Jump to content

Talk:Young Earth creationism

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 80.176.88.21 (talk) at 09:15, 12 June 2012 (→Violation of the NPOV). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Some sources relevant to dinosaurs, age of the earth, fossils, etc.

I have been searching for sources which advocate the idea that fossils have been placed there by God as a test. So far, I have found no sources advocating such a view. I have found quite a few sources that say some creationists advocate it. A few of these say that it was a view held in the middle ages. Others attribute the view as more recent. The search continues for a source which advocates this "God is testing us" view. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 18:16, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Questions about God: a guide for students by Patrick J. Clarke, Nelson Thornes, 2001 - Religion - 197 pages

"Creationists have responded to these claims with the reply that God, by miraculous means, has altered the fossil record as a test of faith. Tis has led to the distinction between the actual age of the earth, and the apparent age of the earth. In this view, the earth was created according to Genesis about 10 000 years ago, but has an apparent age of millioins of years." p. 67

Resource for students studying courses involving understanding the philosophy of religion. Four main areas of importance for student understanding: The Existence and Nature of God, God and Science, God and Experience and God and Language.

"This view has been expressed by A. J. Monty White in How Old is the Earth? (1985): 'We can see clearly that the Bible teaches that created a mature creation that had superficial appearance of age.' He dismisses the theory of evolution as a prejudice that forces a reading rocks and fossils as millions, not thousands, of years old! The refusal of creationists to yield to scientific advances that conflict with the Bible is a reflection of their concern to preserve the religious and moral implications of the Bible's message. But many would argue that this is too high a price to pay for something that can be preserved and upheld in harmony with evolution.

Views of the world

Scientific The world is a natural product of a scientific event that took place 20 billion years ago. It was probably a random, or chance, event.

Religious The world was ultimately intended to exist by God and is sutained by his power. It is the testing ground for man to work out his salvation. "

page 68

The challenge of creation: Judaism's encounter with science, cosmology, and evolution, Nosson Slifkin, Natan Slifkin, Zoo Torah, 2006 - Religion - 357 pages

p. 159

"Some claim that God might have implanted such a false history in order to test our faith in the truth of the Torah. There are, however, considerable theological difficulties with such a theory...

“This work demonstrates that grappling with issues such as evolution, the age of the universe, the literalism of our sacred texts, miracles, divine providence, and the scientific worldview in general can result in a new appreciation of the breadth and depth of our Torah... Seekers, whether new to the Jewish observance or born into the Orthodox fold, will find in this work a model of honest confrontation with serious challenges. The Challenge of Creation spells out these challenges articulately, analyzes them keenly, and refers to impeccable and authoritative traditional sources to address them... Rabbi Slifkin is to be commended for his contribution to our abiding faith as well as for his courageous intellectual honesty.” Rabbi Dr. Tzvi Hersh Weinreb Executive Vice President, The Orthodox Union "In this revised edition of The Science of Torah, Rabbi Slifkin addresses creation and evolution with courage and integrity. Eschewing apologetics, Rabbi Slifkin sets down a highly sophisticated and deeply religious account of how an informed contemporary Jew is to think about the biblical story of creation. Clear, cogent, and philosophically convincing, Rabbi Slifkin's The Challenge of Creation is an intellectual kiddush Hashem (sanctification of God's Name)." Professor Yehuda Gellman Department of Philosophy, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev Author, Experience of God and the Rationality of Theistic Belief "The Challenge of Creation is a wonderful and important book. Rabbi Slifkin demonstrates that cosmology and evolution are not a threat to religion and that Orthodox Judaism should not be hostile to modern science. On the contrary, educated Jews should embrace scientific progress as giving us a better understanding of and appreciation for the glory of God. Rabbi Slifkin writes with clarity and logic and with a firm grasp of the scientific issues. He provides extensive references to a wide range of Torah giants whose interpretations show that cosmology and evolution are not alien from our tradition. It is an invaluable resource for those of us in communities where the scientific ideas described in this book are known to be firmly established and where students, friends and colleagues constantly question us about traditional Judaism's views on modern science." Professor Carl Rosenzweig Department of Physics and Astronomy, Syracuse University "No one could read this book without being aware of the author's deeply spiritual nature and his absolute devotion to the faith of his fathers. At the same time, one meets a man for whom the world is God's creation and it is for us, made in God's image, to go forward bravely exploring and trying to understand this creation. Rabbi Slifkin shows us that modern science is in the end a wonderful hymn to what God has wrought, and its appreciation enriches our lives and makes possible an even greater respect for, and love of, the Author of all things." Professor Michael Ruse Department of Philosophy, Florida State University Author, The Darwinian Revolution and Darwin and Design

