Talk:Creationism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Frequently asked questions (FAQ)
Many of these questions arise on frequently on the talk page concerning Creationism.

Information.svg To view an explanation to the answer, click the [show] link to the right of the question.

FAQ notes and references:

Former good articleCreationism was one of the good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 22, 2006Good article nomineeListed
September 29, 2006Good article reassessmentDelisted
Current status: Delisted good article
edit·history·watch·refresh Stock post message.svg To-do list for Creationism:

  • Add section on the differences/similarities/conflict between Intelligent Design and Creationism.
  • Add section on the beliefs creationists have on what the mainstream fields of science have to say on the origins of life and the universe.
Priority 2

The Arbitration Committee has issued several principles which may be helpful to editors of this and other articles when dealing with subjects and categories related to "pseudoscience".

Principles

Four groups

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.

Why is the Oxford Dictionary definition cut? The allusion to evolution is deleted[edit]

Hi! I just wanted to ask something. Why is the Oxford Dictionary definition cut? This is complete the Oxford Dictionary definition:

"The belief that the universe and living organisms originate from specific acts of divine creation, as in the biblical account, rather than by natural processes such as evolution".

I believe the evolution part is essential, since creationism by definition implies the negation of evolution. In the United States, creationism is (shamefully) taught as an alternative explanation to evolution. Personally, I don't understand why the evolution part is deleted from the lead sentence. Can't we have the following lead sentence?:

Creationism is the religious belief that the universe and life originated "from specific acts of divine creation",[1][2] as opposed to the scientific conclusion that they came about through natural processes such as evolution.[3]. James343e (talk) 23:43, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

@James343e: You don't think that the thread above covers this? Jim1138 (talk) 20:55, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
Hi @Jim1138: I believe it is very different, since the former user was asking to delete "as opposed to the scientific consenssus". For me, it is fine if "as opposed to the scientific consensus" is included. What I personally don't understand is the deliberate deletion of the word evolution, which is included in the Oxford Dictionary definition. This is the complete Oxford Dictionary Definition:
"The belief that the universe and living organisms originate from specific acts of divine creation, as in the biblical account, rather than by natural processes such as evolution".
As I said, I believe the evolution part is essential, since creationism by definition explicitly implies the negation of evolution. In the United States, creationism is (shamefully) taught as an alternative explanation to evolution. So this is my question. Can't we have the following lead sentence?:
Creationism is the religious belief that the universe and life originated "from specific acts of divine creation",[1][2] as opposed to the scientific conclusion that they came about through natural processes such as evolution.[3]. James343e (talk) 22:17, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
No, creationism is not just the denial of evolution, it is the denial of evolution, geology, cosmology and physics and basically the entire scientific method. The main point is that it the denial of natural causes, the OED entry is just using evolution as an example. This article covers the subject in some depth so we do not need to include everything in the lead. - Nick Thorne talk 05:21, 21 October 2018 (UTC)


Tower of Babel[edit]

In the paragraph "Biblical Basis" shouldn't the Tower of Babel be included ? Also: there's no mention of the stance creationism takes in the field of linguistics except for the vague term "pseudolinguistics ".

It seems that from a creationist point of view world's creation, man's formation and languages' confusion follow the same divine phenomena. Creationism confronts comparative linguistics and natural science in quite the same manner eg. adherence to the holy scriptures. Here is a citation from a creationist site:

"Because God does all things well, nothing half-heartedly or without complete effectiveness, the languages created at Babel will almost certainly turn out to be radically distinct from each other. That is what the current evidence already suggests". Hexagone59 (talk) 14:28, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Needs a secondary source, may be worth looking in Robert T. Pennock's Tower of Babel, or ToA, though nothing obvious on first search. . . dave souza, talk 15:32, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
Thank you dave souza.
In google's presentation of Tower of Babel by Robert T. Pennock it reads:
"One of Pennock's major innovations is to turn from biological evolution to the less charged subject of linguistic evolution, which has strong theoretical parallels with biological evolution, both in content and in the sort of evidence scientists use to draw conclusions about origins. Of course, an evolutionary view of language does conflict with the Bible, which says that God created the variety of languages at one time as punishment for the Tower of Babel".
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=aC1OccYnX0sC&dq=Tower+of+Babel:+The+Evidence+Against+the+New+Creationism&redir_esc=y&hl=en


