Talk:Creationism/Archive 12

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Removal of two sections to creation-evolution controversy

The critiques of creationism and the defenses thereof belong on the controversy page. I have moved them there. There could be a short little sentence or paragraph describing the controversy that refers to the other article, but the distraction of the immense "personal essay" as User:Ungtss liked to put it doesn't belong in an article devoted simply to explaining the phenomenon. Joshuaschroeder 07:44, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Wrong. The 'criticisms of creationism' section absolutely belongs in the creationism article. It would be totally misleading of us to create an article that does not make it absolutely clear that creationism is a hugely flawed and hugely criticised religious outlook. Moreover, the criticisms highlighted are totally legitimate, informative, and what's more - important. I have put the section back where it belongs. Aaarrrggh 15:32, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The only problem with this, as I see it, is that the sections aren't criticizing creationism but a particular brand of creationism that is associated with the Creation-evolution controversy. Those two sections don't seem to be on par with the rest of the article as it now stands. There are a huge number of creationist claims that could be debunked and there are also a huge number of perspectives by creationists on what creationism is. I think that should be made clearer if this section is to stay. Joshuaschroeder 15:37, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
<<It would be totally misleading of us to create an article that does not make it absolutely clear that creationism is a hugely flawed and hugely criticised religious outlook.>>
This is in direct violation of npov, which provides that articles neither state or imply that a particular point of view is correct or incorrect. Ungtss 16:19, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
We are treading on old ground here Ungtss. We have been here before. Joshua, if you want to edit the criticism section to clarify any of your concerns, I don't mind that at all; I just don't think it's right to remove the section entirely from the article. Aaarrrggh 16:51, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Yes, we've discussed it before. I just felt obligated to point out the obvious. an article which does what you want this article to do violates npov in a direct and explicit way. Ungtss 16:54, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I agree strongly with Ungtss' last statement. Aidje 18:23, 2005 Mar 31 (UTC)
Fine, but if you actually look at the edits I've made, I think it's fair to say they've helped the overal neutrality of the article considerably. When I came to this article, there was no criticism section whatsoever, and it was a TOTALLY biased account of creationism in favour of the creationist arguments. I agree that a wiki article should not come to actual conclusions, but it is fair to say that creationism is such a flawed theory and goes in the face of so much scientific evidence, that removing such criticism would itself constitute a form of bias. I'm not saying the article should explicitly state that creationism is a fraudulent theory (although this would still be accurate), but simply that such criticisms are totally relevant and should remain within the article. Aaarrrggh 21:32, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I appreciate your concern for npov. Attributed and fact-based criticism of creationism is essential to an npov article. the current criticism is an enormous personal-research essay that states opinions as facts, thus violating npov and personal research rules in mind-boggling ways. Beyond that, defenses of creationism are also essential to an article on the topic. but these have been stripped out or down to meaningless conclusions, and followed up with long rebuttals. npov provides us with a structure that will serve both our purposes. when an article violates that structure, everybody loses. Ungtss 21:50, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Why is noone ever willing to respond with an open mind to comments such as those above? Why is the majority unwilling to remedy clear and obvious violations of policy on this page? Do you not realize that when you can only "win" by breaking the rules, it's evidence that your ideas aren't strong enough to win on the merits? Why not win according to the rules? Why not provide cited summaries of critiques of creationism, and allow cited summaries of defenses thereof, without stripping them of their content, deleting them entirely, or answering them with extended personal research rebuttals that make no sense? Do you realize that when a creationist reads this page, he's not persuaded that creationism is bunk, but is instead persuaded that evolutionists are afraid of it? Ungtss 13:56, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Or do as Ungtss does: If you can't "win" with the existing rules, make up your own. User:Ungtss/FAQ Bensaccount 18:33, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I feel that we should remove the criticism of creationism from this page, replacing it with a reference, until such time comes that there is a criticism of evolution on the evolution page. Samboy 00:36, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Legitimate criticisms of the nature of evolution might be relevant on the evolution page, but a 'criticism' of evolution from a creationist perspective does not belong on there because it is simply corrupt and not relevant. The evidence for evolution is absolutely overwhelming, and creationism is nothing more than an insidious anti-intellectual pseudo-theory stemming from the inability of some religious people to deal with the reality of the world we live in. Aaarrrggh 13:28, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Fine. So it is. Even so, NPOV still applies. the article may not imply that the point of view is right or wrong, and may not be filled with personal research, no matter how noble your intentions of freeing 45% of the US population from its own "corrupt, insidious, anti-intellectual pseudotheory." No matter how evil the criminal, the rules still apply. otherwise it's a mere lynching. Ungtss 19:58, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
In general, fair representation does not mean giving an idiot equal say. Bensaccount 20:11, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Nobody's asking for an equal say. what we're asking for is that we be allowed our say in cited, scholarly summaries, and that you limit your say to cited, scholarly summaries, rather than your own personal research. you are censoring cited creationist opinion and replacing it with your own uncited, personal research. Ungtss 20:20, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I was not being specific to this page, which I have not read. My problem is with Ungtss' arguments. Bensaccount 20:24, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think that Ungtss has done a good job of sumarizing Wikipedia policies on NPOV et al. I think that everyone should read the Wikipedia policy on NPOV before accusing someone else of making up their own rules. Or do you care to elaborate on where his summaries run contrary to Wikipedia policies.

It is parallel policy intended for bypassing the set policy, and I certainly do not care to waste my time reading it. If you need a summary of NPOV, heres a good one: The neutral point of view policy states that articles should be written without bias, representing all views fairly. Bensaccount 00:32, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Your evident failure to read the FAQ or the long, complex and subtle npov policy draw the quality of your evaluation into question. Ungtss 19:58, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I didn't make any evaluation, I said I had no intention of reading your attempt to rewrite NPOV. Bensaccount 20:11, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Maybe you should start by reading the real npov, then see if there were any substantive differences in mine. nah. too much work. Ungtss 20:20, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I have read it and am satisfied, therefore I see no reason to read your attempt to rewrite it. Bensaccount
If you've read it and are satisfied, then feel free to start following it. start by deleting that abysmal personal research, highly pov, and factually inaccurate essay at the end of this page. Ungtss 14:51, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Bensaccount's summary of NPOV is inaccurate. No article should represent "all views," only those pertaining to said article. Thus, in my opinion, facts about creationism should go in the creationism page, and anything pertaining to why the theory is "bunk" go in the controversy article. JEmfinger 16:48, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

Thats not my summary that is Wikipedia's summary from the page on NPOV. Unlike Ungtss I don't make up brand new summaries to suit my biases. Bensaccount 21:07, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

NPOVing a section; aka (essay)

