Talk:Creationism

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

Christianity section - none of the creation theories are based on Christ's teachings.... they should be labelled biblical creationism not Christian creationism

Am I the only one baffled by the listing of ideas not based on New Testament texts as "types of Christian creationism"?

I fail to see how anyone can mix up the contents of these ideas about "creation" with Christianity. As far as I can see, Christ did not have any input into these theories nor are they based in any way on His life, His teachings, or those of his immediate followers. How can they legitimately be called Christian? Personally I am offended by this.

Whilst it is undoubtedly true that (in America especially) there are some Christians that pay attention to the Old Testament, the truth is that only the New Testament is truly a Christian text. These people are not following Christ when they give credance to works written before He came to us. I think we should label these ideas as Biblical creationism and not Christian creationism. --Hauskalainen (talk) 04:04, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

The only time I've ever seen or read about Christians claiming that the Gospels were divinely inspired while that the older Hebrew texts were not divine were those behind Positive Christianity under the Nazis, who viewed the older texts as inferior "Jewish" influences.

Other than that, I believe that there's essentially no prominent sources that can be cited that support your view. Of course, I mean no offense to your particular sect or belief group- I respect your right to believe what you do- but it's clearly a fringe view among Christians. The Squicks (talk) 05:16, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I miswrote. It was late when I wrote that. I meant to write FULL credance. The ascription of the texts as being Christian, is wrong because that cannot be. The works in the Old Testament are pre-Christian. That is undeniable. If they are pre-Christian they cannot be Christian. That Christians regard PARTS of the Old Testament as divinely inspired is not in question, but most do not regard them as wholly the true Word because there are many passages therein that do not sccord with the teachings of Christ. Faith in the Trinity does not allow both the entire Old testament and the New Testament to be regarded as divine unless one makes excuses. Therefore Christian circles I move in are much more selective as to what they choose to take from the Old Testament. That SOME Christians (especially in the U.S.) are more inclined to give divine credence to the entire Old Testament is not in doubt, but that does not make the description "Christian" correct as an adjective for the creationists beliefs. There are very very many Christians that do not regard the creation story in Genesis as being entirely correct, nor do many of us adhere to these theories. Hence Biblical is prefereable to Christian because they stem from words in the bible and not the words of Christ.--Hauskalainen (talk) 10:39, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Have boldly changed the "types of Christian creationism" heading to "types of creationism" – it includes specifically Judaic ideas of evolutionary creationism, and also includes Theistic evolution which covers Christians opposed to literalist creationism. While the texts are Old Iestament, I've seen creationists referring to Christ's teachings that these old testament texts are to be accepted or believed: don't have the source immediately to hand. So, from their viewpoint the New Testament incorporates and supports these earlier texts. . . dave souza, talk 10:54, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

" I've seen creationists referring to Christ's teachings that these old testament texts are to be accepted or believed". I thnk we'd all love to see that! Especially with the reference to New Testament scripture where Christ teaches this...... You'd better invest the time asap in finding that reference!--Hauskalainen (talk) 13:51, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd better pull together some more important articles, or go for a walk, or finish my coffee. However, being easily diverted, I've done the googling that you seem to be unable to do. See this article, and this may also be useful. No need to thank me effusively, dave souza, talk 23:57, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

The Old Testament is accepted by Christians as having equal authority with the New Testament. A big reason is Jesus Himself had a very high view of the Old Testament. For example, "I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished." (Matthew 5:18, NIV) Genesis is part of the Torah, which is the Law.--Jorfer (talk) 21:21, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

These verses from Jesus are used to back up the canonicity of the Old Testament: Luke 24:44-46, Luke 24:27, John 5:39, Matt. 4:4,7,10, and Luke 11:51. These verses make clear that Jesus viewed the Old Testament as truthful. This does leave room for interpretation as to what kind of truth it contains (literal or metaphorical) but does not leave room for significant inaccuracy. Jesus expected the Jews to believe He was The Messiah on His embodiment of the Old Testament, which requires the Old Testament be a reliable source.--Jorfer (talk) 21:51, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Since Jesus Christ is God (second member of the Trinity, known as the only begotten Son of God) as John writes in his Gospel and God inspired the Old Testament writers, then Jesus Christ inspired the Old Testament writers. Therefore, the Old Testament is Christian. (You may disagree with either or both premises, so then replace "since" with "if").66.53.221.160 (talk) 04:38, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

'Judaism and Christianity' intro

The introductory paragraph to this section makes a number of WP:OR (or possibly WP:SYNTH) conclusions:

• "creationism based on Genesis owes more to Judaism than to Christ's own teaching" -- I'm fairly sure there're passages of the New Testament that Creos point to as Jesus reaffirming the truth of the Old.
• "Although some Christians today still believe in creationism based on Genesis, they are following an earlier Jewish tradition" -- this is particularly dodgy, as there does not seem to be a particularly strong "Jewish tradition" of Biblical literalism -- that is mainly a Christian (and particularly a Protestant) view.