In Page: https://creation.com/the-tower-of-babel-account-affirmed-by-linguistics There's a drawing comparing the creationist and evolutionist belief in linguistics. Pic:https://creation.com/images/journal_of_creation/vol16/5822view_lge.jpg


In the other source -talkorigins.org Claim CG110 (The first known human languages were already very complex. Languages do not show the evolutionary progression we would expect if humans evolved gradually).
Source: Skjaerlund, David, n.d. Creationism explains human diversity. http://www.forerunner.com/forerunner/X0722_Creationism_explains.html
We read: "Evolutionists, in particular, have no explanation for the origin of languages. They’ve tried to explain it on the basis of gradual development of communication forms, starting with the early grunts of cavemen and, over time, resulting in our complex form of communication. However, man’s unique ability for communication has always posed a problem"
It continues: "There is no explanation for the origins of different languages except in terms of the special purpose of the Creator. .., men tried to unite themselves into a very centrally located political system around the Tower of Babel (see Genesis 11). We are told that God confused their language, and that mankind was then scattered over the face of the earth"
Should I search for other sources or check more thorougly in Pennock's book ( If I find it... ) Hexagone59 (talk) 02:11, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
Since this article is an overview of creationism, Isaak, Mark. "CG110: Complex early language". TalkOrigins Archive. Retrieved 29 December 2018. is a good simple source for a mention, for this article we're less interested in the detail of the creationist claim (you link to a primary source for it), but the TalkOrigins Archive page gives both a brief overview of the claim, and a secondary source showing the mainstream response (see WP:PSTS for policy on that).
Pennock's book may go into excessive detail and isn't concise, but if you're interested in the topic it's well worth reading. Robert T. Pennock (28 February 2000). Tower of Babel: The Evidence against the New Creationism. MIT Press. pp. 117–179. ISBN 978-0-262-26405-1. covers the topic, that link should show you some of the pages.
Pennock gives good mainstream context for the Creation Ministries International young Earth creationist web page which comes down to "if you believe in our literal reading of the Bible, languages are explained by the tower of Babel." The CMI author mentions William Jones (philologist)#Scholarly contributions – the wikipedia page is, I think, more informative. See Proto-language for a nice diagram.
Another book worth looking for as an authority on creationism is Numbers, Ronald L. (2006). The Creationists: From Scientific Creationism to Intelligent Design. Harvard University Press. pp. 102–103. ISBN 978-0-674-02339-0. which briefly covers the influential George McCready Price's YEC ideas of human races being formed by Babel followed by environmental influence so that "The poor little fellow who went to the south Got lost in the forests dank; His skin grew black, as the fierce sun beat...", while pages 246 has Lammerts of the Creation Research Society explaining Babel as designed change in DNA. . . . dave souza, talk 20:26, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
Hello dave souza, thank you for your guidance. I managed to read the third chapter of Tower of Babel, where Pennock uses the term creationist linguistics all along. The text is interesting and clear.
I would like to add a paragraph in Robert T. Pennock's entry in Education and Carrear as a last paragraph. Here is a possibilty:
===The book: Tower of Babel===
In his book Pennock addresses the issue of creationist linguistics. In chapter 3 he quotes Henry M. Morris, the young Earth creationist saying " There really seems no way to explain the different languages except in terms of the special creative purpose of the Creator " (p. 123), Pennock goes to describe the evolution of linguistics in the last 200 years. He also quotes Darwin saying "the formation of different languages and of distinct species, and the proofs that both have been developed through a gradual process, are curiously the same."(p. 125). Once he shows that biology and linguistics share the evolutionary rational as they share the same opponents, Pennock uses the later to support the former: " The evidence that supports the evolution of species is of the same kind and is as incontrovertible as that which supports the evolution of languages, so accepting creationist biology is as absurd as accepting creationist linguistics" (p. 147).
I will appreciate any comment on this. Hexagone59 (talk) 22:07, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
  • This looks like an unnecessary rabbit trail. Guy (Help!) 22:24, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
    • Oh I like the quote and think we should use it. I meant to look at my own copy of Pennock but didn't have time. Doug Weller talk 09:52, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Lede[edit]