I strongly suggest that one of the proponents of the pov personal research essay at the end of this article bring it into conformance with wikipedia policy. it is currently an enormous pile of pov personal research, unbacked with cited scholarly opinion, and much of it is patent nonsense. Please. If you want to save the huddled masses of ignorant and vile creationists, follow the rules of npov. we're not stupid enough to confuse your opinion for reality. on the contrary, your persistent unwillingness to follow the rules just further convinces us that your views are nonsense. thoughts? Ungtss 03:40, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  •  !! ---Rednblu | Talk 05:59, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • How did Ungtss become a spokesperson for all creationists? Joshuaschroeder 13:37, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • How did schroeder become the spokesman for reality? Ungtss 21:25, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I am offended that Ungtss is calling eveyone with this belief ignorant and vile. Bensaccount 17:20, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Carry on, ben. carry on. Ungtss 21:25, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I will edit this section when I have more time. It definately needs cleaning up and fixing. I'll do it as soon as I can. Aaarrrggh 16:33, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That sounds like a great idea. in order to maximize article quality, please find, reference, and cite published and scholarly criticism. thanks:). Ungtss 17:56, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Ok Ungtss, that I will do. I have made a start on an improved version of this section already, but I'm going to go to the library in my own time now to really tie it all together I think. I will try my best to update this in the next few days if I can. Aaarrrggh 18:43, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Awesome:). Ungtss 21:58, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 !! ---Rednblu | Talk 23:58, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)


I was suprised to find there is a difference between creationism and belief in creation. I think this difference is subtle and the reader would benefit if this article differentiated the two. Bensaccount 17:33, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That's a very good idea. And thank you for having the courage to remove the essay. How would you differentiate the two? Ungtss 21:46, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
As far as I'm concerned, it's not the 'essay' that I was concerned about - it is having a section of the article dedicated to legitimate criticisms of creationism. I will take this on myself now, cleaning up and changing it until we hopefully have something much better. Aaarrrggh 16:37, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The first task is to make that which links to Creationism, creation, creation belief, origins beliefs, creating, and creation (theology) link to that which is most appropriate, and avoid redirects. Bensaccount 16:28, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

AiG link

I changed the link to Answers in Genesis from "The thousands of articles and media programs on this site answer questions about creation/evolution, dinosaurs, and much more." to a more descriptive note about its support of Young-Earth creationism. I think this is much better way to know which site says what than something that sounds like it came from a press release. --Weyoun6 02:23, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Modern Geocentrism

The article the link takes you to doesn't refer to geocentrism in the sense that the Sun orbits the Earth. Modern geocentrism says that Earth is the center of the universe in that it located at the center. This theory, depending on the theorist's viewpoint, does not say that the whole universe revolves around Earth. User: Mred64

It actually does since the immobile Earth is also a part of the idea. Joshuaschroeder 22:28, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Brief note on Islam

In the Islamic world, due to the continued prevalence of religious belief, the theory of evolution has not yet taken hold, and traditional Islamic beliefs regarding creation remain dominant. However, several liberal movements within Islam, which are generally partial to secular scientific thought, subscribe to evolution.

This needs to be rewritten to make clear that it is due to the continued prevalence of Islam (or a particular type of Islam) that evolution has not taken hold, not due to the continued prevalence of religious belief in general. -- Temtem 01:06, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

Moved stuff: creationism, Creation (theology), Abrahamic creationism

I've moved 'Creation (theology)', which only deals with Christianity to Abrahamic creationism. It should now be added to, to cover Islam and Judaism aswell. Creation (theology]] now refers here.

This article, in my mind, should be about creation in general, and should refer to Abrahamic creationism and the creation vs evolution debate. To that end, I've treid to add other views on creation. Feel free to add more, there are legion.

Ec5618 16:35, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)

removed junk

do not delete important content

There is a problem with the way the section on "Abrahamic" creationism is set up, in that it implies that contemporary verions of creationism come from "Abrahamic" religion. It is true that in the US molst contemporary creationists claim that their views come from the Biblical book of Genesis. But this is not the same thing as claiming that the original authors of Genesis, or their audiences, elieved in "creationism." Moreover, there are many people who are of "Abrahamic" religions who are not creationists. It is for this reason that the last edit, which deleted the section on Christian critiques of creationism, was especially egregious. Evolutionary scientists are not the only people today who oppose creationism. Many Christians and Jews (qand I imagine, but cannot say for sure, Muslims as well) reject creatonism for religious reasons. There views must be represented, or we are left with a violation of NPOV. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:35, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you, on closer inspection I removed too much. Still, I think the article has improved on the whole; it was really cluttered. Out with the bad, in/back with the good, as it were. A lot was also a rehash from Abrahamic creationism, so I removed duplicate info. Thanks for the partial revert, though I think the 'critique' section could be shortened. - Ec5618 22:57, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)

I am not faulting you at all for working on the article. But wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, and one should never delete content. Edit it to make it clearer, or more accurate. Rearrange it. Create a linked page and put it there. But don't delete content, Slrubenstein | Talk 20:10, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I just did a little more editing for style and NPOV. I deleted the link at the beginning of the section on Abrahamic religions because such links should be at the bottom -- this is not an article on one website's account of creationism, it is an article on creationism, drawing on many sources. I edited the opening of this section to make it less verbose and to make clear, for NPOV purposes, that "Abrahamic religions" do not require creationism, but rather we are talking about beliefs held by some Jews, Christians and Muslims. In the followin section I deleted the point about Muslim creationism, which is covered in the "Abrahamic" section. I also put the Mayan creationism under the bullet point for American Indian creationisms, since Mayans are American Indians. By the way, I still question the accuracy and NPOV of this section. What sources do we have that Maya and other American Indians really believe that their myths should be interpreted literally? The Indians I have spoken to usually interpret their myths non-literally, and Indians I have spoken to who talk about "creationism" are explictly referring to Christian creationism. Whoever wrote this section, please provide sources/verification. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:26, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you that Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopaedia, obviously. And I agree that generally, content should not be deleted. In this case, I did, and rather rigorously at that, because the history still contains the deleted material. Since this article is on Creationism in general, and an article exists which deals with Abrahamic creationism, some content should be moved from this article. I reasoned, perhaps a bit presumptiously, that anyone who felt specific content should not have been deleted, they would restore the text, or even move it to other articles where the text would fit better.
And I'll also agree with you that the article on Abrahamic creationism is poorly set up. Moving the link, I'll agree with. I was the one who added the creation stories from the 'other cultures', using the source to which the link you just moved pointed. Perhaps we could add a note explaining that many/some/most of these myths are not generally believed, and perhaps, never were. Perhaps, they were, at one times, stories people told each other to amuse themselves with, knowing full well they didn't have any actual answers. Though perhaps this discussion should be at the Talk page of Abrahamic creationism. -- Ec5618 21:24, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

