems like about half this article is from an obviously american point of view. This isn't a bad thing, but considering the amount of Americans who support creationism compared to the world average of Creationism believers, I have a feeling that this article favours the Creationism point of view, especially when considering the scientific and consensus evidence against it. Almost any creationism or Intelligent design theory disobeys or ignores around 50 scientific facts (not including evolution)agreed to by all current evidence . This huge amount of overwhelming evidence isn't made clear enough. Also, too much of the article just gives percentages of creationism support from various groups Tosayit 11:24, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd say that's about correct. The problem we have in writing this article is that the consensus against creationism is so heavily slanted that most scientists simply ignore the issue in terms of verifiable sources on the subject. There are only a few resources that actively combat creationism from the scientific perspective. The best we can hope for is to include these sources and explanations of the scientific consensus that directly contradicts. Please do add to the article as you see fit. --ScienceApologist 11:32, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I would also concur, the article is sympathetic towards creationism and is slightly US centric. There isn't sufficient emphasis that virtually all scientists, covering a wide spectrum of disciplines, overwhelmingly reject this doctrine. Addhoc 13:10, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

While the American centric issue might be serious I'm not inclined to agree with the issue of it being too sympathetic to creationism. In particular, regarding Addhoc's comment that "here isn't sufficient emphasis that virtually all scientists, covering a wide spectrum of disciplines, overwhelmingly reject this doctrine" while that is clearly true of Young Earth Creationism it is less so of other types especially theistic evolution. JoshuaZ 13:16, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi JoshuaZ, I think to some extent our disagreement relates to the difference between the formal and popular usage of the term "creationism", which is covered in the theistic evolution section, "in America, creationism has come to mean some fundamentalistic, literal, scientific interpretation of Genesis". Reading this article, I personally consider the overall tone to be different from articles such as Fossil or Evolution. Obviously the intent of Wikipedia is to have articles that are compatible with each other instead of sympathetic towards their subject. Addhoc 13:29, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

---I would like to pint out, as an American Myself, most Americans are NOT supporters of creationism. It is true that more Americans support it than do Europeans or British but most do not. - Ryanpatgray

Categories: Articles with unsourced statements

Where is this Category found in the article source? I believe that it should be removed. Dan Watts 15:33, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

• It shows up because there is a fact tag or a citation needed tag in the article. --ScienceApologist 17:48, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. Dan Watts 19:23, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

• It is due to the tag asking for a citation for the following statement: "It is exclusively in the public sphere, where young Earth creationists (especially in the U.S.) have fought for recognition of their world view, that the debate about creationism and evolution continues." -Silence 19:37, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Removing True origins link

• I took out the site on True Origins because the site was extremely biased in its support of creationism & intelligent design. It was essentially a creationist site masquerading as a non-biased site.

-intranetusa

That is not a good reason to remove it. The idea is that it gives people somewhere to discuss their own POV, and hopefully leave this page alone. I have reinstated it. --Michael Johnson 04:58, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

The "Scientific critique of creationism" section takes a sober turn

I probably shouldn't be complaining because it's not my domain (I'm a firm believer of evolution), but I want to know the creationist side of the story, and right now, it doesn't look too good.

I don't know about anyone else, but looking at that section myself, every statement about the creationist point of view is a criticism, meaning there's no rebuttal. Take a look at evolution's misunderstandings page to get an idea of what's missing here.--Dlevenstein 23:56, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Summary and Overview

I've tried to improve the overview to avoid the highly misleading impression that Christian evolutionists are very rare and recent. We also really need to distinguish better between:

• creationism in the sense of a belief that God created the world
• (strict) Creationism as a denial of the scientific theory of Evolution. NBeale 08:02, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Well looking at Dictionary.com it's pretty clear that "creationism" really means (2) at least in US usage. So I've tried to make it clear at the beginning that Creationism => Creation but not vice versa. I really haven't got time at present to go through the rest of the article straightening out the confusions that remain there - it would be a good work for someone though. NBeale 10:07, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Your writing style was also inappropriate, and your references were functionally useless. Please discuss your issues and reach consense before making such major changes.

Dictionary.com? Are you kidding? &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 21:57, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Constructive contributions would be better than personal attacks. Let's separate the two issues:

a. Disentangling the two senses of Creationism is clearly a To Do. The overview and the article acknowledges that they exist, but they are clearly muddled. Suggestions anyone?

b. The statement about christians who support evolution "taking issue with the longstanding consensus of their forebears" is unsourced and simply wrong. In fact almost all the early geologists and almost all of Darwins early supporters were Christians, and on his death he was acclaimed as one of England's greatest scientists by (amongst others) the Archbishops of Canterbury and York. I have corrected that part of the overview - it really shouldn't be controversial but if it is please discuss and improve. NBeale 07:50, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

a. What two senses?

b. I'm confused. I understood the Christian church has been going something approaching 2000 years - or is it just a 20thC thing? The Catholic church didn't accept evolution till the mid 1950's and comdemmed it in the early part of the century. If 1950 years out of 2000 isn't longstanding, I don't know what is. --Michael Johnson 08:00, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

a. The 2 senses listed at the top of this thread.

b. Church's attitude to Theory of Evolution can't be older than the theory itself! As explained most of the supporters and Geologists were Christians, and the main Christian critics did so on scientific grounds. Did the Catholics really condemn the scientific theory, or materialistic philosophies that claim the support of evolution? Can you find a reference? NBeale 18:27, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the point of your edits are. At the time Darwin was writing Origin, belief in God was almost universal. In Europe and the United States almost everyone was Christian. So of course Darwin would draw his support from Christians, just as his opponents were all Christians. --Michael Johnson 12:39, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

NBeale's two senses got me thinking. Is there really anyone who uses "creationism" to mean sense 1 without sense 2? Theistic evolutionists, as far as I can tell, go out of their way to eschew "creationism". It may be that there are 2's who claim that 1 is a wider sense of the term that they choose to be more specific about. But are there actually any 1's at all who are not also 2's? — coelacan talk — 04:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

What you say seems spot on to me. I see it this way: the creationists claim that when evolution conflicts with creationism sense 2, it also denies sense 1, which it does not, of course. The argument makes scientists out to be godless heathens. Trishm 01:46, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I think you are both right on the money. Speaking as a scientist, being accused of being an atheist or evil or one of Satan's minions because I am in science really rubs me the wrong way. The claim from creationists is, if you deny biblical inerrancy, you deny God completely and you are an atheist. This is ludicrous. I have seen many quotes from Creationists who are extremely angry at people who believe in theistic evolution, because it undermines their extremist strategy. The fundamentalists and creationists want to speak for ALL Christians and in fact all religions, and dictate who is a Christian or not and who is an atheist or not. And we basically let them if we do not slam them and slam them extremely hard.--Filll 02:40, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Question regarding the "current scientific consensus regarding the origin of life"

It's true there's such a consensus among scientists. But is it scientific? Most scientists take for granted that science will eventually show how life came to be via abiogenesis, but do we know how it happened? Do we know that it happened? In short, I'm not so sure there is a scientific consensus regarding the origin of life. As always, we can: (1) attribute the statement to acceptable sources, (2) add a citation needed tag, or (3) remove the statement. Thoughts anyone? AvB ÷ talk 10:07, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand your question. The sentence says "scientific consensus", i.e. "consensus among scientists". yandman 10:20, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

No, the two are not interchangeable. The former rests on science, the latter on the assumption that scientists are better equipped to make assumptions than lay people. See also Scientific consensus. Just in case this doesn't help, I'll rephrase my question(s): Is there a scientific consensus regarding the origin of life? If so, who says so? And what, exactly, is that consensus? AvB ÷ talk 10:39, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Scientific consensus represents the shared opinion of virtually all experts in a specific field. Consensus among scientists is the shared opinion of virtually all scientists regardless of their field of expertise. AvB ÷ talk 10:47, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, I get it. In this case, both are true: Virtually all experts in the field of evolutionary biology, indeed virtually all biologists and virtually all scientists (in all fields) accept the theory of evolution. To quote the article on evolution: "There is overwhelming scientific consensus supporting the validity of evolution". The list of those for and against evolution can be found at Creation-evolution controversy, which also has an interesting quote from Newsweek magazine:

As reported in Newsweek magazine, 29 June 1987, Page 23: "By one count there are some 700 scientists with respectable academic credentials (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) who give credence to creation-science..."

Hope that helps. yandman 12:51, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. However, this relates to the theory of evolution. (I'm familiar with the quote; I believe it was inserted into this article after I had requested sources for the related claim.) Anyway, my question is about the scientific consensus on the origin of life. AvB ÷ talk 13:52, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Once again I missed the question... I don't think there is any consensus on the origin of life. There are quite a few theories, with some common ground between them, but nothing standard (echoing recent work in particle physics). However, the page this question is asked on leads me to believe that you want to know whether there is a consensus against a certain "theory". I would say that the consensus against creation-science, covering everything from the Big Bang to Lucy, covers this too. yandman 14:15, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Hm, interesting point. That would depend on the actual questions asked then. AvB ÷ talk 15:09, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Couldn't find it on-line. For now I'd say we could use a better source. AvB ÷ talk 15:33, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I think we have no notable sources declaring a consensus on the origin of life (more specifically abiogenesis) so this has to go. Proposal (paragraph 3 of the introduction):

In addition to their rejection of Darwinian evolution, such creationists often also reject abiogenesis and the scientific consensus regarding the geologic history of the Earth, formation of the solar system, and origin of the universe.

AvB ÷ talk 13:28, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Would a pubmed search do? <scratches head>. Hmm, You could call that original research. On the other hand, if you get that anal about original research, you could end up end up with the the infinite regression about there being no sources declaring that there are no sources declaring that there are no sources for ...

You end up shorting out the purpose of the No original research rule, which is there to prevent people from mucking articles up with statements which don't have scientific consensus in the first place. :-P

So check pubmed on the evolution (pubmed doesn't carry many geology, astronomy, or physics articles), and if there's a rough consensus on evolution and abiogenisis, then that will have to do, IMHO.

Makes sense?

Kim Bruning 14:03, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, yes, that makes sense. Perhaps I should have said I tried to find sources myself before asking on this talk page - and my search included PubMed (hard to miss actually; Google indexes their databases pretty thoroughly these days). All I found was one non-notable creationist who said that all evolutionists believe in abiogenesis and one non-notable naturalist who said there is no consensus (paraphrasing but you get the drift). But I think you missed the problem I flagged up. It's this: the current text says that there's a scientific consensus; that begs the question: what is the consensus? One expects a specific consensus theory. A general expectation among scientists from all disciplines does not make a consensus. My main problem here is probably that consensus is a very important qualification on Wikipedia; it lends a lot of weight to information. It seems to me that declaring a consensus without clear sources is the epitomy of OR... So, I'm still waiting for someone with better search skills (or more time) to come up with the info. AvB ÷ talk 16:51, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I see only mild opposition to my proposal. Perhaps this updated proposal will get some support:

In addition to their rejection of Darwinian evolution and abiogenesis, such creationists often also reject the scientific consensus regarding the geologic history of the Earth, formation of the solar system, and origin of the universe.

AvB ÷ talk 11:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Added some cites for evolution Adam Cuerden ^talk 12:39, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

As you say these cites give some insight into the scientific consensus regarding evolution. However, they do not solve the problem I flagged up (WP currently claims the existence of a scientific consensus regarding abiogenesis without any sources). AvB ÷ talk 14:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I've implemented a revised version of the proposal, including Adam's citations. Improvements welcome, as always. AvB ÷ talk 01:32, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

When did the intro get changed with the numbers?

It appears that whoever did it intended to somehow separate them so that they could use caps in reference to one definention and no caps in another, which seems a bit odd to me since the article ought to be written well enough that a reader can understand which is which in context anyway, but my main problem with this is this sentence: "Where the distinction is important in this article we'll use a capital C or Creationism(2) for the 2nd, more specific sense." Self-references = very bad. Homestarmy 17:00, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

And how is the first word of the article not the beginning of a sentence, with the semicolon separating the first part from the numbers, its like the beginning of two sentences. Homestarmy 20:57, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Addhoc 17:27, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Apology for inadvertant typing inserted

I just noticed that "heyy" was added when I tried to edit the article earlier; I have no idea how it got there, but since it was not there before my edit I will apologize for its accidental inclusion. Thanks to Coelacan for removing it, but calling it vandalism implies intentional malice which is not the case here.

Day/age and Relativisitc creationism

Whether or not the details of Schroder's approach are correct it is clearly true that time from 'outside' an expanding universe would look very different from time inside it (as per many multiverse theories). Schroder is a serious published author and an important ref for those who are trying to maximise the consonance between the Bible and science. He is involved at least somewhat in Anthony Flew's conversion to theism. I appreciate that some people find anything to do with creationism, in any sense, "ridiculous" and that is their right. But it is not right to supress references to this approach. In the entry I don't think I take a POV on whether it is valid - if I do please improve the text don't just revert. Thanks. NBeale 15:52, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I improved the text by removing it. See the link at top of the section you're editing, there's a whole article dedicated to the topic, going into detail here is unwarranted. Put it there. *Spark* 15:56, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

"evidence of Creation" article

I don't intend for this to be controversial, or anything of the sort. I'm just looking for an article, and wondering if I am looking in the wrong places. Given as there is an article on evidence of evolution, is there a similar article demonstrating evidence of Creation? I don't know if I am perhaps looking in the wrong areas. If there is not an entire article, does anyone know of the whereabouts of a section in an article that discusses evidence of Creation/Intelligent Design (outside of the Bible)? If so, could someone please provide a link for me? Thanks in advance. :) --Dreaded Walrus 03:12, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I suspect such an article would quickly be AFDed out of existance for not having enough "scientific" support, or it would just be force-fed with extensive rebuttles for any evidence contained therein :/. Homestarmy 06:00, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah Homestarmy is probably right...since it would be hard to have the scientific support.__Seadog ^♪ 06:03, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

However I can't seem to find anything in the deletion log.__Seadog ^♪ 06:04, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

That was my thought. Is there any article that either of you know of that even has a section that discusses any evidence that Creation/Intelligent Design "happened"? Or is it all based upon the Bible? I myself "believe" in evolution, however a friend of mine told me there was much evidence for Creation, "perhaps moreso than for evolution". So I figured I'd ask around here. :) Thanks anyway. --Dreaded Walrus 17:52, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

The problem here is that if you do find a page on Wikipedia listing "evidence for Creation" anywhere, chances are some other editors have long ago listed it in the Pseudoscience category and found oodles of references from people refuting it, and most likely denying many opportunities for rebuttles with Undue Weight, since sadly, most of the rebuttles aren't on high reliability websites while the evolution side references often takes the form of university statements, famous reaserchers, etc. etc.. Depending on the question you want answered though, if you're just looking for evidence that Creationists use to justify God's existance through the existance of the universe, that'd be the Teleological argument most strongly, but unfortunently, Wikipedia's articles on that argument and those like it are rather low quality. (The teleological one has no references it seems for one thing). And I don't mean low quality as in "I'm a Creationist who's fed up with those articles not supporting Creationism", I mean low quality as in their poorly organized, don't have many editors looking at them, have large tracts of unreferenced statements and whatnot, are often filled with weasel wording so that they can have at least some content, or other legitimate encyclopedic problems like that. Your friend sounds like he might know a better place for evidence heh. Homestarmy 18:08, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Creation is self-evident. Every morning, I wake up and see evidence for creation! Creationism has the same evidence as evolutionism. It's the interpretation of the evidence which varies somewhat, depending on the worldview and accompanying presumptions of the enquirer. ^rossnixon 00:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

...Er, no. Creationism has The Bible. Evolution has the world. Adam Cuerden ^talk 00:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Ross, I don't want to turn this into a creation v evolution discussion so I'm going to try to keep it brief. That claim is a common creationist one and it has zero basis in fact. Evolution explains many things like the phylogenetic tree and cladistics which are only reasonably explained through evolutin. There is no a prior reason a creator who was poofing things would create the nested hierarchy of life but it is wonderfully consistent with what one would expect from evolution. In 1840 almost no scientists accepted some form of evolution and by 1900 almost all bioligists did. Why? Because the evidence didn't allow for other reasonable interpretations. JoshuaZ 01:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Ross is right - there's no way to distinguish a world that was created to look like it had come about through natural processes from one what had come about through natural processes. But that doesn't mean that there's any evidence for creation. Guettarda 02:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

While that statement is true in the strict sense, we can distinguish between a world that came about through largely natural processes and a world created without regard to natural processes who wasn't acting in a deceptive fashion. In that regard, the evidence makes far more sense to interpret as supporting evolution unless one posits a deceptive deity. JoshuaZ 02:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, of course, but that's a different issue. Guettarda 03:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Or, more correctly, evidence for creation that meets Reliable Source and Undue Weight guidelines :(. Homestarmy 02:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

To JoshuaZ. Your examples of hierarchy are pseudoscientific (not observational); except for cases of sideways "evolution" (no increase in complexity or new traits). And as for "no other reasonable explanations", by that of course you actually mean "no other reasonable explanations that I am comfortable with". The Bible is actually a Reliable Source, whereas scientific consensus changes every day. ^rossnixon 09:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Err....no it's not. Read WP:RS. We can only use the Bible to talk about itself or Christianity. yandman 09:39, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Er, I think what he's refering to is the old apologetic argument that the Bible is constant and therefore somehow better. Among other problems no one is critiquing the bible just certain failible humans interpretation of the text. Also, this is equivalent to saying that if two people are arguing and one of them is willing to change his mind and the other is not we should assume the one who is not is automatically correct. Finally, regarding the pseudoscientific claim, Ross I'm not sure what you mean- the hierarchies are observed that's the whole point. In fact, Linaeus noticed them well before Darwin and based his entire classification system around them. If the hierarchy didn't exist the modern classification system would be useless. JoshuaZ 02:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Here are 29 evidences described in great detail. Adam Cuerden ^talk 09:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I think a fairly powerful article on evidence for or room for God in science could be compiled. I do not think I would call it creationism however. Some might want to call it that. I have a partial list of evidence. some of which is treated quite seriously by real scientists. Even by Dawkins. --Filll 01:36, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

DW, your friend who told you that there was much evidence for Creation, "perhaps moreso than for evolution", may have been thinking of the statements commonly made by evangelical creationists such as Answers in Genesis or of course of the intelligent design claims: both have been explored by the US courts, and the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District case concluded with an exhaustive exploration of whether ID is science which exposes the basic premise: the argument from ignorance. William Paley had a good go at it with natural theology. However there's nothing to stop there from being evidence outside science, though of course the supernatural has this annoying habit of being too intangible to be called evidence. Existence of God looks like covering a lot of the ground. If you still feel there's a need for an evidence of Creation article, then feel free to start one: the above points and links would all have to be included in it. However it would be likely to boil down to "people who find something that science has yet to explain, or disbelieve the scientific explanation, take that as conclusive evidence of supernatural Creation". The ways of gods are mysteriously indistinguishable from chance. .. dave souza, talk 09:56, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I have repeatedly approached "Creationists" and religious types here and not one has taken me up on the offer to help them write an article, a REAL article with real evidence or at least the hope of real evidence of a creator, supernatural events etc. Unfortunately, it is not as easy as cutting and pasting mined quotes taken out of context and arguments that were decisvely dismissed 100 years ago from a creationist web site. They are not as brainless as "the dinosaurs all died in the great flood, and all those fossils are the bones of creatures that died in the great flood". To do this properly you probably cannot attack the favorite targets of the ranting bible thumpers, like evolution and the big bang. You cannot do this without VERY hard thought and effort, at least as hard as what scientists are doing. What is interesting to me is that not one creationist has ever taken me up on my offer. It strikes me that they are not really interested in thinking or compiling evidence for God scientifically etc. They are more interested in being annoying and using the same worn out arguments that failed 10 years ago, 50 years ago or 100 years ago. Interesting isnt it?--Filll 14:03, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Proposal to open up discussion to debate Creationism

Most of the sites in Wikipedia on their discussion pages allow debate. Only a few do not and I also note that 99% of the Fundamentalist generated sites do not allow discussion also. Magnum Serpentine 17:03, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Debate is supposed to be technically allowed on all talk pages, you shouldn't be banned for it or anything as long as you don't break any policies alot :/. What exactly do you want to talk about concerning this article? Homestarmy 17:18, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

A small precision: Debating the article is allowed on all talk pages. yandman 17:44, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Well I don't think its right for someone to tell people who want to debate creationism to take it off Wikipedia's website and to some creationist web site. Magnum Serpentine 05:22, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Allow me to explain further here is a direct quote from above.

[quote]IMPORTANT - If you wish to discuss or debate the validity of creationism please do so at talk.origins, True.Origins Archive, or Wikireason. 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.[/quote]

This is what I am talking about. And I have debated other things on other discussion pages. This is just one of a few that will not allow itMagnum Serpentine 05:26, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

The talkpage guidelines are pretty clear that talkpages are for discussing articles, not to debate the subjects related to the articles. People who come to talkpages wishing to soapbox or wishing to debate the validity of creationism really should go elsewhere. That's not to say that limited discussion of issues is not allowed provided the intent of the discussion can be seen (at least nominally) to be toward improving or justifying the content of the article. --ScienceApologist 06:43, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. Talk pages are not for debating, proselytizing, or otherwise attempting to convince others of one's own point of view. They are for collaborating on the article. While this may include describing different points of view, pieces of evidence, &c., it should be pretty clear where the difference is. --FOo 07:01, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

You should look at the Pluto page. There is productive debate in the discussion pages thereMagnum Serpentine 23:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

talk.origins, alt.talk.creationism Gzuckier 16:05, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Introduction to creationism, or a clean up of the Lead

Homestarmy suggested that an introduction to creationism article was was needed. I am not convinced, but I do think your lead could be cleaned up a bit. What do you think? do you want specific comments?--Filll 01:37, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Creationist car??

Umm, ok, so what's up with that?

It sounds like they're trying to paint people who believe God created the universe to be ultra-patriotic, red-neck, uneducated people (with no sense of taste, either). Whoever came up with that lie? Honestly that sounds like slander and propaganda. It's also a very uninformed and biased position. Is it that hard to fathom that people who believe in Creation can be educated, articulate, intelligent people with a diversity of political opinions, just like any other group?

I don't get what the creationist car is supposed to say. Is this supposed to be a an accurate description of an average Creationist car? Does my Prius count as a creationist car? Can we put a picture of it on this site and label it "creationist car"?

Obviously there's a message that's trying to be sent with that picture: People who believe in Creation are dumb lunatic extreme-right-wingers without critical thinking skills.

Please.

So stop the slander. If you want to argue against creationism, can't you at least do so honestly without resorting to propaganda? This isn't even supposed to be an argument page, it's supposed to be an accurate, unbiased presentation of creationism. And this picture hardly fits the bill. I will wait until tomorrow to actually delete the picture in order to allow for some feedback and possible rebuttal.

MS — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.181.150.190 (talk • contribs) (07:31, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

The creationist car is supposed to say what it says on the car. Someone opposed to "evolution" feels that a good way to get their message across is to paint it on their car. It exists. If your car is covered in slogans which you feel illustrate the article better, feel free to upload an image to the Commons, and we can look for consensus as to which image is best for the purpose. But don't go deleting things because you're making assumptions about the car owner. .. dave souza, talk 09:08, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I've edited the caption slightly to make it clear that it's a pro-creationist car. -- ChrisO 09:21, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Oops, missed that last edit. I changed it too, this time to "anti-evolution". Feel free to change back (wouldn't "pro-creationism" be better than "pro-creationist"?). Anyway, regardless of the caption, I have always liked this particular illustration of the type of creationism that fully rejects evolution. AvB ÷ talk 09:34, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Including the car on the page provides a nice illustration (IMHO) of the populist and grassroots nature of the creationism movement. It's something that everyday individuals feel is important enough to paint up their car for. As such, it's a good example of the straightforward tactics of the movement. In some respects, this could be contrasted with the scientific community, where more formal articulation is the norm. But that sounds terribly pretentious, so I'll stop. Cheers, --Plumbago 09:39, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

You'll find several more pictures of the car on Flickr (search for "creationism car"). Amusingly, the license plate was NOPRIM8... -- ChrisO 09:42, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

The article needs more pictures, frankly. And this picture is a good start. I would like to have a picture of the "icthus" symbol eating a "darwin" fish with legs on it. Maybe some pictures of prominent creationists like Ham and Hovind. I think that the alligator on the car's hood has a very happy look on his face and is very charming. It is true that it creates a certain image of creationism, but to dispell that, all you need is some evidence of better scholarship and thought. I have offered to many creationists to help them with an intellectually substantial article on evidence for a diety. Not one has taken me up on it. That speaks volumes.--Filll 14:58, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm starting to learn about wikipedia editing, so if I make any mistakes in terms of protocols for the talk page, please forgive my ignorance. My POV is that creationism is ridiculous, and evolution is fact. That being said, I think the creationist-car picture is not appropriate. Even in the context of describing creationism as a grass-roots movement, it's a somewhat over the top portrayal of the average creationist.