Even the following should probably have a ref:

• "Most Christians regard the books of the Old Testament, including the Torah, as holy and revered as being inspired by God"

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 11:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Whoever wrote these things was uninformed about the development of early thinking on creation. The first line of Genesis is normally translated: "In the beginning God created the heavens (note the plural) and the earth, and the earth was empty and without form..." In fact the Hebrew is inherently ambiguous, and can equally be translated "In the beginning of God's creating, when the everything (i.e., the heavens and the Earth) was empty and formless..." (The second is the translation used by Rashi, for example). In the second translation God's work isn't one of creation, ("everything" already exists), but of ordering. The bias towards the first meaning began with the Hellenistic Jewish philosopher Philo of Alexandria, who was heavily influenced by Greek Platonism. The Greeks were the first to point out that the world must have had a beginning, a point prior to which it did not exist; Philo saw the logic of this and taught accordingly. His writings were immensely influential among the early Christians (the more intellectual ones), and formed the basis of the idea that God existed prior to the world, which he created. Gradually this came to be the dominant view in Judaism as well, but it wasn't the original view.PiCo (talk) 11:10, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Would you have sources to hand that you could use to rewrite this? Actually, I suspect a whole article on 'Development of Jewish and Christian interpretations of the Old Testament' (or similar) would probably be warranted if somebody could find the time and the sources. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 04:03, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

"Allah" vs "God"

AFAIK, most Muslims use 'Allah', even when speaking in English (most probably because Islam privileges Arabic, as the original language of the Koran, above other languages). It would therefore seem more appropriate to use 'Allah' rather than 'God' in the context of "Islamic Creationism". I will not revert to change this, but would support any editor who does so, and would disapprove of any attempt to change it back to 'God'. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 03:55, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

MOS:ISLAM recommends using God instead of Allah. Gabbe (talk) 07:58, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. Have also linked to God in Islam per that MOS. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 08:26, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

"Prevalence" section

How large was the sample?

67.148.120.103 (talk)stardingo747 —Preceding undated comment added 01:51, 29 November 2009 (UTC).

There are several polls and surveys mentioned in that section. Which one are you refering to? Gabbe (talk) 02:19, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Original research on relationship to book of Genesis

Hauskalainen (talk · contribs) has repeatedly added the following sentence at the start of the Judaism and Christianity section:

The Book of Genesis predates Christianity and forms part of the Torah, a Hebrew Jewish scripture and therefore creationism based on Genesis owes more to Judaism than to Christ's own teaching.

While the first part up to the comma may seem a truism, the conclusions then drawn from it are clearly original research and as such unacceptable without verification from a reliable source presenting the same conclusions. Hauskalainen. please present a source for the statement, and discuss it here before re-adding a statement that several editors find problematic. Thanks, dave souza, talk 22:59, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Now that the block on my editing has been lifted I want to return the disucssion to the point that had been added to the article (and multiply deleted) that Christian belief based on Genesis is primarily related to earlier Jewish beliefs being based entirely on a jewish text predating Christ. Although Jews and Christians both believe in the Old Testament, their interpretations can be different and Jews and Christians mostly diverge on the teachings of Christ and Christ's place in faith. These differences arise from the teachings of Christ and of Christian scholars that came after him. It is of course a truism that Christians founding their belief in creationism on a book of the Torah are essentially following a an earlier Jewish faith and not the word of Christ who actually spoke of nothing about the mechanism of creation and the means by which God had created the world. It seems to me that editors who removed my reference to Christians believing in the literal truth of Genesis are primarily sourcing their belief on a Jewish text did so because they do not want that to be "revealed" (though clearly it is blindingly obvious to many). Now, I have been accused of breaching WP:AGF in doing so, but that is because I find their argument (that it needs someone scholarly to have said this) to be wholly unconvincing. But to get around the argument I would like those editors to tell me how the article can make the point (that belief in Creation based on Genesis is primarily built on an earlier Jewish belief and not on the teachings of Christ). That is fundamentally true and I believe that the point should clearly be made in the article. Christian scholars mostly assume that most Christians do not have to have such a thing pointed out to them, but there will be people reading Wikipedia who do not know this.