Over at Talk:Young_Earth_creationism#Is_YEC_a_religious_belief_or_more?, we began a successful conversation about making a more coherent and well-sourced lede. One of the issues raised was that the lede over here is not very good or well-sourced either. So, now I would like to take on this.

As we discussed over there, there are basically two big definitions of "creationism" -- one is an older more theological definition and the other is a modern form of anti-scientific arguments meant to bolster particular religious beliefs (not just Abrahamic, mind you, as the term is increasingly used in reference to Hinduism and even Indigenous religions). I think we can achieve a better summary of this, but it also might require reworking some of this article as well.

I hope this gets the conversation started and we can workshop, successfully, a change to our lede.

jps (talk) 23:58, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

At the risk of starting a conversation with myself, I reread the excellent introduction to the subject of creationism over at the SEM: [1]. I think that I would like to start with a broad and a narrow definition and focus on the narrow. This might require a completely new "introductory" section. I leave it here for others to opine on this. jps (talk) 12:44, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Broad versus narrow creationism resources[edit]

Aside from Numbers (already in the article), here are some possibly useful references:

jps (talk) 13:08, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

This broader overall definition, like Ruse and the NCSE continuum, includes mainstream religious acceptance of evolution – "special creation" draws the distinction between that and the anti-evolution which became commonly known as creationism in the 1960s, though the mainstream still has a claim to be creationist in a broad sense. . dave souza, talk 19:38, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Scott (2009) broad and narrow definitions[edit]

creationism has a broad and a narrow definition. Broadly, creationism refers to the idea of creation by a supernatural force. To Christians, Jews, and Muslims, this supernatural force is God; to people of other religions, it is other deities. The creative power may be unlimited, like that of the Christian God, or it may be restricted to the ability to affect certain parts of nature, such as heavenly bodies or certain kinds of living things.
The term creationism to many people connotes the theological doctrine of special creationism: that God created the universe essentially as we see it today, and that this universe has not changed appreciably since that creation event. Special creationism includes the idea that God created living things in their present forms, and it reflects a literalist view of the Bible. It is most closely associated with the endeavour of "creation science," which includes the view that the universe is only 10,000 years old. But the most important aspect of special creation is the idea that things are created in their present forms. In intelligent design creationism, for example, God is specially required to create complex structures such as the bacterial flagellum or the body plans of animals of the Cambrian period, even though many if not most intelligent design proponents accept an ancient Earth.(Scott 2009, p. 57)

added by . .. dave souza, talk 19:42, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Current wording and workshop[edit]

I am not a particularly big fan of this construction. I think we should stick with paragraph one being a definition, but then we should spend some time differentiating between narrow and broad definitions and break out to a little more global look (with nods towards things such as Islamic creationism, Hindu creationism, and American Indian creationism, perhaps). This would probably be a good thing to have an entire section on in the article. I think that paragraph two could do nicely to round-out a lede, but a bit more summative and less "listy". Finally, I think that paragraph three should likely be in the body rather than in the lede. jps (talk) 17:17, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, fully agree – getting the broad and narrow definitions in at the start will be a great improvement, para 3. is wrong about "first use" as CD used the terms "creationist" and "creationists" in his 1842 essay. Ron Numbers has an interesting analysis of how the meaning of the term (and of "the ordinary view of creation") changed with time, so this needs coverage in the body text and a brief summary in the lede. . dave souza, talk 19:55, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Etymology online has some interesting history of the term as well: [2]. jps (talk) 19:02, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Paragraph One: Definition[edit]

Creationism is the religious belief that the universe and life originated "from specific acts of divine creation",[1][2] as opposed to through natural processes, such as evolution.[3]

Reworking according to discussion below.