Creationism can be ridiculed on it's own merits, and there's no need to resort to misrepresentations of creationists. Unless you can cite an article stating that creationists are known for painting their cars in ridiculous manners, the creationist-car picture should be removed. I'm not confident enough in the particular rules of WP or the way to go about it, but I'd appreciate that consideration. 67.87.223.102 00:21, 10 March 2007 (UTC)Shvetz

Other faiths

There are antievolution people from other faiths. What about the Hindus? The Muslims? Why are we not mentioning them?--Filll 15:18, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

You mean Hinduism and Creationism? Wolf ODonnell 15:18, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

After that, I went and made Hinduism and Creationism so I know a lot more about it now. There is a creationist movement in Hinduism, but it is of a very different character. There is a much more serious creationist movement in Islam, however. US Creationists wish they could have the success of the Muslim creationists. We have a short description and links, and that is probably reasonable at this time. --Filll 15:53, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Proposed Changes

There are two things that I noticed: Firstly, why the 10,000 year old limit for young earth creationism? I thought it was common for YEC to go to 20,000 years or so. Also I didn't see a mention of each day is a 1,000 year creation period that is held in some Christian creationist circles. Have these items been previously discussed? Thank you 66.75.8.138 19:59, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I think the "1 day = 1000 years" is rarely (if ever) applied to creation. One major problem is that many plants can't survive 1000 years without birds and insects (e.g. pollination). ^rossnixon 03:31, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm thinking of an ICR Acts & Facts article where their guest writer talked about the age of the earth with adding 6,000 years for the creation process. I'm not sure how prevalent or meaningful this view is, but I thought I'd bring it up since I hadn't seen it discussed. Also, do you have any knowledge of Creation beliefs for a 20,000 year old earth? I was first told this many years ago as the general Creationist standard. 66.75.8.138 21:52, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

See day-age creationism JPotter 03:41, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Scientific Critque Removed

When the Admins who monitor the article on "Evolution" allow Criticism of evolution to be posted there, then we will allow scientific critiques of Creationism here. This is an article about Creationism, not its validity.

If Wiki Admins can say things like "You cannot post critiques here because this article is about Evolution being true or false, it's about Evolution itself", then we can say "You cannot post critiques here because this article is about Creationism being true or false, it's about Creationism itself"

Or have a run into another double standard?

Ymous 20:52, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Evidently I have. User:Filll has made his political beliefs and bias very plain once again. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ymous (talk •

Having personal opinions and bias does not stop one from seeking a NPOV about any given subject. Educators do it all the time. GetAgrippa 00:28, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

contribs).

Ymous, you cannot just eliminate a whole section without discussing it and getting consensus. I reverted your vandalism. Orangemarlin 21:08, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh I wouldn't go so far as to call it vandalism, I'm willing to assume good faith that it was an edit with good intentions. Just seriously misguided. Mathmo ^Talk 02:47, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

There is a large section in evolution dealing with the controversy. There are many many articles dealing with creationism. However, it is a minority view. I am working on an article to document that carefully. No problem with minority views, but it should be made clear what is a minority view and where the evidence lies.--Filll 21:10, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

What is a minority view? 95% of the people on this planet believe in a higher power in one form or another. That sounds like a "consensus" to me, and definitely not "a minority view"Ymous 21:19, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually the fraction of the US that professes belief in a higher power has been dropping considerably. I think it is dropping because fundamentalists have made such jerks of themselves that it turns people off. I think fundamentalists might be doing the work of the devil, more than the work of God in fact. What do you think about THAT? I think those that believe in God and have no doubt about it in the US is about 60% and dropping; this is still more than in most other industrialized countries [6]. Those who believe in biblical inerrancy is only about 30% of the total. And those who accept the right wing fundamentalist view of creationism is smaller still (about 15% I think but I need to find the reference; it depends on how the survey was done and what questions were asked). And this is in the US which has the strongest religious beliefs of any industrialized country by far. So the consensus is that creationism, strict creationism, is a minority view world wide. Sorry. We can get better figures for you but it sure looks like a minority view to me. Prove me wrong. I dare you.--Filll 01:17, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Not really. First off, a great deal of the US is nonreligious and doesn't believe in higher powers; it is about 10% of the population. Second, Europe is even more atheistic. Third, China is even more atheistic, and the old Soviet Union has tons of atheists dwelling there. Fourth, they aren't who are important. What is important is what the relevant authorities, not "the public", believe, and most of the world does not believe in creationism. In fact, outside of the Middle East and parts of the US, it is very much a minority view, and has absolutely no scientific support. Titanium Dragon 00:56, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Just to make this known, I left a polite notice on User:Ymous' talk page, noting how such deletion of a section may be percieved as being in violation of WP:POINT.--Dreaded Walrus 21:12, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

It's not vandalism. did you miss this part?

IMPORTANT - If you wish to discuss or debate the validity of creationism please do so at talk.origins, True.Origins Archive, or Wikireason

If you do not allow critiques of evolution in the evolution article because it's not he place to debate the validity of it, then you must not allow the critique of creationism.Ymous 21:17, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

That notice has been on the article for months because many trolls and vandals and basically malcontents of various kinds wanted to stop all work on the article from happening and forcing the editors to debate them instead. I didn't put it there. I think none of the people you have targeted put it there either. Nothing wrong with debate, but there is a limit to how much can be tolerated and where it should take place. What is wrong with that?--Filll 21:21, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

When does the three reversion rule kick in? Are we there yet? --Filll 21:18, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

(after edit conflict with User:Jason Potter, below) - The WP:3RR suggests that the 4th revert is the one not allowed, but also mentions that it is the spirit of the policy, rather than the exact letter, that is enforced. With regards to the section of this talk page Ymous quoted, I did not miss that part. I also did not miss the sentence directly after it, which states "This "Discussion" page is only for discussion on how to improve the Wikipedia article."

In other words, the section quoted relates directly to the talk page, not the article. --Dreaded Walrus 21:22, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Ymous, this would imply that evolution and creationism are on equal scientific grounds. This is not the case. Doing what you propose would violate the Undue Weight provision of the NPOV policy. Thanks, JPotter 21:20, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Well for one, they would be if users like Orange, Filll, Agrippa would stop censoring factual evidence that pokes holes in evolution, but yes, Creationism is not scientific. Why don't you have a scientific critique on everything in this entire site? Dragons? Witches? Isalm? Faries? Why something like Creationism? It's only because they want to give more weight to their belief.

Am I the only one that can see this?--Unsigned

All these should be addressed. There is no question. But no one is threatening to replace science with dragons in schools, or science with fairies in school. Witches is slightly more of a threat, but nothing like creationism. Islam is a threat, but not as immediate. This is a matter of addressing the most serious issue first.--Filll 17:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I have definite opinions and bias concerning evolution and creationism, however I don't let my opinions get in the way of contributing to a science article or any article. I believe in evolution. I also became a born again christian in my mid forties. Odd enough, I also attend an evangelical protestant church. Being a scientist doesn't disqualify one from being a christian, nor vice versa. I don't see the world needing Christian crusaders driving people away from Christ. I see the agenda driven pursuit of creationism doing just that. GetAgrippa 16:58, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Agrippa. I have my own religious bias. I am NOT an atheist. I even taught Sunday School for years. I am a scientist as well but not a biologist. But I think we have to be very careful about letting superstition and supernatural into science. Also, I just found a nice cite for one of the articles I am writing with orangemarlin about the dangers of creationism driving people away from Christianity. However, these next articles will be handled very differently than the last one, that is for sure.--Filll 17:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

IMPORTANT - If you wish to discuss or debate the validity of creationism please do so at talk.origins, True.Origins Archive, or Wikireason

If you do not allow the critique of evolution, then you must not allow the critique of creationism. Period. That is a double standard. An extreme bias. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ymous (talk • contribs) 21:26, 28 December 2006 (UTC).

You're not the only one that can see that, but see my response above for a response to it. :) --Dreaded Walrus 21:28, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Ymous, I gave you a page and invited you to write something to it, on the evolution talk page. Instead, you seem to prefer acting in an antisocial manner. This is not good. And it will have consequences, I assure you.--Filll 21:30, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, when it's 1 against 12 (and counting), I find it a little hard to write anything. Quite the cabal you guys have here. How can the 3RR apply when they are 5 people protecting something, and admins who don't uphold their own policies?

I don't have all day to keep reiterating the same thing over and over. If you can't see the double standard and obvious bias, then I truly feel sorry for you.

Not once did I try to edit the article on evolution directly. NOT ONCE. You say that I cannot critique evolution, yet YOU can critique creationism?

That entire concept is sad and pathetic.Ymous 21:40, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Ymous, You've already been shown that the scientific dissent over evolution is not comparable to that of evolution. To make it equitable as you suggest, would be a violation of Wikipedia policy. The overwhelming majority of scientists accept evolution and reject creationism. The sort of equity you suggest is Undue Weight JPotter 21:44, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Ymous, my patience with you is limited. Creationists do come into the Evolution article to discuss their points. They are open and free exchanges, nothing more, nothing less. No one is blocked. And yes, I review all the mythological articles, and IF I see something that bothers me, I will complain. Most of them start off by claiming their myth or pseudoscience, so nothing is required. Orangemarlin 21:46, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, to suggest that you have "Not once [tried to] to edit the article on evolution directly. NOT ONCE." is betrayed by the article's history. --Dreaded Walrus 21:48, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I did not write the evolution article. I did not write the creationism article. I did not write the notice at the top of the evolution talk page to try to discourage debate. I did help a bit with the FAQ however on the evolution talk page. I have at both articles tried to argue that they should be accessible to the average reader, and that their text should be clear. I have argued to remove the "misconceptions about evolution" section from the evolution article, so far without success.--Filll 21:51, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Suppose I opened up the Encyclopedia Britannanica and looked at the article there on evolution. Do you think I would see a religious tract? What about creationism. Would I see material advocating the creationist viewpoint? I think you are expecting a bit much from an encyclopedia which has to be neutral if possible, but represent the dominant facts as we know them.--21:51, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

A religious critique of evolution is inappropriate because evolution has nothing to say about religion. A scientific critique of creationism, on the other hand, is appropriate, because creationism presents itself as an alternative to science. Simple enough. Guettarda 22:41, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually... evolution does have implications for many believers of many different faiths. You can't deny that, this is why certain groups have such as the creation research institute etc... exist. Mathmo ^Talk 02:50, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

It's a challenge for some religious people (just like heliocentrism did) - but we don't include religious criticisms of heliocentrism is astronomy articles... Guettarda 03:46, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Did you check the article [7] before you wrote that? Because there is very large section there, actually... it is the largest part of the article. Mathmo ^Talk 06:37, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

It describes the historical religious criticism, not a current one--I consider that a big difference. In the Evolution article it does reference the current controversy.Orangemarlin 15:31, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

No difference really, if you read notability guidelines for instance you see it is not meant to change over time. Thus if wikipedia had existed way back then we would be covering it in much the same way in helocentrism then as we do now in that article. Mathmo ^Talk 16:17, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

It is interesting that heliocentrism was viewed as a serious threat to the church and biblical inerrancy and tradition for a very long time, and now the dispute which was so nasty, is now of mainly historic interest. I suspect the same thing will eventually will happen with the creationism/evolution dispute. What is the real threat, after all?--Filll 15:42, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

But surely the Heliocentricism section in question is approximately equal to the social and religious controversies and Misunderstandings sections that already exist in the Evolution article. Adam Cuerden ^talk 03:42, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

It would be preferable if they could be written the same way. However, evolution has to deal with a more current threat than geocentrism does. And what is interesting is that biblical inerrancy people somehow have decided now that heliocentrism is no threat at all. Why is this? Will one of you answer? If you have an answer.--Filll 16:02, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Heliocentricism never was and never will be a threat to the validity of the bible. Mathmo ^Talk 16:17, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

So why was it treated that way?--Filll 16:28, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey Fill, I was just reading my latest addition of Science and on the front cover breakthrough of the year is The Poincare' Conjecture Proved. I know you are a math buff, and I always thought math has not received just attention or appreciation. I had read an article a couple of months ago and now it seems Grigori Perelman has solved the problem (I think it still has to withstand scrutiny another year or something). Kudos to mathematicians what would any science be without math. GetAgrippa 01:52, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

As you would expect from somebody with my username.... I agree with your sentiment of "Kudos to mathematicians what would any science be without math", we are the foundations for science. Mathmo ^Talk 16:17, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Everybody here just wants to debate. Why don't the people that belive in evolution just go back to that page and stop fighting? It's obvious nobody's mind is going to change.Jesusinmysock 19:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Questions for Creationist

Did God, Satan, or man generate the sciences? It may seem ridiculous but it would seem an inevitable question. I ask because the same tools used in many fields of science (genetics,animal behavior-sociology, medical research and disease, etc)are used in evolution studies. It would be difficult to separate evolution from all the sciences so is all science in error or just evolution? Is scientific progress and knowledge the work of Satan, God, or man? My impression would be that Satan is deceiver not creator so that is out of the equation. God as creator could allow or inspire scientific thought-read Linnaeus's comments and others (whether God is real is of little importance to the impact of belief on the human pscyhe). Many contributions to literature, science, and art are inspired by belief-Islam, Christianity, Judaism, etc. The domain of faith and religion is beyond science, however the belief in belief is very much a scientific endeavor. Just curious.GetAgrippa 17:02, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Although I do not personally believe what I'm going to say, I could be convinced that a supreme being of some sort created the natural laws of the universe, but step back and let things happen. I remember have intense discussions with a Rabbi and a Priest (no joke here) trying to reconcile Genesis with science. They both said the same thing--what is 7 days for G_d may be billions of years for man. That's what I've never understood about Fundamentalists and their literal interpretation of the Bible; if it is truly the word of G_d, why are they so arrogant to believe that they know precisely what only G_d can know. And given that we are not all little gods and we all lack omniscience, then why could there not be a scientific explanation for everything we see in the world. Does that necessarily mean that all scientists are godless atheists, and all Christians and Jews (and Muslims, I presume) are biblical literalists. No it doesn't. But it appears that scientists are more open to reconciling their beliefs with a god of some sort, while Fundamentalists give no quarter in the arguments. My faith and beliefs reconcile very well with what I observe in the world. But faith is not something that can be logically imparted upon another human being--it is either there or not. Science, on the other hand, deals with facts and observations, and they do not require faith. Orangemarlin 17:26, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

It's worth reading James Moore's radio interview / article Evolution and Wonder - Understanding Charles Darwin which shows Darwin's evolution theory as coming from a religious perspective. He notes particularly the quote at the start of The Origin of Species from Francis Bacon – "Let no man think or maintain that a man can search too far or be too well studied in the book of God's word or in the book of God's works, but rather let man endeavor an endless progress or proficience in both." Moore comments "for Bacon, it's important that the works of God teach us how to interpret the word of God", then says that "There's been a reversal, and people have gone off on some extraordinary tangents in so doing. For example, opposing Newtonian astronomy on the grounds that the book of Genesis rules it out." Which summarises what we now call Creationism. The argument's between different theological positions, rather than between science and religion. .. dave souza, talk 17:55, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

That is a good point that you've made. There are many deeply religious people, most of whom would be personally offended to be categorized as an atheist or agnostic, who believe in evolution. I have a close friend who is a Roman Catholic Priest and holds a Ph.D. from a secular university in comparative vertebrate morphology (which is about as evolution centric as you can get). He finds creationists to be misguided in trying to apply the Bible to real world events. He believes in G_d and lives the life of a devout Christian--he also believes firmly in evolution. I'd be shocked if he were alone in this thinking. I always wonder about someone's faith when they believe that it would be summarily destroyed by science. How strong can their faith be? I'm sure that Galileo, da Vinci, Newton, and others had to fight battles against the fundamentalists of their day--now, no reasonable Christian would dispute that the earth revolves around the sun. But in 1600, that was a battle that would put the Evolution-Creation fight to shame. Orangemarlin 19:18, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

No creationist to answer. I guess they think I am baiting or not serious. I would like to know the logic. How can you attack evolution and not essentially attack all science? So many science fields and so many studies support evolution it is difficult if not impossible to separate out evolution from its link with all science. GetAgrippa 03:07, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Creationists conveniently disdain to answer about 99% of the questions posed to them. Ever notice how they never answer a lot of what they are asked? They ignore that which is inconvenient, and focus on the same few issues over and over and over. Very few think for themselves. They just cut and paste crap out of creationist websites or old creationists books, that repeat the same dismissed arguments from 50 years ago or 100 years ago or 150 years ago. And expect to be called scientists. It is pathetic. I have asked, since the original Big Bang theory and calculations are due to Belgian priest Georges Lemaître, was he working for the devil? Now many fundamentalists hate Catholics with a passion, so they can dismiss this interesting piece of scientific history; I have had many tell me to my face that Catholics are atheists or Satanists and should be all arrested and put to death (along with the filthy Jews and just about everyone else of course). How can anyone with these sorts of views be expected to be treated seriously, as rational reasonable people?--Filll 16:11, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Do you all seriously want an answer, because i'm sensing alot of hostility to really any sort of response right now. Homestarmy 18:14, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I am curious. I personally am even open to the idea that God exists. I am not an atheist. I do take offense at constantly being called an atheist, or threatened with eternal damnation etc. I want to know what you think, or any other creationist.--Filll 18:21, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Answering "How can you attack evolution and not essentially attack all science?": Evolution is not science. No one has observed it. It is a faith position that began with a uniformitarian assumption which has since become the framework by which all the evidence must be made to fit into. (Note: By evolution, I mean the kind that increases complexity and functionality.) ^rossnixon 19:39, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

You can believe whatever you want to, but as far as Wikipedia goes consensus rules and we report mainstream consensus as mainstream consensus. You are not verifiable as to what constitutes or doesn't constitute science. Neither is any other creationist who contradicts the consensus of the community. --ScienceApologist 02:17, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Some comments:

• How can you disagree with the US supreme court, and dozens of other US courts, and over 99.84% of almost 500,000 US professional earth scientists and biologists, and well over 100 scientific organizations worldwide representing hundreds of thousands of professional scientists?
• Evolution has indeed been observed in the laboratory, and in the field and in the fossil record, over and over, as reported in hundreds of thousands of peer-reviewed publications.
• Commercial companies use evolution to make money. If they did not, they would not make money.--Filll 19:50, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

In a way, ross has somewhat answered the question. Most creationist sites I know of certainly don't start with the perspective of "Science is an abomination!", but rather, that Evolution and evolutionary theory as a whole is not science, many of them using the wonderful word "pseudoscience" which does seem to come up often on these sorts of pages. Sciences certainly were generated by people as science itself was developed by mankind as a method to understanding the universe and how everything operates, God created the universe, and we created science to try and understand it. Microevolution, of course, is not considered to be evolution in the modern synthesis sort of sense, so many Creationists and creationist websites acknowladge it that way while still rejecting the rest of evolutionary theory. I think the original question overstates the divide between Creationism and science, despite that famous biologist who's name I can't remember proclaiming that nothing in biology makes sense except through evolution, whether something makes sense or not is entirely relative, since it depends on who's senses you're referring to. Somebody operating on the presupposition that God created the universe according to the Bible, like myself and I assume Ross, would of course think biology makes perfect sense without evolution. However, to someone who seeks to start from the very beginning so to speak and assume that Creationism cannot be proven, evolution might be the only thing that "makes sense" to them. Homestarmy 21:08, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Well in excess of 99% of all US biological and geological scientists (almost half a million people) have no problem with evolution as a science. ARE THESE PEOPLE ALL ATHEISTS AND/OR DEMONS AND/OR STUPID? The US Supreme court has ruled that evolution is a science, as have numerous judges in US courts. ARE THESE PEOPLE ALL ATHEISTS AND/OR DEMONS AND/OR STUPID? All the major encyclopedias and dictionaries define evolutin as a science. ARE THESE PEOPLE ALL ATHEISTS AND/OR DEMONS AND/OR STUPID? Well over 100 internatioal science organizations representing hundreds of thousands of scientists at a minimum have issued statements stating that evolution is a science. ARE THESE PEOPLE ALL ATHEISTS AND/OR DEMONS AND/OR STUPID? A statement that evolution is a science was signed by 72 US Nobel Prize winners (the biggest collection ever to sign anything). ARE THESE PEOPLE ALL ATHEISTS AND/OR DEMONS AND/OR STUPID? I mean really. You have to be kidding when you expect me to believe that these are just a few morons here and there who just can't see the truth. It really is beyond belief that these people are not as credible as any theologian or ranting bible thumper with a degree from a diploma mill. How gullible do you think I am ?--Filll 22:40, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

In order, 1. a. no b. no c. depends on what definition of stupid, its highly relative and ambiguous, are you talking in general or just concerning evolution, and what is stupid anyway? By the way, evolution isn't a science, evolution is a process. The study of said processes are sciences. 2. a. no b. no c. same response as 1c. 3. a. doubtful b. highly unlikely c. same as 1c and 2c. 4. I could ask the same to you, did you think i'd honestly give the responses you're looking for? Surely if I did, I wouldn't be here on Wikipedia, but would be ranting on some street corner about how the proleatriate evolutionist masses are trying to brainwash us with GPS satellites or something, you're not describing fundamentalists, you're describing some fictional Christian conspiracy theorists. I know there are some people who say that one or two of those groups are some of those things, but nobody who says all of those groups are all of those things. Homestarmy 04:18, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

You need to get out more. You might not be a fundamentalist at all. Sorry. Let's take a look at some of the things I have heard from fundamentalists:

• proslavery and white supremacists
• pro religious war against Muslims, but also Catholics and Jews
• declaration that Catholics are not Christians, and Lutherand and Methodists and Presbyterians etc etc
• damning people left right and center to hell that they disagree with
• wanting to blow up birth control clinics
• wanting to make condoms illegal
• pro death penalty
• wanting to have an exchange of nuclear weapons ASAP to force the second coming
• pro pollution, wanting to despoil the earth and use the resources as fast as possible to force the second coming, saying they are ordered to use all the resources and pollute as much as possible by God
• telling me that no one is allowed to question them because everything they say is the word of God; questioning them proves one is working for the devil
• a rally a year or so ago with tens of thousands of fundamentalists leaders calling for the recall and dismissal of all 50,000 US judges (or whatever the number was) so that the right judges could be installed
• claims that the separation of Church and state should be repealed so that all filthy catholics and jews can be forced to convert to real Christians or be put to death
• claims that all Homosexuals should be summarily executed, with no trials
• claims that all science is evil and the work of the devil

I am not kidding about this stuff. I am very serious. I have seen many of these things multiple times, or heard them in press conferences or in documentaries. I wish I was making it up, but I am not. TO me, THIS is what fundamentalism is. And why i think it is very dangerous. I dont care if someone wants to believe that the bible is literal. I object VERY strenuously to that being used to force the beliefs on others or as a platform to hate your fellow man. To me, that is just wrong and sick.--05:53, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

While I am aware the KKK's mission statement thing sounds like the most fundamentalist thing in the universe almost, words aren't the only thing that matters, that's why Jesus went on so long about hypocrites in the world, because they said one thing and did another. When I first saw the KKK's mission statement or whatever it is, I can truthfully say if I didn't know who it was from beforehand, I would of had no idea it was the KKK's, nor would I of suspected it.

I think that religion is often used to justify crazy beliefs and practices. Like Jihad. Like female circumcision. Like honor killings. Like lynchings. Like assorted wars, and riots, and murders and torturing. Like forced conversions. This does not mean that the religion is necessarily bad, but the application of it, and the demand of unthinking unquestioning acceptance can create an atmosphere perfect to let these kinds of things flourish.--Filll 14:19, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Any religion can be created at any time to teach anything, but I do not seek to defend them all or religion in general, just Christianity. Applications of course can and have been bad no matter what religion is in question or whether said applications have been faulty or not, but let me ask you this, where is the demand in Christianity to never think or ask questions about anything? Not the demand from people, the demand from Christianity itself. And I don't just mean some assertions of truth that you most likely feel are unprovable, I mean everything that can possibly be questioned about anything. Homestarmy 04:42, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, many abolitionists were Christian fundamentalists too, sure, they might of been outnumbered, but if you read alot of literature about the deep south from a fictional perspective and whatnot, you get the picture real quick that most pro-slavery pastors down there were compleate and total hypocrites, since that's the model stereotype most often used in that sort of literature.

Hypocrisy is very common, everywhere. But it is a bit much to take from some group that is proclaiming themselves to be better than everyone else, and forgetting much of their own theology they supposedly profess. There is a lot of stuff in the bible that can be interpreted any way one likes (the koran too). So if you want to find hatefilled messages there and a justification for hate, it is there.--Filll 14:19, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

But you do seem to agree it cannot logically be interpreted the way the fundamentalists you refer to are doing it, since you see it as hypocracy as well? Homestarmy 04:42, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Nextly, ok, sometimes people get a bit too exited and stop being fundamentalists because they let their emotions control them instead of their brains, and i'm quite aware that this has happened to major figures in history, (Cough On the Jews and their Lies cough) but just because religions go through bad periods with leaders doesn't mean the actual teachings of the religion itself supports said leaders and everything they say. Listening to what people say alone to determine what a religion is doesn't get the full picture, you've got to read and understand whatever they claim to believe in or teach from if applicable, whether it be the Bible, the Qu'ran, the Vedas I think its called, I think Buddhism has some work of its own, whatever Scientology thing Hubbard liked best, and so on and so forth. People are not capable of being monolithically identical in beliefs when you start creating a crowd of a certain mass which all claim to believe a certain religion, ideology, or whatever, but books don't change nearly as much. I don't know what people you refer to who somehow got it into their heads that they are Jesus Christ returning to earth, since Jesus is the one appointed to be the judge in the final judgement, but I can assure you, there's quite a bit of difference between saying somebody is going to hell, and saying somebody is going to hell because you say they will personally and that's the end of it. The former is quite risky and most likely judgemental and therefore sinful, the latter is just plain heresy.