Great. Personal advice, though: don't delete content assuming someone will restore it if they think it is necessary. I am not reacting personally to your earlier overzealous cleaning up, this really is just some friendly advice about how to work on other articles. If you really think something is absolutely redundant, or wrong, you can delete. But if there is any grey area, bring it up on the talk page first. Give it a few days to see if anyone disagrees with you about the proposed deleting, or has an alternative. If after a few days no one has objected, go ahead and delete. As to the other creation myths -- well, I am inclined to agree with you that sometimes the stories were meant to amuse. Or they may have had a serious didactic function, to express moral truths for example (look, people think Aesop's fabels are much more than "amusements," but no one believes foxes talk or more to the point that Aesop believed foxes talk. As I said, I know this is the case at least for a few Indians I actually know. But my point is -- I do not know how all Indians in all Native American societies feel about their myths. They may believe they are just entertainments. They may feel they express historical facts. they may believe they express moral truths. My point is, I do not know. IF you know for a fact that the Maya, or ancient Greeks or Egyptians or Norwegians, felt that their myths were amusement/historical fact/moral truth, then say so -- and provide the citation. Check our Wikipedia:Cite sources, Wikipedia: No original research, and Wikipedia: Verifiability policies. If you did not have a source when you wrote that these are creation myths, AND if you do not have a source when you now suggest they were amusements, then you are violating all three of these important policies. Please be careful. Please go over what you added and provide sources for the claims (interpretations) you added to the article. If you can't, then I will delete them. But I will give you time to respond/fix them first, Slrubenstein | Talk 21:16, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Pleasant. I mentioned before what my source was. I got the information via the link you moved. I never claimed, not in the article nor here, that the myths were 'mere amusing anecdotes'. I will edit this page at some point, it's late now. - Ec5618 23:13, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
I use the word "amuse" because you did -- and I am not criticizing you for using it (no need to get defensive), I am only pointing out that we do not know that for sure. As to the source, I am sorry but that website is not an appropriate source for the claim that these yths from other cultures are creation myths. I know that the website makes that claim, and I know that your intentions were entirely good. But that website is not providing any evidence to support the claim that those myths were used to explain creation in the same way that Creationists in the US use Genesis 1 to explain creation. An appropriate source would be an article from an anthropology, folklore, or religious studies journal (or a book by a scholar in one of these fields) which makes the argument and provides evidence. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:00, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

A lot of worthy material seems to have been cut: I propose moving parts into new articles, suggested titles Judaism on creationism and Islamic creationism: have these sections already been moved? --dave souza 18:53, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

A lot of material has been moved to the collective article Abrahamic creationism. -- Ec5618 22:25, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

Panspermia as Creation Myth

I don't think Panspermia should be listed as a Creation myth. I thought Panspermia was a scientific theory or hypothesis, and that is what the Wikipedia article calls it. Serious scientific research is being done on it, to see if it really could happen. Mred64 00:30, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think in its strong from (cosmic ancestry), it could be considered a creation myth. -- Temtem 01:07, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
Panspermia is NOT a creationist theory, it is a falsifiable scientific hypothesis. It ought to be removed from this article!
Do not make a confussion between Erich Von Daniken crap and Panspermia in which microorganism can develop inside meteorites ! - uncredited

Deleted Link

This site was deleted(because of low google serach) but this article doesn't have an Islamic link other than that one.(that I saw) Should it be kept? (I don't neccesarily disagree with the user that deleted the article) Falphin 22:18, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Revert of Scientific Creationism

I just took this out:

Although many opponents to Creationism have shunned different Holy Texts as being unsupported and even mythical, a growing number of the world's scientists are accepting the likelihood of a greater intelligence responsible for creating the universe. This movement is commonly known as Creation-Science, or Scientific Creationism. Generally, Creation-scientists are found in the field performing studies similar to their Darwinian colleagues'. But unlike their fellow scientists, Creation-scientists tend to reject the theory of abiogenesis in place of Creationism, while at the same time helping to analyze their findings which can be used to support Creationism. So far, evidence is existent in nearly all the major fields of science, including geology and astronomy.

I know it's not good Wikipedia manners and not nice in general to delete entire paragraphs, but I think this is POV and invites problems. Holy texts have been not been "shunned" -- they're simply not suitable sources of information; if Salva knows of "a growing number of scientists" accepting creationism, then show bona fide statistics. Then also, scientists are not divided between "Darwinians" and "Creationists" as implied, and abiogenesis is not a theory, it's an umbrella term for hypotheses that life came from ordinary non-living matter. And finally, the evidence for creationism has been shown to be lacking or flawed, and at times even dishonestly presented as true by people who come with scientific grades obtained at "diploma mills".

This article is rather messy already, Salva -- please don't insert such inflammatory material. There's a policy about conflicting POVs here. Discuss your ideas here, don't dump them into the main article. --Pablo D. Flores 03:11, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Pardon, what exactly are you saying is a "diploma mill?" Could you possibly be talking about Federally-funded universities? If that is your supposition, then you need to check your facts. There are creation-scientists that have graduated from schools all over the world! What about Jonathan Wells - PhD in religious studies from Yale and PhD in molecular biology from Berkley? Surely you don't see Yale and Berkley as "diploma mills?" Once again - why are we back on attacking each other's education in order to justify our positions? There's no need to wear out our temporal mendibular joints with all this nonsense. Salva 21:28, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Defining creationism

I have taken the most common elements from each definition on [[1]] and combined them to get this definition:

Creationism is the doctrine that the universe, life, and each human soul was created by God as described in Genesis. Bensaccount 03:54, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I was going to point to merging this with creation (theology) but its already been done. Bensaccount 03:57, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)


Myth might be considered inflammatory, but neither 'belief' nor 'theory' are accurate. For example, we don't actually know whether every 'creation story' was ever actually believed. Who is to say there weren't people who realised they didn't have all the answers, and so told amusing stories to fill in the gaps. Theory obviously isn't correct either, so it would seem we need another term. Any suggestions?

Meanwhile, the creationism article now contains no in-text reference to the creation evolution controversy.

Ec5618 09:56, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)

It was removed with the argument that it's biased and inflammatory to state that scientific explanations are in conflict with creationism. I'm putting it back. Naturalistic explanations are what science gives, and creationism is not a naturalistic explanation. --Pablo D. Flores 12:28, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Naturalistic means without God. There is no way to say for sure God is not present. Thus science is NOT naturalistic. Bensaccount 15:52, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
But science doesn't need to show that there is no God. All it attempts to do is provide an explanation for events as if God or the supernatural is not the cause. -- Temtem 16:53, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)
Naturalistic means "with reference only to known natural laws", i. e. implying "without reference to God", not "without God". --Pablo D. Flores 18:03, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Just a suggestion but what if we changed "science" to "naturalistic science." I don't see any conflict this way.Falphin 19:10, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, science is naturalistic. Surely you know the difference between alchemy and chemistry, astrology and astronomy? Slrubenstein | Talk 19:27, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes I know the difference
I provided these definitions from a google search.
Science: "a method of learning about the physical universe by applying the principles of the scientific method, which includes making empirical observations, proposing hypotheses to explain those observations, and testing those hypotheses in valid and reliable ways; also refers to the organized body of knowledge that results from scientific study"
Scientific Method: " principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses"
Naturalist: "A person who studies nature (including plants and animals) and natural history (how plants and animals evolve)."
Putting it into the sentence
"Creationist beliefs usually conflict with theory of evolution and explanations of the origins and development of the universe, the Earth, and life provided by naturalistic science."(meaning: those who have studied the natural history of the earth using scientific methods.)
A better word might just be natural. This is just a suggestion, I don't believe the status quo is completley fair.
Another idea might be to simply reword it, "Creationist beliefs usually conflict with the theory of evolution and explantions of the orgins and development of the universe, the Earth, and life provided by the majority of scientists" , or something along those lines.