Creationism is the religious belief that the material world (particularly the universe, Earth, life, and humanity) was divinely created.[1][4] Creationism is often contrasted with and opposed to the scientific explanations for the origins and development of the material world through natural processes, most famously evolution.[3]

Reworking including broader sense

Creationism is the religious belief that nature, and aspects such as the universe, Earth, life, and humanity, originated with supernatural acts of divine creation.[1] In a broad sense, this belief is held by all practitioners of theistic faiths including the Abrahamic religions, whose deity is transcendent, beyond nature, and immanent, ready to intervene in the world.[5] More specifically, creationism commonly refers to the doctrine of special creation which holds that God created things in their present forms, and opposes scientific explanations for the origins and development of the material world through natural processes such as evolution.[6][3]

Discussion[edit]
  • Is the belief always religious? In fact, the connection to religion be it organized or otherwise is usually secondary in our sources perhaps because of the equivocation between the two different definitions. Indeed, the broader definition is somewhat doctrinal, but the narrower definition relies on any acceptance of creation myth interpretations that act as foundational and fundamental descriptions of the origins of various aspects of the material world. This could be part of one's religion, but it could simply be an acceptance of a literal mythology independent of a religion as well, in principle. jps (talk) 16:01, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Scott's broad definition of "the idea of creation by a supernatural force" leaves that aside, the crucial point is supernatural creation. That's not uncommon in religions, theoretically the idea might be held without religion but we'd need a source discussing it. Either way, I think the religion issue is a bit of a distraction to the broad definition. . dave souza, talk 18:34, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Turns out that Jerry Coyne has written an analysis of this point. Coyne takes the side of those who argue that religion is the thing while he points to a lot of others who oppose his perspective as saying otherwise: [3]. I think it may be important that we do not take explicit sides in this debate, though I think the people who identify religion as the proximate cause are likely correct. jps (talk) 15:07, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Widespread use of the term creationism in its modern meaning only goes back to the 1970s, so think we could say that [since then] it's become associated with the theological doctrine of special creation. . . dave souza, talk 18:34, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
    • That seems reasonable. jps (talk) 14:58, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
  • The wording that the universe and life originated "from specific acts of divine creation" (quote marks in the original) looks rather too specific, for example Creationism (soul) specifically discusses the origin of the soul, ID can accommodate confining creation to specific complex features while accepting evolution of others. dave souza, talk 18:34, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
    • Yes, this seems problematic. I think we need to be more general. "Aspects of the material world" or something like that with specific reference to the most common ones: universe, Earth, life, and humans, for example? jps (talk) 14:58, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Reworking including broader sense covers the wide and narrow senses in the first paragraph, and the second paragraph can then focus on the continuum: that ranges from the most literal forms of YEC, through OEC to theistic evolution. Theistic evolution itself covers a range of beliefs is both creationism in the broad sense, and overlaps with creationism in the narrower sense. More later! . . dave souza, talk 15:18, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
    • I think we need to say that special creation includes more than just the creation of living things. It also includes, for example, starlight problem creation of distance astronomical objects. jps (talk) 16:26, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
      • Fair point, think it works to just say "holds that God created things in their present forms" as the ending relating to evolution implies life anyway. Was a bit unsure about including Ruse's point "whose deity is transcendent, beyond nature, and immanent, ready to intervene in the world" but it gives extra context. . dave souza, talk 17:21, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Paragraph Two: Provision for the creationist movement from anti-evolution (narrow definition)[edit]