I agree, but these are the kinds of people that I have encountered (several times mind you). It sort of puts a bad taste in one's mouth, you know? I knew one lady who thought she was Jesus come back to earth, with the express mission from God to prophesize based on footwear. I called her the Great Shoe Prophetess. She would go and look at people's shoes and tell them their future. I have known several other people who proclaimed themselves to be uniquely speaking for God and then went on a ranting raving curse-filled tirade about how they hated everyone and no one was allowed to disagree since they were speaking for God personally. And on and on. Can you see how this might be cause for some discomfort?--Filll 14:19, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't know where exactly you live and don't plan to ask, but living around false messiah's which don't even sound like their even trying to be remotely convincing would be pretty creepy to me....However, I would be interested in knowing the response these people would give if you asked them which "God" they personally speak for, it sounds like from the atmosphere of the, quite frankly, crazy sounding people you live near, there would be more to their answer than may meet the eye. Homestarmy 04:42, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

(I'm making a convienent line break here)

The people who blow up abortion clinics do not exactly have mainstream support among fundamentalist circles, and I challenge you to find a single modern statement of full-fledged support for abortion clinic bombers from, say the Southern Baptist convention. Not mere members, oh no, Southern Baptists have no singular defining creed, I mean a whole statement of the convention as a whole. That's when i'll be worried about me getting the call that I need to go blow up a clinic for Jesus.

But some sects believe this. And are proud of it.--Filll 14:19, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

That is a mistake. Just like many mistakes throughout history people have made in the name of Christianity, the groups you describe merely continue a long legacy of people whom apparently earn the label of "heretic". That word is not, as it is often protrayed in the media and in movies, just a word that all Christians throw around whenever we want to make someone sound bad, it has a very powerful meaning which although is easy to misuse, nonetheless can validly be used in many situations, all it takes is a little bit of thought before using it, which it sounds like the people you have met don't typically give. Homestarmy 04:42, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

The condom debate is quite a bit more complicated than I suspect what you're reducing it down too, the goal is to not use condoms so people won't feel free to be as adulterous as they want, not to make sure everyone is as adulterous as they want and being killed by STD's while doing it.

I know why they are taking this position. I just think it is nuts to want to force your beliefs on everyone around you, and unwelcome. And creates a bad image. Whatever happened to live and let live? What about the mote in the eye story? The cast the first stone story? The glass houses story?--Filll 14:19, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I suspect most of the more prominent advocates are taking a historical approach, since historically, the more sexually promiscuous a society was, the more hostile it was overall to Christianity if it was nearby. I mean think about it, Ancient Rome was that way, rural Fundamentalism Islam is still that way as I hear it, (though news is difficult to obtain about those areas except sporadically) the pattern just seems to keep appearing. A bad image for these sorts of advocates nowadays means nothing compared to societies which actually were let alone. Advocating abstinance instead of condoms has nothing to do with casting the first stone, the entire point is so that nobody will need to be blamed in the first place because they won't do anything wrong. Homestarmy 04:42, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I cannot speak on the death penalty, as I am opposed to it, though that's quite another story for quite another day I think. On nukes, I think you oversimplify the motivations by apocalyptic Kingdom Now type preachers, the point isn't that we want to die now, but that we will die pretty close to now, we just might want to try to be on the sort-of-winning side of that in the end.

It might be explainable. It does not make it any less terrifying and dangerous. And crazy and stupid. Makes me sick--Filll 14:19, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

In my experience, the way many Kingdom Now type preachers preach is....inconsistant. I have not seen a pattern with all their beliefs, as many of them often seem to like concentrating on different types of supposed threats or changing the threats from time to time, while John Hagee for instance is big on Iran right now, Jack Van Impe is still big on the European Union, sometimes the warnings bear consideration, sometimes they are a bit of a stretch. I think it is more of a case-by-case thing than many other sorts of popular kind of topics to preach about these days. Homestarmy 04:42, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Next, I have no idea where you're getting the pollution thing from, not caring specifically about the environment like an environmentalist would doesn't mean we are specifically on a mission to spoil the world as quickly and messily as possible.

I guess you never ran into dominion theology? I think Secretary Watt was a dominion theologist if I am not mistaken.--Filll 14:19, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I know of the term, but wanting to be in control of the Earth does not automatically mean Christians will pillage and exploit it until it is a trash heap, it simply means our emphasis will be on our own survival and benefit instead of the planets. So, of course, when the planet can't take it anymore, one would hope Dominionists would decide to advocate steps to stop global warming or something. However, I am not very big on dominionism myself at the moment.... Homestarmy 04:42, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

On not allowing questions, i'd like to borrow my idea for an experiment below, if you would, please find one of these fundamentalists you speak of and repeat the process I outlined below by asking them why God did not kill Job immedietly the moment he first started asking God questions? I mean, surely if questioning people is satanic than questioning God is infinitly so more, so why would God of given time for Job to fill a book of the Bible with questions, instead of just killing him on the spot the moment he opened his mouth?

There are plenty of inconsistencies in fundamentalist stories and beliefs. They are definitely picking and choosing what they profess.--Filll 14:19, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Have you tried to demonstrate this to them before? What kind of responses did they give? Homestarmy 04:42, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

This rally you speak of does intrigue me however, I don't suppose you know who's hosting it? Whether I agree with it or not in the end i'm curious as to why they think every single judge is against us.

No it was broadcast for several hours on CSPAN however. Amazing. Lots of Republican leaders from Congress showed up to pledge support and agree. Incredible. Not much different than listening to the President of Venezuela or Iran.--Filll 14:19, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

(Another convienent line break.)

Ok, even I haven't heard hide nor hair of wanting to take down separation of church and state type precedent specifically to convert Jews and Catholics, where are you hearing this stuff? Why do they claim they need to take it down to do that for one, and what is their excuse for being apparently entirely political and not at all evangelical about it?

I suspect to make it easier to convert them, or create an obligatory state religion so they could force people to be fundamentalist Christians. Sort of a reprise of the Inquisition, which we all know went so well.--Filll 14:19, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, considering what a stellar failure that was the first time, you'd think these people wouldn't be trying it again. Homestarmy 04:42, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

The executing all Homosexuals sounds once again like Westboro, who don't represent really the mainstream of anything but themselves, and that sounds far more Islamofacist than Westboroian anyway, i'm not an all-world-religions apologist here, just Christian.

Westboro are not the only ones, by far. My goodness.--Filll 14:19, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Not everyone lives wherever your unique location is, or meets the people you meet. I suppose it might be partly my own fault for being on the internet so much instead of real life more, but I would think if there were really as many of these organizations as you propose with such a widespread following and influence, the entire southeastern part of the U.S. would be reduced to anarchy by now. Homestarmy 04:42, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I also don't know many fundamentalists in recent times who think that every single scientific anything is specifically evil. I wonder, do they wear clothes? Next time you see someone saying what you've heard, ask them how they can wear the clothes of evil, since all clothes manufacture nowadays required scientific advances in, well, manufacturing.

Which is exactly the same argument I make. And they get all angry. But I do not care. They are hypocrites, Pharisees.--Filll 14:19, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

That sounds bad....I wonder, since you seem to be so in touch with what makes a Christian a hypocrite and what doesn't, what would you propose as beliefs that a Christian should truthfully have? Homestarmy 04:42, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Now, finally, the end. I suppose your definition of Christian Fundamentalist does not, in fact, include me at all, quite the contrary, it appears by your standards that despite me being a creationist, I am quite the liberal morally relative "questioning" theologically flexible Christian that would make the Unitarian Universalist organization very proud. (Of course, I would be quite disturbed if they were proud of me in reality) It also doesn't include pretty much every single Fundamentalist or any Fundamentalist organization I know of either. I use the definition of fundamentalist set down in precedent by the Fundamentalist movement of American history and by common sense analysis of whether something does or does not agree with the Bible, but I don't think that by you trying to change the definition of the word, that actual Fundamentalists will all turn into Unitarian Universalists one day.

I am not trying to change the meaning of the word. These people I have encountered are all self professed fundamentalists and creationists of various stripes. And these beliefs are all those I have heard fundamentalists profess. To me, they are not even Christian, although many fundamentalists want to use the word "Christian" to exclude others, like Catholics and Presbyterians etc. --Filll 14:23, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, you don't have to let them get away with using a title they have no historical basis of claiming. Homestarmy 04:42, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Simply put, trying to ascribe to all people who say they are fundamentalists characteristics which clearly do not fit the bill historically isn't going to make them change their beliefs, but rather see your beliefs about what they believe as a very in-depth, well thought out strawman. Homestarmy 06:35, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

This is all basically off-topic, but we may find some analysis that will fit in the article, so here I go with my description of creationism. The basic feature of creationists is that they are anti-intellectual and intentionally under-educated with regards to the subjects they criticize. The conflict of religion vs. science as it manifests itself in the creation-evolution controversy is really a matter of a continuation of faith vs. reason conflict or, more broadly, tradition vs. innovation. Creationists are reactionaries fighting against new ideas and innovation, following in the footsteps of luddites, the anti-Galilean Catholic Church, and generally those who seek to maintain connections to supplanted worldviews. This is why creationists find themselves in the arms of conservative politics. It is also why they can't function within the normal places in academe. They are subservient to their own worldviews and adopt a rhetoric of openness only as a dishonest guise. --ScienceApologist 21:43, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I hope you understand when I say I dearly hope your analysis doesn't end up in the article. Homestarmy 21:45, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

It might not be able to go in this article, but this would be great material for another article at least.--Filll 22:40, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Please can we stop the tired old nonsense about "conflict between science and religion". Not one single person who has seriously studied the subject believes that Galilleo or Darwin were "science vs religion" or the "warfare" model. This is in the same league as the idea that "in the middle ages they thought the earth was flat". The vast majority of "creationists" (ie those who believe in creation) fully accept the findings of science but do not believe that these contradict the truths of religion. It suits extremists on both sides to pretend it is not so. Also not even the most scientifically illiterate creationist scholar is as ignorant of science as Richard Dawkins is of theology. Of course it would be much better if people studied science and theology before making pronouncements on the relationship between them, and almost everybody who has done so recognises that there are no contradictions between them. Let's have a grown-up discussion here please. NBeale 21:58, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

It is a bit ridiculous to claim that Richard Dawkins doesn't know theology. I mean, at the very least his books reference theology whereas "scientifically illiterate creationist scholars" have a hard time even making a basic reference to scientific evidence. The thing that creationists like yourself don't like about him is that he spits the medicine that creationists (even of the most mild sort) force on the rest back in their face. Yes, Dawkins is being inflammatory when he points out that religion is a backwards belief based on superstition and willful ignorance, but this is really just responding in kind to those theologians who think that they have something to say about the scientific method or the "natural universe". The vast majority of creationists don't take the time to learn about a subject before they make their pronouncements and then get angry when a skeptic debunks their cherished ideas with handwaving arguments. --ScienceApologist 01:14, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Although I think Dawkins goes a bit far, he is far milder than many creationists I have met. And I agree in with ScienceApologist about this. I have seen incredibly bad behavior on the part of creationists, viscious cruel threats and hatred, and almost always lying and cheating and hypocrisy and complete ignorance.--Filll 01:19, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Well then filll, I guess we'll have to change your mind about those mean old un-mild creationists, eh? :D Homestarmy 04:22, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

It's not a slur on Dawkins to say that he is ignorant of theology. He says himself that the only part of theology that he has studied is the part about proofs of the existence of God (which he finds utterly wanting) and that he thinks the rest of theology is "vacuuous". You can be able to quote the Bible without having studied theology at all. I'm also not sure that it helps much to argue from "some/many creationists are ignorant and behave badly" to "creationism must be wrong". The same argument would apply to almost any idea, certainly atheism. In Wikipedia we should surely engage with the best representatives of ideas, not the worst. Remember that, at least outside the US, the overwhelming majority of creationists are not "strict" creationists and have no problem with science at all. NBeale 08:23, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that some fundamentalist extremists want to push their restricted agenda. However, these are the same nuts who believe that Jews are evil and should be killed and Catholics are not Christians. But nevertheless, they are here on Wikipedia pushing their tired old agenda. I have heard Dawkins speak and he knows his bible quite well, frankly, so that is a needless slur. And I do not deny theistic evolution; far from it. The Discovery Institute and others have made statements about how they hate Theistic Evolution and how people who believe that are following Satan and are not Christians. This makes me sick and I am very wary of those dangerous fundamentalist extremists that throw their weight around and spew anti-intellectual nonsense. --Filll 22:40, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't have time right now to give a big comment, but i've heard Dawkins too, and there's a big difference between knowing what the Bible says and what it really means. Homestarmy 23:02, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Trying to claim that Dawkins has read without understanding is basically a varaint of the No true Scotsman fallacy. The "meaning" of a collection of words is conferred by the social construct of a language. Anyone who can understand language can understand the language's meaning. --ScienceApologist 02:14, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

So then, everyone who can understand the language the Bible is written in knows what the language means, except those mean old Christian fundamentalists? You know, the kind who always say that Dawkins is taking so and so verse out of context..... Homestarmy 04:13, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I have heard Christian fundamentalists tell me what the bible means and it makes me sick; hate your neighbor, hate everyone who is different, God is a GOd of hate who hates everyone and it is all about cursing and hatred and threats and violence and war and death. So I say, if that is the God you want to worship, a God of hatred, Go ahead. But do not shove that nonsense on everyone else and throw tantrums when no one else wants to hear your viscious evil hatred.--Filll 23:10, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd be interested in knowing who these "fundamentalists" are, even the Westboro folks seem too preocuppied with Homosexuality to teach all that. Most fundamentalist groups I know about who are actually fundamentalists learn about groups like what you're describing pretty quick so we can denounce their obvious lack of comphrehension, I mean, they end up in the news alot of times. Homestarmy 04:13, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

The Westboro folks do hate Jews and Catholics. They protested here at the Holocaust memorial. What do you think "Landover baptist" is so funny? Take a look if you dont know it already. There are a very large number of crazy fundamentalists of various stripes. I think that what they are doing is unChristian, and in fact is AntiChristian. It is loathesome and unAmerican many times, and has nothing to do with loving your neighbor or your enemy. It is a doctrine of hatred and elitism and exclusion many times. It behaves like the Pharisees, and ignores the parables about the "mote in the eye" and the talents.--Filll 05:42, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Uh, Filll, Landover baptist is a parody site. I've read some of it myself, some well-constructed strawmans they've got there, I did find their article on "Evangelism in World of Warcraft" to be rather funny though, dueling to make people convert, it would never work....Anyway, Westboro may hate Jews and Catholics, but the world is not made up of Jews, Catholics, and members of the Westboro church. The hatred you describe is hatred for everyone and everything pretty much. Homestarmy 05:52, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes of course it is a parody site. Why do you think i told you to look at it, if you hadnt already? Westboro is a bit extreme, but they are unfortunately not alone. Yes of course there is hatred for everyone. That is the danger of extremist groups. What do you think I have been ranting about? --Filll 05:58, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Hold on a minute, if you think what their doing is anti-Christian but is still the definition of Fundamentalists, what fundamentals are Westboro reaching back to anyway? And what does that make people who actually do try to be as non-un-Christian as possible? Homestarmy 06:40, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

The point of going to a parody site is that it reflects back a certain element of truth. Many have suggested that Fred Phelps of Westboro is actually trying to make Christians look as stupid as possible to discredit them. I wonder if many fundamentalists are not unwittingly doing the same thing. I agree, a lot of it is not what I would call Christian.--Filll 14:23, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Just a friendly reminder; This is not usenet. It is a page where improvements to the article are discussed. Are we ready to wind-up this OT discussion yet? ^rossnixon 08:53, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Why the supernatural can not be part of science

Including the supernatural in science will destroy science. Suppose you have some math homework to do. You know the answer from the back of the book. You need 20 steps to get to the answer. You can only get the first 3 steps. Then you write "The remaining 17 steps are a miracle and I dont need to do them so there". And then you complain when the teacher gives you a bad grade for not doing your homework. Understand?

Suppose I bother to do the other 17 steps so I can go watch more of the Trinity Broadcasting Network without getting the what-for from my parents, would this destroy science too? Homestarmy 04:09, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

If you do the 17 steps and they are correct, there is no problem. If you do the 17 steps and get them wrong, you need to study harder. Or maybe math isnt your thing. If you want to jump to the end and skip all the hard steps (which is what introducing the supernatural into science does), then that is cheating essentially. Sorry.--Filll 04:21, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't call using the Bible as the basis for my beliefs about the origin of the universe to be skipping ahead, I mean I have to at least read it first before I trust it, its more like taking a different road. Maybe its a much shorter road, but it is nonetheless a road. Of course, if as you say I shouldn't skip any of the "hard steps", do tell me the scientific and mainstream non-pseudoscientific perspective on what started the universe. Ah, that's right, asking what was before the universe is like asking what is north of the north pole, guess its not a question in the scientific realm I suppose.... Homestarmy 04:24, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

If you have the answers to all questions already, there is no reason to do any science. None whatsoever. No more research. No more cures for diseases. No more technologies. It is all pointless and stupid. So fire all the professors. Empty all the corporate research labs. Fire all the government scientists. No need for defense research. No need for bullet proof vests. Let the soldiers pray to stop the bullets. They are filthy atheists if they need a bullet proof vest. Arent they real men? The dirty dogs. What are they? Not real Christians? No new weapon systems. No need to even aim. The Iraqis dont aim their weapons. They dont even look. They just pray. It is all if Allah willing the bullets will hit someone. No need to aim. After all, that shows real faith. If you have to aim, you are a dirty filthy atheist and should be court martialed and put to death, right?

And just because science is an ongoing process and not all answers are known yet, does not mean it is not worth continuing. You want to stop and go back to the Dark Ages, which is the last time that religion ruled every aspect of life? Be my guest but leave me out.--Filll 04:32, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Who said I have all the answers to all questions, As a Christian creationist, I merely believe I have the answer to but a few questions, namely the question of how the Universe got started and some ground rules about how it was set up. I dont think that alone cures diseases very well, and apparently, neither does anyone listed here: 1.

I might point out that previous extremist religious groups would have declared all doctors and nurses evil atheists and maybe even wanted to condemn them and curse them for blasphemy. And such groups still exist now. My point is that religious extremists believe all kinds of crazy horses***, and typically they disagree with each other about what they believe and they end up hating each other and wanting to kill each other, and anyone else they decide is a bad person (like jews or catholics or presbyterians or lutherans or homosexuals or liberals or muslims or hindus or buddhists etc ). It is a bit hard to take any religious fundamentalist very seriouslsy after a while. They aall are pretty disgusting hypocrites in my book (remember our good friend Haggard for a recent example. I can still remember his smug self-congratulatory proud smirk on his face talking about how wonderful and perfect and righteous he was and how awful those terrible nonbelievers/gays/other faiths etc are. Give me a break. All the same, all the same, Just different flavors of crazy.)--Filll 05:04, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

From which religion? It is a bit hard for me to take Islamic Fundamentalists at their word for example, especially nowadays, lately they've been threatening some pretty big attacks on very specific timelines, yet there's nothing. No attacks before the end of Ramadan, no Christmas presents Osama Style, no nothing. But I don't think its very fair to take every single fundamentalist type person from every single different religion and treat them as if they aren't serious simply because they believe strongly in what their taught. Homestarmy 06:56, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Well some of the spinoffs of the Millerite movement like the Christian Scientists were anti-medicine, and still are. I think they should be treated as serious in the sense that they want to kill me, or want to destroy science, or take actions that will destroy science. But I am more inclined to treat them as dangerous ranting raving drooling psychotics than as rational people. They have gone out of their way to create a certain image for themselves, in my mind.--Filll 14:35, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, without technology, how are we supposed to have televangelists? Christian forums? E-mail coordination? This is useful stuff for anybody, Christian or not.

I dont think anyone really things about this. To them it just is, and they never think about where it comes from.--Filll 05:04, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I think about it, and I got Fundamentalist on both quizfarm tests about worldviews relating to religion or Christianity :D. I know of no televangelists who hate technology anyway.... Homestarmy 06:56, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Funny you should mention war being unecessary, if I read the Old Testament right, war happened quite alot, with the people on God's side being combatants, perhaps you're thinking of another creationist religion?

You are missing the point. Maybe on purpose. Most of the fundamentalists I have met are frantic to have a death penalty, no appeals, and no trials if they could get away with it. Just summary executions. And they are frantic to go to war with the Muslim fundamentalists. Who also would love a war. Great...except for the rest of us. I used to think religions were about love and peace until I met fundamentalists, who taught me their religions were about hatred. Of just about everyone but themselves.--Filll 05:04, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't know where you live, but it sounds like a horrible place, and it doesn't sound like the Bible Belt either, i've been up into those mountains many times, and haven't heard hide nor hair of anything as preposterous as what you say Christians proclaim. You know, don't you think its possible that since your definition of Fundamentalist doesn't seem to be dependent on the various founding works of the religion in question, that there's a possibility your Fundamentalists might not be so Fundamentalists at all in the end?. Homestarmy 06:56, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I live in the US. Perhaps you just are blind to it. It is all around you I am sure. I do not know if they are fundamentalists or not in someone's definition. To me, they are not Christian, or what I was taught Christianity was. To me, they are nuts.--Filll 14:35, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Dirty dogs is also more Islamic of an insult than Christian.

I would be more explicit like I have heard many fundamenatlists, but I dont want to curse here.--Filll 05:04, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm sort of curious where you picked up your theology, I wasn't aware that every single Jew in Biblical times who took up a sword is actually burning in hell right now despite God's covenant and promise, your theology is quite unique.

Most "good" fundamentalists that I know of have very little nice to say about Jews. A lot of them claim that the fundamentalists are the Isaelites (replacement theology I think it is called; Mormons sometimes do this too I think), and that the Jews are usurpers.--Filll 14:35, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you havent really met many real, roll in the dirt, thrashing around having a tantrum, playing with poisonous snakes, screaming and cursing talking about how you hate catholics and jews and niggers type fundamentalists. Well you might need an education then.--Filll 05:04, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

No, I haven't. But while my education may be deficient in some ways, don't just pass up my suggestion to ask those "fundamentalists" about Matthew 5:44..... 06:56, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

And, of course, by unique, I mean compleatly wrong, come on man, if you honestly think I believe what you claim I should to be a Christian fundamentalist, do you think i'd be here of all places?

Lots of Hypocrites out there. And lots of people who just do not think about what is around them and the consequences of their beliefs.--Filll 05:04, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

How about me then, do I not get to be a fundamentalist because i'm not as hypocritical as the people you've been describing? And if not, what am I? Homestarmy 07:02, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I do not know, but you might not be a fundamentalist to many of them. To many of them, they might declare you not to be a Christian. You might be called an atheist even. You might have them spit in your face and curse you for being a nonbeliever. Who knows? It might be entertaining to watch however. Many different sects disagree with each other over who is in the "right" sect and has the "right" beliefs. --Filll 14:39, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Surely i'd have some church to burn down somewhere, I mean, they use electricity, that's technology! And no, actually, sciece really isn't supposed to find the answer to the question in my previous comment, why do you think Hawking even said that asking the question about what was before the universe is like asking what's north of the north pole anyway?

There are all kinds of thoughts and speculation about cosmology, but it is a teeny tiny field to be honest. And not that interesting. Who really cares, to be honest? --Filll 05:04, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, as long as it isn't pseudoscience, I presume it can be used to illustrate limitations to what science should address. Homestarmy 07:02, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

And remember, in the dark ages, it was only Catholicism specifically which ruled Europe. I would hardly call Catholic doctine to be more or less equivalent to every faith on earth. Homestarmy 04:47, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Again you miss the point. Look at the taliban for a more recent example.--Filll 05:04, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

The taliban's dark age is not equivalent to Europe's dark age at all, the Catholic church did not send people to roam the countryside murdering anyone who tried to educate women in anything for one thing. Homestarmy 07:02, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Just Muslims, Jews and Protestants.--Filll 14:35, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Lets take another example. My boss asks me to make a new electronic filter. It is very hard to make it work. I cannot figure out how to do it. So I just throw a bunch of loose electronic parts in a metal box, seal it and shake it. Then I declare to everyone "A miracle will happen to make this work". And when it doesnt, what then? Did God forsake the engineer? What about a drug company, that claims that they do not need to do drug testing because God will protect the sick taking the drug? They can save money that way too and plus they are very special and Godly, much better than that evil atheist company that actually does drug testing. Filthy whores that they are, disgusting atheist pigs, let them burn in hell, we hate them all, those dirty blasphemers!! How dare they do drug tests instead of trusting in the lord !! See how much sense your supernatural reasoning makes? --Filll 04:26, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

1. I get fired i'd think. 2. Either that, or He is not just a help desk we can call whenever we want for any request. "Lord, i'd really like a root bear right now". Yea, I don't think that's quite how it works, call me a raging liberal theologian if you think that's not fundamnetalist enough for me to deserve the title, but I just don't see the Biblical support for that idea. 3. They wouldn't be my drug company I hope. On the w.... word, it never ceases to amaze me how almost every single time I hear anyone on the internet use that word in the derogatory sense, they always use it in a general sense even when it can only apply to females.

You never heard of the whore of babylon? People out whoring? Males mainly. Male whores? --Filll 05:10, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't recall any context in the Whore of Babylon parts of revelations to support the idea that this w.... in particular is male. I maintain that despite how common culture misuses this word as a catch-all insult, its simply not being used correctly most of the time. The correct word for a male "w...." starts with a B, it used to be quite a commonly used and relatively non-vulgar term to describe certain aspects of dog breeding operations if i'm not mistaken actually. Homestarmy 05:32, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Because, you know, the w.... word only applies to females, I know some people like to throw it around however they please, but to me, using it like that more in the lazy category than the vulgar one. Also, the pig reference is far more of an Islamic insult than Christian.

