Talk:Young Earth creationism

Support outside USA

It appears that between 18 and 40% of Americans believe in YEC. But what of other countries? The theory cannot be limited only to Americans. Are there any surveys or reports on support for the theory in other countries.Royalcourtier (talk) 02:57, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

If you find them in reliable sources, you're welcome to put them forward for this article. I note it already has a figure showing "Views on human evolution in various countries." . . dave souza, talk 11:43, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

I updated the number from the latest credible survey. The U.S. number is reported currently at 34%. Evangelical Christians are the most likely to support YEC and evangelicalism is a very American movement. 2602:304:788B:DF50:8CDD:5461:389A:631B (talk) 23:58, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

That survey did not discuss YEC in particular. I moved the content to the creationism article. Jytdog (talk) 00:13, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

You wrote here "It is definitely creationism, read the article:" I agree that it is creationism, and as I noted, I moved it to the Creationism article (diff of addition there). This article is about a type of creationism - young earth creationism - and that survey didn't discuss YEC. Jytdog (talk) 17:09, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

I put it back because we were looking for an updated study and it is inline with past statistics. I noticed you did not remove "A 2011 Gallup survey reports that 30% of U.S. adults say they interpret the Bible literally" That also has nothing to do with YEC, in your strict view. If anything the latest study looks to say that 30% has ticked upwards to 34% in the past 6 years. 2602:304:788B:DF50:8CDD:5461:389A:631B (talk) 17:12, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

The Pew piece says nothing about literal interpretation. The only place "34" appears is "The same survey found that 34% of Americans reject evolution entirely, saying humans and other living things have existed in their present form since the beginning of time.". Stop misrepresenting the source, please. Jytdog (talk) 17:37, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for removing the Gallup poll. I didn't misrepresent anything, "living things have existed in their present form since the beginning of time" definitely implies creation, don't be dense. I agree it does not specifically address YEC. 2602:304:788B:DF50:8CDD:5461:389A:631B (talk) 17:52, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

This Video gives (referenced?) percentages for other countries. JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 13:03, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Religious belief and pseudoscience

Skimming through the fourteen years of this article's history, I see that until late August 2017, the first sentence called YEC a religious doctrine, religious belief, or (briefly) a form of creationism. Recent edits by an IP and, somewhat surprisingly, an experienced editor, have cast it as pseudoscience. Religious belief is not science. Despite creationists' attempts to argue otherwise, science is not religious belief.

Anyone paying attention to this topic is likely to be aware of the type of apologetics which wraps itself in the vocabulary of science. That is the part we justifiably call pseudoscience, and it appears in this article's second paragraph, where "creation science" is mentioned.

One more time, with feeling: although some apologists may use sciencey language in attempts to defend fundamentalist religious belief, that religious belief is not, in and of itself, pseudoscience. Just plain Bill (talk) 11:57, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

I think that I agree that YEC is a faith movement which promotes pseudoscience rather than "being pseudoscience" itself. Pseudoscientific arguments are used to justify the fundamentalist dogmas derived from a literalist reading of scripture they consider sacred and without error. —PaleoNeonate – 12:32, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

I made the first revert of Just plain Bill and the consensus version is the one he reverted to and the pseudoscience mentioned in a latter paragraph in the lead was the agreed upon version reached after much discussion. The change made by the IP editor in late August was indeed the deviation from long standing consensus. I apologize for causing confusion, that was my error. I hope this will close the discussion, I will spend the rest of the day wearing my dunce cap... 2602:304:788B:DF50:D9F6:63D1:857A:104 (talk) 18:18, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. The piece of elbow macaroni lodged in my ear is telling me there is no need for penance on anyone's part. If your head feels chilly, you don't need my permission to wear whatever cap you like. Just plain Bill (talk) 18:28, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

When labeling the argument used by the 'Believers in flood geology', the current version stated that their arguments were often 'framed with pseudoscientific misconceptions'. Carleton is the reference used to support such a claim. However, when I checked the reference itself, it was an article stating its point of view without providing any further explanation or evidence. Instead, it just stated that 'Their arguments are detailed and often refer to scientific evidence, but may use it incorrectly'. I, as a reader, find it not satisfactory enough. I wonder whether someone could help to clean this up and provide more informative and credible sources, or revise the current statement. Thanks— Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.63.131.235 (talk) 15:19, 22 December 2017‎ (UTC)

