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.

Q1: Should the article characterize creationism as a religious belief? (Yes.)
A1: Yes. Creationism is a religious belief; it is not a theory.
Q2: Should the article use the term myth? (Yes.)
A2: Yes. Myth as used in the context of the article means "a sacred narrative explaining how the world and mankind came to be in their present form." This terminology is extensively used in religion and comparative religion fields of study at the academic and scholarly levels, as well as in many of the reliable sources cited in the article. With this in mind, usage of the term is explicitly supported by WP:RNPOV and WP:WTA.

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
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".


Four groups

IMPORTANT - If you wish to discuss or debate the validity of creationism please do so at 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.

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)


Nomination of Portal:Creationism for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Creationism is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Creationism (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America1000 23:30, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Biased Statement[edit]

In the following line in the article: "are compatible with a Christian fundamentalist literal interpretation of the creation myths found in the Bible's Genesis" the phrase "creation myth", by definition implies that creationism is a false idea. This is a biased statement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidDarden (talkcontribs) 19:22, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Hello David. I recommend reading Talk:Genesis creation narrative/FAQ. WP:FIXBIAS may also be useful on how to approach perceived bias in relation to improving the encyclopedia. —PaleoNeonate – 19:55, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 December 2019[edit]

Under “Types” correct spelling to “between the” (talk) 08:22, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks for the heads up. HiLo48 (talk) 08:51, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 January 2020[edit]

Please remove reference to all instances of evolution being "scientific". Evolution is just as much an unprovable religious belief system (called atheism) as any creation hypothesis. Stating evolution as "scientific" is misleading at best and simply lying at worst. Let's keep Wikipedia a safe and informative platform and not one for spouting off religious dogma. Thank you. William.The.Honest (talk) 21:16, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Not done Plainly nonsense. Theroadislong (talk) 23:07, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
Requesting to expunge all instances of evolution being called "scientific" because one can not be bothered to differentiate atheism from evolution and religion is to have the article rewritten as antiscience propaganda, and runs afoul of WP:FRINGE, WP:NPOV, WP:SOAPBOX and WP:NOTAFORUM.--Mr Fink (talk) 23:14, 7 January 2020 (UTC)