As I said before, I do not want to curse. So I use pig as a pleasant deprecatory phrase. --Filll 05:10, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

While I disagree that it is entirely pleasant, I guess that's something anyway.... Homestarmy 05:32, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Hatred for enemies is also quite un-fundamentalist,

I have to introduce you to more people. I had no problems with fundamentalists until I had them spitting in my face and cursing me over and over and screaming at me and threatening me and telling me how groups X Y Z W U V etc are all evil and ^$@#$%^ and should be killed. Not very Christian as far as I am concerned. A religion of hate.--Filll 05:10, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Aw, I guess MLK was a heretic then, a shame, I rather liked the guy. I'd like to, with your permissiion, try a little experiment. The next time you meet one of these fundamentalists, don't even try to argue with them. Just walk up real close to them and say "Matthew 5:44". You don't have to read it yourself if you don't want to and I can't force you, but if I was a betting man, i'd wager these so-called fundamentalists may give a reaction you haven't seen before. I'd be quite interested in knowing what it is, I've found that people say the darndest things when they get caught hook line and sinker in hypocracy....Oh, ask them to read it aloud too if they have a Bible with them, (I wouldn't be surprised if they didn't from the sound of it) that might make them humiliate their own teachings in front of everyone else listening too, that'd be pretty great, don't you think? Homestarmy 05:32, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

blasphemy has a far more specific definition than the Catholic church has often historically used it for

I might have misused it. I wasnt careful--Filll 05:10, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

, (Besides, i'm non-denominational) and I wasn't aware somebody else with my exact username has been making hidden postings attesting to the reasoning you describe me holding in such a way that I can't detect them, can't see their contributions, and have never had anyone come to my talk page by mistake thinking their talking to this invisible Homestarmy you refer to.Homestarmy 04:38, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Science requires verifiability

The supernatural can be reasonably well defined as that which is beyond our knowledge and ability to reason about. (As our article Supernatural puts it, the supernatural is "beyond verifiable measurement.") It is not merely unknown, but unknowable by definition: this being why "it's the will of God" would be sufficient (if we believe it) to explain any unexplainable event.

But science depends on verifiable measurement. Both the experimental sciences and the observational sciences depend on it. Even physics cannot be done purely from the armchair; it must be done with reference to experiment and observation. And scientific results are confirmed or falsified by reference to further verifiable measurement.

The inaccessibility to science of the supernatural is not a matter of bias or bigotry. It isn't that scientists don't want to deal with the supernatural. It's that the techniques we call "science" require their study matter to have certain attributes that the supernatural is defined as lacking.

Asking for science to deal with the supernatural isn't like asking who's the richest guy in a commune of monks who have taken vows of poverty -- where there's a well-defined answer ("None of them!") but it's not the one you want. It's like asking how heavy the prime numbers are, or if truth is more green than beauty: asking the question reveals a misunderstanding of what the terms refer to.

This is not to say, of course, that science can't deal with claims that are naturalistic but based on a belief in the supernatural. For instance, if some religionists believe that prayer supernaturally makes a person have fewer colds, then the verifiable part of this claim -- Do people who pray have fewer colds? -- can be studied scientifically, even if the supernatural part cannot.

Likewise, if creationists claim that the Earth was created by God a few thousand years ago, and that humans and dinosaurs walked the Earth together ... science cannot test the supernatural part of this claim, but the verifiable part can be (and has been) scientifically studied. --FOo 05:58, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

criticism of creationism

I have reordered the section (without any other change) because I think the criticism of a belief system from within its own ranks takes precedence over any outside criticism. Also, within that, the Archbishop of Canterbury has precedence over George Murphy (no slight intended to Murphy). Trishm 06:06, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Cleaning up article: evolution not part of creationism.

Since this article is specifically titled creationism, there is another article on evolution, and yet another on the creation-evolution controversy, I intend to move all discussion of evolution to the controversy page, where it is more properly placed. Any objections? Trishm 06:31, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

The discussion has rapidly changed into one which involves far more topics it seems. Homestarmy 06:57, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not at all sure whether this is a good idea I'm afraid. Can we think about it for a day or two, and see what other editors think? NBeale 08:25, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Sure, that's the idea. I should mention what got me on this tack. It's the line in the overview:

Creationists take the position that neither theory is verifiable in the scientific sense, and that the scientific evidence conforms more closely to the creation model of origins than it does to the evolutionary model. [9]

It just seems that it would be better placed elsewhere.

Trishm 12:06, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

However, leaving out the strong controversy might cause Undue weight. It'd have to be trimmed carefully.Adam Cuerden ^talk 23:56, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Could you elaborate, please? I can see that it would be undue weight if evolution were discussed here. I feel the lines are an attack on evolution, in a forum where the balancing view is not appropriate. Trishm 01:19, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Which lines are we talking about, exactly? May well be misunderstanding you. Adam Cuerden ^talk 03:24, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

It's in the second paragraph in the overview:

Creationists take the position that neither theory is verifiable in the scientific sense, and that the scientific evidence conforms more closely to the creation model of origins than it does to the evolutionary model. [9]

I have actually changed "creationists" to Gish, which is more specific, since the reference is a link to Gish's website, comparing the merits of creationsim and evolution. If I were to choose a single article to put this argument in, it would be the [creation-evolution controversy], not creationism.

My concern is actually a structural one. This article is about creationism, and should stick to the topic. After the definition and explanation, the impact of creationism is also appropriate to the article. i.e. the push to get it taught in schools, whether it should be taught at all, what class it should be taught in. The conflict arises from the attempt to classify creationism as science. Once we get into the discussion of the relative merits of creationism and evolution, we have crossed the boundary between the two topics. I think there should be a link to creation-evolution controversy, and the discussion should continue there, rather than be repeated as nauseum, with varying quality, across the myriad of articles touching on any of the topics involved. The duplication is unmanageable, and actually obscures the issues on both sides. Trishm 11:16, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

In the effort to clarify the discussions in the article, I have been looking at the wikipedia guidelines. Quite apart from the structural issues, I also have concerns about whether the citation is appropriate under the the reliability sources guidelines. If it were a personal or organizational opinion, then of course the citation would be allowable. However, it is presenting itself as a scholarly science article, making makes controversial scientific assertions. The views however, are totally unsupported by the scholarly science community. Hence, it does not meet any of the criteria of reliability of sources when dealing with scholarly articles, which require that the claims made be supported by scholarly consensus in the appropriate field. Here is the reference:

Does anybody have anything that does meet the guidelines that would support the claim that evolution is not supported in a scientific sense? Trishm 01:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

A quick search found this, but there's bound to be a better one: http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/v3i6f.htm ^rossnixon 07:49, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

This one is quite good http://www.samizdat.qc.ca/cosmos/origines/myth.htm ^rossnixon 08:57, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Here's a handy link: Is Evolution Science, and What Does 'Science' Mean? ... dave souza, talk 09:17, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

So, time to pick the best so far...

Thanks for those two links, Ross. I agree with you, that there is probably a more persuasive one than the first. There is little detail, and it reads like a straw man argument.

The samizdat article is much more persuasive, except that it blows itself out of contention in the conclusion:

"It is well-known that social Darwinism was the main basis for Hitler's notion of the superiority of the Aryan race which served to justify the massacre of six million Jews. Would we dare again place power in the hands of someone who really believes in the theory of evolution?"

It is hard to argue that nationalism, racism and pogroms started with Darwin, or even Hitler. As for anti-semitism, Christianity is not entirely blameless. [8]. The line about where power can be placed can all too easily be turned against Christians, and hence I would be reluctant to use that source as an example of the Creationist view.

Dave, thanks for the link. It is a very nice piece on the criteria used to distinguish science from non-science, but quite heavy. Its central theme is that just as scientific theories change over time as new evidence crops up or new understandings emerge, so even the concept of what science is changes over time. In its conclusion, it endorses evolution as a science.

The best so far, then, on the Creationist side is this one:http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/v3i6f.htm And this for the rebuttal:Is Evolution Science, and What Does 'Science' Mean?

Any others out there?

Trishm 00:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Christian and Scientific Critiques both need re-writing

I'm afraid the Christian and Scientific Critiques both need re-writing. The former gives excessive emphasis to one article by a non-notable commentator. The latter is largely un-sourced soap-box, and contains some sweeping statements that are un-necessary and incorrect. Not sure quite how to proceed, thoughts/attempts welcomed.NBeale 08:50, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Your first objection seems to be based on a belief that sources in Wikipedia articles have to be notable. This is not found in Wikipedia policy or practice; rather, most well-sourced articles use sources which are not by themselves notable but speak about a notable topic. Sources have to be verifiable and reliable -- not notable.

Your second objection is well-founded. We have much better coverage of the scientific evidence against "creation science" in other articles already. --FOo 21:58, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

My own sense is that the science critique in this article should say simply that Creationism is not science. (well-cited of course), and point to the creation-evolution controversy. Further than that, science has nothing to say about creationism as such, since we are talking about religious belief. Since the article is flagged as being too big, what do other people think? By the way, I support NBeale in that the religious critique is unbalanced: a few lines of summary for the A of C, several paragraphs for George Murphy. Trishm 23:58, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

If the article is too long, these could be spun out to another article, and short summaries retained here with links. They do need a lot more references. And there is a lot more that could be put in Christian and/or religious criticisms. After all, there are other religions besides christianity! I do not feel that the history of creationism and science is explored very well. And the critique is pretty attenuated, frankly.--Filll 01:06, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

conservative - semantics

In the context of religion, the label "conservative" is used, particularly in the US, to describe a particular way of viewing religion, tending toward a literal interpretation of the bible.

Elsewhere, "conservative" in the context of religion would mean belonging to a long-standing religious organisation, most likely Eastern Orthodox, RC or Anglican, with an emphasis on tradition.

To avoid confusion, I have replaced the term "conservative" with "literal".Trishm 11:29, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

abiogenesis

In the intro as part of the definition of a Creationist, was the phrase "They do not accept abiogenesis ..."

Abiogenesis, as I understand it, is the current understanding of the physical processes by which life may possibly have originated. It is not so well established that not accepting it should be notable in any group, so I have removed it. It did not have the weight to belong in the group of far more established science topics such as evolution, age of the earth and formation of the solar system.Trishm 21:41, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Second paragraph reference

"Various forms of creation are found; principally in religions of the Abrahamic faiths such as Christianity, and in some Dharmic faiths such as Hinduism, although such beliefs can be found in many other theistic religions. [Citation needed]." I seem to remember Joseph Campbell's Power of Myth discussed creation myths,stories,etc in various cultures in Power of Myth. That may suffice.GetAgrippa 04:59, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, GetAgrippa, I just took the paragraph out, just before I read this. The reason I did that was that, even with a citation, it simply has no connection to the rest of the article. I only fully realised this when I started to add something about beliefs about creation in all world cultures, including Native Americans, Bushmmen and Australian Aborigines. It was then blindingly obvious, even to me, that the article has nothing to do with the general creation outside Christianity (even Judaism is given short shrift), and the paragraph was leading the reader to assume that the article was more general than it is.

I suspect that the way forward for other cultures is to write other connected articles, where full weight can be given to the different beliefs and traditions. Let this article stand as it is, about Creationism as understood by Christians who take a literal view of Genesis.

Trishm 10:16, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

While I agree in principle with Trishm's removal of the paragraph, Creationism is also used to refer to similar literal sects of other Abrahamic faiths, thus Jewish creationism and Islamic creationism which should also be covered by this article. I've not seen references using the term to Dharmic faiths such as Hinduism, so citations would be needed for that. .. dave souza, talk 10:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Good point. I agree that the title "Creationism" should cover at least the Abrahamic faiths, and possibly others. But when I look at where the additions would go in the article that exists, it would need to be just under the definition, before the main text, which is, as far as I can tell, exclusively Christian.

That indicates to me that what we have is "Christian Creationism" masquerading as a general "Creationism" article. Any thoughts on how to resolve this? Do we use disambiguation? Do we change the title? Do we put in a paragraph under the definition to link to the other articles (like what I removed, only more explicit in its function)?

Trishm 11:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I have made some small investigation of this issue, and I am still nowhere near complete. However, there is definitely

• Islamic creationism
• Jewish creationism
• Hindu creationism (which I just wrote, and also is clearly a source of some heated controversies, including in schools: take a look at Californian Hindu textbook controversy or some of the references to Hindu creationism- it is pretty heated and you do not have to go very far before you find people wanting to kill each other over this flavor of creationism)

These are all essentially movements to reject evolution and replace it aggressively with some fundamentalist interpretation of Genesis, or the Vedas or the Koran. There might very well be Jainist or Sikh or Buddhist etc creationist movements as well; I have not investigated those. On the other hand, if you want to investigate creation STORIES and not aggressive creationist MOVEMENTS, then look at Origin belief and at Creation within belief systems. There might be more relevant articles, but that is at least how I see it.--Filll 17:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

It has been years since I read Campbell's Power of Myth but I recollect that creation stories-myths are a by product of almost all cultures-Abrahamic religions, African cultures, American indians, Hindus, Asian,etc. Creationism has become associated with Christianity yet it seems a human culture phenomena. The origins and significance of creation stories in human history seems a worthy topic. I recollect certain themes were almost universal so seems fertile ground for examining the belief in the belief. Commonalities of creation stories, purpose of creation stories, influence of creation stories, etc. GetAgrippa 05:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

"teach religion" versus "providing religious instruction"

I hope this isn't covered elsewhere, or archived already. I'm not a regular on this board, I just had a thought when I read this article. Here [[9]] it says "In the US, it is not permitted to teach religion in public schools". Now I know how contentious this kind of topic is, but on semantic grounds I have trouble with this. Theology/philosophy classes and discussions of any religion and/or religion in general are not prohibited by law. In that light, it might be more clear to change the phrase to something along the lines of it is prohibited to give religious instruction, or teach that one religion is correct, or something like that. Thoughts? Invidus 18:36, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

There are no prohibitions on teaching religion. The prohibition is on officially propagating a religion. Students, of course are free to do the latter (freedom of religion is guaranteed by the Bill of Rights), athough some schools have tried to squelch it. Pollinator 21:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

And my understanding is that it is illegal to require the teaching of creationism as science in a school system, but teachers are free to voluntarily teach creationism in science classes. At least that is my understanding; maybe someone else will have more information.--Filll 23:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

It is only semantics. As the original author of that bit, my intention was to point out that in Australia, where you have religious instruction in public schools, the "ID in the science classroom" debate was very short-lived. "Provide religious instruction" would remove the ambiguity. Trishm 22:35, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the thoughts. I'll make the change to "provide religious instruction."Invidus 23:02, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Rough draft of article on creationist organization

Please look at it and give me your comments: User talk:Filll/AllAboutGod--Filll 02:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

NPOV?

Click to see why I believe this article does not respect WP:NPOV

Sincerely, Ceid 08:38, 19 January 2007 (UTC)ceid Ceid 08:38, 19 January 2007 (UTC)January 19, 2007

Hello Ceid,

A point to consider:

1. America is not the world. Athough new churches such as the southern baptists you mention are relatively popular in the US, they are neither by their numbers nor by their age "major" churches. The major religions all more or less accept evolution (John Paul II's assertion being the most media-friendly example).

As for the rest, I suggest you read in detail Creation-evolution controversy. It's a bit long, but then again, so is the debate. yandman 09:26, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Ceid, I read your letter, well as much as you read the whole article. In other words, I stopped after the 10th paragraph or so. The reason? Because this has all been said before, and thoroughly debunked. First, 84% of Americans believe in Creationism? Wow, that just means your country will fall further behind the rest of the world in Science. Most, no just about every single scientist in the world believes in the FACT of Evolution. Oh, I could go on. Science doesn't work in polls. Most Jewish and Christian sects ascribe to the facts of evolution. And that about ends it. This article, Creationism, is about as NPOV as you can get considering the fact that Creationism is a myth. Orangemarlin 07:38, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I re-read this letter, and what makes me laugh is that if you change some of the wording, it would be the letter a lot of editors would claim about Wikipedia--that it is an American Christian POV encyclopedia. Orangemarlin 18:14, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

It's a long post you gave, so I'll only answer a few points.

• Why one is a "theory" and one a "belief". Evolution is a theory because it is constantly peer-reviewed. It is open to change or even rejection at any time if contradictory evidence emerges. In fact, it is supported by observed evidence for "micro-evolution". While "macro-evolution cannot be observed directly, indirect evidence suggests it is likely to be true for larger scales. Creationism is a belief because it is based on mainly theological arguments and religious doctrine. It is not testable in any meaningful sense. One could just as easily say that there is no such thing as magnetism, because the Flying Spaghetti Monster simply uses his noodley appendages to do it instead. From a scientific perspective both that and creationism would not be considered a scientific theory. That's not to say it isn't necisarrily true, just that it isn't a scientific theory.
• About "mainstream churches". Roman Catholicism has 1,090 million members, Anglican has 73 million, Lutheran has 70 million. Baptist churches (total) also have 70 million members. That paragraph needs more balance, but not too much, as Catholicism alone is about half of all Christians. See the list of Christian denominations by number of members.

Without having read this, I came to the same conclusion as Ceid. As I result, I have made adjustments that seek to address the issue. NigelCunningham 06:14, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

• With the American level of support for creationism, why not add the Scientific American statistic, with reference, to the Prevalence of creationism section?
• You asked for references to "In fact, both Jews and Christians have been considering the idea of the creation history as an allegory (instead of an historical description) long before the development of Darwin's theory of evolution." The next sentence is "Two notable examples are..."
• For the contradictions in Genesis, I do not think the link you gave actually answers any of the criticisms laid down by the referenced articles.
• "They seek to ensure that what is taught in science classes in schools is compatible with what they believe" - true. I've reworded that.
• Some scientists oppose evolution. True enough, but there are many, many, many more that reject it.

I'm not going to wade through all your points. Feel free to improve the article, remembering that you need to write from a neutral point of view also. --h2g2bob 21:56, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Special Creationism

Why do we not define it in this article?--Filll 01:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, it doesn't exist, that's why we havent defined it there :). Homestarmy 01:33, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Very funny. Of course it exists. It is throughout the literature, both creationist and anti-creationist.--Filll 01:41, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I've often wondered this myself. However, a year and a half ago when I thought to try to write such an article, I found to my surprise that there weren't any good (that is to say, reliable) sources that define and analyze special creationism as a subset of creationism (specifically the subset that defies scientific consensus). I think the idea has merit as a way of teasing out the anti-science creationists from the fideists, spiritualists, symbolists, etc. who accept creation theology but reject an anti-science stance based on their belief. --ScienceApologist 02:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. I hear the term all the time, and to be honest, I have no clear idea what it means. So I thought, since this is an encyclopedia, WE should have a definition.--Filll 02:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I know the term is used a lot. Interestingly, it isn't verifiably defined or analyzed in a way that we can use as a source for writing an article on the subject. At least, that's what I've found, but if you can dig up something it might be a major coup-de-grace. --ScienceApologist 02:25, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Before we try to destroy each other....

Does anyone even know if the reference given, a book titled "Abusing Science: The Case Against Creationism" even claims that flood geologists are the most common creationists associated with Biblical creationism? Because if there's no way to know if the reference given supports the sentence, it seems to me whether Ross is trying to "purify" creationism (whatever that means) or not, the weird flood geologist thing shouldn't be in the article. Homestarmy 01:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Let me explain "purify" at least with respect to Flood Geology. This article is all about Creationism, and although it appears that creationist thought runs the gamut from OEC, who more or less reconcile science and evolution with a creator all the way to YEC who take Genesis literally, and one editor cannot decide which portion of that range of ideas to present. So if you or another editor happens to think that Flood Geology is just too much to stomach for a good Creationist to believe in, well, I'm not sure that works. So when I said "purify", I meant that RossNixon was trying to make the article more palatable (thought I don't know for sure, since I never understand his edits). Orangemarlin 07:33, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I have also run across instances where some creationist will try to maintain that creationists have no problem with common descent or microevolution or macroevolution or natural selection or speciation. But then, I have to ask them, what is it about evolution that they do not like? And they usually are unable to tell me. Even William Jennings Bryan, the Scopes Monkey Trial prosecutor and great evangelist dismissed all of genesis and accepted evolution except for the Adam and Eve account. I was reading earlier that even at some evangelical colleges they sometimes have faculty who are teaching biology that really believe in the tenets of evolution and teach it; however, when the board of directors asks, it is much simpler and easier to tell them not to worry-every single faculty member is a creationist! Because it is much more politically correct in some circles to say "creationist" than "evolution supporter", because of the negative connotations associated with the word "evolution".--Filll 13:05, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Whoooah there, I wasn't asking about political correctness, i'm just wondering about the actual fact at hand, namely, the thing about the particular creationists in the sentence at hand generally being assocated with flood geologists or whatever. And, as i've said in a way, it doesn't really matter whether Ross is trying to make creationism more palatable or not, that's not an excuse to leave something in an article and claim its referenced if nobody can show that the reference given actually references the fact. I don't know if the reference given cites the thing being argued over or not, which is why i've asked. Homestarmy 14:19, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

All I am trying to point out is that the term "creationism" covers an extremely wide set of beliefs.--Filll 14:41, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Then why does the sentence in question suppose that, in this one case, it mostly applies to flood geologists? It seems like a sort of weird assertion honestly, i've never heard it before. I mean, I know there's creationists who are flood geologists because i've watched their shows, but most YEC types being flood geologists....? Homestarmy 17:01, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the wording is funny and frankly I do not understand the sentence. It should probably be rewritten.--Filll 17:21, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) I suppose that since creationism usually has an extremely literal reading of the Bible at its core, it's to be expected that most creationists would support some flavour of flood geology. Perhaps they'd focus on other aspects of creationist earth history, and only be "flood geologists" in the same way that an oceanographer might be a "quantum physicist" (i.e. would support its propositions without necessarily being au fait with the topic). But it would seem odd to me were creationists to insist on a literal reading of one part of the Bible, but be more laissez faire on another part ("Sure, Eve was created from one of Adam's ribs, but a global flood? Are you out of your mind?"). That said, I suppose that creationists like Hugh Ross and other Old Earth creationists are trying to do exactly this; so I guess I'm not being imaginative enough. Anyway, enough rambling. --Plumbago 17:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, as ridiculous as it sounds, this is what they do. And in fact, every single biblical literalist does the same thing, since the bible is contradictory and full of errors etc. They will claim they follow it exactly to the letter, but that is BS. And that is why creationists fight with each other; they cannot agree what is appropriate and what the bible really says.--Filll 17:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

This is what drives me completely batty about Creationism. At least Evolution is a consistent fact with only very subtle differences from scientist to scientist, and that's only as new theories arise. Just about every "creationist" has a different description of what they believe. Take the Noah's Ark myth. We've got some editors arguing that "kinds" mean genera, when that means they're not taking Genesis literally, they are "translating" it to fit their story better. Frustrating. Anyways, for this article to be truly NPOV, all creationist myths have to be exhibited. Orangemarlin 18:13, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

(to Plumbago) While true that most creationists who read the Bible literally probably do support flood geology, I don't know how that makes them actually be flood geologists, I know i'm not one and the only ones I know of are the ones I see on television :/. I mean, if the source given actually does suppose most of us are somehow all flood geologists, then maybe some attribution is in order, (I mean, the title looks like its a pretty biased source) but otherwise....Homestarmy 18:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreeing with Homestarmy, I also am not a geologist, but I am a creationist. I am sure that Orangemarlin did not mean to say that I equate to (am equal to) a geologist! ^rossnixon 00:28, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps its some hidden talent we all have inside of us. Maybe if we concentrate reeeeal hard, the powers of flood geologists everywhere will flow through us! Concentrate......feel the force of flood geology flow through your veins Ross....but beware the dark side of the flood, approximently 1,000 feet below sea level. Nobody wants the dark side of flood geology i'd hope. Hard to breath and whatnot. Homestarmy 00:36, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Agree entirely. We may talk about "flood geology" but it is unfair on professional geologists to call it's proponents "geologists". --Michael Johnson 00:37, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

<reduce indent> The flood seems to be a defining issue for YECs, in that Eugenie Scott's The Creation/Evolution Continuum of 2000 defines YEC as "usually reserved for the followers of Henry Morris, founder... of the Institute for Creation Research (ICR), and arguably the most influential creationist of the late 20th century.... Henry Morris defined antievolutionism in its modern form. In 1961, he and John C Whitcomb published The Genesis Flood, a seminal work that claimed to provide the scientific rationale for Young Earth Creationism.. [it] was the first significant 20th century effort to present a scientific rationale for special creationism. "Creation Science" was fleshed out by subsequent books and pamphlets by Morris and those inspired by him. The Institute for Creation Research (ICR) remains the flagship creationist institution to which all other YEC organizations look." There's an interesting precedent at catastrophism#Cuvier and the natural theologians section which cites Rudwick for the claim that Cuvier set out a local flood scenario, but William Buckland and Robert Jameson modified the idea to match the bible. .. dave souza, talk 15:31, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Organizations from the early rise of the modern YEC movement are one thing, but Young Earth creationists as a whole is quite another thing. I've never even heard of Henry Morris, while what you've got here certainly supports that most YEC organizations are seen as more or less big on flood geology, it doesn't say anything about the perceptions of Young Earth creationists as a whole, (Or the more vauge category of Biblical creationists for that matter) who certainly existed before these organizations did anyway. Homestarmy 18:30, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Widely reported Newsweek article

While updating the citations and references on the Creation-evolution_controversy, I came accross this:

“ As reported in Newsweek magazine, 29 June 1987, Page 23: "By one count there are some 700 scientists with respectable academic credentials (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) who give credence to creation-science..." ”

This is widely quoted, but as far as I can tell, only in the context of evolution/creationism tensions. Worse, nobody that I can find has a good reference (e.g., article title, author, etc.) Could somebody please verify that this is the correct Newsweek issue, and provide details necessary for a proper citation (e.g., author, article title, issue, volume, etc.) Without this, we have no way of knowing if this was a letter to an editor, or something Newsweek will stand behind. Considering the high tensions in this subject, we don't even know if the quote was there. Providing other information usually associated with a quotation from a weekly news magazine will make the quote more believable. As it is now, it could just be an original mis-characterization of the article widely repeated.