The good life: options in ethics, Burton Frederick Porter, Rowman & Littlefield, 2009 - Philosophy - 265 pages

"In defense of the religious view, theologians sometimes used implausible arguments such as 'God planted fossils on earth to test our faith,' or 'He made the world complete with dinosaur remains.', p. 133

A primer in ethics focusing on ultimate aims in living as proposed throughout philosophic history. Preliminary chapters cover the relation between ethics and science, religion, and psychology, as well as the challenge of relativism and determinism. The central section explores the ethical theories of hedonism, from the Greeks to the Utilitarians; self-realization, both of the individual and of our humanness, naturalism, including the Stoics and Transcendentalists; evolutionism as presented by both Darwin and Spencer; the ethic of duty of Immanuel Kant; religious systems including Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and Buddhism; virtue ethics in traditional and feminist forms; and existentialism from Nietzsche to Sartre. At various points, key concepts are introduced such as egoism and altruism, hard and soft determinism, deontology vs. teleology, and act and rule approaches to ethics. In addition, the 'standard of reasonableness' is discussed as a means of evaluating the ethical options.

Building Blocks in Science, Gary Parker, New Leaf Publishing Group, 2007 - Religion - 160 pages

An evolution-free look at the life sciences for junior high students.


"Dinosaurs seemed to provide such powerful support for evolution that a few Christians began to believe (incorrectly) that dinosaurs were all fakes, or maybe bones put in the ground by Satan to test the Christian's faith!", p. 45



The last dinosaur book: the life and times of a cultural icon, W. J. Thomas Mitchell, University of Chicago Press, 1998 - 321 pages

"In the Middle Ages, fossil bones were thought to be a hoax played by God to test the faith of Christians..." , p. 16

For animals that have been dead millions of years, dinosaurs are extraordinarily pervasive in our everyday lives. Appearing in ads, books, movies, museums, television, toy stores, and novels, they continually fascinate both adults and children. How did they move from natural extinction to pop culture resurrection? What is the source of their powerful appeal? Until now, no one has addressed this question in a comprehensive way. In this lively and engrossing exploration of the animal's place in our lives, W.J.T. Mitchell shows why we are so attached to the myth and the reality of the "terrible lizards." Mitchell aims to trace the cultural family tree of the dinosaur, and what he discovers is a creature of striking flexibility, linked to dragons and mammoths, skyscrapers and steam engines, cowboys and Indians. In the vast territory between the cunning predators of Jurassic Park and the mawkishly sweet Barney, from political leviathans to corporate icons, from paleontology to Barnum and Bailey, Mitchell finds a cultural symbol whose plurality of meaning and often contradictory nature is emblematic of modern society itself. As a scientific entity, the dinosaur endured a near-eclipse for over a century, but as an image it is enjoying its widest circulation. And it endures, according to Mitchell, because it is uniquely malleable, a figure of both innovation and obsolescence, massive power and pathetic failure--the totem animal of modernity. Drawing unforeseen and unusual connections at every turn between dinosaurs real and imagined, The Last Dinosaur Book is the first to delve so deeply, so insightfully, and so enjoyably into our modern dino-obsession.

On fossils

Thanks for finding these. Historically, fossil meant anything that had been dug up from the ground. In the early 17th century, some collectors regarded what we'd call fossils as simply curiously shaped stones, or possibly stones shaped by a "plastick virtue" to mimic living things. Protestantism introduced a literal rather than symbolic interpretation of the Bible, and also may have encouraged the development of science taking a realistic view of findings, though there was a context that science had to be reconciled with biblical history.

Nicolas Steno found fossils which he recognised as shark's teeth, and in 1669 published this with a geological sequence of strata which he attributed to two episodes of deposition: the creation, and the deluge. Robert Hooke found fossils of wood, and in 1668 read a paper to the Royal Society, his "Discourse on Earthquakes" which described fossils as the remains of animals and plants buried in sediment. He proposed that the seabed had been raised by violent earth movements such as the sinking of Atlantis within the time of human history. He also found fossils without living equivalents, and proposed that "Animal Beings may have been destroyed" in the earth's convulsions, an early concept of extinction.

Extinction posed theological problems with its implication that modern populations differed from those at the creation. The founder of natural theology and influential proponent of the design argument John Ray could not accept that a caring God would create species then let them die out in a natural catastrophe. In 1692 he argued that the unknown species must be alive in unexplored areas of the world, but in 1713 he took up Edward Lhuyd's proposal that they came from seeds that somehow grew in rocks to mimic living forms.