Falphin 20:10, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)Falphin

I still do not understand. What is "unfair" about the "status quo?" This all started with Bensaccount saying, "Naturalistic means without God. There is no way to say for sure God is not present. Thus science is NOT naturalistic." This sentence makes two mistakes. First, science is naturalistic in that it provides natural explanations and it is true that these explanations do not refer to God. But this does not mean that scientists do not believe God exists. All it means is that scientific explanations do not need to invoke God as part of the explanation. Second, that science does not invoke God, when in fact (according to Ben) God is present, does not mean that Science is not naturalistic, it only means that Ben believes science is wrong. Ben and anyone else is free to accept or reject science as they see fit. But they should not mischaracterize science. For an explanation to be scientific it must be natural. To say "naturalistic science" is redundant (since all science is naturalistic) and misleading (since it implies that a non-naturalistic science exists). Slrubenstein|Talk 22:39, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It's untrue to say that creationist beliefs usually conflict with evolution - unless you define Catholics as not being creationist! I've clarified the paragraph...dave souza 23:41, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Maybe it depends on how you define creationism? I thought Catholics just are not creationists. Everyone I know in the US who is a creationist say they believe God created the world in six days, and created all the species separately. This most definitely contradicts science. I think you may be making a mistake to equate all religious beliefs with creationism. creationism does conflict with science -- but religion and science need not conflict. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:45, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

explanation for cut

I cut this:

On the other hand, many faiths which can be called creationist accept scientific explanations of the origins and development of the universe, the Earth, and life including evolution by natural selection–such beliefs can be characterised as scientific creationism.

because of the phrse "can be." For an editor of Wikipedia to claim that a religion "can be" called creationist is original research and must be deleted. Our articles are not to speculate about what "can" be so. We need to restrict ourselves to what "is," not what can be. The question is simply this: Do any faiths that accept scientific explanations of the origins and development of the universe, the Earth, and life including evolution by natural selection actually call themselves "creationist"? If so, fine — and we should name 3exactly which faiths accept natural selection and also call themselves creationist. But unless such a faith has actually called themselves creationist, this sentence has no place in the article. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:50, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Check out scientific creationism and the associated talk: some prefer to call it theistic evolution, but that's controversial. I've tried to improve the para, if you want to substitute "are" for "can be" that's ok by me..dave souza 00:03, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Dave, you aren't really answering my question. Can you tell me which faiths both accept Darwin's theory of natural selection and explicitly call themselves "creationist?" Slrubenstein | Talk 17:52, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Apologies for my misdirect: I meant to refer to Evolutionary creationism and its talk page: as you can see there, many religious faiths have belief in creation and at the same time reconcile this with evolution. It's correct to say they don't necessarily accept all science, the Roman Catholic belief in divine creation of life and souls being an example. Others on that talk page obviously followed the same principle as the definition in the creationism article, that it includes those with creation beliefs without stipulating that they reject evolution: it would be tidier to limit creationism to rejection of evolution, but I've had to accept that others don't feel that way..dave souza 00:10, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
p.s. I've revised the intro to creationism to meet your concerns - the relevant sentence is rephrased to:
On the other hand, many faiths which believe in divine creation accept evolution by natural selection as well as, to a greater or lesser extent, scientific explanations of the origins and development of the universe, the Earth, and life – such beliefs have been given the name evolutionary creationism, though others call them "theistic evolution".
Hope this clarifies things, .dave souza 00:35, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

You certainly are making a valid point. More sophistication is always better than less. I just think it is important to be as precise as possible, and always Wikipedia:Cite sources (e.g., who calls it "theisitic evolution?" Members of that religion, or outsiders?). Slrubenstein | Talk 00:37, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. A quick Google search for "evolutionary creationism" yields secondary sources, discussion forums, FAQs, and other wikis -- not primary sources -- and not very many sources of any kind at all. Who came up with this terminology? Who uses it? Are there any books defending the position? Do people who believe it self-describe as "evolutionary creationists"? "Theistic evolutionists"? Or do they just call themselves Christians, Jews, Muslims, or other religionists who happen to accept the conclusions of biological science as not contradicting their beliefs?
There seems to me to be a significant likelihood that this category is being cooked up in order to add religionists who agree with biological science to the "creationist" camp, or perhaps to define (unmodified) evolution as an "atheistic" belief. That would be unfortunate and dishonest. As such, the question of whether there are any faith groups who both accept evolutionary science and label themselves "creationist" is really central to assessing the worth of the contribution that claims so. --FOo 04:08, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
Most of us from what I have seen over half a dozen forums on the "Great Debate" would rather call ourselves Theistic Evolutionist rather than Evolutionary Creationists. Frankly, we don't want to be associated with the term "creationISM" at all, especially since most of us are more likely to side with the non-theists than the Creationists in this debate. Also, a quick Google check also shows that Theistic Evolution is in fact, the more commonly used term. Here are the relevant results:
Theistic Evolution 28,600
Theistic Evolutionist 5,750
Evolutionary Creationism 2,700
Evolutionary Creation 1,440
Evolutionary Creationist 608
Dracil 21:59, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Some history: when I got involved in this, the article on Creationism listed types and of Evolutionary creationism said that " Many creationists would deny that this is creationism at all, and should rather be called theistic evolution, just as many scientists allow voice to their spiritual side.", but a redirect of theistic evolution meant both linked to the same page. From discussion on that talk page I accepted that the two should stay merged, and was given as a source of the titles What is Creationism?, which I added as a source to this page before someone deleted it and the list was later moved to Abrahamic creationism. The Evolutionary creationism article includes a number of sources for those taking the position, one being:

Dobzhansky wrote a famous 1973 essay entitled Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution espousing evolutionary creationism: "I am a creationist and an evolutionist. Evolution is God's, or Nature's, method of creation."

In the discussion page several contributors argue that this is their position, .dave souza 18:57, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

I hadn't read this quote — thanks for providing it! Slrubenstein | Talk 19:12, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Salva/Aargh monologues

Excuse me, folks, but we have several issues here:

Most evidence presented by Creationists is against Evolutionary theories while science uses the Scientific Method as a means of discovering information about the natural world. Scientists use observations, hypotheses and deductions to propose explanations for natural phenomena in the form of theories. Predictions from these theories are tested by experiment. If a prediction turns out to be correct, the theory survives. This is a meritocratic form of systematic enquiry, where the best ideas supported by evidence and positive experimental results survive. All scientific theories are falsifiable; that is, if evidence that contradicts any given theory comes to light, or if the theory is proven to no longer fit with the evidence, the theory itself is shown to be invalid. Evolution is a theory that fits in with all known biological evidence, fits in with all known genetic evidence, and is backed up by overwhelming evidence in the fossil record. It is also important to note that there is no 'debate' within scientific circles as to whether evolution is a fact or not. It is only in the public sphere, where young earth creationists (especially in America) have fought for recognition of their world view, that the debate about creationism and evolution rages.
Do you know what this is? It's called propagandizing and slanted journalism. Look, if you want to use these unending mantras to eliminate all possible equivocal interpretations of your vehicle of insanity, go ask CNN for a job - I am sure that they would love to have you! But please, this is not a ground for your indoctrination of atheistic beliefs.
This is the Creationism article, and Creationists are not mythics or pseudoscientists when reviewed in context with the English language. They are, however to our happy pack of Brown Shirted neo Darwinists who think that they will win the Culture Wars. If you are a scientist, you pay attention to the evidence. Given, the evidence for the origin of life can be construed to point to many beginnings, but it is NOT - LET ME REPEAT THAT - IT IS NOT extensive enough to draw any ABSOLUTE conclusions. The evidence for abiogenesis is poor, and on the other hand the Creation scientists are still tying up ends, but whoever wrote that dispicable rant of a statement is unrecognizably in a sinking boat trying to paddle upstream. Creationism is going nowhere because it CAN be supported by evidence. I know you evolutionists would sometimes love to think that you've won, and even try to convince yourselves that "there is no debate", but the clock is ticking, and there is nothing that you can do to halt your own looming apprehensions about the controversy which we so very much love to talk about.Salva 20:32, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
It was slanted journalism salva, I freely admit that. It was slanted in favour of the facts and the evidence. I know this is a baffling concept for somebody like you, but some people out there think that facts and reality have a place in our understanding of the world around us.
We have won. There is no debate. By the way, I love it when you wacky bible thumping rabid frothing at the mouth creationists show up. Hello to you!
Salva, you are going to find that your total lack of intellectual integrity when it comes to this issue will be a burden against you here. The truth is more important than your beliefs, and wikipedia is not the place to censor totally valid criticism of a 'theory' as corrupt and vapid as creationism. If you are not happy - tough.