So if you have access to a large library that has this stuff archived somehow, could you please provide details. (Or maybe you even have the issue in question). You can either update the reference, or provide the information here, and I will do it for you. Thanks

NOTE: I originally posted this here. I have been uable to get to a large library, and am posting the issue on this article's talk page because the reference is also cited here. StudyAndBeWise 04:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi StudyAndBeWise. I'm afraid this sounds like one of those lists that creationists often crank out to bolster their scientifically-bankrupt credentials. It would only be significant if said 700 scientists had actually published material supporting their faith-based ideas in peer-reviewed scientific journals, and I can assure you that they haven't. It's really not worth your time tracking down the Newsweek source; it counts for next to nothing when stood next to the bald fact that creationism has no presence in the scientific literature. You might like to have a look at the related article Project Steve. Cheers, --Plumbago 09:04, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry StudyAndBeWise. I've been shooting from the hip again, and managed to completely misunderstand your post. Anyway, I don't think there's any reason to doubt that 700 scientists (0.15%) backed some sort of creationism-friendly statement (especially in 1987, when "scientific creationism" was all the rage). But while it wouldn't be a bad thing to track down the source, I think it would be a waste of time. Unless these scientists have published anything to back up their beliefs, it has no significance beyond the simple fact that some scientists are creationists in their private lives. Anyway, sorry about before. Cheers, --Plumbago 09:13, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

As reported in Newsweek magazine, 29 June 1987, Page 23: "By one count there are some 700 scientists with respectable academic credentials (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) who give credence to creation-science...".(Keeping God out of the Classroom, Larry Martz, and Ann McDaniel, Newsweek, June 29, 1987, p. 23-24). I am waiting for the library to send me a copy of the article from their archives. I have it on order at the moment. I have not yet been able to find the article online.--Filll 14:51, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I think our readers would be interested in the proportions of people in general - as well as "scientists with respectable academic credentials" who believe is the various aspects of creationism. For me, anyway, one of the biggest differences is between those who reject the fossil record ("God created the fossils 6,000 years ago") versus those who accept it ("Dinosaurs lived over 80 million years ago").

This distinction is often left unclarified. Perhaps this is one of the reasons that User:Schlafly and others get so excited about labelling ID or its supporters as "Creationists". They may feel they are being lumped in with "geology-deniers", while feeling that they are merely disagreeing with the interpretation of what geology tells us.

Would anyone like to help me create a table which clarifies this? If so, jump in at User:Ed Poor/creationism table. Thanks. --Uncle Ed 15:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

If you can find data for each of the probably 50 or more creationist views, then that would be interesting. It sounds very difficult to me. I have some statistics at level of support for evolution.--Filll 15:26, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't thinking of anything that comprehensive. For a start, I'd be happy to classify the top 90 to 95 percent. Like, are most Americans Young-earthers? Last statistics I saw broke it down as 45% Young Earth, 40% Old Earth, 15% Evolution (i.e., not guided by God). That seemed to cover all but about 2% if I recall the Pew Center poll correctly. --Uncle Ed 15:36, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that is semi correct, but you are not including all the types of Young earth and old earth and evolution. It is far more complicated than that. For example, where is theistic evolution? Remember, theistic evolution is the biggest category in the US, among the public and among scientists. Some of those YEC and OEC believe in biblical literalism, and some do not.--Filll 16:14, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Reply below. --Uncle Ed 16:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

NPoV ??

In this article or any religous related article, reaching a NPoV is extremely difficult. A religous related article is going to be made up of religious PoV's. This is an atheists PoV by the way. GoodDay 21:35, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Believe it or not, it is possible, but it takes work. For example, the article only uses verifiable sources. So, Evolution is a fact. A supernatural being controlling evolution is faith, and cannot be verified. That's why Creationism and all of its kindred spirits (like Intelligent Design and Creation Science) are considered pseudoscience, meaning you cannot utilize true scientific methods that can be published in a verified peer-reviewed journal. Of course, the Christians believe these articles are POV, but I think it is presented as NPOV as you can. Don't even bother to read the abortion article. I have no clue how that was written. Hockey is infinitely more fun. Orangemarlin 21:48, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, agreed. GoodDay 21:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Evolution is fact. Creationism is pseudoscience. You think this is NPOV???— Preceding unsigned comment added by Eldrebreath (talk • contribs)

Well yes actually :)Abtract 09:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I seriously doubt the person who posted that comment meant the kind of evolution that's been experimentally proven. Homestarmy 14:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

i do not belive in evolution —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.204.25.3 (talk • contribs).

This conversation is getting a bit inane, and someone attempted to revert part of it for some silly reason. However the person above should sign their posts. Orangemarlin 18:45, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't say "silly". The above comment ("i do not belive [sic] in evolution") has no relevance to improving the article in question, therefore removing it is not that unreasonable. yandman 18:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I do not believe one should ever delete anything from a talk page of any article. Unless, you find something in something YOU posted isn't clear, so you fix the grammar or something. Even if the garbage posted above makes no sense. I don't know how to add signatures, but it is clear who posted it. Orangemarlin 19:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

As a side note, sometimes it's a real pain in the NPOV of my rear-end to do things on Wikipedia. It was not easy adding these things to unsigned comments. Orangemarlin 19:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Get the name from the history, and use {{unsigned|username}}. yandman 19:49, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Prevalence of creationism (topic order?)

In the Prevalence of creationism (7.0) heading, wouldn't it be more logical to have:

The western world outside the United States heading before the United States heading - as the US is a subset of the western world.

In fact why is western world even defined with reference to the United States?

I know creationism is a topic which is hottest in the US, but isn't that like writing an article about London with all references comparing London to the US e.g. "Big Ben is nice, it looks a little like the Washington Monument but is sort of square all they way up, brownish and has a clock in it" - Wikipedia is en.wikipedia and not us.wikipedia. -- Quantockgoblin 13:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

"Guided" evolution

Responding to Filll's question above:

...you are not including all the types of Young earth and old earth and evolution. It is far more complicated than that. For example, where is theistic evolution?

First off, I think there is already some confusion over what belief in "theistic evolution" refers to. It seems to mean any of:

1. Evolution is true, and it's the "hands-off" way God brought all present species into being
2. Evolution is true, but God intervened in each case or in major cases to create new species
3. Evolution is not true, so God had to create each new species directly

This is not covered well in the Theistic evolution article. Cases one and two are blurred together, I think.

This leads to the situation I've illustrated at Talk:Guided evolution, where the two "camps" wind up talking at cross purposes, because each uses a different definition of the sides in the debate. Creationists appear to be claiming everything but "unguided evolution"; evolutionists appear to claiming everything but "Young-Earth creationism".

It's a mess, and all the sniping and ruffled feathers isn't helping. Let's try to work together on this. --Uncle Ed 16:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. Well I think that is a nice chart/table. I think it is more complicated however. For example, I have encountered some young earth believers that believe in at least some parts if not most parts of evolution. Some people believe that the rules that the universe operates under (and result in evolution) are the product of a divine design, and classify those people who subscribe to that as creationists. Some creationists believe in biblical literalism and some do not. Some creationists disagree with the biblical interpretations of other creationists. The only thing that is very well defined in this entire mess is the "modern synthesis" evolution theory. However, even this becomes more complicated because there are assorted other evolution hypotheses that have not yet been tested, or accepted, or other evolution hypotheses that have been tested and found wanting.--Filll 17:09, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Supporters of evolution look at it like this, I think:

Evolution		"Creationism"
Evolution	Theistic evolution	Young-Earth creationism

Old-Earth creationism would then fit in with the middle category, but the place of neo-Creationsm (including ID) is a problem. When evolution supporters call ID supporters "Creationists", do they mean to lump them in with fossil record-denying Young-Earthers? (I hope not, but the way some design advocates take offense, I guess THEY feel a bit lumped.)

The public relations upshot is that the supporters of evolution say that most people "believe in evolution", including the middle ground of theistic evolution.

But opponents of evolution look at it another way:

"Evolution"	Creationism
Unguided evolution	Old-Earth creationism	Young-Earth creationism

The public relations upshot of this alternative view is that the supporters of Creationsm say that most people "don't believe in evolution". They want to claim the middle ground, too.

It looks to me like a fight over the middle ground, with some on both sides exploiting ambiguous terminology. I'd sure like to see the ambiguity cleared up. Then there'd be a lot less fighting at Wikipedia. Whether that will affect the "real world", I haven't the faintest idea. :-)

(Due to an edit conflict, I cannot respond yet to Some people believe that the rules that the universe operates under (and result in evolution) are the product of a divine design, and classify those people who subscribe to that as creationists. Please bear with me.) --Uncle Ed 17:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Ed, the term theistic evolution along with the other "types" comes from Eugenie Scott's The Creation/Evolution Continuum of 2000, with the minor modification that what she calls Evolutionary Creationism is merged into it as the only difference is theological, and not very clear. You'll note that this merged type is clearly distinguished from nonreligious Materialist Evolutionism which would appear to relate to your Unguided evolution, and in the other direction from Old-Earth creationism. If you have a look at her definitions that should help clear up ambiguity: to cite her, "The Creation/Evolution Continuum, like most continua, has few sharp boundaries. There is a sharp division between YEC and OEC, but less clear cut separation between the various OEC persuasions. Even though OECs accept most of modern physics, chemistry, and geology, they are not very dissimilar to YECs in their rejection of descent with modification." and of theistic evolutionists, they "vary in whether and how much God is allowed to intervene -- some come pretty close to Deists. Other TEs see God as intervening at critical intervals during the history of life (especially in the origin of humans), and they in turn come closer to progressive creationism. In one form or another, TE is the view of creation taught at mainline Protestant seminaries, and it is the official position of the Catholic church." Hope that shows you the "evolutionist" viewpoint cited by the NSCE and TalkOrigins Archive. .. dave souza, talk 18:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Ed, I think this is an interesting proposal. However, I've observed that there is actually a range of ideas that go from unguided evolution all the way YEC, and there seems to be subtle differences. It's almost like a range of species!!! Orangemarlin 19:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually they go even farther than the vanilla YEC to the modern geocentrism and the flat earth society. There are also strange variants like the Adamites who believe there were two creations (corresponding to the two creations in the bible), sometimes with billions of years between the two creations. And then some who believe that common descent, neoDarwinism etc applies to all animals except for humans. Then there are other strange syncretic versions that combine creationism with UFO visitation, or theosophy and spiritualism or witchcraft and astrology. On the other end, there are people who call themselves creationists who claim they are biblical literalists but who nonetheless agree with microevolution, macroevolution, speciation and common descent. It all gets to be a bit much. However, I do think Ed has made a good observation, and it might be interesting to make an article on taxonomy of creationism.--Filll 19:41, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, what Dave just said!!!! Orangemarlin 19:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Ed, this edit to theistic evolution confused the intro, so I'll try to edit that to bring it nearer to Scott's definition... dave souza, talk 19:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

"interpretation" can't make anything consistent that isn't already consistent

"This literal interpretation requires the harmonisation of the two creation stories, Genesis 1:1-2:3 and Genesis 2:4-25, which require interpretation to be consistent [6][7]. " Is the word "interpretation" here a euphemism for "fudging" or otherwise manipulating the meaning of the text? This is not the definition of the word "interpretation" and perhaps is POV. Would anyone have a problem changing it to: "Adherers of this literal interpretation claim the two creation stories, Genesis 1:1-2:3 and Genesis 2:4-25, are in harmony and consistent [6][7]." --PSzalapski 20:15, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Sounds very reasonable to me to make that change. However, they DO interpret them as not being inconsistent. Perhaps you have never discussed this issued with them? Many of them even deny the 2nd account exists. Many of them claim it is a summary or restatement of the first account. Many of them claim that all evidence to the contrary, the two accounts are identical. Some claim the two accounts correspond to two separate creations. And many other variations.--Filll 01:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I own up to writing that passage, in which the word interpretation is used slightly ambiguously. What I was trying to say is that it is impossible to believe the two accounts of Genesis are both true word for word as written. It requires a non-literal interpretation to make the two passages consistent. There is nothing wrong with this, most Christians interpret these passages allegorically anyway. The point is that what is called a literal interpretation of the Bible isn't really. The citations at the end are to a Christian site which more or less fudges it, demonstrating that you need more than what is written in Genesis to reconcile the two accounts, and a skeptics site which lays the passages side by side, to clearly demonstrate that there are inconsistencies.Trishm 11:37, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I should say that the accounts are consistent if you read the subtext: God created the earth, and everything in it. No one else, no other god, those idols that the other tribes worship are not gods, they are part of God's creation. The accounts are inconsistent only if you read them as a history text.Trishm 11:41, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

questions from new person

Hey everyone, I'm pretty new here. I just saw some news story on creationism in the US and had some questions. What happens to kids of people who teach creationism when they go to college and take biology class? I would imagine a scene where the students who went to normal public school in progressive cities start laughing when people start telling a professor s/he is all wrong when s/he starts talking about evolution. Do people who raise their kids as creationists even allow them to go to accredited universitites? I'm not trying to judge or make fun, I'm just curious. I grew up near big cities and if anyone ever started saying some of the things that creationists often seem to say, they'd be laughed out of school by all the other kids. Please inform me about how this works. GingerGin 05:22, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think college kids would laugh exactly. Almost every research oriented or secular university in the US teaches evolution as the primary foundation of biology. I guess someone could go to a university with creationism as their high-school educational background, and learn about evolution. They could reject it, but still pass the biology course, or maybe actually understand evolutionary biology. It would be impossible to go on in biology either at a graduate school level or medical school without the evolutionary science knowledge and understanding. If you have a child who has been home-schooled in Creationism, then I'd suggest a couple of things: your child could go to a religious university or avoid taking biology courses (sad for a liberal arts education, but it's an alternative). Orangemarlin 05:38, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I do believe Ken Ham did what Orange suggests with learning about Evolution and passing his biology courses despite being a Creationist, though he doesn't seem to of turned out worse for the wear from it. Homestarmy 15:15, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Ken Ham is Australian, and did his applied science degree in Environmental Biology in Queensland. I'm not sure when he became a fundamentalist, because they were pretty thin on the ground at that time in Australia. I know that when I saw him in the early-eighties, fundamentalism was pretty radical. He was the only one I saw trying to recruit that didn't have a US accent.Trishm 01:18, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Will they be allowed in college at all? There’s a court case right now over this very situation. Some students from Christian schools are being denied entrance to state-run universities in California. [10] ^rossnixon 00:42, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Surely the answer is that someone with creationist religious belief has three options - (1) do not study life sciences (2) answer the questions correctly and pass (3) answer the questions according to their beliefs and fail. As for other students "laughing" at them, I doubt it. Universities are known for the diversity of views that are expressed within them. --Michael Johnson 02:10, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

This does not bode well.... Homestarmy 00:44, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Let's not go too far here. The University of California, a very competitive university system, has the absolute right to determine what are the core courses required by all high school students entering the system. If the core courses include science, then so be it. Frankly, if they want to go to an exclusive university, then they should meet the requirements. If they don't, there are numerous outstanding colleges in the US that don't have these standards. Orangemarlin 00:52, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

That's actually not quite accurate: There's a court case over them being forced to do remedial clases, because what their school did was not deemed acceptable (in several subjects, not just biology.) The school, naturally, didn't want to have its classes deeped unacceptable, so sued:

"The battle started back in late 2005, when UC reviewed Calvary's courses and decided that several of them -- including "Special Providence: Christianity and the American Republic and "Christianity's Influence on America," both history courses; "Christianity and Morality in American Literature," an English course; and a biology class -- did not meet their curriculum standards, and would not be counted toward the admission requirements when Calvary students apply to UC.

Calvary does offer other classes that would fulfill the requirements; and its students also have the option of taking the SAT II to gain admissions credit in these areas instead. In past years, Calvary students have been admitted to UC at a slightly-higher-than-average rate, which makes discrimination much harder to claim." Adam Cuerden ^talk 01:05, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, in the matter of academic freedom, I hope they lose the court case. In the matter of religion vs. science, it's more complicated. I think taking the SATII is a good compromise. Orangemarlin 01:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely amazing.--Filll 01:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Presumably hope Calvary loses? Adam Cuerden ^talk 01:47, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Right. Calvary loses, UC wins. And I'm not talking NCAA basketball. Orangemarlin 01:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

There is no reason for a University to be required to accept substandard nonsense as appropriate preparation for university admission. They have no "right" to gain admission to the Univ of California or any other school. I hope they get their asses handed to them. This is obnoxious fundy bullying and that outrageous article in Answers in Genesis complete with quote mining had my blood boiling. This kind of deceit and blatant money grubbing demonstrates that these kind of people at AIG are the worst kind; liars, cheats, sleezy and ignorant to boot. Aggressive ignorance is the worst, in my book. Parents are free to pay to send their children to Bob Jones University or Liberty University, where they will get a degree that qualifies them to be a McDonalds fry cook.--Filll 02:05, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think either of those collages has a Doctrate of Burger-Flipping however. Homestarmy 02:21, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

No, but that is not the point. I am not sure if either one is even accredited, to be honest.--Filll 02:35, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Unless there's some serious whitewashing going on, Bob Jones University is definently accredited. I was going to say Liberty is too, but a google search brings up what look like different collages with separate names.... Homestarmy 02:44, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Creation science paragraph again

Creation science Main article: Creation science "Creation science is the technical arm of the creationist movement. Most adherents believe that God created the Earth only a few thousand years ago, and that the scientific evidence supports their interpretation of scripture. Various claims of these creation scientists include such ideas as creationist cosmologies which accommodate a universe on the order of thousands of years old, explanations for the fossil record as a record of the destruction of the global flood recorded in Genesis (see flood geology), and explanations for the present diversity as a result of rapid degradation of the perfect genomes God placed in "created kinds" (see creation biology)."

Most Creation Scientists adherers do not claim that "the scientific evidence supports their interpretations" but rather something more like what Answers in Genesis have been saying for a while. Both evolutionists, and all form of Creationists/IDs have the same evidence; what makes a different is the set of axioms that you use to interpret those evidences. Creationists claim that the interpretation of certain facts make more sense under the axioms set in Genesis 1. An examples is:

Fact: The Grand Canyon exists.
Axioms: 1. Uniformitarianism 2. Biblical Catastrophism or other Creationist View
Interpretation 1: Took a little water (colorado river) and lots of time (supposed millions or billions of years)
Interpretation 2: Took lots of water (global catastrophe, commonly known as Noah's Flood) and a little bit of time (the time the earth was covered with water of the flood)

Just wanted to clear that out, and I'm going to make the change to something on this topic, if there is any disagreement let me know! :)

Biblical creationism

I created this article from the redlink on the lead paragraph. Please expand and improve, as I'm not too sure how to organize this. bibliomaniac15 05:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Redirected to a more complete, if awful, page. Adam Cuerden ^talk 18:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Table

While the table that was put in is interesting, I'm worried it oversimplifies the different types especially in regard to ID. JoshuaZ 07:29, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I take the very studies from the bible. I mean this is the guide book of what the recorded stories were. If you did not believe in God then there would a great punishment after deathUser:Creation Christian

Your comment isn't exactly useful for the page. From what I understand, the Bible doesn't differentiate between different types of creationism. WLU 21:23, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Creationism and Common descent

Please vote on the relevance of this section on the article common descent. -- Pbarnes 03:24, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

47% Americans

Sorry if this has been mentioned beofre but I really don't think that 47% of americans believe in young earth creationism - certainly significantly more than half of the Americans I have met seem to believe in dinosaurs and the like. Also I don't know wikipedia policy but isn't "Americans" a bit vague, couldn't it imply citizens of the United states, North American or both American continents. Also the statement probably needs a source. -Guest9999

Quite possibly both the survey and you are right. People are capable of believing two contradictory things so long as they arn't confronted with the contradiction (even then many people will deny a contradiction). BTW creationists don't usually deny the exitance of dinosaurs just claim they were killed in the flood. As for the American bit, I think it clear from the context it refers to the USA, but maybe it could be clarified. --Michael Johnson 21:41, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Islamic creationism and other focus problems

It strikes me that Islamic creationism, as a major force in Turkey, needs a much larger section, and that we could really use a more whole-world perspective in our examples section. Talk:Intelligent_design#Status_of_Intelligent_Design_elsewhere may be useful for compiling this, as may the Intelligent design article (now a Featured article). I'll, of course, help as best I can. Adam Cuerden ^talk 11:19, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Pseudoscience

Imho this article does belong into the cat pseudoscience because it lists all the pseudoscience of creationists (like 4.1 Young Earth creationism 4.1.1 Modern geocentrism 4.1.2 Omphalos hypothesis 4.1.3 Creation science 4.2 Old Earth creationism 4.2.1 Gap creationism 4.2.2 Day-age creationism 4.2.3 Progressive creationism 4.3 Theistic evolution 4.4 Neo-Creationism 4.4.1 Intelligent design ) greetings. --hroest 00:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

No. As the article defines it creatiomism "refers to the concept that all humanity, life, the Earth, or the universe as a whole was created by a deity" This is not pseudoscience since it is not a scientific claim. Once one starts making claims that what you are doing is somehow scientific, such as with Intelligent Design, or most forms of Young Earth Creationism then it becomes pseudoscience. JoshuaZ 01:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

yes but the article mentions e.g. Young Earth Creationism, Intelligend Design etc which are pseudoscince... that's what I mean. --hroest 11:57, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

That's a pretty broad criterion for inclusion. The evolution article mentions creationism too. Should it go in the pseudoscience category? Tsumetai 12:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps a good compromise would be for each of the subjects listed by hroest to be put in the pseudoscience category, but not this article, because Creationism is ultimately a religous position rather than a (pseudo)scientific one. SheffieldSteel 00:25, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Although it pains me to agree with the Creationist crowd, this article is a description of faith, not a claim of science, so it could hardly be considered a pseudoscience. However, Creation science, which describes the science behind creationism, is definitely pseudoscience. So hroest, you might want to take your arguments to other articles, but those have already been identified. Anyways, I agree with RossNixon's revert. Still don't agree with his belief in this myth, but I do agree with his editing. Orangemarlin 06:19, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

The marble image: suggestion

Suggested replacement image

I've created the image to the right. It may or may not be considered terribly wonderful, but I'd like to at least get discussion going on the idea of replacing the fuzzy blue circle as the image for the Creationism side-bar. Every time I see that image, I'm horribly confused, as it's so non-representational, in contrast to the sidebar "topic" images that appear everywhere else in Wikipedia. The image contains elements of the creation myths of three cultures that developed at different time periods, and thus represent a sampling of the creationism concept throughout the history of man. -Harmil 22:22, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Too complicated. I really don't think the image matters. Orangemarlin 23:04, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

It's a good idea, but... I think it's rather too small and too busy to make sense. Er, and isn't the Michaelangelo part (at least) copyright? SheffieldSteel 00:32, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Once again, please don't focus on the suggestion as "we need to use this image," but as, "the image we have is horribly confusing and bears no relationship that a casual reader can determine to creationism." If you have ideas, please improve the image that I uploaded, or suggest your own. Just, please, don't leave what's there. NO picutre would be better than a glowing blue circle. -Harmil 14:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Um, I'm not seeing a glowing blue circle. Has it been replaced already? Adam Cuerden ^talk 00:35, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it would seem so. -Harmil 08:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Moved "Creation of Light" image

I thought the large "Creation of Light" image that was at the top of the page was poorly placed, since the exact same image is in the infobox directly below it. Additionally, placing the infobox beneath the image caused the infobox to not be right-aligned and did not look attractive. I moved the large image to the Citations section, and moved the infobox up to the top of the page where infoboxes are usually found, and which is consistent with the other articles with the infobox.--Puddleglum Marshwiggle 02:30, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup

I've tried to avoid making any major change in meaning or intent, major points:

• "Strictly, Creationism is a philosophical perspective that presupposes the existence of a supernatural creator." is useless as a core definition, as there are many things that presuppose this and are not creationism. "Philosophical perspective" might have good context in the cited book, but it is too vague here - in what sense philosophical? In what sense a perspective?
• Removed "or" - I've never heard of creationism that states that humans were created, but that the universe was not, or vice-versa. If anyone has a cite to the contrary, please re-add and cite.
• "Contrasts" is more neutral than "conflicts". Something can be spiritual without being theistic (which is the proper term). A cite should be provided for this for those that want to persue the subject.