In 1695 the antiquarian John Woodward attributed the fossils he had collected to Noah's flood, with denser organisms sinking to greater depths to explain strata. Around then most naturalists thought his explanation unlikely, but the explanation is nowadays commonly used by YECs. In 1681 Thomas Burnet proposed the earth's formation from dead stars as a perfect sphere with waters inside, and the deluge caused by the spherical crust collapsing to form mountains and force up the water. He responded to the problem that this made God's punishment a natural, and hence inevitable, occurrence, by arguing that an omniscient God would have foreseen the need for punishment and pre-arranged the catastrophe accordingly. In 1691 Gottfried Leibniz published the view that this implied gradual cooling, and that fossils showed that many rocks had been formed by natural processes in the course of Earth's history. Benoît de Maillet proposed that the Earth was billions of years old in his Telliamed written around 1700 but only published posthumously in 1748. Source: *Bowler, Peter J. (2003), Evolution: The History of an Idea (3rd ed.), University of California Press, ISBN 0-520-23693-9 pp. 32–38.

So, quite an old discussion. Of course dinosaurs weren't discovered until the early 19th century, by which time geologists accepted ancient earth going back millions or billions of years. . dave souza, talk 16:31, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • The Bowler source helps. He doesn't seem to mention anyone who considered fossils to be fakes planted by God to test faith. The idea is certainly asserted by critics but it has not been established that contemporary YECs assert it. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 22:50, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
True. Wekn reven i susej eht Talk• Follow 10:02, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OTOH, Price described the fossil-based sequence of the geologic time scale as "the devil's counterfeit of the six days of Creation as recorded in the first chapter of Genesis." Cite: Numbers, have edited accordingly...... dave souza, talk 10:58, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to me like a fringe view within a fringe view. Wekn reven i susej eht Talk• Follow 18:57, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to add this group and others like it to Categories: Cults

This request has been declined. Please do not modify it.

I think it's safe to say from the discussions on Wikipedia the past few years that we have enough consensus to start adding some of these organizations to Categories: Cults. Wikipedia's definition of a cult is "The word cult in current popular usage usually refers to a group whose beliefs or practices are considered abnormal or bizarre", which I think some of these YEC and anti-evolution groups fall into. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.231.231.231 (talk) 12:23, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For something that's generally viewed as highly derogatory, I would say we'd need a reliable source to make this categorisation. GDallimore (Talk) 13:00, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that reliable sources would be needed to use such a label. Note that WP refers to both beliefs and practices considered bizarre. What is bizarre practice? Kneeling to pray to the God who created heaven and earth? YEC groups include most fundamentalist churches, some Evangelical churches, and some respectable post-secondary institutions related to those denominations. I also suggest that those who want to label a belief in the Biblical account of origins as cultic are setting the stage for evolutionists to lead the way in persecuting such belief. It is a slippery slope which some believe will lead to the persecution prophesied in the Bible. Jesus predicted a consensus among those who would persecute his fellowers. He also warned against a consensus in favor of a person. "Beware when all men speak well of you." Beware of a consensus that wants to negatively label a person, or a group. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 13:30, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Labelling often results from fear. If we can call a group a "cult" then more people will avoid them. If we label a group "Fringe" then the unsuspecting will be protected from confusing real science from "fringe" science. I recall reading an official statement from the EU. In the statement the fear of Fringe science was evident. The statement felt that science, necessary for civil advancement, was threatened by creationism which denied evolutionism. The search for truth is curtailed by labels, IMO. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 13:54, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would be against this categorisation, above and beyond the lack of WP:RS. Whilst YEC may share "abnormal or bizarre" beliefs in common with cults, so do many WP:FRINGE movements. Structurally the YEC movement demonstrates little commonality with typical cults, being more diffuse and having more in common with general Right-wing authoritarianism than with a generally specific-leader-centric and isolationist 'cult'. The label therefore seems prima facie inaccurate. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:14, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is an archived discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Removing passive voice.