Aaarrrggh 14:44, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Thank U 4 x-tendng my edumakashun.Salva 16:53, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

The irony is that that is the most intelligent contribution you have made to this talk page so far. Aaarrrggh 16:56, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

You're hopeless. Evidently, there is nothing that I can say to trigger your critical thinking. You can't open up your mind and you seem to hate all that is good and right. Well, all I have to say is fine. God be with you. Salva 17:06, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

The reason I accept evolution as an accurate theory regarding the origin of life is directly because of my capacity for critical thought. Accusing those who understand and accept the validity of the scientific theory of evolution of being "Brown Shirted neo Darwinists" does nothing to promote your self projected image of a 'critical thinker'. Given that you also mention 'atheistic beliefs' (atheism is not a belief system), and imply that the 'battle' between evolution and creationism is nothing more than 'culture war', it seems to me that it is very clearly you who is in need of developing his critical thinking capacity. Evolution is not a cultural development - it is a scientific theory based solely on the systematic accumulation of overwhelming evidence. Any cultural impact this has is secondary and seperate to the scientific theory itself.
Also, your waffling about evolution not being not suported by "ABSOLUTE conclusions" shows an ignorance about basic scientific principles. Science is not about absolute conclusions; science is dynamic, pliable and self correcting. Science adapts and changes according to new conditions and discoveries. It is only in the relm of man made religions such as christianity that we find the arrogant declaration of absolute knowledge. There is no evidence for creationism whatsover; therefore it is an invalid theory, and this needs to be made clear within the article on creationism itself. You should try HONEST critical thought. It's good, and it might cure you from your mental delusions. If you ever feel the urge to be cured of the christian brain virus, please don't hesitate to ask me for my help. I would be more than willing :-) Aaarrrggh 17:28, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Ok, without directly insulting your metal thought processes, I would like to point out a few things :-)

  • Atheism is a religious belief. I don't know who on God's green Earth decided to let you into Oxford if you truly think otherwise. Unless you can prove that God does not exist then you have to believe he does not exist, hence, atheism is indubitably a belief system.
Yes, you are right to say "Atheism" is a belief. But you are wrong to say "Atheism is a religious belief." Not all beliefs are religious. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:32, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
  • There is a battle going on between creationism and evolutionism. We see it every day in our schools, media, and even on Wikipedia. A battle is when two sides, usually with opposing belief systems, are engaged in a conflict.
Quite true. But the battle is not between creationists and atheists (especially since many "evolutionists" believe in God, and many are devout Christians). It is a battle between a very narrow religious doctrine, not shared by all religious people, and science.
  • BOTH theories for the origin of life have survived the test of time in the scientific community and elsewhere. The difference is that Creationism has survived a much longer test of time. There are still quite a few people in the world who believe in Creationism because it is a solid explanation for our purpose, being, and origin. Let me repeat that - Creationism HAS survived. It has suffered a detrimental attack in America since the 1960's, but prevails nonetheless.
It is not true that both theories have survived the test of time in the scientific community. It is true that evolution has; creationism has not. You may be right that creationism has been around for a long time, but you may be wrong. Many Christians today do not interpret the Bible the way you do. It is unclear whether people living 1,000 or 2,000 years ago interpreted the Bible the way you do. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:32, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Don't forget that many of the "icons of evolution" have been deceitful hoaxes, whiiiiicch, (unfortunately for all the serious Brown Shirts out there,) have given a stench of incredulity to the theory itself.
I am not sure what you are talking about. Piltdown man was a hoax, yes. There have even been religious people, evangelists, who have been frauds — it happens. But the Piltdown man hoax was not meant to support evolution, it was intended to support British national pride. In any event, put the hoaxes aside, for a moment. So far all scientific evidence supports the modern synthesis. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:32, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
  • You have the right idea of what science is, my friend! I'm proud of you! It is a self-correcting process, which means that both evolution and creation theories are probably correctable in one area or another.
  • I'm appalled to be receiving personal attacks from an Administrator. That is not a good example to set for Wikipedia, and is counterproductive to say the least.
You are wrong to think Admin's are special or privileged. Wikipedia is non-hierarchical. All editors are equal as editors. Admin's are simply editors who have access to certain commands that allow them to do house-keeping chores. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:32, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
  • If you would ever like some help, please don't hesitate to ask. Regards, Salva 21:43, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

I think you have your wires crossed somewhere Salva. I am not an administrator, nor did I go to Oxford. I studied at Manchester University in England, not Oxford. I'm not going to get into the same age-old silly little debates such as 'atheism is a form of religious belief' with you. I cannot be bothered, and this is not the place for that. Sirubenstein is correct in pointing out that creationism has not stood the test of time in the scientific community. When you talk about there being a real debte, I am reffering here to the scientific community. There is unfortunately a limited 'debate' in the public sphere, but this is caused entirely by the loud screechings of organised creationists - it is not the outcome of any real debates based on real information. Simply insisting that something is the case inspite of the truth does not help anybody. I've seen this time and again coming from creationist zealots like yourself. Comments such as

"BOTH theories for the origin of life have survived the test of time in the scientific community and elsewhere. The difference is that Creationism has survived a much longer test of time...Let me repeat that - Creationism HAS survived."

Do much to show how little integrity you truly have. The statement is simply false. This either shows you to have no real knowledge of the subject, or to simply be lying outright. Which is it? Are you ignorant or lying to us?Aaarrrggh 23:17, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Heh heh...we'll see who the liar is soon enough, my friend. The time for honoring yourselves is coming to an end. It's Ok, though, because TRUE SCIENCE corrects itself where it has been found to be false or misleading from the facts. I don't have the time or patience to repeat myself about things. Just think about what you are trying to censor and consider the possibility that you are wrong. By the way, I would like to add that this article needs some serious work done to it before it mirrors the format of the evolution page, and adding a page of attacks does in no way resemble it. I pray to God that I will be given the opportunity to meet every person out there like you face to face, "Aaarrrggh." It's quite easy for you to sit at a computer and BS, but if you cannot support yourself in public, you are a coward. So next time something like the debate in the Kansas State Board of Education comes up, I hope to see you or at least someone who will speak for your party of "scientists" there to prove their point to this country and this world. Recently (in Kansas), they simply chickened out and sent no one. Well, I'll tell you what - the neo-Darwinians just lost another state. Perhaps next time you could present yourself to enlighten the board with your almighty knowledge? You seem confident enough. My point is this - all that you have proved to me so far is that you 1)claim that you have "overwhelming evidence" 2) you are devoted to overthrowing the "brain virus" of Christianity. 3)you are convinced that you are smarter than someone else, which is a serious fallacy to anyone with common sense. Think real hard about that - I'm not saying you are dumb or stupid, but just think really hard about your attitude in this matter. Throw your contempt away! It's never too late to make that change. Salva 00:03, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