–M^T 19:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Creationism sidebar

By the way, you probably all noticed, but I've made some tweaks to it. This mainly has to do with getting it to play nicely with other sidebars it's often found with - same width and so on, so they can be grouped into one "holding" table. Adam Cuerden ^talk 21:09, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment

I tink that this should be moved to "Theory of Creationism." It is more accurate and more NPOV. I am a creationist by the way so I am not doing this because it is my POV. God bless:) --James, La gloria è a dio 22:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

You're spamming a few articles with the same comments. Thanks, but no thanks. Orangemarlin 23:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with my Jewish friend. :-) ^rossnixon 01:51, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Creationism

I don't get it....why do you believe in this when there's so much evidence that we EVOLVED? I mean, I understand faith and everything and believing in a higher power, but if He created everything then how was He created? It doesn't make much sense to me, especially now that I'm in Biology and we're learning the scientific side of everything. Yeah....so I don't exactly understand!

Please don't use article talk pages for debating the topic of the article. The short answer might be something like the following: Origin stories are a part of mosts religious mythologies, and in some religions or shades of religions, fundamental beliefs are more closely tied to those mythologies; therefore, the two aren't easily separable. In addition, evolution deals with changes on scales of millions and billions of years, a timeframe for which the human brain is ill-equipped to grasp. While it is easy to observe the effects of evolution on short time scales, many people have difficulty extrapolating that to timescales comparable to the age of the Earth. The origin problem exists for both supernatural and scientific explanations of the origin of the universe. Most people who believe in a single God believe that God has existed eternally and was not ever created. If you have further interests in exploring these topics, I could help you find some resources on the Internet or try answering further questions. Feel free to ask me on my talk page. — Knowledge Seeker দ 19:01, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Accuracy of the article

I question the accuracy of the article on the use of this term. The definition the article provides makes it appear as if Creationism is the same as having a literal interpretation of the bible. That is a point of view skewed to the American perspective-- creationists are more widely people that argue the bible against other theories of pre-history. I shall analyze the sources for this article to see if this article does indeed follow them closely.Lotusduck 04:06, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Please give substantive points of dispute, rather than just stating a general impression of the article. You're probably right that there is an American bias here, just because there usually is on Wikipedia -- but it's worth noting that the very first few sentences of the article point out that Biblical creationism is only one kind of creationism, although the intro goes on to state that the term "creationism" is usually associated with Christian fundamentalist creationism. --FOo 04:52, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

"Macroevolution"

I removed the quotes around the term "Macroevolution" in the chart. I think that this is in the interests of NPOV, since the quotes imply that the term is nonsense. I think it is appropriate to use Creationist terminology to discuss Creationism.

If removing the quotes gives the word too much validity, perhaps the word should become a link to an explanation of the term. --Brilliand 03:41, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I never noticed until you deleted them. I agree with your logic, but I think wiki-linking the term might be the best idea. Orangemarlin 03:45, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I wikified the first occurrence of the term in the section. --Brilliand 16:52, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

NPOV

Excellent job on the NPOV folks. This article seems to strive to present material in a factual manner without making judgment calls as to what is correct, which is the proper role of an encyclopaedia. 70.16.1.207 14:47, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

A compliment? That's so rare on here, I might have to sit down and catch my breath. I haven't done much editing to this article, but I think your comments are breath of fresh air.Orangemarlin 19:11, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

No, but you spend a lot of time deleting posts in talk topics. For someone makes a mockery of Religion, God and all those who believe because of both faith and scientific evidence, you sure spend a lot of time on a topic that is repugnant to you.

This article is merely "ok", except for the obviously biased and disgustingly unfair critique section that the extremist left wing Editors will not allow in their precious "Evolution' article. Ymous 17:18, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

The above post seems to be little more than a personal attack on Orangemarlin. I think it might be a good idea for Ymous to withdraw it. SheffieldSteel 17:50, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Libs Still Controlling Wiki I See?

I see all of the pro-evolution liberal/socialist gore nuts are still getting to say anything they want without any fear of ever having their POV squashed.

Wiki is pathetic.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.145.184.6 (talk • contribs) 19:01, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Please sign your posts using ~~~~ so we can see who we're talking to. Thanks for your concern about the POV of this article. Please do point out specific instances and then we can work together to improve the article.

Please try not to make personal attacks against other editors. I know it's frustrating but it is possible to make improvements without needing to start a bunfight. A sincere desire to produce a quality NPOV article will be met positively and with cooperation. SheffieldSteel 19:07, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I actually thought that Wiki was controlled by right-wing nut jobs with a pro-Christrian agenda. But since this America, and we have free speech, I figured that me, along with a few of my commie friends would stand up to it, and slowly make this encyclopedia as neutral as possible. The difference between you and me is that I have the guts to stand up for what I believe, but you choose to whine. Wiki is getting better every day. Orangemarlin 19:10, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

If you're complaining, I suggest you go to Conservapedia, where they all take a conservative stance. I would join them, but I have "miles to go before I sleep." bibliomaniac15 20:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, there's something that's going to be POV. Anyways, I'm not sure I understand your reference of "miles to go before I sleep." I'm probably missing a funny pop reference here. Orangemarlin 20:38, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Stopping by Woods on a Snowy Evening by Robert Frost. bibliomaniac15 04:24, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Contrast to Evolution

I recomend that a section be given to contrast creationism and evolution. For example the opening statments state that creationism presupposes there is a God. Evolution presupposes that there is not one.Fbc215 19:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

The Pope seems to be okay with the idea of evolution. SheffieldSteel 19:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Straight from the horse's mouth: "Concerning biological evolution, the Church does not have an official position on whether various life forms developed over the course of time. However, it says that, if they did develop, then they did so under the impetus and guidance of God, and their ultimate creation must be ascribed to him." http://www.catholic.com/library/adam_eve_and_evolution.asp SheffieldSteel 19:42, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

The Pope is not in charge or president of Christianity. The Pope is a religious leader of Catholics. There is also Protestantism. Also, 90% of the worlds population belives there is a higher power, that is God. Fbc215 23:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I do not cite the Pope as a spokesperson for all Christianity, but as an excellent example of a prominent and notable Christian, and the head of a prominent and notable Christian church. If evolution indeed presupposes, as you assert, that there is no God, why do you suppose that the Pope, and the Catholic Church, are so willing to consider it? Shouldn't the Church be invoking infallibility and condemning the very idea of evolution rather than using such tentative and thoughtful language as in the quote above? SheffieldSteel 23:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

The supposed presupposition there is not a God is not, in fact, true. The only presupposition is that the world works in a logical, elucible manner. Adam Cuerden ^talk 03:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Adam is correct. Evolution makes no statement about the existence or nonexistence of God. What it does provide is a simple, straightforward explanation for the development of life on Earth, without the need to resort to miracles or supernatural explanations. — Knowledge Seeker দ 05:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

"Also, 90% of the worlds population believes there is a higher power, that is God." Please quote a reference for these ridiculous numbers. Firstly 90% of the worlds population will say anything the are told to (90% of "educated" Americans apparently believed in weapons of mass destruction) secondly nobody has spoken to 90% of the worlds population and thirdly 90% of the worlds population may believe in some higher power because they are prevented from being educated that there is no higher power or god by people who have a vested interest in this superstitious imaginary friend nonsense continuing. user :cdxp

'[S]uperstitious imaginary friend nonsense'? Hey hey, calm down. Nobody is challenging anybody's atheistic religion, this is just a discussion page. Please stay friendly. - WolfieInu

Can someone clarify? Does 'evolution' assert that only natural forces shaped living things and asserts that there was no 'intelligent entity' influencing the development of life in any way? 69.211.150.60 13:07, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

That is a slightly different question. The theory of evolution does indeed state that the observed fact of evolution is explained by physical mechanisms alone. As such, it does not require or assume the existence of a god, but this is not the same as saying that it requires or assumes that no god exists, which was the claim made above by Fbc215. If that were the case, all Christians, Jews, and Moslems would have a religous duty to view evolution as fundamentally opposed to their religion. Only a small minority of these groups have thought it necessary to take that position. SheffieldSteel 13:41, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Vague and nebulous

'Many of those who hold strict creationist views reject any scientific explanations for natural phenomena that contradict their interpretation of scripture as to how the same phenomena occurred.' This is elementary, and I don't see why it needs to be in the article. Similarly, 'many of those who wear green are not wearing red,' but this is so obvious that nobody appends it to any articles. WolfieInu 10:57, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

That's a poor analogy. Wearing green and red are mutually exclusive. Science and religion are not necessarily so; it is only when people make specific "interpretations of scripture" (or try to apply science to inappropriate questions) that we perceive a conflict between the two. I think it's good that the article points out that the issue of scientific explanations for natural phenomena is one of those areas where this particular interpretation of scripture conflicts with the scientific consensus. SheffieldSteel 13:34, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, my criticism was a bit vague :) . All I meant is that the statement I quoted sounds as if it came off the top of the author's head, seeing as it doesn't even state a reference. It's as if the quote tries to be both definite (judging by the tone of the sentence) and generalising ('Many of those...') at the same time.

That's just my impression. I don't want to change the material, which is true (I guess it would be splitting hairs to change it to say '...naturalistic scientific explanations...'). WolfieInu 10:32, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think you're right in that it could be better phrased. It cetainly begins with a weasel word. We could do something like this...

"Strict creationism involves an interpretation of scripture that contradicts the scientific explanations of various natural phenomena, and which therefore rejects those scientific theories."

I think this also runs into the second sentence better. But it's far from perfect. SheffieldSteel 13:42, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

We could go on endlessly refining this sentence, but that's already an improvement. How about, "Strict creationism involves an interpretation of scripture that contradicts naturalistic scientific explanations of various natural phenomena, and which therefore rejects mainstream scientific theories."? That would qualify the word 'scientific', which is probably necessary since creationists argue that creationism is also scientific, just not naturalistic. And the second occursnce of the word 'scientific' may be unnecessary, although of course we wouldn't want the sentence to become ambiguous... WolfieInu 06:33, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Your sentence looks like pandering to creationist perspectives. Emphasizing "naturalistic" is artificial because all science is naturalistic by definition. Qualifying "scientific" is weaseling away from the point that creationists are antagonistic towards science. --ScienceApologist 13:21, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Like I said, we could go on refining forever. Maybe we should implement your (SheffieldSteel's) suggestion and leave it at that, perhaps merely replacing the second occurrence of "scientific" with "mainstream" to make it sound less awkward. And if I may go off on a tangent, I wouldn't say that 'creationists are antagonistic towards [all of] science', since by definition creationism can only contradict current origins science, and not neutral territory such as chemistry, quantum mechanics, etc. WolfieInu 18:27, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd have to disagree with the "neutral territory" statement. All of science is intertwined. Chemistry is a fundamental aspect of all of evolution, from the first DNA and proteins being formed 4 billion years ago to complex cellular metabolism. Physics, of course, is a fundamental part of Chemistry, so it could go on and on. Since science does not utilize qualitative judgments, then to state one part of science is "wrong" is to be antagonistic to all science. Orangemarlin 20:19, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

A statement that one part of science is wrong could only be a statement that all science is wrong if the thing being accused of being wrong is fundamental to science. While Chemistry, and by extension several other fields of science, are fundamental aspects of evolution, evolution is not a fundamental aspect of Chemistry, or most fundamental type fields of science. I know i'm kind of being random by jumping into this, but i've had this talk page on my watchlist for quite awhile, and I don't feel like sitting by while i'm being indirectly accused of being antagonistic to all science (As I am, of course, a Creationist) while awaiting to take an AP Chemistry exam next tuesday, and I certainly wouldn't waste even a moment of my time taking an AP course related to science if I, someone who operates on a creationist perspective, (YEC to boot!) was antagonistic to all science. Homestarmy 20:40, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Orangemarlin and Homestarmy? What have I done, I got the Big Names involved! :) Creationism can't be antagonistic to science, since nobody will deny that a lot of science was getting done long before the theory of evolution was formalised by Darwin and Wallace. A lot of science has happened since - the overwhelming majority of which has had totally no bearing on 'origins' science (for example, rocketry, electronics, telecommunications, etc.). Before we get into something bearing a striking similarity to a debate, could we at least edit the sentence I highlighted to what SheffieldSteel suggested? Otherwise the edit itself might fall totally by the wayside. PS. Good luck with the exam WolfieInu 20:54, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

LOL. Big Name??? Oh that's priceless. BTW, rocketry, electronics and telecommunications aren't science strictly speaking. They are applied sciences, meaning they utilize the scientific theories and knowledge and "apply" them to making things (usually). You can't use scientific method to build a rocket, but you use the vast wealth of knowledge to build the rocket and make sure it goes where it's supposed to go. The problem with creationism (setting aside the religious aspects) is that it chooses to deny the scientific reasoning in several areas (evolution is not the only field of science that would set aside by a Creationist outlook), even though the exact same scientific method and quality of research in Evolution as it is in organic chemistry. For example, the basis of all Biology is evolution, so it becomes antagonistic to medicine, ecology, etc. etc. So Homestarmy should move on and not take that AP exam!!!! Orangemarlin 01:35, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict with Homest below) Wolfie, you seem to be missing something. First, everyone should note that creationism in the most general meaning does not conflict with evolution or science necessarily. Now, the reason that certain forms of creationism are antagonistic to science is essentially that science progressed. For example, believing the world was some 5000 years old didn't contradict the known science in 1700. Later, it did. Modern creationism in many incarnations insists based on theology certain propositions that as far as modern science is concerned, are divorced from reality. It is these modern incarnations that antagnostic. JoshuaZ 02:17, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Choosing to deny the supposedly scientific reasoning in several areas of science that pertain to the evolutionary synthesis doesn't make a Creationist antagonistic to all science. Whether or not the same scientific method is used in all parts of science doesn't matter, what matters is what the result is, and in this instance, the resulting branch of evolutionary biology is the problem for Creationists such as myself. The field of biology most certainly existed before evolutionary theory was first proposed, and although it is certainly now the field most pertinant to the evolutionary synthesis today, there are still some parts of Biology which don't directly involve evolutionary theory. For instance, while the classification scheme of species is certainly relied on to build the phylogenetic trees of evolutionary models, if evolutionary theory didn't exist, the classification system of the different species wouldn't just vanish into obscurity, as it is used first to classify species for identification purposes, not used just so that there will be some cool sounding names to plug into phylogenetic charts. And while I did indeed "move on" from these Creationism and Evolution related articles quite some time ago to pursue fun times in other articles, i've kept this talk page on my watchlist for quite some time, and I do believe, Orange, that your attitude concerning what the article should propose Creationists believe presents an excellent invitation for a person such as myself to discuss things here once more. Some of the topics in our AP Chemistry exam that you may be familiar with include Gibbs free energy, Electrochemistry, Equilibrium, (The calculating and usage of the constant primarily, with Le Chatelier's principle thrown in too) Acid-base reactions, Redox reactions, VSEPR theory, introductory parts of Quantum Physics, (Just the most basic formulas and theories mostly) Periodicity, Thermochemistry, the relationships between Spontaneity, Entropy, Enthalpy, and Gibbs free energy, and i'm really quite interested in reading the material of creationists who reject the scientific principles behind any of these topics, as I for one never heard anything that even remotely related to evolution even once when learning any of these topics, and as far as I know, the only way they are incorporated into evolution related reaserch is through the use of these concepts when dealing with Organic molecules and chemical reactions within cells, and believe it or don't, but Chemistry doesn't really deal first and foremost with organic molecules and cellular reactions. You'd think Chemistry would mention those things in the intro if it did. Homestarmy 02:16, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

It seems some of the participants in this dicussion are missing the point. Saying that God created heaven, earth and everything that lives on it is a bit like pointing at the spattering of drops of paint on the floor of the Sistine Chapel, and saying: "Look, Michelangelo created this". It's better to look up.--Robert van der Hoff 06:57, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

<let's just decrease the indent a bit here> It's like I said, as soon as a debate gets going, the editing of the sentence is not going to get done. That's a shame, I kind of liked SheffieldSteel's suggestion. Concerning the scientific method.

I agree with Orangemarlin, the scientific method cannot be directly applied to anything. That was my point. What the scientific method assumes is that there are certain laws of the universe that can be applied anywhere, at any time. In other words, no Flying Spaghetti Monsters are changing the results before our very eyes. Creationists agree with and subscribe to the entire scientific method, without reservation. As such, applied science cannot be affected by creationism, or evolutionism either for that matter.

The difference lies in our assumptions about how the universe, to which this scientific method can be applied, came about. This cannot be determined by just looking at the evidence, since there is a nearly infinite amount of factors, far too much for the human brain to process and come up with an answer (whether or not this is 42 remains to be seen). The only way a model can be constructed is to assume certain things about the universe beforehand (this is commonly known as a bias). The predictions of the theory can then be tested against hard facts. If it doesn't measure up, out it goes. At this point in time, both the creationists and evolutionists have a lot going for them and, IMHO, a set of problems each. The conflict creationists have is not with science (as in the scientific method) but the bias it is currently being applied to (evolution is the starting assumption). That's why it is possible for genuine scientists to be creationists. They have the same education and use the same method, but have a different bias.

'[T]he basis of all Biology is evolution' - how, exactly? Does it change the metabolism of sugar, the working of enzymes, the 'unzipping' of DNA, Natural Selection, or anything else that is relevant to Biology? The creation/evolution issue is only making headlines because of the religious component. It hardly affects real-world biology at all.

As for JoshuaZ's objection, I stand corrected. I am referring specifically to YEC, not 'creationism' in the most general sense. This provides an additional reason to fix the sentence and to make things less ambiguous. WolfieInu 07:58, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Top to bottom nonsense I'm afraid. Firstly, that evolution has happened and continues to happen is a cornerstone of day-to-day biological research. Whole areas of biology (e.g. phylogenetics) are founded entirely on this. In other areas, assuming that the systems in front of you represent a locally optimal solution arrived at by random mutation and non-random survival is absolutely fundamental to progress. Operationally, it may appear invisible for most of the time, but that's very far away from saying "It hardly affects real-world biology at all".

Secondly, YEC (or creationism, or whatever you're happy calling it) does not accept the scientific method. YEC "research" boils down to a fundamental inversion of the method. Rather than build a model from limited data, collect more data to test said model, and then discount unsuccessful models, YEC starts with The Model, then carefully sifts the appropriate data, disregarding all of it that doesn't support The Model (of which, make no mistake, there is an abundance). It is inconceivable that The Model be discounted. Ask yourself, when was the last time that The Model was changed? Despite radioisotopes, sedimentary records, ice sheets, dendrochronology, etc., YEC "scientists" cling to events like the Flood. This is quite simply not science.

Regarding why "it is possible for genuine scientists to be creationists", look at said scientists' publication records. See if you can spot the YEC publications. Yes, scientists individually have all sorts of ideas running around their heads, but unless they can support them using the scientific method, they'll never manage to publish them. What's worse for YEC is that a lot of ultimately unsuccessful ideas are published because they're able to muster enough of a case to be exposed to the wider community. YEC is unable to do even this. Which, I'm sure you'll tell us, is all down to bias ...

Anyway, this screed isn't improving the article, so I'll stop. --Plumbago 08:59, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Your response is quite general, I must say, and poorly researched. The statement '...assuming that the systems in front of you represent a locally optimal solution arrived at by random mutation and non-random survival is absolutely fundamental...' is incendiary, not constructive. Here (and by your assertion that 'evolution... is a cornerstone of day-to-day biological research') you are describing Natural Selection, not evolution. As I said, creationists have no problem with Natural Selection. I can't go into detail here, seeing as we're supposed to be debating a single sentence - but we're all happily ignoring that statement in big red letters at the top of the page :)

'YEC... does not accept the scientific method'. At the risk of causing an irreconcible 'is-not, is-too' situation, I will try to explain things from my side. It seems that in spite of my endeavours, you are still confusing a scientific field with the current scientific consensus, since according to your response, 'radioisotopes, sedimentary records, ice sheets, dendrology, etc.' refute creationism. However, these are fields, not debaters, so they can't refute anything. For example, Physics cannot refute perpetual motion - but physicists can, by utilising what is known of physics.

Yes, creationists depend on what you refer to as The Model, but as I explained (or tried to), evolutionists must also depend on a model of their own before evidence can be interpreted. Sherlock-Holmes-like model-less inductive reasoning ceases to function if there are too many factors (and hence too many possible explanations), because even if all factors could be considered, alternate explanations must arise. That is why everyone must start with a bias. The more evidence there is to support your view (and creationists and evolutionists often use the exact same piece of evidence to reach opposite conclusions), the more likely it is that your conclusions are true, but you can only evaluate evidence if you start with a model, which is continuously being refined. Yes, the YEC Model is continuously being refined, otherwise there would be no point in being a creationist scientist. All we would've had to say would have been, 'Oh, God did it. Just believe.' Nobody is that stupid. You are knocking down straw men, which is fun but achieves nothing.

You're right about the fact that 'ultimately unsuccessful ideas are published'. As soon as a model is 'able to muster enough of a case', it is 'exposed to the wider community'. This interesting phenomenon is called science. If there were no ultimately unsuccessful ideas, there would be no ideas at all.

BTW, could we get back to the sentence? Keep debating, just append your thoughts on the sentence. That way, what we're doing is legal. ;) WolfieInu 11:15, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Creationism does not necessarily mean that you have to reject the scientific method, not even YEC. There's nothing wrong with the hypothesis that the world is only 6000 years old, but was created to look billions of years old, except that it is untestable. It accepts that science shows that the world is billions of years old. Belief in a God is equally untestable, equally unscientific, but doesn't require you to reject the scientific method. On the other hand, large swaths of the population reject the scientific method...not just creationists, but also left wing intellectuals. Obviously using the Bible to argue against science is a rejection of the scientific method. "Creation science" as it currently exists is a rejection of the scientific method, because it does not use the scientific method to test its "hypotheses", it proposes hypotheses to conform the Bible. Regardless of what Wolfie says, bumper stickers which say things like "The Bible said it, I believe it, that settles it" do not represent a straw man - if you think otherwise, come down to the Bible Belt. The sentence is a fair representation of the situation. Guettarda 13:09, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Although i personally agree with Guettarda, I think it is possible that this is one of those cases where a definition is getting in the way of our addressing a complex NPOV issue. The issue is not whether we think science and creationism are mutually exclusive, because editors' views do not count. The question is, do (1) scientists (2) creationists (3) sociologists of science and (4) sociologists of religion (minimally - there may be other important views I neglected) believe that science and creationism are mutually exclusive? I would not automatically assume that any one group does. Indeed, I suspect that within each group there may be more than the two obvious (yes, no) views. The issue is, do we have verifiable sources we can draw on in order to provide a good account of these diverse views? I don't know. All the scientists I know would say they are mutually exclusive, but I have not read any verifiable studies. And i have no idea what creationists thing (again, I am not asking editors who are creationists what they personally think, only if they know verifiable sources) and I have no idea what sociologists and other scholars of science and religion think but I bet it is more interesting than "yes" or "no." Slrubenstein | Talk 13:52, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) On reflection, there's a bit more to this issue than the current sentence allows (even after a bit of modification). Probably that why this debate kicked off: I think everyone in some way sees that the description, as it was, was unsatisfactory. Or maybe I'm just reading too much into it. Anyway, I'm now thinking that this change would suit the third paragraph...

“ When scientific research produces conclusions which contradict the creationist interpretation of scripture, the strict creationist approach is to reject that research's conclusions, its underlying scientific theories, or its methodology. The most notable cases are the impact of evolution on the development of living organisms, the idea of common descent, the geologic history of the Earth, the formation of the solar system, and the origin of the universe. ”

I'm sure it could be worded better, but it's not as easy as it looks to get a sentence that reads well and isn't misleading somehow. I do think this form sums up the issue of when and how creationism and science come into conflict. Also it avoids the weaselly many/most in the second sentence. What do people think? SheffieldSteel 14:24, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

It reads well. Do we have sources to back it up? One question: are there no creationists who change their minds? I imagine there are at least some, the first question is whether they are of negligible number. If there is a significant number of creationists who have changed their views, we need to allow for that. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:40, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

It leaves me asking the question what a non-strict creationist approach is :/. If the reaserch in question directly contradicts creationist scriptural interpretations, (Which, by the way, isn't singular, YEC and OEC are quite different, and creationism with other religions becomes even more different.) I think it would be obvious that a creationist wouldn't accept the conclusions of the reaserch as true. Other than that, it seems fine, though ben's observation that some creationists may choose to just stop being creationists might be important. Homestarmy 14:41, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

There is an old atheist argument that is threaded through this discussion that relies on negative proof: In principle it is easier, so it is said, to convince an atheist that there is a God (by, say, having a booming voice identify Himself from heaven) than it is to convince a theist that there is no God (since all observable evidence can be interpreted away and God in the gaps is easily invoked). This is to say that the rejection by creationists of naturalistic science follows the old "walk by faith and not by sight" notion of a standard distrust of sensory data that contradicts "revealed" truth. There are instances where this kind of obfuscation has become so strident that Christians have themselves rejected creationism in order to avoid what they deem to be basic dishonesty and a reapportionment of reality. --ScienceApologist 14:53, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Great job with that sentence, SheffieldSteel. As far as I'm concerned we can implement it straight away.

Concerning that bumper sticker Guettarda tells us about... yes, unfortunately that is true. A lot of negative impressions have been created by the "more emotional" advocates of creationism - I don't live in the Bible Belt, so perhaps my perspective of creationism (the movement, not the science) is skewed away from its Southern populist elements. But this is fortunately not the way real creation scientists (and put that between quote marks if you like) go about things.