I recently edited a section that read "creation science has nonetheless been found to be unscientific" to read "the consensus among scientists is that creation science is unscientific." The person who reverted me noted in the edit summary that the edit did not improve the article. I beg to differ. The original phrasing was passive voice: WHO has found CS to be unscientific? Did it just happen? My version assigns a degree of agency to the scientists who have taken an informed position of the question. Any freshman writing seminar will tell you that passive voice weakens arguments. I'm a relative noob here, so I won't revert, but I would like some input as to why we should prefer second-rate writing. PaulHA2 (talk) 17:11, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My aplogies my edit summary referred to your edit "period of time" which I reverted to "period" Regards Theroadislong (talk) 17:21, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, fair enough. I'll re-insert the part I really care about, if that's okay with you. PaulHA2 (talk) 17:25, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Removing Pornographic pictures

What I don't like is the pictures you guys put. I understand that on the picture you have for young earth creationism is the famous painting of Adam and God, but I still think it's pornographic. I understand if when you look up a body part it shows the picture, but when your looking at something Biblical you should not have this and this isn't the first time something like this has happened. I would say for all your biblical pages you shouldn't have pornographic pictures. Maybe if you think the pictures are needed (Which I don't) you could create a page just for those, but certainly don't have them on biblical pages. You guys can do whatever you want I guess I will just decided to get all my information off another website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.60.205.1 (talk) 04:00, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you are offended by one of the greatest works of art in the history of humanity simply because it portrays a naked man, then perhaps you should investigate the difference between porn and art. I also highly recommend visiting some public art galleries as an excellent mind-expanding experience. GDallimore (Talk) 11:00, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I also recommend reading more of the Bible. It has highly "pornographic" and extremely violent passages that you might want to censor as well.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 11:10, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Careful, obsidian, this is not a censorship issue. As the anon (sort of) says, the picture is unecessary for understanding the topic, so removing it from the article would not be censorship, at least not a form of censorship that WP policy would prevent. What this is is one person with a view of what's inappropriate and pornographic which is so far removed from what is reasonable (I was almost tempted to think it was a joke but I'm too cynical) that this needs explaining to them along with a clear consensus that their minority opinion does not carry enough weight to change the situation. Sort of an allegory for this article as a whole, really... GDallimore (Talk) 15:58, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What, no appreciation for Science and Culture? . . dave souza, talk 11:25, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I knew it, Adam had no balls and the Vitruvian Man is a eunuch!.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 12:59, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Several discussions have already been made on this topic. You may wish to read them. Fortunately, the photo is at a small scale. Wekn reven Confer 15:46, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gallup poll results

The statement in the introduction: "The percentage of believers decreases as the level of education increases—only 22% of respondents with postgraduate degrees believed compared with 47% of those with a high school education or less.[1]" has been reverted as fallacious and then restored as properly sourced. By my reading, this sentence is a statement of fact and does not make any illogical inferences or false statements. I think it might be more suitable for a later section on the demographics of YEC belief but I don't think a Gallup poll can be legitimately challenged as fallacious. Jojalozzo 21:27, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your analysis. I can't see any justification for removing it, I assume that it was removed because someone didn't like what they understood it to mean. Dougweller (talk) 21:32, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think it's actually a little too detailed for the lead. Should go into the body. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 21:39, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)As the first remover explained: Removed text which was more polemic than informative and which included a logical fallacy (using correlation to imply causation). While there is nothing wrong with citing a Gallup poll in the article, it comes across as POV pushing to have it in the lead. Personally I would take the entire paragraph out of the lead. It does nothing to explain what YEC is. I'd !vote for moving it down to the end of the Revival section, where there is a similar poll. --Andrew (User:90) (talk) 21:40, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Level of support is very useful information for a lead. That at least should remain. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 21:45, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think proponents of YEC would agree that level of support is useful in the lead since YEC currently has good support and they would also want to remove the education data because a reader might make negative inferences from it. I think non-proponents of YEC would want to include the level of education data to provide a better demographic picture of the support. This points to the POV-laden nature of this content. For balance, I think the level of support should be presented with demographics, whether it's in the lead or in another section. Jojalozzo 22:04, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:LEDE says that the lede needs to summarize the body. Currently this paragraph seems closely related to the history section, but only the revival aspect of it. Rather than remove it I think we should expand it to include a brief overview of the whole history section (since it's a huge part of the article and not currently well documented in the lede) with the statistics at the end of the paragraph. Noformation Talk 22:28, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have data for other countries? We can have a "Level of support" section and include all of this data. But it should be more than just the USA. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 21:49, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The statement in the introduction "When asked for their views on the origin and development of human beings, between 40% and 50% of adults in the United States say they share the beliefs of young Earth creationism, depending on the poll.", seems to imply that 40-50% of people agree with YEC supporters. Even though the statement indicates it concerns "their views on the origin and development of human beings" it concludes that 40-50% of respondents "share the beliefs of young YECs". Nothing in any of the referenced polls specifically ask respondents how old they thought the Earth was, which a large part of what this WP article is about. I'd posit a rewording of the statement to something like "Forty to fifty percent of respondents to various polls, indicated they believed that human life was directly created by God at one time within the past 10,000 years". Many may view this as a minor inconsistancy and that the point is still implied, but the fact remains that the polls were about human origins NOT planetary origins. --Ssp2979 (talk) 15:42, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is one poll that looks at the formation of the earth, but given that it's in the minority, I'd have no problems with your clarification. Also, there's no inconsistency since the sentence does make clear that it's referring to human origin specifically, but there's always room for improvement. GDallimore (Talk) 22:46, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Violation of the NPOV