Another potential source, which discusses Young Earth Geology in the context of pseudoscience: . More are also easily found in other related articles, or searching. —PaleoNeonate – 18:13, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for providing the extra source. However, this piece of article did not point out any flaws in the argument used by the 'Believers in flood geology', either. I agree that there may be some other related articles if someone just google for it, but I think one of the prominent merits of Wikipedia is that statements need to be backed with appropriate sources instead of just citing some article that does not provide any solid evidence or argument. Without appropriate support of that original statement '..., though often framed with pseudoscientific misconceptions', I think it is more appropriate to revise it to '..., but some people consider them being framed with pseudoscientific misconceptions.' I am a newbie regarding editing wiki pages, and again, thanks for your reply. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.63.136.107 (talk) 02:37, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

It's not necessary for the article (or selected reliable sources) to go in details about why it's misleading (only to summarize), but improvements are always possible. There's the existing section "Scientific refutation"; we of course already have articles about mainstream science (including plate tectonics, age of the earth, evidence of common descent, etc). About flood geology, its own article has more details (including another source about pseudoscience and the section Flood geology#Modern geology and flood geology). —PaleoNeonate – 06:25, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

References

Section on biblical dates for creation

Just thought I'd point out that the book of Genesis doesn't give a date for creation, making the first sentence of the section rather pointless. ("The first major comprehensive draft of Genesis was composed by the Yahwist in the late 7th or the 6th century BC, during the Babylonian captivity, with later additions made by the priestly source in the post-exilic period.") The biblical date for creation is arrived at by adding up numbers stated and implied from Genesis to Daniel - it comes out at exactly (not "about") four thousand years. I suggest re-writing the section using the article Chronology of the Bible. PiCo (talk) 06:18, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Good idea for a rewrite based on chronology of the Bible, worth noting it's not necessarily adding up numbers, as in Ussher's attempt at historical analysis. Other beliefs included Premillennialism with the belief that the 6 days of creation prefigured 6,000 years from creation to the return of Christ, followed by a thousand year Millennium... so history was compressed into a preconceived timespan, with 4,000 years a significant point. . . dave souza, talk 18:28, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

"Pseudoscience" term

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The term "pseudoscience" does not belong in this article. It is objectionable because it is both non-neutral and non-objective. It casts aspersions over the subject, placing it in a negative light to the reader before the claims in the body of the article have even been presented. The term is unnecessary, prejudicial and defamatory, and is also redundant when viewed in the context of the same paragraph. By contrast, Conservapedia's article on Darwinism does not use the term, either in the lede section or in the body of the article. It does, however, include Darwinism in the pseudoscience category at the bottom of the page. Even there it still reflects bias, but if it must be used, it should be only in that way.-JGabbard (talk) 13:12, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

YEC is a paragon of pseudoscience, WP:RS agree. See WP:NLT. Tgeorgescu (talk) 14:27, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Off-topic chat

How is Young Earth Creationism not a pseudoscience? Its proponents insist that it is a science, yet, simultaneously demonstrate that no experiment, research or science can be done with it. What experiment, research or science has been done by Young Earth Creationists to demonstrate that "descent with modification" does not exist because the Bible said God magically poofed the world into existence 4000 to 10000 years ago that do not involve playing Biblical word games, perpetuating maliciously deliberate ignorance of natural phenomena, perpetuating obvious hoaxes or creating blood libel against opponents of Young Earth Creationism?--Mr Fink (talk) 14:58, 27 May 2018 (UTC) For the record, I have never seen YEC proponents argue that natural selection doesn't happen, just that it isn't an example of creating new genetic information that would be needed for the bacteria to higher animals evolution to happen. Also, "blood libel" has some very specific negative history, I personally wouldn't just use it willy nilly. {{u|zchrykng}} {T|C} 15:05, 27 May 2018 (UTC) Considering as how YEC proponents routinely, if not fanatically, insist on equating evolution with Satanism and blame proponents of evolution (and everything else that is not 100010% pro YEC) for school shootings, the Holocaust, bad manners, murder and bigotry in general, Satanism, and the rise of Fascism, Communism, terrorism and Islam, my use of "blood libel" is very much appropriate.--Mr Fink (talk) 19:26, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

We are not here to decide if YEC is pseudoscience, whether the label is injurious to YEC or how Conservapedia describes Darwinian theory. We are here to report what reliable sources say about YEC. Currently, we cite the National Center for Science Education. Is this sufficient? - SummerPhD^v2.0 18:10, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Other sources:

• Brian Regal (15 October 2009). Pseudoscience: A Critical Encyclopedia: A Critical Encyclopedia. ABC-CLIO. p. 44. ISBN 978-0-313-35508-0.