Creationism covers a spectrum of views including evolutionary creationism,[citation needed] but the term is commonly used for literal creationists who reject various aspects of science, and instead promote pseudoscientific beliefs.[7][8] Literal creationists base their beliefs on a fundamentalist reading of religious texts, including the creation myths found in Genesis and the Quran.[9][10][11] For young Earth creationists, these beliefs are based on a literalist interpretation of the Genesis creation narrative and rejection of the scientific theory of evolution.[8] Literalist creationists believe that evolution cannot adequately account for the history, diversity, and complexity of life on Earth.[11]

Reworking

Creationism, it its broadest sense, includes a spectrum of views including forms that accept the reality of biological evolution,[12] but the term is commonly applied to believers in special creation which demands that key aspects of material reality were created as they exist today by divine action. The most famous of these creationists are fundamentalist Christians who believe in a literal interpretation of the creation myths found in the Bible's Book of Genesis. These people distinguish themselves by rejecting certain aspects of science, and instead promote various pseudoscientific beliefs.[7][8] The most visible creationists adhere either to young Earth creationism[8] or to intelligent design;[13] both beliefs reject parts of the scientific theory of evolution and have been the subject of ongoing political controversy.[11] Less prominently, there are also members of the Islamic,[9][10] Hindu,[14], and American Indian[15] faiths who are creationists.

Reworking outlining types

Though the creation–evolution controversy is not commonly misunderstood to be two opposing sides, creationism includes a wide variety of beliefs, some of which accept the reality of biological evolution, with multiple intermediate positions significantly contradicting each other. Christian creationism can be visualised as ranging along a spectrum of types grouped in relation to extent of Biblical literalism, the age of the Earth, and explanations ranging from special creation to material evolution.
At the most literal extreme, creationist beliefs include flat Earth and geocentrism. In the 1970s, young Earth creationism (YEC) became the commonest form, and was repackaged as creation science with the aim of getting "equal time" for creation in public school science classes. Previously, since the late 18th century most educated people had accepted that geology showed an ancient Earth, and this was harmonized with the Bible's Genesis creation narrative by gap and day-age readings, as held by most of the Christian fundamentalists whose anti-evolution movement succeeded in removing evolution from school textbooks. Most modern old Earth creationism can be classed as progressive creationism, accepting the sequence of life over geological time, but explaining it by multiple creation events. Going further, evolutionary creationism takes the theological position that God has active involvement in evolution and its proponents choose to be called creationist, while accepting evolutionary science.
In 1987, creation science was ruled to be religion and not science, and hence unconstitutional to teach in U.S. science classes, its arguments were repackaged as intelligent design with Biblical references removed or played down. Other forms of neo-creationism have continued attempts to oppose science education about evolution.
Religion is reconciled with science by theistic evolution, though this covers a wide range of positions about the extent to which God intervenes. Agnostic evolution takes no position on the existence of God, materialist evolution holds that the supernatural does not exist.
Creationism goes beyond Christianity, there are also members of the Hebrew, Islamic,[9][10] Hindu,[14], and American Indian[15] faiths who are creationists.


Discussion[edit]

Regarding the broad definition of creationism, what the "Scott 2009" source says is "Broadly, creationism refers to the idea of creation by a supernatural force.", not "includes a spectrum of views including forms that accept the reality of biological evolution". --Matt Smith (talk) 16:22, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