Much of this article (mainly the intro) contains an evolution theory extremist point of view. Also, the third paragraph is extremely bias by implying the all pious/religious people are unintelligent. It does not matter whether it is fact or not, all that matters is that your numbers are screwed up because according to quite a few other wiki pages, over 77% of the worlds population is religious and 78.4% of the U.S. population is Christian meaning that a Creationism page is defiantly no place for a minority anti-religious group who tries to use evidence that proves creationism is correct to try and prove them wrong like evolution THEORY.

There are many parts of the article that contain irrelevant or opinionated sentences trying to state that creationism is wrong (though, on a person note, my Rubik's Theorem proves he is failing at doing it, so therefor, there is just an excessive amount of irrelevant garbage mixed in with a few relevant neutral sentences).

So could we please work towards fixing up this page so it is no long bias stop it from violating Wiki's Neutral Point of View policy any more then it already is. Thanks!

Rartrin (talk) 01:11, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is not POV to state that there is no scientific basis for YEC. If as, you say, there are (unsourced) statements that YEC is simply wrong, please point them out for us here. Jojalozzo 02:23, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV does not mean removing critical information or giving equal weight to fringe scientific positions. See:

--Harizotoh9 (talk) 01:54, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just to throw in my position: I would also prefer it if the lead did not have a lot of the content that it does. But the sad truth is that significantly vocal young earth creationists have decided to set up a battle ground against science so it is only NPOV (ie giving due weight to important topics in field of YEC) to provide the majority view of YEC in the lead of the article. GDallimore (Talk) 10:02, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, read the third paragraph and prove to me that it doesn't practically say that most pious/religious people are unintelligent. Those numbers are wrong either way, I checked a dozen other sites all claiming the exact opposite, plus, the data has no source. Rartrin (talk) 01:57, 6 June 2012 (UTC) and[reply]
I read it and that paragraph doesn't say that at all. It talks about education, not intelligence. Contrary to what you say, it is also sourced (Reference 8 and 9). If you have sources with different numbers, you are welcome to bring them here so we can update the article.--McSly (talk) 02:17, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Here is why it is a violation of the religion section of the NPOV policy.