On the whole, everybody's done a great job of keeping this discussion academic and aboveboard. Thanks everyone, looking forward to your further input on the sentence(s). WolfieInu 16:10, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but I think a non-strict creationist approach is maybe one that might also consider interpreting scripture differently, as per the Catholic principle that "truth cannot contradict truth" - God does not present us with truths which are inconsistent, so if scientific observations and interpretation of scripture are at odds, then either the observations (or conclusions) or the interpretation may be wrong. As Homestarmy pointed out, there are multiple possible interpretations of scripture (but as to whether taking a different interpretation might make one no longer a creationist, I don't know much about that.) Anyway, as far as citations are concerned, I'm hoping that AiG and/or the DI can provide plenty of examples of challenging the various aspects of the "theory -> research -> data -> conclusion" process. SheffieldSteel 17:09, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

(un-dent) Made the change; off to look for references SheffieldSteel 17:52, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Refs are in. I am not offering them up as brilliant examples; rather, they are tokens of the approach generally taken by creationists when challenging scientific findings. Hope this is acceptable. SheffieldSteel 19:11, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I'll go with that. Sorry I haven't been much help WolfieInu 20:27, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

What?

What the hell is this? " Creationism is separate from and should not be confused with the Christian tradition of "Creation Spirituality," which draws upon the theology of Matthew Fox. " Aside from not being factual (the Fox part) was there really a reason to make any distinction? &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 22:10, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm interested by your tone. What motivated your use of, and I quote, '[w]hat the hell...'?

Yes, I remember reading this sentence, but I can't seem to find it right now. Did you remove it? WolfieInu 07:45, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow...how is it not factual? (Credits Fox too heavily?) The distinction is valid (I rather doubt Fox is a creationist), though it's probably a little too minor a movement to deserve mention in this article. So yeah, I don't quite see what you are saying. Guettarda 13:51, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

"Evidence is not a point of view" claim

I don't believe this box belongs as a Wikipedia's-point-of-view box, although it can be asserted as an editor's POV. Empiricism represents one point of view among others, such as idealism, phenomenalism, etc. A claim that creationism is a scientific truth can be refuted by scientists, but a preference for faith over empirical methods as the source of ones worldview cannot be refuted by scientists. There is a distinction between claims to being science and claims to truth. The idea that the only possible route to truth involves the scientific method is indeed a POV. Proofs depend on the assumptions one is willing to accept. Best, --Shirahadasha 17:18, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

'...a preference for faith over empirical methods as the source of ones worldview cannot be refuted by scientists.' While this is true, on what basis do you adhere to a worldview if it is divorced from (what is scientifically perceived to be) reality? We cannot deny that the only societies in which any considerable technological progress was made, made use of empirical methods (which we commonly refer to as 'science'). Of course there are numerous exceptions to this rule, but it does seem to indicate a general trend.

In general, creationists argue that, since Christian Europe gave rise to the empirical method, science should support every aspect of Christian teaching that touches directly upon scientific matters. Or, to put it more bluntly, 'Christianity is a science-friendly religion'. On this basis, they argue that Christianity, if divorced from science, becomes irrelevant. This is what YEC creationists and long-age creationists have in common; they differ only on how the problem of disparity between 'Biblical science' and 'secular science' should be approached.

Therefore, according to the creationist argument, a scientific challenge to the authority of the Bible should be met with a scientific response, if at all possible. So, as you say, '[t]he idea that the only possible route to truth involves the scientific method is indeed a POV.' However, it is the POV of creationists. Since the article is describing the creationist movement, its pro-empiricism is inherently required, and therefore NPOV. Sincerely, WolfieInu 17:18, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Recolonisation theory

What's this? It has just been added to the article as a whole new section - which reads like a lot of original research without much in the way of verifiable sources. Does it really exist? If so, shouldn't it have its own wikipedia article at Recolonisation theory, and shouldn't the section here primarily point to that article? I'm not going to write such an article, because I've not heard of "recolonisation theory" before I came across it here - and a google search reveals... well, not a lot, in fact! Anyone know anything about it? If it's notable enough for mention here, it's notable enough for its own article. Snalwibma 09:12, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I took it out. It's both nonsense and, as far as I can tell, non-notable. Also, the description given was full of unsourced commentary. And the only source given was a primary website.--Stephan Schulz 09:24, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I can't find any reliable sources discussing the matter either. It should also be removed from the table. JoshuaZ 20:44, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

It sounds a little like the catastrophicism that was popular int he Victorian period: You know, each geological age as a seprate creation? But really badly explained. Adam Cuerden ^talk 15:02, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Recolonisation theory is the basis on which most UK geologists who include creation in their world-view interpret the geological and palaeontological record. In the UK, therefore, most do not interpret the 'fossil record as a record of the destruction of the global flood recorded in Genesis'. It has, moreover, considerably more adherents than the 'omphalos hypothesis' that is deemed to warrant a mention in the article. Comments such as 'nonsense' and 'badly explained' reinforce what we all know, that emotion so often takes the place of reason in this area, and that at least some of the content of the creationism article - and omitted potential content - is determined by participants who are not as well acquainted with the subject as they should be.

Catastrophism was more common in the pre-Victorian period than in the Victorian: by the 1830s the intellectual world was ripe for Lyellian uniformitarianism. Recolonisation theory does not in fact resemble Victorian catastrophism and expressly rejects the idea of a 'seprate creation' in each geological age (see Recolonisation in a nutshell). Regardless of its strengths and weaknesses, it is a radically new theory. Fastnet 19:41, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

No, that's actually a Victorian theory. Gould describes it in one of his books. Each geological age with its own fauna, then complete destruction, followed by the Garden of Eden and the current age? Victorian catastrophic seperate creations. It never really caught on, even at the time, and, indeed, Gould's description of it was probably the first modern account of it. It's kind of scary if creationists are reading Gould's description of failed forms of Creationism to mine ideas. Adam Cuerden ^talk 01:23, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

No, it is not a theory. Something that is massively inconsistent with easily observable facts (e.g. radioactive decay, the constancy of which can be measured through astronomical observations even for ages past) is not a theory, it's nonsense. Of course, we include a lot of nonsense here, but it has to be notable nonsense described in reliable sources. What we have is only an incomplete self-description on a nice, but self-published web site. --Stephan Schulz 20:14, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Notable nonsense. Oh, that's now one of my favorite statements ever on here. Stephan, you made my day. Orangemarlin 23:33, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Glad to be useful (or at least entertaining ;-). --Stephan Schulz 23:57, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I suppose I can appreciate the joke, if not the sentiment [:]P Seriously, though, radioactive dating is not a good argument for long ages, since it must assume initial isotope concentrations to be almost 100% parent matter - an assumption which is only reasonable if naturalism is presumed to be true in the first place. BTW, I agree that we don't need to include Recolonisation 'theory' in the article, but perhaps we could start a small article and link to it from here, and then wait to see if it grows? I must admit it's a slightly obscure subject, though -- WolfieInu 19:15, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you read (and try to understand) Radiometric dating, Uranium-lead dating, and in particular Isochron dating. An extended technical discussion is here. In short, you are wrong about the initial isotope concentrations. Now, if we allow for supernatural intervention, Last Tuesdayism is as plausible as anything else. But the almighty IPU faking a world with an apparent age (or variants of this speculation) is philosophically rather unsatisifable, and certainly not science. --Stephan Schulz 19:47, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

You're probably right about my general understanding of radiometric dating: I was talking rubbish, and need to do some more research. Sorry about that, I stand corrected. -- WolfieInu 10:52, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

We should only include it in Wikipedia if we can find any notable content on it. Gould's article is simply an analysis of what he considered an old, dead theory that was nonetheless an interesting attempt by a woman scientist-theologian to combine science and religion on the cusp of Darwin's revolution. Can you show any evidence that it's notable or widely-held today? Adam Cuerden ^talk 20:14, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Who is this woman Gould mentions? This Early Modern Geology reference mentions Benoît de Maillet in 1748 proposing a series of epochs, later catastrophism proper beginning with Georges Cuvier, then adapted by William Buckland to support the Biblical flood, and the debate with Charles Lyell's uniformitarianism continuing to the 1850s with modified catastrophism the more favoured. History of the Collapse of "Flood Geology" and a Young Earth has more detail and supports the earlier demise of diluvialism. It has Darwin's tutor Adam Sedgwick recanting it in 1831 but still supporting the truth of the Biblical flood, Buckland also changing his mind, and "Scriptural Geology" proponents running into difficulties by 1837. Then resurfacing,.... dave souza, talk 23:39, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Not really, but surely if we create a small article about it, it will attract activity if there still is some activity. Even if only for the historical interest. -- WolfieInu 10:52, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Other religious creationist movements

There's no nice way to say this: This section is appalling. It consists of ridiculously short, context free subsections, one of which (Islamic creationism) is a single sentence that merely says it exists. Flying Spaghetti monsterism opens the section, this arguably demeans the other religions, as the description of it is in exactly the same neutral language as the Hinduism summary following, no attempt is made to make it clear that most of these creationist movements are tiny. Adam Cuerden ^talk 19:24, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

My next action after this reply is to remove the FSM. If it is to be included in the page at all, it should not be in the 'Other religious creationist movements' section. Perhaps a pop culture or satire section. (ETA - the FSM section was added very recently by an anon IP, and re-inserted after I initially removed it. I don't believe it should remain on the page as a serious-appearing entry) WLU 19:58, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I also tried to address the other sub-sections, but all I could really do is re-name the main section and expand Islamic creationism every so slightly. I don't know enough about the other versions to do much else; I think part of the solution is to trim down the Judaic creationism section so it isn't so overbalanced - since all of the sub-sections have 'main's, there's no need for a lengthy discussion. WLU 20:07, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

But even the longer ones aren't on-topic. The Hindu creationism subsection is instead a brief summary of Hinduism, followed by a statement that Hindu creationism exists. Adam Cuerden ^talk 21:41, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Agree, the article presumes an understanding of Genesis, but then gives backgound on Hinduism. Addhoc 22:57, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps a better solution would be to say There are several non-Christian versions of Creationism, including [[Hindu creationism|Hindu]], Islam and Judaism (with their own wikilinks natch)? I don't have enough experience with articles this developed to know what the next step is! WLU

That's a good idea. Given that the political context of (American Christian) Creationism is explicitly covered by the article, the inclusion of the creationism of other religions could be beyond scope. Perhaps we should start a disambiguation page, with something like "[Creationism: Christian (Political context / Types of Creationism / History), Other (Judaic / Islamic / etc.)]", if there's enough material. Any thoughts on this? WolfieInu 16:49, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

The only issue I see is that when people think of creationism, it's usually in terms of the dominant form, which is US-style nutter creationism. However, it's not a bad thing to have general 'Christian/Hindu/Islam/Judaism Creationism', and a separate page for the political aspects (which is what gets most of the attention anyway). I'd know better if I could see it, could you perhaps set it up in a sub-page so we could build a more specific structure? WLU 19:56, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll try to get around to it on Friday, at the moment though I'm up to my neck in end-of-semester exams. - 'nutter creationism', eh? That's probably not quite the most conciliatory terminology you could have chosen ;) -- WolfieInu 20:19, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps he meant "nutter" in some obtusely complementary way? Many creationists use their "nut" when studying origins science. Good on you WLU - you nutter materialist! ;-) ^rossnixon 01:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I and most others have no problem with those of creationist beliefs UNTIL they verge over into intolerance and irrationality imposed on others. It is fine to believe in a literal interpretation of the bible AS LONG as you do not use it to abuse others or to insist that others reject their beliefs or rational evidence. Other than that, feel free to believe whatever you like! After all, there is no law against delusions, insanity, irrationality, etc.--Filll 02:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Dare I ask what started this? Homestarmy 02:39, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Wow, Filll, you're a tolerant individual. Really very enlightened of you ... no, not really. I suggest you visit SheffieldSteel's user page, you could learn a lesson or two there. All we're actually trying to do at the moment is clear up a little confusion over what the term 'creationism' conveys to different people - did you miss that big red paragraph at the very start of the page? I just couldn't resist a little dig at WLU because of that unacademic adjective ;) -- WolfieInu 06:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Saying "non-Christian versions of Creationism" gives the impression that ˙Hindu creationism is basically the same, but with different labels, which isn't the case. Also, given that Christian ideas are a heresy / development of Judaism, not sure that is the most appropriate wording. Addhoc 06:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: Homestarmy - I called creationists nutters. It's a personal opinion I would never attempt to put on the page. Further discussion is well off topic and I'm going to be dropping it.

My apologies, I'm not sure I understand Addhoc's comment. Is it because the Hindu equivalent uses a different term than 'Creationism'? The reaons it's suggested is because conservative Christian creationism is the dominant form, and other forms are less visible, but they do exist. Is there a way to acknowledge the dominance of CCC within the public arena? Should we bother? Is there a comparable set of wikipages that has dealt with a similar topic successfully and even-handedly? Right now I see a very strong possibility of an excessive emphasis on the US version of creationism, which is something I'd like to avoid. WLU 20:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'm suggesting a disambiguation page... please let me know what you think -- WolfieInu 06:55, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Statement added to article intro by Keepyouhonest

Why is this last paragraph in here? It should be on the discussion page. Check out the evolution page; it doesn't tout the "opposition" and all their opinions and what they do with evidences; nor does it discuss the fraudulent cases associated with evolution. Another intellectually honest article by wikipedia. ;o(

I've reverted this statement by User:Keepyouhonest which was obviously placed in the article rather than the talk page by error or misunderstanding. The answer is, the paragraph shows the areas in which strict creationists make claims, WP:NPOV requires that we make clear the majority science position as well as their claims. Check out the evolution page; it does mention these religious controversies in a proportionate way in accordance with policy. ... dave souza, talk 21:07, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I must agree, even as a creationist. It just so happens that what the world considers NPOV is not creationism. Don't worry, Keepyouhonest... "therefore be not conformed to this world"... ;) -- WolfieInu 06:46, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Disambiguation

...as I said during a previous discussion, perhaps we should provide a disambiguation page for this article? -- WolfieInu 15:25, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Creationism = Origin Beliefs?

The disambiguation note at the top of the article says: ""Creationism" can also refer to origin beliefs in general, or to an alternative of traducianism."

I would like to question this particular formulation. Do such things as the ancient Greek myths about creation of the universe qualify as 'creationism'? One problem is that Creation myths on Wikipedia have been diverted to Origin beliefs, presumably on the basis that 'myths' is a pejorative term. This, and the tone of the first paragraph, seem to imply that any kind of creation myth belongs to 'creationism'.

Can anyone come up with citations (other than this article) to prove that 'creationism' can equally be understood refer to Roman, Greek, Japanese, etc. myths and legends, even where the belief factor is essentially dead?

Bathrobe 07:49, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

You have a point, the only well-known variants of creationism are dependent on the so-called Abrahamic religions, not "origin beliefs in general". As far as I know. WolfieInu 14:51, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I suppose one could construct a nesting of all of these:

• Origin beliefs
  • Natural origin
    • Extinct beliefs (= falsified scientific theories)
    • Extant beliefs (= as yet unfalsified scientific theories)
  • Supernatural origin
    • Extinct beliefs (= myths; in common parlance)
    • Extant beliefs (= creationism, in common parlance)

In this scheme, even evidence-based concepts (the big bang, evolution) are still "origin beliefs". But they posit no supernatural component, so can be easily separated from those which involve supernatural elements (which is far from saying that they are true; many natural origin beliefs have turned out to be incorrect). However, those that contain supernatural elements are harder to divide up, and are only reasonably divisible on the basis of whether they're extant (some people believe them) or extinct (no one alive believes them, but people once did). That doesn't move us along much, but it might inspire others more astute than I. One immediate problem is that extant (and extinct, for that matter) supernatural beliefs vary in their parsimony with extant natural beliefs, which suggests another distinction, but ... --Plumbago 15:23, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Eh, you seem to be equating concepts, hypotheses and theories with beliefs – it should be obvious that these are not faith positions. The real question is whether the term "creationism" is always associated with Abrahamic religions – looking at Eugenie Scott's spectrum, she seems to take it as meaning biblical and specifically Christian creationism, though of course she draws a spectrum with materialism as one extreme. Is there any source for usage referring to other religions? .. dave souza, talk 17:38, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll echo that. It may make sense to categorize them all as creationism, but without sources (and a source that portrays it as common practice to label them all as such) it seems like WP:OR. WLU 17:54, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

A little investigation rapidly demonstrates that there are Hindu creationist movements which are similar in spirit if not in detail to the Abrahamic creationist movements. I would not be surprised if we could find creationist-type movements among the Jainists or the Sikhs or the Shintoists. In fact, most of the Shinto faith has long had a character that is not much different than creationism, with denial of all kinds of evidence and belief in a fair among of unscientific and irrational nonsense. Animist and other traditional religions also probably have some difficulty with modern scientific understanding, but since they are not in much position to do anything about it, the impact of creationist feelings has less influence. Hindus, Christians and Muslims and a few Jews are often in a position to cause friction with science over religious beliefs, and this gives rise to assorted "creationist"-like movements. There have been writers that used the term "creationism" to describe the various movements in Hinduism, in both India and the US, among other places. However, I am not so sure that the Moslems use the term "creationism" to describe their activities in this arena. It is just a term. What is similar is not the name for the beliefs and activities, but the nature of the interactions with science and the educational and political systems.--Filll 19:06, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I would agree that "What is similar is not the name for the beliefs and activities, but the nature of the interactions with science and the educational and political systems". To put Greek myths and legends on a par with the creationist movement as it is known today seems to stretch the meaning of creationism to ridiculous limits. Greek myths and legends are not in a state of conflict with the teaching of science in schools, and I think you would be hard put to find many (any?) people demanding that the Greek creations myths should displace the teaching of evolution in schools.

As for Indian and Muslim creationism, yes, it appears that they exist. But I have yet to hear of a Shinto creationism that tries to oust evolution and displace it with Izanagi and Izanami. The only people likely to do that are extreme Japanese nationalists, and I haven't heard any rumblings from that quarter yet. Have you?

Incidentally, as I've pointed out elsewhere, the note before the article originally read: This article deals only with the concept of creationism as found in the Abrahamic religions. Please refer to Origin beliefs for other stories of creation. Later this was changed to: This article is about the Abrahamic belief; creationism can also refer to origin beliefs in general. Then someone 'improved' this to: "Creationism" can also refer to origin beliefs in general. These creeping changes broadened the scope of the term "creationism" to any kind of origin belief, which actually sounds rather New Age.

Bathrobe 02:04, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

...precisely, which is why I suggested a disambig page. I didn't know that the note at the top of the page had once read "This article deals only with the concept of creationism as found in the Abrahamic religions. Please refer to Origin beliefs for other stories of creation". Perhaps reinstating this original note would make my disambig page unnecessary.

Re Filll: "[creationism depends on] denial of all kinds of evidence and belief in a fair among[sic] of unscientific and irrational nonsense"... you are trying my patience with your unhelpful remarks. And yes, I'm aware of the fact that you're experienced (5 barnstars, wow!) and I'm a total n00b. But I feel I must say that we are trying to build a better encyclopedia. We are not here to evangelise each other. -- WolfieInu 10:03, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

<undent>Let clarify things. I have no problem with anyone having their own personal beliefs. I have no problem with someone personally believing the literal account in Genesis or the Vedas or the Koran or any other religious text. I have a problem when in the secular public sphere, as in public school classrooms, or a secular encyclopedia like Wikipedia, people want to insist that others submit to them and their own personal religious beliefs. These are usually not based on science or evidence, but just a particular interpretation of a particular religious text. I am sorry, but I believe that this starts to verge on intolerance, and I must insist that we avoid it.--Filll 13:18, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, in the modern sense of the word "tolerance", one is tolerated as long as one makes no claim to truth (i.e., "admit that what you believe is a load of nonsense, and then I'll leave you alone" ;)

Regardless, let's get back to this article. Perhaps (in the light of "Creationism"'s original disambig note, as mentioned by Bathrobe) my move for an entire disambig page is excessive, if we can get the "Origin Belief" article up to standard. Currently, however, "Origin Belief" is requesting a cleanup. I looked over it and it seems to have caught a heavy dose of POV. Perhaps we should go over and help? -- WolfieInu 14:51, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree that Origin beliefs is in a bit of a mess. In fact, I've now tagged Creation within belief systems and Origin beliefs for a merger.

Perhaps I'm being a little biased here, but isn't the (Western) debate over creationism rather distorting the Wikipedia treatment of creation myths? The heated ideological struggle between Christian creationism and evolutionary theory seems to have completely overshadowed (pre-empted, if you like) the more general field of creation stories among mankind.

Bathrobe 02:01, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I would agree with you there. The 'big picture' of mankind's quest for knowledge of his own origins is getting an unbalanced press here on WP. However, creation myths in general aren't really in my field, so I don't think I should co-ordinate any changes to Origin beliefs. I'll try to help there though, if someone more involved with the article requests something.

As for merging the 2 articles: yes, this is a good move. Creation within belief systems has a much broader base, and comes many orders of magnitude closer to NPOV than Origin beliefs. I think we could scrap (or at least summarise) everything other than the Overview in Origin beliefs, and then integrate what remains with Creation within belief systems as an introduction. Though perhaps the resultant article should be called Origin beliefs, since it is more descriptive. -- WolfieInu 09:34, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

It's not my field either. Of course it would be possible to do a cut and paste job, as you say.

I checked the history of the article on Origin beliefs. The split-off of Creation within belief systems was done by a user called User:BlueValour on 26 November 2006. BlueValour's sole comment on the Talk Page is: "I simply do not see this title (Creation myths) as being NPOV - whatever the strict definition most readers will relate to myth as an untruth. I should like to retitle this section Creation stories which, though it still carries baggage, is somewhat more neutral. May I have views, please. BlueValour 05:33, 26 November 2006 (UTC)" The split was done without any warning or discussion among users.

This split is the reason for the scrappiness of the article, which is now nothing more than a rump of the previous article (although the original article itself was poorly integrated -- the split merely made this painfully obvious). Do we reintegrate the two articles? BlueValour's split appears to have at least been partly motivated by objection to the term 'creation myth'.

Rather than reintegrate the two articles (which was overly long to start with and was crying out to be split), it is possibly better to rewrite the Origin beliefs article to remove the current bias, and add a short summary on Creation stories that links to Creation within belief systems (the latter preferably renamed). What do you think?

Bathrobe 00:58, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Clarification of two points

Apologies if this has already been discussed, but two points in the Overview bothered me a bit.

• 1. "Almost all churches teach that God created the cosmos." Almost all? are there any that don't?
• 2. "Anglican and Catholic scholars now explicitly accept the theory of Evolution". I understand that this is official doctrine, but this sentence seems to suggest that *all* catholic and anglican scholars accept this doctrine... people like Behe and Schönborn, would argue I think. Perhaps it could be more explicitly stated: "Official doctrine of the Anglican and Catholic churches now explicitly accepts the theory of Evolution..." cornis 07:03, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: 1. Yes. There are some churches that don't. See Unitarian Universalism. A church that does not require a belief in God has a hard time teaching that God created the cosmos. However, many individual UUs do believe in a God-driven creation of some kind. It's up to the individual; there is no doctrine on that point. Studerby 07:39, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Ack... [slaps forehead].. I forgot about them, or the Society of Friends for that matter... cornis 07:58, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Unitarian Universalism no longer clearly self-identifies itself as Christian though, as that article points out, ("Unitarian Universalist congregations and fellowships tend to retain some Christian traditions such as Sunday worship that includes a sermon and singing of hymns, but do not necessarily identify themselves as Christians.") and since this part of the article seems to be talking about Christian beliefs, well, I think there's a bit of a problem with that. The Society of Friends article also only seems to indicate that some Quakers are atheist, not whether or not any Quaker churches as a matter of doctrine are actually atheistic, (and thusly non-creationist). Homestarmy 00:03, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I am afraid that this demonstrates a lot of confusion. What is your point?--Filll 00:20, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

My point is that "Almost all" isn't accurate when, as far as I can tell, there are not in fact confirmably Christian churches that do not believe Creationism is true one way or another. However, i'll be happy to try and explain it better, if you can tell me what I said that was typed confusingly. Homestarmy 01:55, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Aren't there some weird denominations that say Satan made the universe, and so on? The ones where it's gotten a bit mixed in with other religions? Adam Cuerden ^talk 00:10, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

The only things that come to mind for me are Gnostics of various degrees, since from what I understand, it can be polytheistic to an extent, and I think some Gnostic groups believe that the Universe was actually created by an evil god of sorts. But the Gnosticism article seems a bit of a muddle, it is in a category for Ancient Roman Christianity and Anti-Christianity, and besides all that, I don't even know if Gnostic groups even had churches per se. Also, the wording in question seems to be in the present tense here, I don't know of any surviving Gnostic groups that claim to be Christian these days anyway. Homestarmy 01:55, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I think there's some South American and Latin American mixed religions too. Adam Cuerden ^talk 13:58, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about point 1, but I think the proposed edit to point 2 is a good idea. I've gone and edited it, any objections? -- WolfieInu 09:50, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

You need to provide some seriously verifiable sources. I don't think it's true. Orangemarlin 12:42, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Now that you mention it, I'm not so sure about the Anglicans. I know I saw in a Time recently that the Catholic Church officially accepts evolution ... but please don't ask me to delve through those stacks of Times lying around in my study ... -- WolfieInu 19:04, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

You can find the Catholic church's position [here]. As for the Quakers, they are a very difficult group to pin down, but in general it's safer to say that they accept, rather than reject, evolution, if only because they are likely to be pragmatic rather than dogmatic on most theological issues. SheffieldSteel 19:14, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Here's [something] illustrating my point about Quakers:- "When Quakers were writing for fellow Quakers, the older evangelicals tended to be suspicious of evolution, while many younger Quakers adopted it enthusiastically as part of their engagement with modernism. However, by the time of the Manchester Conference (1895) — which marks the eclipse of evangelicalism and the rise of modernism — a doctrine of progressive revelation became aligned with evolutionary ideas. Turning to Quaker naturalists, while some encompassed evolution as an essential theory for any practising botanist or zoologist, others considered that natural selection needed to be supplemented by some other process, especially in accounting for the development of mind. Despite this diversity, Quakers were generally supportive of Darwin’s theory and were critical of those Christians who rejected the theory on religious grounds." Hope this helps! SheffieldSteel 19:30, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Once again, the zealous SheffieldSteel comes to the rescue. Thank you :)

OK, how about "Official Catholic doctrine allows individual Catholics to accept or reject evolution" ... but that doesn't lead into the rest of the sentence so well. -- WolfieInu 08:00, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Clarification of the clarification

Most Christian churches in the US have no objection to evolution and do not subscribe to creationism:

United Methodist Church, National Baptist Convention, USA, Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, Presbyterian Church (USA), National Baptist Convention of America, African Methodist Episcopal Church, the Roman Catholic Church, the Episcopal Church, and others.