Incidental note: This is not the first time I have met this kind of difficulty in editing Wikipedia. I had the same problem with an article on health care in the UK when I stated in WP that losing one's job in the UK does not result in losing access to health care because health care is provided by the government. An American insisted that I had to find a British source that said that losing a job does not result in losing access to health care, but no British source would ever write such a thing because the very notion (that health care access should be tied to employment) is, in British eyes, ridiculous. The only way to prove the point was to appeal to logic. It went to arbitration and of course it came back that it was not necessary to provide a source for such a thing that was obvious from logic. I regard this dispute about the Christian faith in Genesis (by some Christians at least) as owing more to Judaism than to the teachings of Christ as being in the same category as the health care dispute. The test of this is for the person(s) opposing this statement to give good reasons in logic for their doing so. As far as I can see, there are none and I challenge them to provide some before I take this to arbitration. Or, if we can come up with a form of words which expresses the intent without offending the sensibilities of those who deleted my edit then maybe we can avoid going to dispute resolution on this one. But that puts the onus on them to make the first move.--Hauskalainen (talk) 12:22, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Before I reply, could you provide a link to this arbitration discussion? The one that "came back that it was not necessary to provide a source for such a thing that was obvious from logic"? Gabbe (talk) 12:48, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

It wouldn't have gone to arbitration, ArbCom doesn't deal with content issues, etc. " it will not make editorial statements or decisions about how articles should read ("content decisions"), and users should not ask the Committee to make these kinds of decisions, as it will not do so." I suspect the editor is talking about something like the Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard. Dougweller (talk) 13:03, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

(unindent)Hauskalainen, your edit was "The Book of Genesis predates Christianity and forms part of the Torah, a Hebrew Jewish scripture and therefore creationism based on Genesis owes more to Judaism than to Christ's own teaching." First, there's the problem of 'Christ's own teaching' which is not encyclopedic. 'Christ' is a title & not only do we not use titles this way, this particular title is used to acknowledge divinity. Then there's the issue of whether we know what Jesus taught at all. But I think the basic problem is that ' Christian creationism' is an interpretation of the Bible by Christians, not by Jews, and that's optional. You can't blame the Torah for the way some Christians interpret it. This is not at all similar to your health care dispute. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 13:25, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Gabbe: I used the word arbitration very loosely. I meant dispute resolution but as this was several years ago I cannot remember which route was taken or even which article it was discussed in. I edit very many health care articles. However, the issue is very clear in my mind because an editor asked for a reference about something so obvious ´(to a Brit at least). I have no intention of trawling my past edits to look for this but you can do so if you wish. The point is, I think, very clear.

Dougweller: You are right. It was not to the arbitration committee. My bad use of words unfortunately. (See my reply to Gabbe above). As to the point you make about interpretation, I agree, but the point is that they are interpreting a document that pre-dates Christ and which is a fundamental text of another religion. That is the point I want the article to make. The parallel to the healthcare argument is what I regard as an unreasonable calling for a citation for something that is fundamentally very obvious from pure logic. Below is text which Gabbe posted at my TALK page.

The bit you included was "The Book of Genesis predates Christianity and forms part of the Torah, a Hebrew Jewish scripture and therefore creationism based on Genesis owes more to Judaism than to Christ's own teaching."

In that sentence, the following five statements are made (either explicitly or implicitly): P1) The Book of Genesis predates Christianity P2) The Book of Genesis forms part of the Torah P3) The Torah is a Hebrew Jewish scripture C) Creationism based on Genesis owes more to Judaism than to Christ's own teaching. S) P1, P2 and P3 together lead to C

All five of them must be attributable in order to meet the threshold for inclusion. For the statements P1, P2 and P3 sourcing would be trivial, any decent book on the history of Christianity would suffice. I don't think a citation for those three statements would add anything to the article. So far I think we are all in perfect agreement. Statements C and S, however, may well be true – but are less trivial to verify. For them a citation would (in my view) be prudent. Specifically, if there isn't a source for S, it is an example of novel synthesis. Remember that the onus is on you.