Also, my bad on the references, I hadn't seen them at first but now that I do, I look at them and notice that it was accidently misinterpreted and mislead a little from what the data was actually about. Could we fix the wording so that it specifically states that 47% of people believe that people were created by god directly (Adam and Eve) and 27% believe that god only guilded the creation of man. As well as how the higher the education the more people believe that god only guilded them. Plus we should also stated that the data is ten to twenty years old. >Rartrin< — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rartrin (talk • contribs) 02:53, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just because you believe in the judeo-christian god of the bible does not mean you subscribe to young-earth creationism, only a small subset of Christians believe in an absolute literal interpretation of the Bible, and with good reason, it's borderline insane. YEC purports it's self as science, therefore it's labeled pseudoscience and therefore we treat it as a science topic in which it's WP:FRINGE and WP:WEIGHT come into play. — raekyt 04:05, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Raeky, As a creationist, I have learned to accept the labels of WP:FRINGE and to acknowledge the need for not adding undue WP:WEIGHT. I am rather intrigued with the label of "borderline insane." I cannot comment on my own mental state, such a denial can't be trusted. lol. You have a right to your own opinion, of course. As I read the leading scientists in their defense of an ancient earth, I have not come across such invective. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 16:25, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obviously that's my own opinion on people who reject all the facts of science and everything we've learned about the world and cling to a bronze age book as literal truth. I don't find YEC much different than Flat Earth Society people, Holocaust denialism or other of other groups of people who operate outside of normality. Sure it's probably a bit of a jab at such people, but tbh that's how I, and probably A LOT of other people think. — raekyt 20:25, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • As parables show, it's impossible to hold a literally literal reading of everything in the Bible, but biblical literalism is a term for a specific set of interpretations. Belief in a young earth entails rejection of geology, and was found untenable by the (creationist) geologists of the late 18th century onwards. However it's unnecessary and impolite to call such beliefs "borderline insane", they merely conflict with empirical findings accepted by most Christians as well as nearly all scientists. Ron Numbers is interesting reading on the struggles YECs such as Price had with stubborn facts. . dave souza, talk 17:09, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1. It is extremely possible to have a literal reading of the Bible.
  • 2. On a personal note, I find it unhealthy to not be religious. It has been SCIENTIFICALLY proven that people who believe in some form of religion are happier than those who don't. To me, atheism seems like a disease, it strips you of your morals and then there is nothing stopping you from doing something stupid right before you are going to die and end up hurting or even killing many people.
  • 3. According to the same source as the second sentence in the second paragraph (#9), More Christians believe in Young Earth Creationism then Christians that don't.
  • Rartrin (talk) 03:43, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your going to try the moral argument against atheism? really? Thats like so last year. Believing anything is possible, but all logical reason, evidence and every branch of human understanding and knowledge shows that taking everything from the bible as literal is just wrong. As for the polls in the article, polls are not a good way to tell what people really think, it's far to easy to skew the results and they're hardly ever accurate... Considering that about 25% of Christians in the united states are catholic... Either way, argumentum ad populum is not a valid argument. The source for your "scientifically" proven hypothesis that people who believe in the magical sky daddy is happier? — raekyt 03:54, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm glad that you understand my point about the fact data can be easily skewed with which is why we should change the second and third paragraph so that it's wording is as misleading as it already is (that was sarcasm if you didn't know). Also, since 80% of people in the United States are of a religion using the old testament and since Catholics use the Old Testament (I don't understand why you mentioned Catholics, they use the same Bible, even though Christians aren't the only religion that uses the Bible), atheist are quite lucky to not get beaten up for arguing, because the fact that unlike atheists, we have morals. Because the fact your comment was either meant to be and insult in which case it was extremely biased and racist, other wise you just proved you know very little about religion due to the fact that Christians, Catholics, Jews, and most other main religions today all use the Old Testament, therefor Your Argument is Invalid!
Rartrin (Converse in General "Chit" and "Chat") 04:59, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
Judaism and Islam also use the old testament, your point? Roman Catholics accept evolution and the scientific age of the universe and earth, therefore are not YEC, that was my point. Just because you identify as christian or use the old testament, as you seem to say, does not mean you accept it as literal. The moral argument is just an false, if you even cared enough to do a cursory search on the internet you'd see how debunked and foolish that argument is. The God of the Old Testament is hardly a moral being... so how can you say the morals of the bible are ANYTHING you'd want to follow? — raekyt 05:07, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First, a general warning that talk pages are not forums for general discussion of the topic at hand, but are for the improvement of the article. Stick to article discussion. See WP:NOTAFORUM. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 06:19, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See above, with a note that discretionary sanctions do exist for this particular topic area and can be imposed by any uninvolved administrator, so everyone should be extra vigilant to keep a cool head and stay on task. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 06:58, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would remind contributors that this is the English Language version of Wikipedia, not the 'US Edition'. It's useful to know how many people believe in YEC but references to various percentages of practising religionists in the USA should be irrelevant in determining the content or bias of this article. In the 2011 census, 65% of UK citizens described themselves as 'not religious'. I don't know what the figures would be from other English-speaking countries but from a non-American perspective, Abrahamic and YEC beliefs would appear to be held by only a tiny minority of the populace. 80.176.88.21 (talk) 09:15, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Myth or Account