I would be more than happy to come over to Kansas to preach reality on behalf of honest scientists and teachers everywhere. I'm deadly serious about that; the only problem is that I'm a poor starving ex student living in England without the means to come over there. That doesn't mean you haven't triggered an idea in my head. Maybe one day I'll get to meet you in person, and perhaps by then the natural immune system of honesty and logic within yourself may have fought back against the virus that has taken charge of your thinking capacities. And with regards to your insistence that I provide more evidence for you, you can always take a look here: Have a good read Salva - it might save your soul :-) Aaarrrggh 00:17, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Why don't atheistic scientists ever look at the overwhelming evidence for creationism, and realise its simply the more logical 'theory'? -- Ec5618 00:31, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

Because there is absolutely no evidence for it anywhere. That's probably got something to do with it. Aaarrrggh 00:49, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

I think that last comment was a piece of irony directed to Salva. My dear Aaarrrggh et all, if I may give you some advice, don't bother answering to militant fundamentalists. It's all effort and no reward. Keep the article page clean of their nonsense, and let them vent their frustration here, where this denial of reality can be exposed freely without damaging Wikipedia's reputation. Have a nice weekend, everybody. --Pablo D. Flores 01:52, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
Ah Right. Apologies Ec, but I guess that shows that when you're arguing with these kind of nutters, it's very difficult to detect irony! Aaarrrggh 12:11, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

You folks are unbelievable. I feel like I'm talking to a bunch of nazis. I'm not going to mess with this anymore, though - I have much better things to do with my time. As for "Aaarrrggh," you are taking a dastardly gamble with yourself - what if you do have a soul? Do you have any concept of what eternity is? What if I'm right and you are wrong? Did you ever think about that? If you are the one who is right, well then neither of us don't have anything to lose. Please just humor me and carefully consider reading the following for your own sake:

  • Case for a Creator Lee Stroebel
  • Icons of Evolution Jonathan Wells
  • Darwin on Trial Phillip E. Johnson
  • Nature's Destiny Michael J. Denton

Good luck to you all. If you are as adament and passionate about your philosophies as you seem to be on Wikipedia, then I'm sure that we will all cross paths again sometime in the future. Until then, I cannot sit at my computer as long as you probably can, so I will only check in on this article every now and then. By the way, I have read the evolution article. I've read many things about evolution and have been immersed in this controversy for a long time now (long before I started at Wiki) - long enough to know one thing - the evolutionists often come across as playing an unfair game, and that is why they are steadily losing their foothold. Alas, the true face of neo-Darwinism is shown. Well that's enough from me. Deepest Regards, Salva 01:55, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

As said above, the "game" is very unfair. Creationism in the forms advocated by, for example, Salva's hero, Hovind, is clearly not scientific. Evolution is. Joshuaschroeder 02:25, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
FWIW, I've read "Darwin on Trial". A Bible society sent (pushed) it to me (overseas -- from somewhere in the US to Argentina; they probably have a lot of money to spare). A waste of precious paper and ink.
And oh, that sentence: "You folks are unbelievable. I feel like I'm talking to a bunch of nazis." I seem to remember a "law of flames" or something like that from several email lists, that states that a discussion has (basically) touched rock bottom when one of the debaters calls someone else a nazi. The only sensible thing to do is leave quietly. --Pablo D. Flores 14:55, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

You're right. This conversation has touched rock bottom when one side refuses to consider all available information, and then attempts to rid a public resource domain of viewpoints that come from a moral, sensible people who have a foundation of laws as well as a God who is forgiving, loving, rational, and probably created the world. This is not a myth because myths die with time. Christianity has survived for thousands of years, and in the form of Judaism long before that. Evolution is still young and already has some major discrepancies that forgiving, loving, rational, scientists have written books about, and will continue to do so (I am working on one right now.) Despite the fact that they question evolution, they all have their PhD's (I'm also working towards that as well) and are scientists. If that's too hard for you to accept, then that proves how authoritarian you are about your beliefs. Mr. Flores is correct, but do try to understand that it vexes me greatly when I encounter the arrogance that is so commonly displayed against anyone who questions evolution. Salva 16:42, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

It is interesting that Salva is convinced that "one side" has refused "to consider all available information". I wonder what side that is. For someone who believes Hovind is an authority on scientific matters, I would have to say it is Salva whose head is in the sand. There will always be lunies and cranks out there who want the world to be the way they think it should be -- and some of them may end up with PhDs. Although if you look carefully at creationist "credentials" you'll find vanishingly few of them are qualified to talk about what they do talk about. It certainly keeps things interesting. Joshuaschroeder 17:23, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
Salva said: "As for "Aaarrrggh," you are taking a dastardly gamble with yourself - what if you do have a soul? Do you have any concept of what eternity is? What if I'm right and you are wrong?" While this comment was not directed at me, I will respond. Faith is not logical. In any way. Believers believe something which logically no-one should believe. So even if any person was convinced by this logical comment, and wanted to save their soul, they would be incapable of doing so. -- Ec5618 18:23, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

It's Aaarrrggh here; for some reason I couldn't log in. Joschua basically said everything that needs to be said anyway. I do find it somewhat insidious that people such as Salva steal perfectly legitimate arguments (Arguing that "TRUE SCIENCE" (as he so BOLDLY put it) adapts and changes and is open to new discoveries for example) and then try to bend these arguments to place a bastardised version of them into their own twisted agenda. True Science does indeed adapt and change according to new conditions and new discoveries salva - but such discoveries are always the result of an honest enquiry that tries to learn and uncover more about the actual reality of the world we live in. What I have seen time and time again from fundies such as yourself is a form of what I like to call 'argument pollution'. That is, you make so much noise, and use such dirty tricks (stealing legitimate sounding arguments and then twisting them toward your not-so-hidden agenda being only one such example) that the result is often confusion on behalf of people who do not fully understand the conceptual differences between science and religion. It takes time and effort to explain the scientific theory of evolution to someone; not only on behalf of the person who is trying to spread such knowledge, but also on behalf of those who are willing to learn. With reality despising fundamentalist extremists such as yourself screeming at them and creating as much noise, and using as many dirty tricks as possible, it is understandable that some people may end up being confused and becoming convinced that there is some kind of actual debate worth arguing over. That is where people such as myself come in, and that is why you will not stand any chance of making any kind of insidious edits to this article.

As for your pathetic waffling directed towards me ("what if I'm right and you go to hell forever eh heathen? Think about that?"). I have an easy response for that. I'm going to make up my own alternative to hell now. Here we go - It is written in the book of AAARRRGGH that if you do continue to attack reality itself because of your puerile, anti-intellectual, parasitic and vapid beliefs, you will go to HELL2! Hell2 is much worse than the Hell you often hear about in Bible classes. Hell2 is so bad that it is not even mentioned in the bible. So what will it be Salva? If you don't do as I say, you could end up in HELL2! You prepared to take the risk?