• Massimo Pigliucci; Maarten Boudry (16 August 2013). Philosophy of Pseudoscience: Reconsidering the Demarcation Problem. University of Chicago Press. p. 365. ISBN 978-0-226-05182-6.

• Michael D. Gordin (26 September 2012). The Pseudoscience Wars: Immanuel Velikovsky and the Birth of the Modern Fringe. University of Chicago Press. pp. 135–136. ISBN 978-0-226-30442-7. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:42, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

No, it is not. If I didn't think you were being facetious and disingenuous that would be laughable. The "National Center for Science Education" is neither sufficient nor satisfactory as a definitive or authoritative source because of their rabid bias. They are the leading anti-creationist organization in America, and opposing creation science/young earthism in public education is their primary tenet, i.e., the central purpose of their very existence. It is akin to citing King George III as a source to defame the American Revolution as treasonous and immoral. What else would you expect him to say? Again, attach the pseudoscience label as a category trailing the article if you must, but do not poison the well in the lede paragraph. Reader(s) do not need to be told what to think, but should be allowed to first draw their own conclusion(s). - JGabbard (talk) 23:44, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

I was being neither facetious nor disingenuous. My goal was to prompt focused discussion. From your comment, you seem to be concerned that NCSE is not independent on the issue.

Tgeorgescu has provided three more sources. The publishers in question are ABC-CLIO and University of Chicago Press. From where I'm sitting, those are both reliable sources: "(A)cademic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources." Short of a high-impact, peer-reviewed journal, we're good here.

In terms of independence, academic sources that discuss YEC at all are, quite frankly, going to treat it as pseudoscience because it checks all the boxes.

As to whether the label puts YEC "in a negative light" or is "unnecessary, prejudicial and defamatory", first remember, this is clearly a WP:FRINGE topic, one that "departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field." We do call pseudoscience "pseudoscience", fraud "fraud", etc. when reliable sources call them "pseudoscience", etc. If such sources say YEC is pseudoscience, we should. A "negative light"? Irrelevant. "Unnecessary"? No, from our perspective, things are what reliable sources say they are. "Prejudicial"? Perhaps, but not prejudiced. "Defamatory"? That's a legal term, best to avoid here. - SummerPhD^v2.0 03:19, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

BfCS rejects generally accepted knowledge (important conclusions and the extensive evidence supporting them) that is central to several scientific disciplines: astrophysics, astronomy, nuclear physics, geophysics, geochemistry, geology, paleontology, biology, evolutionary theory, genetics, molecular biology, paleobiology, and anthropology. The generally accepted knowledge that makes up the core of these disciplines affirms that the universe and the earth are billions of years old and that living organisms have evolved for millions of years. The extensive and generally accepted knowledge from these disciplines, severally and jointly, overwhelmingly evinces that organisms have evolved over millions of years and that the universe and the earth are billions of years old.

— Francisco J. Ayala, [1]

Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 12:04, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

I understand that Wikipedia follows not truth but consensus. And on controversial topics, the sources viewed as reliable will unwaveringly be those of the well-heeled, well-funded majority with a settled mind and a fixed agenda. But tens of millions view such topics differently, and they have no confidence in the scientific reliability of claims related to origins by the establishment sources. Although articles are not persuasive essays, my dispute concerns placing a term of conclusion in the lede, which effectively tells readers what to think. - JGabbard (talk) 13:56, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

What you have articulated there is a textbook WP:GEVAL fallacy. It is policy that obvious nonsenses like YEC have to be prominently called-out as such, and so we do. Consensus is reasoning based on policy, it is not a nose count. Alexbrn (talk) 13:59, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia follows sources not truth. We also call "pseudoscience" by its name, per WP:PSCI which is a) policy; and b) a topic subject to discretionary sanctions, since one of the things that has bedevilled WP since its founding is people coming here and passionately and disruptively demanding that our content put pseudoscience notions on par with the outputs of science. So over the past 17 years the community has come up with ways we deal with such content. Please also see your talk page, for notice of the DS. Jytdog (talk) 16:41, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

You have also used one of the most popular fallacies, argumentum ad populum. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:04, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Science is not "the well-heeled, well-funded majority with a settled mind and a fixed agenda." There are frequently sea changes in aspects of scientific consensus long thought to be settled. Sir Isaac Newton's law of universal gravitation was displaced by an unfunded Swiss Patent Office clerk. If the unsettled minds of YEC displace the numerous fields of science noted above, we'll be here to cover that sea change. Until then (and that day may never come), the coverage in independent reliable sources will dominate here, and notes that creationism/intelligent design, astrology, chiropractic, geocentrism/flat Earth, homeopathy, etc. are all considered to be pseudoscience will remain.