A minor concern: In order to demonstrate the subtle bias maintained by some editors, I changed the word creation "myth" to creation "account". It was promptly reverted with the assertion that "myth" is the correct academic term. In my edit, I indicated that such a revert was fine with me. However, the argument promoted in the "myth" context is whether the early Christians, such as Origen, viewed the days as literal. If the story is "myth", it doesn't matter if the days were viewed as literal, or not. The use of the term "myth" does not do justice to the argument, IMO. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 03:01, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Myth" here is used in the academic sense. It still falls under mythology regardless of what early Christians believed. The page for Genesis creation narrative had an extensive discussion on whether to use "myth" or "narrative". It is worth consulting:
--Harizotoh9 (talk) 03:12, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Harizotoh9, thanks for the link; interesting reading and I certainly don't want to repeat the discussion. The word myth, in its broadest usage, does not deny historical reality. Rather, a community or nation, have their myths; George Washington and the cherry tree, for example. I am okay with the use of the term although I am intrigued with the opposition to the word "account". Account is neutral. An account can be myth or otherwise. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 03:27, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Because 'account' imho isn't as academically honest as mythology, these stories are mythologies and studied as such academically. Irregardless if one believes them true or not, that doesn't negate that they're a mythology. — raekyt 03:43, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As in using the best available accurate terminology and not trying to use a more vague terminology that has more potential meanings just to appease a group of people. — raekyt 04:12, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay. However, I am not convinced that "myth" is less vague than "account". "Myth" focuses on society's use of the account. "Account" simply implies the existence of textual evidence for the story. It seems that the term "myth" also serves to appease a group of people. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 04:27, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Account" has a connotation of accuracy (e.g. in accountancy) and "myth" generally implies inaccuracy, so neither is particularly neutral with respect to a story's truth. Since there is no scientific basis to YEC, I think "myth" is significantly more appropriate and aversion to "account" is understandable on that basis. Jojalozzo 05:52, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, that's correct. Any time I hear the word 'account' I expect it to be a reasonably accurate description of something that actually happened. Myth is the correct word. Dougweller (talk) 08:22, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You proved right there that myth is not neutral to you, it is your personal belief about the accuracy or inaccuracy of the bible that causes you to use myth. Conversely, it is the personal belief of others about the accuracy or inaccuracy of the bible that causes them to use account. And the problem is that everyone either accepts the bible at accurate or inaccurate. There is no middle ground. I don't know of any neutral word that can be used here.
And the same thing goes for YEC. YEC is based on the belief that the Bible is accurate. Those that call YEC pseudoscience do so based on their belief that the Bible is inaccurate. It all comes down to which way you believe. So I think it is logically impossible for any article that deals with topics that depend upon belief in whether the bible is accurate or inaccurate to ever be NPOV. both sides always believes that they are correct. And often the appeal to numbers is called upon to settle the issue, which, of course, does nothing of the sort because the minority could care less about what a majority might think on this topic. Whether the bible is believed accurate or inaccurate has never ever been decided by what the majority thinks. It is entirely individualistic -- personal. Perhaps the only way to deal with this is to say, thus-and-so is the position of those who think the Bible is inaccurate, and thus-and-so is the position of those who think the Bible is accurate. And just leave it at that with out any editorializing over who is or is not correct. Which is probably the hardest thing in the world to do because we all know that we are correct. Sacramentosam (talk) 10:43, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, we don't need a personal belief in the inaccuracy of Genesis to determine "myth" to be the more appropriate term. Rather it is the lack of scientific evidence for YEC that makes this the proper choice. Our personal beliefs are irrelevant here, as should yours be. We base Wikipedia content on reliable sources, not personal beliefs. Jojalozzo 17:04, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That is what the article already does. It explains the background and belief of YECists and describes alternative views and the overwhelming evidence that Genesis should not be interpreted literally (note "literally", not "accurately", huge difference).
As for what specific words are used, since the overwhelming view, both theological and scientific, is that Genesis should NOT be interpereted literally, it is described as a myth, not an account. The word account would give undue weight to the YEC view. GDallimore (Talk) 15:11, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it should be based on reliable sources, but the appeal to overwhelming view (i.e. personal belief or opinion) is an appeal to numbers which means nothing. No one is swayed to change their opinion according to overwhelming view. And the appeal to overwhelming scientific evidence has no weight in the argument because it does not cause anyone especially YEC's to change their minds. Here's why. YECs recognize the ultimate importance of Khun's observation that all evidence is theory-laden. I.e., All evidence is understood and interpreted within a worldview or paradigm. Scientific evidence only makes sense when understood within a worldview. YECs recognize two mutually exclusive worldviews that science is done and interpreted within--naturalism or creationism. They reject naturalistic interpretation of scientific evidence as completely irrelevant. So it doesn't matter how much overwhelming evidence secular scientists (and those that quote them) might offer. It means nothing. It all comes down to which interpretation of scientific evidence one chooses to believe in, not the overwhelming evidence from one view or another. They also reject attempts to combine competing, mutually exclusive worldviews as schizophrenic. Believe it or not, to YECs its all about belief. And it seems important that one recognize how vastly different the viewpoints are when editing. Sacramentosam (talk) 19:34, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think you make some good points here. If you think the YEC worldview is insufficiently represented in the article, then let's work on that rather than watering down the representation of the mainstream, scientific view. Can you provide sources to support this analysis? Jojalozzo 18:04, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think DRSands may be able to make suggestions that are acceptable. Sacramentosam (talk) 19:00, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not familiar with the needs of this article for sufficient representation from a YEC worldview. There are well-thought out YEC scientists. Kurt Wise, Leonard Brand, Andrew Snelling, Arthur Chadwick, The GRI scientists.