Also, let me again emphasise that the reason you were blocked was edit-warring, not including the sentence marked in green. If, for example, you had been editing the article World War II, and someone asked you for a source that WW2 ended in 1945, violating WP:3RR on that article would likewise in all likelihood have gotten you (or anyone else for that matter) blocked. Gabbe (talk) 08:46, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I assume that Gabbe meant to tell us P1 P2 and P3 are all propositions, that C is a conclusion and that this is based on the Supposition S that P1 P2 and P3 taken together can only lead us to that conclusion. Of that is so, then he has indeed summed up the issue quite well. He seems to accept that it would be easy to get sources for P1 P2 and P3 so these are not really propositions as much as fact. We could label then as F1 F2 and F3 for argument but I don't think that is really at issue. He accepts (or seems to accept that C and S may well be true), but like my detractor in the health care issue, he wants a reference for someone else coming to the same conclusion. Well, just as it was not necessary for me to provide a reference for stating the obvious (that losing one's job in in the UK does not result in the loss of health care) I would argue that it is not necessary to obtain a citation for someone saying because F1 F2 and F3 are true, C must be true. One can argue the case using logic. Now WP: does state that using mathematical transformations does not breach WP:NOR has this to say on "Routine calculations".

This policy does not forbid routine calculations, such as adding numbers, converting units, or calculating a person's age, provided editors agree that the arithmetic and its application correctly reflect the information published by the sources from which it is derived.

I know its pushing it a bit but pure logic is involved in if P1=TRUE and P2=TRUE and P3=TRUE then C=TRUE.

Now we can argue perhaps what is the right way to phrase C (in other words "Creationism based on Genesis owes more to Judaism than to Christ's own teaching" is not really a proper conclusion without an examination of Christ's teaching), so I think I can be flexible (you might argue we need to be more rigid) about what C should say. But the issue really is that Christians that do take a literal interpretation of Genesis are using a ancient jewish text rather than relying on anything which scripture tells us that Jesus said. That is what I think needs to be said. It may be obvious to you and me, but like the health care issue, it clearly nay be not so transparent to others. --Hauskalainen (talk) 15:36, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

It may help if my detractors could give us an example of why, if P1 P2 and P3 are true then under what circumstances might C NOT be true. That may help us to get a better definition of C (as per my example above, i.e. that we have not examined what Christ actually did say).--Hauskalainen (talk) 15:41, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

If you are so sure, take it to WP:NOR. That's the appropriate place for this discussion. Dougweller (talk) 16:02, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

The more energy (and space) someone dedicates to laying out his or her argument about a certain point, the more likely it is that the editor is violating NOR, because NOR forbids us from putting our own arguments (no matter how logical) into articles. period. Now, we can put in significant views from reliable sources. So, Hauskalainen, just find a verifiable source that makes this argument. That is all. Do what all editors of an encyclopedia do, do research (read books on the history of creationism, read the Anchor Bible volumes on Genesis and the four Gospels, etc) and see if any scholar has made this argument. If one has, and you have a citation, put it in! Otherwise, move on. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:26, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Dougweller, at this point a query on WP:NORN would seem the most reasonable course of action. Gabbe (talk) 16:53, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Cannot even one of you make an argument that the opposite could be true? By which I mean that that Creationism based on Genesis owes more to the teachings of Christ than it does to Genesis, a founding Jewish scripture? I think if someone could do that we could have a real dispute on outr hands. At the moment it seems a bit one sided. --Hauskalainen (talk) 17:02, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Why is it so difficult for you to provide a source? I could argue that Christ taught Genesis according to his own interpretation and that's what his followers adhere to today. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:14, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

That might be a valid argument if you could get a WP:RS to cite. Jesus said he was not trying to overturn the Old Law but he was not talking about Genesis. I know of no one who regards the creation story as law.--Hauskalainen (talk) 17:31, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

That's my point! You're assuming people who are reading the article have some knowledge about the Torah/Bible/Christ's teachings. Having only a "pop culture" knowledge of the three, I was able to make a plausible argument rebutting your proposed addition. If I added it in the article, you or someone else would have removed it and asked that I provide sources. You need to provide sources not to convince people who are knowledgeable about the subject, but to show readers unfamiliar with the subject that a reliable source has made that judgement. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:48, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Not so. What you created was a false proposition P. My argument is that pure logic supports a certain conclusion C based on P1 P2 and P3 which are petty much irrefutable (though I would modify C slightly from the original text).--Hauskalainen (talk) 17:56, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

You're still not getting it. My proposition was false but plausible to people unfamiliar with the subject. Bottom line: arguing here that you don't need a source won't get you anywhere. You'll have to take it "up the chain" if you want but it'd be much more productive if you just provide a source. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:07, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