As a general rule, Wikipedia embraces science. WP:FRINGE, WP:V/WP:IRS and related policies and guidelines are based on that view. Ideas on the edge of science are clearly marked as such. Ideas beyond the fringe are also marked as such. If you are trying to minimize that identification, you will have a very tough time of it here. If you dislike that, you might be better off editing at Conservapedia anyway. - SummerPhD^v2.0 18:16, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

I would like to sincerely thank each of the respondents above for your input. If what is dubbed 'pseudoscience' represents nothing more than alternative, non-mainstream interpretations of data by dissenting scientists, then that label is unfair, stifling and is not conducive to free and open discourse. Theories on cosmic, geological and biological origins are just that, theories. But when a theory (i.e., without conclusive corroborating data) is so widely circulated that it becomes enshrined as "settled science" to the exclusion of other ideas, then that represents nothing more than preconceived bias and does a disservice to the reader. Alternative viewpoints from minority sources do not reflect consensus and are thus deemed unworthy of equal treatment. I get that. However, neither need a policy exist to categorically stigmatize them all as false. It seems to me that a theory can be marginalized as being less popular while avoiding the two extremes of either giving it equal weight or labeling it as pseudo/false. Sources should not be allowed to pontificate truth simply because they happen to be in the majority. - JGabbard (talk) 18:50, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Please see the note at your talk page. Jytdog (talk) 18:56, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Lunar bukkake hypothesis

Can we not mention the "lunar bukkake hypothesis?" This is the YEC theory (the creationists don't call it that of course) that attempts to explain the origin of the large numbers of craters on the moon appearing in just the last 6,000 years, as well as comets. While it has been debunked, it essentially says that when the flood began, part of the earth's crust fell down on underground aquifers and shot some of the water out into space, some of which splattered on the moon's surface. It's pretty obvious that this theory exists, as well as the fact that it is impossible, so we really need to cite it to put it in? 2600:1004:B16D:1745:81F0:DE24:C3BE:28B3 (talk) 17:53, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Several problems pile up on this one. First and foremost, the apparent lack of independent reliable sources presenting it as a significant aspect of YEC means we have nothing to say about it.

YEC presents many problems from a scientific standpoint and YEC believers produce multiple "solutions" to each problem. There is no conceivable way to presents all of the problems, much less all of the proposed solutions in an encyclopedia article. Instead, we first reduce the list to those problems and proposed solutions discussed in independent reliable sources. Next, we reduce or coverage based on the weight of the coverage (e.g., sources discuss erosion of landscape (such as the Grand Canyon) more often than the formation of subsurface helium by radioactive decay, so we discuss landscape erosion more than helium formation). - SummerPhD^v2.0 18:59, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

This hypothesis in general is part of hydroplate theory, but it is really the only theory that has ever been created by YECs to explain how the large number of craters on the moon showed up in such a short amount of time (but doesn't really explain craters on the far side of the moon). It appears to have originated from a young earth creationist who operates a YouTube channel called NephilimFree, but may have been accepted by other YECs since then.2600:1004:B123:F724:B1DE:7112:E619:5FE8 (talk) 03:20, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

So mention of this should be expunged from this article because it's giving WP:UNDUE attention to a youtube crackpot with a limited audience?--Mr Fink (talk) 03:37, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

"YouTube crackpot with a limited audience" is not necessary. It's the lack of reliable sources discussing the theory. Wikipedia discusses lots of crackpot ideas -- to the extent that they are discussed in reliable sources. Pick any well known conspiracy theory, alternative to medicine, etc. and we have an article on it. Usually all the reliable sources have to say it that it's nonsense on stilts and some coverage of the more obvious errors, but it's still there. - SummerPhD^v2.0 05:04, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Is YEC a religious belief or more?

I note that the lede of this article states that YEC is a religious belief as if that's the only thing that it is. It cites two sources for this sentence, one is Numbers who assiduously avoids labels like this (if you disagree, please cite the sentence where he labels YEC a religious belief) and the other is Scott's book which states that Creationism, in general, "transcends" simple religious belief. So I am tempted to either modify this claim or at least note a failed verification here. Thoughts?

jps (talk) 14:08, 3 April 2019 (UTC)