  • Perhaps the specific views of bonafide YEC scientists could be described. Some articulate the obvious need to value tension when holding literal biblical views and treasuring scientific evidence whereever it should lead.
  • GRI (Geoscience Research Institute) scientists have decided they will conduct their own research rather than argue with those holding a different world view. Brand's study of whales and salamandar tracks are examples of such research. GRI are YEC mostly. They may accept OEC for non-living matter, but not living. These views could be reported in the article.
  • I think it is important not to vilify scientists; those who believe in a literal Genesis 1-11 and those who don't. I teach Religion in an Adventist high school. Our Grade 9 curriculum presents the world views regarding the origins of life. I attempt to lead my students to understand that scientists who believe in an ancient earth with a common origin of life are not "crazy". Some express this when they enter my class. Also, I present to my students some of the facts of science which create tension between YEC and others. It is satisfying to see these young minds try to grapple with some of the basis issues.
  • Brand teaches his YEC community how to do bonafide science. Lockley, a critic of Brand, admits that Brand may be more successful in teaching the principles of science to YEC adherents that the critics or name-callers. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 00:58, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a former Adventist myself, I have attended Southwestern and was one of Chadwick's students, even worked for him for a bit, so I'm at least quite familiar with his work, and we don't have a page her for him, so I unlinked it. Kurt Wise has never published as far as I can tell, Kurt Wise has never published, searched several databases and can't find anything published by him, and no books don't count. Leonard Brand has published, but it appears nothing hes published really promotes the idea of YEC and you wouldn't get the idea that he belived in YEC from reading his papers (the couple I read). Andrew Snelling also appears to have not published, and no page for him so I unlinked. And as far as I know Art has never published either... so your claim that these people are scientists is pretty slim, only one that has peer-reviewed research is Brand, but his research isn't really showing YEC... — raekyt 01:33, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Raeky, your experience with Chadwick, did you find him scientific in his thinking? Is Brand the only peer-reviewed published scientist among the YEC group? Are there others? Brand lectures and writes considerable material on the role of faith and religion. He describes himself as a YEC and that YEC worldview prompts him to ask certain questions; questions that other don't ask. For example, with the salamanders, he set up a water environment for them to run because he believed in the flood. In the article on YEC, should we include this mindset to look for bonafide science questions arising from a belief in the Bible? DonaldRichardSands (talk) 01:56, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dr. Chadwick is certainly a wonderful guy, and teacher but hes never been published, and that's what it means to be a scientist, if your not contributing to the furtherment of mankind's knowledge in the field your degree is in, then you can't really call yourself a scientist, hes a professor and teacher and that's all. As for including the "mindset" of these "scientists" in the article, I believe we do that. But due to WP:FRINGE and WP:WEIGHT we have to weigh that against the ENORMOUS VOLUMES of evidence that contradicts it, and that VIRTUALLY EVERY SCIENTIST disagrees with, and ABSOLUTELY ZERO EVIDENCE for... so the article will reflect these inconvenient truths to your YEC belief. — raekyt 02:03, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you really believe that it is only numbers which put YEC into the minority viewpoint and that the evidence for an ancient universe, earth and life on earth is anything other than overwhelming, then I can't help you. The rest of your comment is pop-philosophy verging on garbage and I'm fed up with this discussion already. GDallimore (Talk) 00:21, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was just informing you of the viewpoint of most creationists. Whether you believe that that is the way creationist think or not is entirely up to you. You don't have to agree with the way they think, but it is helpful to know how they think. To them science is a useful and important methodology to study nature, but it can only be done and understood within a philosophical viewpoint (as they understand Khun and Popper). They recognize two competing and mutually exclusive worldviews that the methodology of science is done within. They reject the interpretations on naturalism for the interpretations of creationism. You may not see things this way, but they do. Sacramentosam (talk) 19:00, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sacramentosam, you may think you know the viewpoint of most creationists, but for that to appear here it has to be verifiable from reliable third party published sources – your original research doesn't count. Please cite such sources here for discussion. . dave souza, talk 20:09, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As a start, I recommend the following articles. They are from the horse's mouth. This is what creationists themselves think, not what someone thinks they think. Sacramentosam (talk) 21:10, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Those links explain why your previous comments were largely garbage. Glad to hear they weren't your viewpoints. And the reason I'm fed up with this discussion is because I see nothing in it that could help the article. Perhaps you could focus on something more specific for improving the article because I see nothing so far. GDallimore (Talk) 21:18, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Help -- in what way, and what direction? Wekn TAKN
  1. ^ Four in 10 Americans Believe in Strict Creationism, Gallup, December 2010
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Young_Earth_creationism&oldid=497195763"