We don't have to make an argument that the opposite is true. See WP:BURDEN: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." Gabbe (talk) 17:23, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

That is what the opposition argument centred on in the health care argument. The argument was overturned because one can appeal to logic.--Hauskalainen (talk) 17:31, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

"Overturned"? By whom? Has someone claimed the authority to settle content disputes? Gabbe (talk) 18:15, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Not comparable, but I've raised the issue here: [1]. Please take the discussion there as you aren't convincing anyone here. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 18:04, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

The very use of the word "therefore" is a pretty obvious indication of a synthesis. The sentence also seems to add little to the article. Perhaps the idea that the culture wars is all the Jews fault? I can't see how it adds information to the page beyond a bit of tautology, and very much support its removal.

One can't appeal to logic, that's original research. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 18:47, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Christian myth?

Why does this article refer on more than one occasion to 'the Christian myth..'? The author may believe creation as described in Genesis is a myth, but that's entirely subjective...—Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.168.247.125 (talk)

From Mythology : "In the study of folklore, a myth is a sacred narrative explaining how the world and humankind came to be in their present form."--LexCorp (talk) 17:19, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Right, except that the Bible isn't folklore and in modern usage, the term myth always implies something which is in no way true. I'm aware that this has been discussed in much more detail on other discussion pages, but my point is that other words could be used here - myth is incorrect and is used, I suspect, primarily by non-Christians in order to offend... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.168.247.125 (talk) 20:16, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

From Folklore: "Folklore culture, including stories, music, dance, legends, oral history, proverbs, jokes, popular beliefs, customs, and so forth within a particular population comprising the traditions (including oral traditions) of that culture, subculture, or group." Emphasis is mine. The Bible is the single most important piece of folklore in the Christian culture (particularly the parables section). Myth as used in the article is exactly correct. The only correct alternative that comes to mind is Creation Myths so maybe change 'the Christian myth..' to 'the Christian creation myth..' is a good edit. Your suspicions are groundless and as an addendum, me thinks some Christians will find it very offensive if you demote their sacred narrative from the myth status to simply a narrative. Your failure to assign the correct meaning of a word given its contexts and, further more, substitute its meaning with the one that gives most offence to a Christian subset group should not be the basis for editorial changes to this article. The average Christian's intelligence is greater than what you seem to credit them with and I think most, if not all of them, will clearly understand and assign the correct meaning of the word "myth".--LexCorp (talk) 21:42, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

'Myth' does sound offensive to Christians in this context, however most Wikipedia editors have decided to use this to cover the less commonly understood 'scholarly' use of the term, which does not necessarily imply that the text is not true. ^rossnixon 01:47, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Something I feel worth pointing out is that Universally used terms are often preferable to less widely distributed terms. Basically, it's best to keep it simple yet formal. For example, "wall" is prefered over "bulkhead" as most people will recognize wall whereas many people will get confused over bulkhead. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 03:46, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Hideous POV issues

Firstly, who is anyone to say that any theory is a myth, and then at the same time say that they are neutral? What is the definition of neutral? Especially considering theories commonly accepted, such as the Genesis theory. I, for one, absolutely believe in the Genesis theory, and also believe that God may have carried out these actions through evolution as the Bible doesn't say that God piled everything together with his hands. Apparently, we came from dust, isn't it possible that God created us just as said in the Bible, and that when he said for us to be that we evolved, not by chance, but through intelligent design? Furthermore, would the people who deny the evolution theory entirely consider this to be NPOV? These articles have been responsible for a lot of criticism of Wikipedia, which could greatly be reduced if we were to simply neutralize these articles. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 02:26, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and therefore articles are based on fact and scientific observations rather than belief systems. We should not be using the word theory when the phrase Philosophical theory is appropriate. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:46, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Still yet, there has to be words other than "myth" that we can use, and not just for the Genesis "account," but for the other popular beliefs as well. Fact is it's believed by many, and cannot be proved wrong anymore than it can be proved correct, so "myth" is not here. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 02:52, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I think you're a little confused about the term myth. I just check Oxford's Dictionary of the Bible and it tells me that the term myth

covers those stories or narratives which describe the actions of the other-worldly in terms of this world, in both OT and NT. In Genesis, the Creation and the Fall are myths, and are markedly similar to the creation stories of Israel's Near Eastern neighbours. It was a mistake of expositors and preachers in the past to treat these chapters as ‘historical’ accounts of the origin of the universe and the cause of original sin. There are also myths in OT (e.g. Isa. 25: 7) and NT (e.g. Matt. 24: 31) to express beliefs about the end of the world and God's judgement. Some theologians use the term ‘myth’ to denote a way of expressing intimations of supernatural significance; they are rendered intelligible by means of familiar terms derived from valid natural experience.