The members of these churches constitute over 78% of the Christians in the US. In the past, this number has been as high as 90%.

The churches that reject evolution in the US constitute a tiny minority. These include churches like Assemblies of God, the Evangelical Presbyterian Church, the Free Methodist Church, the Jehovah's Witnesses, Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod, Pentecostal Churches, Seventh-day Adventist Churches, Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod, Christian Reformed Church, and the Pentecostal Oneness churches.

As for statements that God created the cosmos, these are NOT part of evolution.

Also, it is very common for fundamentalists and creationists to just resort to claiming that anyone that disagrees with them is not Christian.--Filll 14:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I actually debated (OK, let's say "argued with" :) a theistic evolutionist the other day, and when eventually neither of us was willing to back down after about one and a half hours, he accused me of accusing him that he wasn't Christian. Nowhere during the course of our discussion had I given any indication that I'd thought this was true... on the contrary, many of my Christian friends are evolutionists, and we agree to disagree. I haven't actually heard this accusation from a creationist yet, just from evolutionists trying to, IMO, smear the opposition. Far from being "very common," it is almost unheard of. -- WolfieInu 08:09, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Then you might need a wider set of experiences to become acquainted with this tactic.--Filll 17:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

There is a nice South African word that is the only possible answer to that statement: "eish". -- WolfieInu 10:12, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Accepting evolution or not objecting to evolution isn't the same as rejecting Creationism Filll, come on now, this isn't the Young Earth Creationism article. Isn't there some saying out there that Evolution is agnostic on the existance of a creator or something? That first reference even says that many biology teachers in a survey agreed with both Creationism and evolution, I really don't understand how this supports the idea that the churches of these biologists do not subscribe to creationism, it most definently does not support the idea that none of those churches believe Creationism in some form or another to be true. The last paragraph doesn't seem to have really anything to do with Creationism, and since this section is supposed to be an overview of Creationism, going on about who rejects evolution really seems terribly off-topic. Homestarmy 16:31, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

This all depends on what you define as evolution and creationism. I think there is NO problem with belief in a creator/deity simultaneously with evolution, as demonstrated over and over (see theistic evolution for example, although I am sure you know this). However, what MOST people define as creationism (which, as you point out, is really a family of competing religious beliefs) is incompatible with a lot of the current understanding of the universe and reality from different sciences, including evolutionary biology. So it is true that as most people understand creationism, most of the large Christian churches in the US reject creationism, although if you stand on your head and change the definitions, you can argue the opposite.--Filll 16:39, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I think this all depends on how this Wikipedia article on Creationism defines Creationism, that is why we're here after all, and this article is not confined to traditional orthodox Christian creationist beliefs. What I, and most likely many other fundamentalist/conservative/even slightly orthodox Christians define as creationism, may not be compatible with the positions of the churches you list, but that doesn't matter here, because this article on Creationism isn't about the fundamentalist/conservative/even slightly orthodox Christian opinion on what Creationism is, it is about Creationism in general, and if any of those churches believe that "humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe were created in their entirety by a supernatural deity or deities (typically God), whose existence is presupposed.", then they are creationist churches, whether or not their theology on the issue actually is sound or not. (Which I highly doubt, based on your reference) Homestarmy 16:56, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Of course there are many types of creationist (Young Earth, Old Earth, Adamite, etc etc). But creationists in general usually reject the scientific method, and introduce the supernatural as an explanation for natural events. Most creationists reject some or all aspects of the Modern Synthesis or NeoDarwinian Evolutionary theory. Many Christian creationists accept biblical literalism or biblical inerrancy, at least for some aspects of the biblical text. Islamic creationists do the same for the koran. Hindu creationists or their counterparts in Hinduism do the same for some of the vedic texts. Jewish creationists do the same for the Torah. If an individual accepts the dominant scientific explanations of the universe and life and its origins, then even if they believe in God or a Creator, then they would not be referred to as a creationist in general. In fact, many fundamentalists might dismiss them and call them atheists, or Satanists, or threaten them and curse them, in a most "unChristian" fashion, but one that is quite typical in my experience, and those of others. Often, fundamentalists will accept people who believe in theistic evolution when it suits their uses to inflate certain statistics or to make a case, but then reject them in other circumstances. Just typical and annoying and it does not reflect well on them.--Filll 18:38, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

While it would be interesting to debate this issue, I think this is getting very far away from the point that according to this Wikipedia article's definition of Creationism, (Which explicitly mentions that Theistic Evolution can count) none of the churches you've named fail to qualify under this Wikipedia article's definition of what Creationism is or can be, at least as far as I see. You may think that my attempts to argue that the groups you name are actually Creationists is merely an act on my part to artifically inflate statistics, as your comment seems to suggest, but when the Wikipedia article definition of Creationism fits these groups irregardless of my motivations or yours, it really doesn't matter one way or another, I still don't see the case for "Almost all" churches believing in Creationism as opposed to saying that Christian churches believe in Creationism. Besides, being a Creationist doesn't make someone a Christian on its own, why would I want to reject these church's Creationist beliefs as non-creationist just because their theology on the issue (and likely many other issues) is likely ridiculously out of touch with the Bible? I'm starting to get the impression that you'd much rather me argue with you about fundamentalist Christianity rather than discuss whether or not all Christian churches are Creationist or not. Homestarmy 19:55, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I do not care what Wikipedia defines creationism as. It is not a primary authority. We can change it if it is wrong. By that definition, OrangeMarlin and myself and half or more of all scientists are creationists. Do you think this is a reasonable definition? Do you think I am a creationist? Do you think OrangeMarlin is a creationist? It is so ludicrous as to be laughable. You have seen our edits over the months. Do you HONESTLY believe OrangeMarlin and I are creationists? Definitely being a creationist does not make one Christian since there are Muslim and Hindu and Jewish creationists. And please try to leave out discussions of whether any given church or other is out of touch with the bible or not. The reason there are tens of thousands of different Christian sects is that they disagree with each other about the bible (and possibly other issues as well). And of course each one of these sects believes that their sect is correct and all others are wrong. I have no interest in addressing this and it is inappropriate here. But anyone who wades into this is swimming in molasses and opening up a terrible can of worms.--Filll 20:28, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I do care, because if the definition this article gives (Which is referenced in the intro, I even took care of that myself partly awhile ago) contradicts what we write in other places of the article, then this article will not be as helpful a resource to readers. If you, Orangemarlin, and half or more of all scientists believe, as far as this article is concerned, that "humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe were created in their entirety by a supernatural deity or deities (typically God), whose existence is presupposed." in some form or another, then congradulations, welcome to the Creationist team. Your jerseys should arrive in the mail within the next three business days. Intermurial debates start next week, looks like its YEC vs. OEC, Hindu Creationism vs. Islamic Creationism, and Evolutionary Creationism vs. Neo-Creationism in the first round, looks like you'll have to fend off some tough accusations of "Dogmatically atheistic" religiosity, better start developing a good game plan by game time.... Homestarmy 20:40, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh yea, and due to schedualing conflicts with Jewish Holidays, and the fact that most of the Intelligent Design team is also in the OEC team or Neo-Creationism team, Jewish Creationism and Intelligent Design will have their match a little after the first round. Homestarmy 20:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

If one includes pantheist and panentheistic definitions of God, then most atheists are on the creationist team too, including Richard Dawkins probably. So if one makes the definition broad enough, one can get every single human to be defined as a creationist. This is not particularly helpful, however. I went to http://www.onelook.com and looked up both creationist and creationism and I see there are about 50+ definitions or so. Some of these definitions are very similar, so there are maybe a good 10 definitions which are distinguishable. Perhaps a separate article on Definitions of creationism is called for to explore this issue, and different types of creationist and creationism. --Filll 20:52, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I didn't make up this definition of Creationism, "Hayward, James L." did, and even though it replaces the references I once found on what Creationism is, it sounds pretty close to what it said when I helped reference it months ago. But if there's no supernatural deity involved in your beliefs or Richard Dawkins beliefs, (Or an actual act of Creation at all, if I understand this right, certain branches of Hinduism believe all of reality to be an illusion, and hence, not really created.) it sure doesn't sound like they can be creationists, and those deposits on your team jerseys aren't refundable. Homestarmy 20:57, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Well it depends on how one defines a deity and supernatural.--Filll 21:02, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd say every Christian church more or less defines a deity and supernatural in similar ways, (Even by the extraordinarily broad definition Wikipedia often has of what a Christian church is) so once again, I really don't see why the "Almost all" is justified when talking about whether or not Christians churches are Creationist or not. Homestarmy 21:05, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm I think you have pointed out that we have some definition problems in our articles.--Filll 21:09, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

There certainly is some confusion over classification when some as-of-yet undetermined churches supposedly reject Creationism. Homestarmy 21:13, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Theistic evolution maybe should not be part of creationism, although it is on the "creationism spectrum." And naturalistic views of the Creator such as pantheism which is verging on atheism probably should not be part of creationism either, but by some definitions pantheists and other atheists would be creationists as well. Another source of confusion arises because some meanings of creationism define only where the soul comes from, so that instead of coming from the parents, the soul is created by God. So Roman Catholicism is creationist by that definition of creationism, and maybe by some others as well, but not by the most common definitions. I could go on and on through each definition in any of 30 or so dictionaries, and we could define creationism to include no more than 1 or 2% of the US population, all the way up to 95% or more of the US population. Do we need to explore this further? --Filll 21:47, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think we do need to get the definition(s) straight. Scott's continuum has evolutionary creationism and theistic evolution very nearly the same, and by their own definition the RC church is creationist in holding that souls are directly created, at the same time as holding to theistic evolution (with a few exceptions such as Behe). However, post 1965 the term creationism has been widely used to refer to creation science. Thus,

Creationists view evolution as a source of society's ills, and the writings of Morris and Clark are typical expressions of that view.... Creationists have adopted the view of Fundamentalists generally that there are only two positions with respect to the origins of the earth and life: belief in the inerrancy of the Genesis story of creation and of a worldwide flood as fact, or a belief in what they call evolution.... The creationist organizations consider the introduction of creation science into the public schools part of their ministry.

Though the emphasis on the spectrum is useful to avoid that "two position" fallacy, this common definition should be made clear.. .. dave souza, talk 22:15, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Why would talkorigins be a more reliable reference than what's in the introduction and discussed throughout the article already? (I'm not being sarcastic here, I wasn't around when the latest reference and definition was put in, I merely found some references months ago for a similar definition that was in the intro) Homestarmy 22:29, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I am not claiming talkorigins is a great reference on this issue. I am alsoo not claiming that the National Center for Science Education necessarily should have the final say in how we define creationism. But Homestarmy has clearly highlighted a difficulty we have ignored in the multiple conflicting and overlapping definitions of "creationism". Just as evolution and evolutionism have had a number of meanings over the years, so it appears that creationism has had and still retains a plethora of contradictory meanings. And now, here we are writing a semi-authorative text, and we have some confusion here. I personally would like to define creationism to include:

• insistence on supernatural, miraculous intervention at one or more stages during the development of the species.
• insistence that the supernatural agent did not choose to use the laws of nature in the creation of the species or many other features of the world or the universe
• rejection of standard accepted scientific explanations and scientific data on many issues
• tendency to insist on inerrancy and literalism of various segments of religious texts

This is just a starter, but clearly enables one to draw a clear distinction between atheists and creationists, or between creationists and the vast majority of scientists, or between creation scientists and scientists, or between Catholic doctrine and Pentecostal doctrine, for example.--Filll 22:41, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Homestarmy, that's not TalkOrigins defining anything: it's the definition used in the Decision by U.S. District Court Judge William R. Overton in January 1982. So the usage was clearly in circulation then, and the term continues to have a dual definition – theoretically it applies to anyone believing in Creation, in general practice it refers to the fundamentalist rejection of evolution and any other science perceived as contradicting a literal interpretation of biblical texts. Whether they make that explicit or, as in Thaxton and ID, they hide it behind claims that the Creator is unknowable and outside science. ... dave souza, talk 22:57, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, my mistake then. Why not have this article just not have one definition, but discuss all of them? And even then, with the way the sentence that started this reads, that still leaves the question as to which churches supposedly do not teach that "God created the cosmos". Homestarmy 23:26, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

<undent>Well we could discuss them all, but we do not really have the space for it in this article. That is why I suggest an article on Definitions of creationism..--Filll 01:53, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Good idea. That's what I was trying to achieve with a disambig page, but a Definitions of creationism article could be a more succinct way to do it. -- WolfieInu 09:48, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Since Wikipedia is not a dictionary, a "definitions of" articles are generally considered inappropriate and are routinely deleted (e.g. definitions of evolution article was deleted a few years back). If you want to write such a thing, consider going over to Wikitionary. --ScienceApologist 13:43, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

As I understand, the proposed article would not define creationism the way a dictionary defines a term, but would try to clarify what the word "creationism" could mean in different contexts, as a sort of disambig page, but without having to adhere to standard disambig page structure. -- WolfieInu 22:04, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

My understanding is that Definitions of evolution was a very inadequate article. The present evolutionism article basically describes in detail a variety of definitions of the term.--Filll 15:29, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

ID and public schools

Well, I don't want to violate WP:3RR, so I'll just post here. By the morning, User:Homestarmy will either have to violate 3RR or I'm wrong. Anyways, the Kitzmiller decision clearly stated that schools can't teach ID. Once a court decides, it becomes de facto, unless another court overturns it, which will not happen. But I'm bored with these reversions. I expect that the sentence will be gone by the time I wake up Saturday morning. Orangemarlin 07:33, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

BTW Homestarmy, the decision was based on constitutional law. Your reversion of what is essentially a constitutional fact belies your POV on the issue. Religious dogma, in whatever form, and by whatever disingenuous method utilized by religious types, is prohibited by the Establishment Clause of the first Amendment of the United States Constitution. You know that piece of paper that sits in Washington DC? And findings by court to have the force of law. You know better than this, even though it didn't appear in your AP Chemistry exams. Now I'm really exhausted. Orangemarlin 07:38, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm leaning in your direction, but why give some proud-to-be fundamentalist another reason to cry about the atheist cabal on Wikipedia? The sentence is clear enough as it is now. I know that "courts have found" is a bit redundant (because they're the only ones in charge of finding something like that) but don't think its untrue or POV. Malc82 07:41, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

A view from outside the USA: without "courts have found" it looks like an empty assertion of a POV. With "courts have found" it is clearly a statement of the legal position. Therefore much better with "courts have found". Snalwibma 08:05, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Courts have found is a POV. In fact, you cannot teach ID in public schools as a result of that decision (unless of course, you want to fund a another losing trial). It requires no other descriptive other than you cannot teach it. Oh well. Not a big deal. Orangemarlin 08:32, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

A minor point (refering to an edit summary) when something is "de facto law" we do not say "de facto" we say "de jure." Slrubenstein | Talk 15:05, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

My latin is very bad, neither being Catholic, nor really focusing on those pieces of latin I needed in med school. I actually have a link to a site that has "legal latin." I should have gone there! I hope that I did not destroy your faith in me to be a decent editor.  :) Orangemarlin 16:07, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

When I get reverted by two different people, I think i'm capable of taking the hint that I shouldn't keep on going, do I look like a User:Jason Gastrich sock to you? The decision was based on the opinions and interpretations of the Middle District of Pennsylvania court, these judges have no more ability to state once and for all what is constitutional fact and what isn't than any other judges who could have different opinions, including the Supreme Court, since future Supreme Courts can and have overruled the findings of previous courts on many occasions. "Constitutional facts" have a rather nasty little habit of being hard to pin down when decades of court decisions constantly override previous decisions, don't you think?

Though I admit, had I looked slightly closer to the reference in question, I probably would of been able to bring a much stronger argument to the table. This Kitzmiller decision was decided by the Pennsylvania Middle District appealate court. It has the force of law alright....in the Middle District of Pennsylvania. In the rest of the U.S, this court is compleatly powerless to stop any school district from teaching ID. Of course, if a school outside the Pennsylvania Middle District deciding to teach ID, the ACLU or someone would probably use the Kitzmiller decision as precedent to get a speedier decision, but that decision would have to come from a compleatly different court for it to have any affect at all outside the Pennsylvania Middle District. "Courts have found" was even me giving you a little bit of leeway, I assume by now courts besides this one district have probably given decisions against ID before, if I had really wanted to be ornery about attribution here, I could have even just written "John E. Jones III., a Pennsylvania District Court judge, found that....", and that wouldn't be a POV statement at all, but an absolute fact based on the one reference given. In fact, you can teach ID anywhere in the United States where a court has not made some binding decision against it, and as far as this Kitzmiller ref tells me, that is anywhere in the U.S. where the Pennsylvania Middle District court has no jurisdiction. As far as I can tell from the reference given, the statement currently in the article is an outright lie; Teaching of Intelligent Design in public schools does not once and for all violate the Establishment Clause of the constitution all through the country, but only in the Middle District of Pennsylvania, everywhere else, the question of whether it is or isn't a violation has yet to be decided.

And I can do without the slyly vieled accusations of hypocrasy Malc. Homestarmy 17:45, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

First of all, I'll never accuse you of being a sockpuppet of anything but maybe yourself :) I appreciate your candor and the fact that you took AP Chemistry! I agree with you that technically it has the force of law only in the Middle District of Pennsylvania. But it's not going to be appealed, and no school district anywhere is going to waste millions of dollars given this decision. I guess that's why I used de facto, because it is now going to be followed period. But with regards to the constitution, I doubt you'll be able to find anywhere that a court has found for the teaching of any religious matter. When they have, it has been overturned at the appellate or supreme court levels. Moreover, the case in Pennsylvania really didn't come down to whether religion could be taught in school (which won't happen), it came down to whether ID was a religion or not. Jones said it was. I don't think there are any further cases that will test that, since the evidence was quite clear. So technically you're right. But practically, ID won't be taught in a public school. Courts has found, however, sounds weasel wordy to me.Orangemarlin 18:04, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

The decision doesn't need to be appealed or even fought anywhere outside the Middle District of Pennsylvania, my point is that this court has no power outside its district, and so any other school outside this district (That isn't already under some other court orders not to teach ID) is free to teach ID, assuming the district and parents allow it and all that stuff. Why should this decision be followed, legally speaking, anywhere that the Kitzmiller decision has no authority?

I really don't understand why "courts have found" is very weaselly, Killer's explanation in his revert really seems to be stretching in my opinion, "some have found" is a far cry from "courts have found", "some have found" tells the reader nothing about "some", while "courts have found" identifies who the subjects are, and attributes the opinion to at least the one verifiable source and the other sources which I presume exist which sided against ID. A weasel worded statement, however, would have to "seemingly support statements without attributing opinions to verifiable sources". However, if being specific is a must, I think something like "In the United States, the District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania found in the ruling of Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District that Intelligent Design may not be taught as an alternative to Evolution in public schools. The District judge in the case, John E. Jones III, stated in his ruling that intelligent design was not science, that teaching Intelligent Design in public schools was a violation of the United States Constitutions Establishment Clause, and that Intelligent Design "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents." would work fine. Homestarmy 18:47, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

The hypocrisy assumption wasn't specifically to you (and it wasn't "slyly veiled"), POV-accusations come on a weekly basis for these articles, your's is actually one of those that deserve discussion. The proud-to-be fundamentalist of course referred to your user page. Malc82 22:36, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

(ri)There are many things you do not understand. First is how the US court system works. Jones is a judge in the US Court system. His ruling was not appealed. It stands as the current precedent based on previous SCOTUS rulings. End of story. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 21:07, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

End of unreferenced story, which compleatly fails to actually cite which SCOTUS decisions agree that Intelligent Design is a violation of the 1st amendment in the entire United States and that it may not be taught in any public school in the entire United States as an alternative to evolution? Homestarmy 21:24, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

As long as this court is the highest level that has ever judged on this matter, it's ruling is the current state of the law. SCOTUS can't decide on everything, they could only overrule. As long as they don't, the lower court's judgement stands as the current law. Malc82 22:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Throughout the entire United States, or in the Pennsylvania Middle District? Homestarmy 23:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

READ THE RULING -- It clearly states the legal precedence, clearly citing appropriate SCOTUS rulings. This really isn't that hard, but I'm also not doing your research for you. If you read the decision, the light will go on. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 20:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

The beginning makes it look like this court took the lemon test and Supreme Court precedents concerning school prayer and access to schools for Christian groups, (and things like that) and applied the lemon test and endorsement test to the question of whether or not teaching Intelligent Design in this district could be legal. So far, all I get from this is that in the Pennsylvania Middle District, the District Court used supreme court precedents for cases dealing with Christian involvement in schools in various ways to make a compleatly new ruling about Intelligent Design, which will apply only in the Pennsylvania Middle District. The Supreme Court and other courts mentioned in this decision may have applied tests similar to the ones used in the Kitzmiller decision, but I see not a single court case cited in this ruling that also dealt not only with the issue of teaching Intelligent Design in public schools, but with the issue of whether or not it can be legally taught anywhere in the United States.

The rationale of this decision clearly was based on other court's tests alright, but I see nothing at all in any cited rulings that deals specifically with intelligent design. Unless there is a SCOTUS case that makes it illegal for any public school in the entire United States to specifically teach Intelligent Design, I really don't see how the mere existance of the tests Jones used translates into Intelligent Design being outlawed nation-wide, or why a court in a separate district who has a different opinion on the issue could not take the same tests and interpret them in favor of intelligent design, thusly making it legal in at least one district for any school inside the district to teach intelligent design. The closest case I saw cited in this decision was when the Supreme Court in 1987 outlawyed teaching creation science, but just because Jones then went on to conclude that Intelligent Design is basically the same thing as creation science doesn't mean that the previous Supreme Court decision itself now applies to Intelligent Design, and once again, I still don't see what decisions are supposedly on the books outlawying Intelligent Design specifically nation-wide, or why someone won't cite them. Homestarmy 22:12, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Just as well you're not giving legal advice, then, Homestarmy. .. dave souza, talk 22:29, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Then perhaps you could explain how the decision of the Pennsylvania Middle District court has outlawed the teaching of Intelligent Design as an alternative to evolution nation-wide? I don't need a five page essay or the entire U.S. court system explained to me, a simple explanation would do. Homestarmy 22:50, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Since you operate under English law rather than Scots law I'll be cautious, but my reading is that it's not the decision that has outlawed teaching of ID, but the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution. The findings are that ID clearly contravenes that, and so is outlawed. Try it in another court anywhere in the US and the first thing they'll look at is the Kitzmiller findings. For some strange reason even ID enthusiasts seem reluctant to try, these days. .... dave souza, talk 23:09, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Creatianism

The OED has nothing on this term, and we cannot use a Wiki to source a Wiki as Wikis do not meet WP:RS

"The OED on Creationism:

A system or theory of creation: spec. a. The theory that God immediately creates a soul for every human being born (opposed to traducianism); b. The theory which attributes the origin of matter, the different species of animals and plants, etc., to ‘special creation’ (opposed to evolutionism).

1847 BUCH tr. Hagenbach's Hist. Doctr. II. 1 The theory designated Creationism..was now more precisely defined. 1872 LIDDON Elem. Relig. iii. 102 The other and more generally received doctrine is known as Creationism. Each soul is an immediate work of the Creator. 1880 GRAY Nat. Sc. & Relig. 89 The true issue as regards design is not between Darwinism and direct Creationism.

Also, this, from Str1977 is nonsense: "(created article for those denying the term)" [11]. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 10:20, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reasoned debate, Jim. It appears however that the term exists (see the AFD debate), no matter whether an article on the concept is placed under "Creationism (soul)" or "Creatianism". Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 08:38, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Though as I understand the topic, it has absolutely no relation to creationism in the sense used on this page. WLU 13:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

<undent>This whole discussion reminds me of cretinism for some reason.--Filll 13:34, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Neutral Point of View

... I'm not sure this article has one. While I don't agree with Creationism one iota, surely NPoV requires that both eventualities be accepted as equally likely, at least in this article? In reality, the view expressed is decidedly Evolutonist (especially in the intro), and so for the sake of article quality I'd argue that this be remedied. Disclaimer - I am definitely an evolutionist, I just think that this isn't NPoV. The fact that it's my PoV expressed is neither here nor there. --poorsod^talk 11:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

No, actually, it doesn't have to present them as equally valid, because they're not. That's the NPoV, see undue weight, equal validity and Pseudoscience. Oh and "...I don't agree with creationism..but..", sounds alot like, "...well I'm not racist, but..." 12:05, 20 June 2007 (UTC)