You're absolutely right. I mistook Dave's explanation above for the actual quote. I will go looking now for a source. jps (talk) 17:51, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Hi folks, #Scott (2009) broad and narrow definitions above is a transcription to the best of my ability from p. 57 of Scott's book. The broad definition is the first paragraph, as Matt points out, and the second paragraph gives narrower meanings. The "spectrum of views" bit is on pp. 61–75 which should be viewable from the same link. Citation [5] on this talk page, "Scott, Eugenie C. (July–August 1999)", links to an updated version based on the 2009 book, and looks pretty much the same. Hope that clarifies things! . . dave souza, talk 18:13, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, Dave. Do you think that the wording is okay? It seems to me that there is some tension as to whether evolutionary creationism is strictly creationism or not, perhaps owing to a question as to whether there is any action being done that is "supernatural". jps (talk) 18:23, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Thanks jps, the wording covers points but needs tightened, will try to come back on this. The "broad" issue is that even theistic evolution overlaps considerably with creationism and variants tend to require some supernatural intervention, there's a tendency to equate creationism with anti-evolution which can be misleading. The evolutionary creationism tag has been used (and I think still is used) by those who feel their beliefs are creationist, but accept evolution to a greater extent than hardline anti-evolutionists. Hence a continuum with the only clear divide being between YEC and OEC, and even that is spanned by various ID proponentsists. So Scott's continuum stands, can try to find again sources on evolutionary creationism. . . dave souza, talk 19:19, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

As above, I think the broad and narrow issue works better in the first paragraph. The reference to Scott's continuum is outdated, worth changing it to Eugenie Scott (13 February 2018). "The Creation/Evolution Continuum". NCSE. Retrieved 26 April 2019. . . . dave souza, talk 15:22, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

  • To tie in with moving the broad and narrow issue to paragraph 1, I've drafted reworking outlining types above on the basis of continuum sources – this is ground the article should cover, looks rather long so expect will have to trim it. . . dave souza, talk 14:27, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
I think it important that we have a section on non-Christian cretaionists. Harun Yahya's Atlas of Creation comes to mind as deserving a mention. jps (talk) 22:18, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
Yes, that should be a separate paragraph in the lead. It's covered in the article in Creationism#Religious views and Creationism#Prevalence, but Numbers (2006) gives a lot more detail and Prevalence doesn't seem to cover Asia, so update needed. To some extent it's exported from the US, but each religion has distinctive theology and creation accounts so rather complex. Didn't know Oktar/Yahya initially studied ID (Interior Design). . . dave souza, talk 09:44, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Paragraph Three: First use of the term[edit]

The first use of the term "creationist" to describe a proponent of creationism is found in an 1856 letter of Charles Darwin describing those who objected on religious grounds to the then-emerging science of evolution.[16]

First use: history in progress[edit]

Just for information, using Ron Numbers' Darwinism Comes to America and online sources I've put together some information. Here's the basic framework, I can add sources shortly, or cut it back further: think this big picture is needed somewhere, an outline in this article would be good but it can get into a lot of detail! 20th century developments to follow. . dave souza, talk 19:35, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

In the 19th century, the term Creationism commonly referred to the doctrine that God directly created the soul for each baby, as opposed to other doctrines such as Traducianism which held that souls were inherited through natural generation.

By then, species of organisms were conventionally held to be individually created as fixed and unchangeable, geology found that the Earth was very ancient, and prehistoric species had gone extinct. The gap theory of 1814 allowed prehistoric time in a literal reading of Genesis, but the appearance of new species posed a mystery "which natural science cannot reach".

In his 1842 "pencil sketch" outlining on the Origin of Species, Darwin set his theory against "the view ordinarily received" or held by "creationists", that all the species in the world had been "created by so many distinct acts of creation".

This view was unlikely to have been the long-superseded idea of Linnaeus that the offspring of created pairs of each species had spread out from one place. It was most likely to have been Charles Lyell's uniformitarian suggestion of "successive creation of species" in "centres or foci of creation" within migrating distance of each habitat (with "creation" being used by Lyell to imply an incomprehensible natural process). Another common doctrine was the catastrophist view that the Earth was repeatedly depopulated, then complete new populations created to occupy each habitat.

Darwin used the term "creationist" in letters to his colleagues, and in a scientific paper published in 1862. His American friend Asa Gray wrote articles published by The Nation in 1873–1874 discussing the "special creationist" or "the specific creationist". In 1887 some of the letters were published in The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin.