Cheers, Ben (talk) 02:58, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

The words 'sledgehammer' and 'nut' keep jumping into my head as I read this. Can't everyone just agree that the word 'myth' has particular connotations in the mind of the average reader, that it's therefore, probably, offensive to tens of millions of Christian readers and just replace it with something else. Why are non-believers so determined to have their way in things like this? And I don't want to burst your little Wiki bubble guys, but when it comes to the accuracy of terminology in this resource, one of the longest ever discussions held here centred on whether an article about the Northern Irish town of Londonderry should be headed 'Londonderry' or 'Derry'. It is still, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, incorrectly headed 'Derry' - again, sadly lacking in the factual neutrality that people expect from encyclopedias81.156.0.191 (talk) 10:28, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

There's no justification for describing Genesis as anything other than a "myth". It is treated equally with all other creation myths, and isn't separated out for any special criticism or praise, which is what NPOV demands. NPOV doesn't demand that we elevate any creation myth to the status of scientific theory.—Kww(talk) 03:25, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, it should not be praised or denied on the project. Neither should any other account for the Earth's existance IMHO unless there's definate proof, thus making it fact. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 03:31, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

e/cYes, that's explained in the thread directly above this one as a matter of fact, which I didn't notice at first, but did shortly after starting the thread. It is actually indeed a valid term to use here, but would the average reader know this? Some people will automatically associate it with "myth" as in Mythbusters for example. Perhaps instead of getting rid of the word "myth" we could explain what exactly constitutes a "myth" in a way that clearly separates the use of the term from it's use in MythBusters? I still think this article is off balance however, because it seems to be pro evolution theory, which has been enough to set more than a few notable figures on fire with the project. The word myth was not originally what caught my attention; I first noticed how it was written like "creationists reject science and reason." PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 03:31, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think this article is a suitable place to get into the details of the word myth any more than I think the evolution article is a suitable place to get into the details of the word theory. However, we make use of wikilinks to aid the curious reader. Cheers, Ben (talk) 04:30, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Calling them all myth keeps us within our NPOV policy. Using the word 'theory' would be absolutely wrong and confusing as it's a scientific term and this is not about science. Dougweller (talk) 06:32, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, considering that "myth" has connotations of untruth for some readers maybe we can find some other NPOV word for this article, and it seems to me that "account" or "story" both would be acceptable for all creation myths. Myth is used in the specific sence mentioned above mostly in academia, and since the main purpose of this article isn't biblical exegesis I think we could use some other, less technical term.Sjö (talk) 13:39, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

/agreed81.156.0.191 (talk) 18:51, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Myth issues aside

The article still seems of balance. For example, the article states "Most Christians around the world today accept evolution as the most likely explanation for the origins of life, and do not take a literal view of the Genesis creation myth." It seems to imply that creationism, or at least the literal belief in the accounts for creation, is dying. Bottom line is I've heard more than one complaint that Wikipedia is "atheist," and articles related to creationism and evolution are often cited. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 03:59, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Viewed on a world-wide basis, belief in Genesis and similar myths as literal fact is dying. To state otherwise would be misrepresenting reality. The article doesn't represent this as a good or a bad thing, because that would be an NPOV violation.—Kww(talk) 04:17, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Yep. And we don't rewrite our articles because there are complaints we are atheist, rightwing leftwing whatever. Dougweller (talk) 06:18, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

If you look at Creationism#Prevalence or the articles linked therein, you'll find several sources supporting the statement "Most Christians around the world today accept evolution as the most likely explanation for the origins of life, and do not take a literal view of the Genesis creation myth." Do you have any other specific complaints regarding NPOV? I don't mean to be blunt, but "I've heard more than one complaint that Wikipedia is atheist" is not, by itself, a sufficient reason to put a {{NPOV}} tag on the article. Gabbe (talk) 08:50, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

PCHS, I do not see how any of this has anything to do with atheism. Of course one can believe in God and also evolution, and reject the first two chapters of Genesis as not being a scientific (read, accurate) account of creation. In fact, the subject of the sentence you quote refers not to atheists but to Christians, so obviously all of them believe in God and are not atheists. Now, what is your point? Slrubenstein | Talk 16:29, 10 December 2009 (UTC)