See how this works Salva? Get over your stupid beliefs. They are fairy tales and parables and nothing more. Go back to your sandpit and allow the adults to take over. - Aaarrrggh 21:34, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

This is an example of senseless mudslinging. This bigot (Salva) asserts or implies that anyone who does not throw aside science and look for answers only in holy writings (or by asking Salva and his crew) is an atheist. Many scientists, great and humdrum, perceive religion as providing contact with God and guidance on moral and spiritual issues, but not as a means to truth about the physical world, or at least not as the leading method. To Salva, apparently, it is impossible to disjoin even partly the physical and the spiritual worlds, while others of us see a more gradual blending. Let Salva go to a faith healer when he is sick, a faith car body repairman when he has an accident, and let him stick with his Bible and stop reading and misunderstanding science books. Scientists might do an experiment and pray for the result they want (a big discovery), but they will be honest if their prayers are not answered. At least generally this is so - there are some bad eggs in every basket, scientific and religious, who will alsify.LedBalloon 04:37, 19 May 2005 (UTC)


Ive restored the topicbox 'creationism2' which is a vertical version of the creationism template. How were "links" the basis for remoiving it? Its based on the same thing, and likewise editable. Vertical is more accessible (hence useful) in longer articles. -SV|t 18:28, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

I've removed {{creationism2}}, as it did nothing {{creationism}} didn't do - having both messed up the flow of the page and made it look bad. I have moved {{creationism}} to the bottom of the page: a full width box of links in the middle of an introduction doesn't make an encyclopaedia article. Most of the links in the box are already mentioned in the article, as they should be: wikipedia is about encyclopaedia articles. Templates, infoboxes and the like are excellent complements to prose, but not replacements, so don't get too carried away with them. I have moved the first picture into the second section to prevent the intro being squashed between lots of boxes. If and when everyone can agree on the article and remove the disputed box it can be moved back. Joe D (t) 15:20, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Merging with 'Origins beliefs'

I think we should - Ec5618 16:14, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

As the article now stands, a merger with Origins beliefs' looks entirely appropriate. If this goes ahead, the 'Creationism' page should become a disambiguation page to direct readers to the aspect of creationism they're interested in: for many, 'Abrahamic creationism' may be most appropriate, and a link plus brief description of all the creationism related articles would be useful.--dave souza 18:39, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Merging this article with origins would not be acceptable. I have stopped by the page several times in the past but never really given it an honest effort. Now, it's on my priority list and believe me - we will have a sound article here when I am through with it. Salva 01:29, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I still think we should do this. Perhaps Salva has not noticed that 'creationism' as he understands it is currently being covered in an article called Abrahamic creationism. Perhaps it would be we should move that article here, and link to origins beliefs. But this article, as it stands, is duplicative. -- Ec5618 18:23, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

New 'Criticism' section

I have added a new section critical of creationism. For those unfamiliar with the recent history of this article, there was an old version that I originally added that was edited to such an extent that it became fairly garbled and incoherant.

This section is probably in an early stage, and some of the arguments need fleshing out in my opinion. The basics I wanted to get are:

- Creatinionism is not a theory backed up by or built upon scientific evidence
- It is unfalsifiable and violates the principle of parsimony
- It is a belief system that is often aggresively pursued by those people who are offended by the implications of the theory of evolution with regards to their own religious beliefs
- The evidence for evolution is overwhelming (while I appreciate the evolution/creationism section deals with this more thoroughly, I think this point is so valid that it at least deserves a mention on this page), while there is in fact no positive evidence for creationism.

What might be worth adding is more detail on evolutionary evidence (without necessarily going into too great a depth simply because it has been dealt with elsewhere), and also it might make sense to add some information about the attempts of militant creationists (or more appropriately, 'anti-evolutionists', to get creationism taught alongside real science in the science classroom.

If any other people wish to help me with this, I would appreciate it. Aaarrrggh 15:22, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

I made some edits and still tried to keep your points. Falphin 22:13, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

I saw your edits, but decided to revert back to my original version because I thought you removed some relevant material, and some of the re-wording was unnecessary. Aaarrrggh 12:55, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

  • That's fine, I just felt the section was too repetitive. I made some minor edits but didn't change anything major this time. Falphin 22:01, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
I made "Criticisms" into a section rather than a subsection but I'm not happy that it really belongs on this page. I understand the motive but the tag at the top of the page does direct to other more disputatious pages. I'd quite like to see this as a simple description, although it definitely should include a little more on the common usage of the term as applied to creationist Christians in the US. I also moved the Navaho and Greek Creation stories to the "other myths" section.Joffan 02:47, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
  • In the "The Christian critique of creationism" section, It stated that the Roman Catholic Church rejects creationism. While it is true that some Roman Catholics do reject creationism, it is not rejected by the Church itself. I changed "The Roman Catholic Chruch" to Read "Some Roman Catholics."

Should this article include a criticism section?

Should the criticism section be moved out of this article to the article on the creation-evolution controversy? I'm bringing it up here because of a silent revert war in progress in which the criticism section is being removed. Two possible viewpoints:

  • Controversy article should contain the criticism of both evolution and creation, so both arguments for both sides can be compared at a glance. The controversy article should be complete.
  • Both evolution article and the creationism article should contain sections on criticism. There are many more stories of creation (Origin beliefs) that just these two, so grouping them together like this would be unfair. The controversy article should summarize and link here.

Lets reach consensus and settle this now. -- Ec5618 12:15, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

The evolution article should contain any valid criticisms of evolution. This does not include criticisms of evolution from a creationist perspective, as there is simply no case whatsoever to answer. The evolution article already mentions the social impact of the the theory and mentions the conflict between religious and scientific explanations quite well. As for the controversy article , the same rules basically apply, although the article is coming from a different perspective which allows for the creationist viewpoint to be articulated in greater depth. I reject the implication that both evolution and creationism have valid 'arguments' for them. One is a scientific theory, the other is the literal interpretation of scripture.

The 'Criticism of Creationism' section absolutely belongs on this page, and it will be staying here. What is needed is maybe for the section to be slightly expanded, and for more information to be provided. We should not be falling into the trap of projecting creationism as some kind of actually valid theory supported by anything other than blind adherance and belief. Aaarrrggh 12:51, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

  • As you are obviously not a creationist, who are you to say that creationism isn't a valid theory? JEmfinger 16:09, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
This comment makes no sense. According to you, only people who believe in an idea are able to account for that idea's validity? Joshuaschroeder 16:50, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. I feel I know enough about evolution and creationism (and the founding principles on which both are based) to be able to participate here and to put forward the case for honest science. Aaarrrggh 17:26, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

As a matter of fact it does make sense. There is no hierarchy that dictates what is scientific theory and what is not scientific theory. Joshuaschroeder, we could say the same thing about you, since you evidently believe that abiogenesis is "observable" or "factual" without the assistance of any sort of intelligence. Also, I feel the same way that Mr. "Aaarrrggh" does - I'm here to put forth an argument for honest science just like he/she is. So, now that we have that cleared up, let's get started!
We have a goal here to make the creationism article more like the evolution article. The evolution article does not have militant creationists who are trying to run it (at least right now,) so why should militant evolutionists be allowed to include a two page babble about their heavily biased opinions on the creationism article? Oh, wait, I forgot, you children of Darwin are the ones that have had the epiphanies about what the absolute scientific truth is - I mean - the undisputed, unquestionable truth, right? The one that's not based on faith or crossed fingers? Salva 20:04, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

"Oh, wait, I forgot, you children of Darwin are the ones that have had the epiphanies about what the absolute scientific truth is - I mean - the undisputed, unquestionable truth, right? The one that's not based on faith or crossed fingers?"