In 1889 the Century Dictionary defined Creationism as "The doctrine that matter and all things were created, substantially as they now exist, by the fiat of an omnipotent Creator, and not gradually evolved or developed : opposed to evolutionism." The entry is attributed to Charles Sanders Peirce, an opponent of creationism.

References

  1. ^ a b c Gunn 2004, p. 9, "The Concise Oxford Dictionary says that creationism is 'the belief that the universe and living organisms originated from specific acts of divine creation.'"
  2. ^ Brosseau, Olivier; Silberstein, Marc (2015). "Evolutionism(s) and Creationism(s)". In Heams, Thomas; Huneman, Philippe; Lecointre, Guillaume; Silberstein., Marc (eds.). Handbook of Evolutionary Thinking in the Sciences. Dordrecht: Springer. pp. 881–96. ISBN 9789401790147.
  3. ^ a b c "creationism: definition of creationism in Oxford dictionary (American English) (US)". Oxford Dictionaries (Definition). Oxford: Oxford University Press. OCLC 656668849. Retrieved 2014-03-05. The belief that the universe and living organisms originate from specific acts of divine creation, as in the biblical account, rather than by natural processes such as evolution.
  4. ^ Brosseau, Olivier; Silberstein, Marc (2015). "Evolutionism(s) and Creationism(s)". In Heams, Thomas; Huneman, Philippe; Lecointre, Guillaume; Silberstein., Marc (eds.). Handbook of Evolutionary Thinking in the Sciences. Dordrecht: Springer. pp. 881–96. ISBN 9789401790147.
  5. ^ Ruse 2018.
  6. ^ Scott 2009, p. 57.
  7. ^ a b Scott, Eugenie C. (July–August 1999). "The Creation/Evolution Continuum". Reports of the National Center for Science Education. 19 (4): 16–17, 23–25. ISSN 2158-818X. Retrieved 2014-03-14.
  8. ^ a b c d Haarsma 2010, p. 168, "Some Christians, often called 'Young Earth creationists,' reject evolution in order to maintain a semi-literal interpretation of certain biblical passages. Other Christians, called 'progressive creationists,' accept the scientific evidence for some evolution over a long history of the earth, but also insist that God must have performed some miracles during that history to create new life-forms. Intelligent design, as it is promoted in North America is a form of progressive creation. Still other Christians, called 'theistic evolutionists' or 'evolutionary creationists,' assert that the scientific theory of evolution and the religious beliefs of Christianity can both be true."
  9. ^ a b Chang, Kenneth (November 2, 2009). "Creationism, Without a Young Earth, Emerges in the Islamic World". The New York Times.
  10. ^ a b al-Azami, Usaama (2013-02-14). "Muslims and Evolution in the 21st Century: A Galileo Moment?". Huffington Post Religion Blog. Retrieved 19 February 2013.
  11. ^ a b c Campbell, Duncan (February 20, 2006). "Academics fight rise of creationism at universities". The Guardian. London: Guardian Media Group. Retrieved 2010-04-07.
  12. ^ (Scott 2009, p. 57)
  13. ^ "What is "Intelligent Design" Creationism?". NCSE. 2008-10-17. Retrieved 2019-04-23.
  14. ^ "Creationism: The Hindu View". www.talkorigins.org. Retrieved 2019-04-23.
  15. ^ Johnson, George (1996-10-22). "Indian Tribes' Creationists Thwart Archeologists". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2019-04-23.
  16. ^ Darwin, Charles (July 5, 1856). "Darwin, C. R. to Hooker, J. D." Darwin Correspondence Project. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Library. Letter 1919. Retrieved 2010-08-11.
    • Darwin, Charles (May 31, 1863). "Darwin, C. R. to Gray, Asa". Darwin Correspondence Project. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Library. Letter 4196. Retrieved 2010-08-11.

Semi-protected edit request on 25 April 2019[edit]

Please delete any mention of myth because creationism is a theory. Please delete or change the first sentence under section "Christianity" because it is not true. Any believer in the Bible who does not adhere to Biblical teachings is obviously not a believer in the Bible. Jmjpeper (talk) 02:09, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Not done, please provide specific suggestions backed by academic sources. Biblical literalism is not a prerequisite for Christian belief. Acroterion (talk) 02:15, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Scientific methods and Mythology[edit]

With the following sentence; "Creationism, in its broadest sense, includes a spectrum or continuum of religious views, some of which accept the reality of biological evolution; evolutionary creationism and varieties of theistic evolution reconcile their faith with modern science and hold that God purposefully created through the laws of nature."

The word reconcile does not fit here, because reconcile means "make (one account) consistent with another, especially by allowing for transactions begun but not yet completed."

The "purposeful creations of laws of nature" cannot be reconciled with the scientific method of experimentation and observation.

I would suggest changing it to this Creationism, in its broadest sense, includes a spectrum or continuum of religious views, disillusioned some of which accept the reality of biological evolution; evolutionary creationism and varieties of theistic evolution attempt to unsuccessfully reconcile their faith with modern science and hold that God purposefully created through the laws of nature.--Eng. M.Bandara-Talk 07:41, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Putting the word disillusioned in there doesn't even make grammatical sense, and there's no particular reason to believe that everyone who tries to reconcile their faith with science is unsuccessful. The idea that they "cannot" be reconciled is your opinion. PepperBeast (talk) 08:23, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

pepperbeast It's not my opinion the Scientific method is well established and defined, stating that laws of nature come about by supernatural processes is not consistent with the scientific processes. And supported by multiple WP:RS such as [1]--Eng. M.Bandara-Talk 08:34, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree that "disillusioned" makes no sense and isn't sourced, but the sentence as it stands is clearly wrong/ungrammatical. "Views" cannot "reconcile their faith", only people have faith. @Dave souza: could you help fix this please? Thanks. Doug Weller talk 13:10, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks everyone, good call that "views" can't reconcile faith. Have reworded it:

Creationism, in its broadest sense, includes a spectrum or continuum of religious views. Some types accept the reality of biological evolution; evolutionary creationism and varieties of theistic evolution reconcile religious faith with modern science, and hold that God purposefully created through the laws of nature.

Feel that's clearer. As for the reconciliation, the question of where laws of nature come from is beyond science. These types of creationism combine their religious belief in divine creation with acceptance of all the findings of science – to quote Scott,
"Theistic evolution is a theological view in which God creates through the laws of nature. Theistic evolutionists (TEs) accept all the results of modern science, in anthropology and biology as well as in astronomy, physics, and geology. . . . .However, TEs vary in whether and how much God is allowed to intervene — some believe that God created the laws of nature and allows events to occur with no further intervention. Other TEs believe that God intervenes at critical intervals during the history of life (especially in the origin of humans)."
These theological views exist, whether they're successful or not isn't an issue for this concise lead statement. . . dave souza, talk 16:04, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
Dave souzaThe issue with it is that it makes it appear as if even if you adopt least intervening TE's to say that "God created the laws of nature" it gives the illusion that there is a possibility that this position can be successfully reconciled with modern science and accepted. When reality is this in itself does not at all reconcile with modern science. For a reader that's unfamiliar with the topic, it should be made clear, that although there has been an attempt at reconciling their beliefs with modern science, it is impossible to be reconciled without the even passing the first step of the scientific method that is a testable hypothesis.--Eng. M.Bandara-Talk 21:55, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
Source? . . . . . dave souza, talk 04:20, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
Even while I agree that accommodationist theism does not present falsifiable hypotheses for a scientist to consider, people who believe that theism and scientific results can be reconciled do not generally claim that this reconciliation is supposed to happen using the scientific method. jps (talk) 13:53, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
For examples, Clergy Letter Project. . . dave souza, talk 19:53, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

References