No Salva - this would be dogma, and that belongs firmly in the realm of religion. I subscribe to evolutionary theory precisely because evolution has withstood attacks from within science itself that are not 'based on faith'. Evolution remains a valid scientific theory because evolution fits in with all known evidence. Equally, there actually is a hierarchy that dictates what is scientific theory and what is not scientific theory. You can learn more about that here. Aaarrrggh 20:09, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Then why, my friend, have intelligent design and creationism movements given the evolutionists such a fuss? I might add that scientists from just about every major college have argued the theory of ID. I know that if they were a part of your little world, you wouldn't hesitate to shut them down or shut them up any way you could, but unfortuantely they are not, and I am not. Newsflash: Creation fits in with all known evidence. And thank you, I know very well what the scientific method is. The evidence can be interpreted two different ways - randomness or design. You figure out which fits best with causality. Now, that is your opinion. Scientists have come to different conclusions about different things in the past and they will continue to do so in any country that allows open-ended study. Salva 22:20, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

They haven't caused a fuss in any real sense, not within the realm of science. Anti-realityists such as yourself only cause a fuss in the public sphere, where you are a constant nuisance and a pest to those interested in honest enquiry. You keep on doing the same things here too. You keep on making statements such as "Creationism fits in with all known evidence", but you have provided no evidence as to why this is the case. Sad as it may seem, science does not begin with answers and attempt to bend everything to fit in with those answers. Science works the other way round. What you cannot do is show why any evidence points us in the direction of a creator and cannot be explained away through other means. You often totally lie about certain things too, making deceptive (and false) statements such as "there are a growing number of scientists who no longer believe in evolution", this is a malicious and almost certainly conscious form of deception; it is not only a total untruth, but it creates the impression that there is a growing doubt about evolution, as if creationism is somehow exploited some real flaws within the theory through purely scientific means. It isn't. There really is NO SERIOUS DEBATE ABOUT EVOLUTION v CREATIONISM WITHIN SCIENTIFIC CIRCLES. In your [User_talk:Salva31 talk page], you say for instance:
" ...Here's my position:
  • This universe was created in six literal days, as the bible clearly states. There are current scientific theories pertaining to how humans were able to live longer lifespans before the Flood (as recorded in the Bible), how creatures of immense proportions were able to survive before the Great Flood, etc.
  • There is evidence everywhere we look for creation and a massive worldwide flood, not evolution. The only type of evolution that I agree is supported by scientific evidence is microevolution; the rest is highly speculative.
  • Scientists and non-scientists alike are beginning to see the many problems with evolution, primarily some of the blatant lies used to support it. (vestibular structures, human embryo gill slits, peppered moth, etc.)"
Hmm. Now let us think critically about this. "The universe was created in six literal days, as the bible clearly states" Hmm.. How scientific that position is Salva. Clearly, I have no idea what 'TRUE SCIENCE' is. Oh and look, there's the familiar deception: "Scientists and non-scientists alike are beginning to see the many problems with evolution". Lie.

Also we can see that you quite clearly and quite openly think that the bible should be treated as a pure historical document: "There are current scientific theories pertaining to how humans were able to live longer lifespans before the Flood (as recorded in the Bible)" Within the realm of history (and I should know this because my major was in History), the bible is treated as a faith-document. We do not take it as literal truth or as something that should be accepted without question. The very thought of doing so is absurd, but again, to you and your 'TRUE SCIENCE' (as you put it yourself), this does not seem problematic.

You also state on your talk page that:
"Believe it or not, there are organizations, like the ACLU and the NCSE that exist for that very purpose. Their triumph would likely hasten the movement of globalization, whereby Marx's fondest dream would be indubitabally achieved - an eventual, worldwide revolution that would toss us into a communist, uniform government. But these "Southern-Redneck-Hillbilly-Dogmatists" have risen to become the Left's worst enemy, and any Left Wing Liberal knows good and well this is true, despite what they might say."
Yes of course, because evolution is just a communist conspiracy against god isn't it? Can you not for one second get off your pedastal and realise that evolution came about honestly through the honest application of the scientific method? You also say this on your talk page:
"So, to summarize my thoughts, there is a war going on. It isn't a war with guns or clashing metal or beating's a war of information. And it is a war between the forces of good and evil. Just make sure you are fighting for the right side."
So what we are doing right now is not arguing over the application of the scientific method, and debating over ways of discovering and interpretating information - it is a 'war between the forces of good and evil'. And guess which side all the facts are on? Yeah you got that? Fossils are the lies of SaTaN!!!!!!!
You are not interested in the truth salva. I think I have very aptly demonstrated that here. We shall see what changes you make in the article. Any changes that are not honest, that are deceptive (deliberately or otherwise), or that are blatantly false (staments like 'an increasing number of scientists believe...'), or that are invalid will be duly removed or corrected by me. You are an agenda pusher, and I am going to stop you. Aaarrrggh 23:10, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Everyone has an agenda, Mr. Aaarrrggh, except for me 8-) Salva 23:25, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Thou shalt not lie, Salva. Aaarrrggh 23:32, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

I was being sarcastic, and this is really getting out of hand! Thanks, Salva 00:22, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Don't respond to any of the above comments or anything, salva. I'm sure you are just interested in the science and the truth like the rest of us. Aaarrrggh 00:25, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

The NPOV makes specific allowance for the inclusion of a critique in articles on pseudoscience. Regardless of the veracity of the claims of "Scientific Creationism", it is, by definition, a pseudoscience. That is, it insists on a particular conclusion (i.e. the earth was made in 6 literal days). The Creationist response to this accusation is invariably that Evolutionists also insist on a particular conclusion (that being that the theory of evolution is correct). The former is verifiably true, the latter is (regardless of what "Creation Scientists" might say) verifiably false. I'm not saying this an a "militant evolutionist", I'm saying it as an ex-Creationist who found these things out for myself. Having said that, I believe that a more productive approach might be to create (if I may use the term) a separate page on Scientific Creationism, and move all information directly pertaining to the anti-Evolutionary versions of Creationism (including the current "Criticisms" section) to the new page. Unlike "general" Creationism, Scientific Creationism is a very specific subset of Creationism that does explicitly claim to be scientific, and therefore is subject to critique as a pseudoscience. Cataleptic 04:40, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Page already exists: it is called Creation science. Joshuaschroeder 05:28, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
What about theological criticisms? Those belong here, not on Creation science.Ben Standeven 03:35, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Copyright status of image?

There is no notice about permission being granted to use the image xx01.jpg which I found on this website. Could Salva who uploaded the image please provide the permissions, or should it be removed as a violation? Thou shalt not steal. Dabbler 22:55, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

If you spend time and look through the website, you will discover that Dr. Baugh allows free distribution of his images. Thou shalt not bear false testimony. Salva 23:25, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

The point being that YOU have the responsibility for putting that copyright statement on the image page. If you don't put it there, how do I or anyone else know that you haven't taken it without permission? There is NO false testimony in MY statements, only facts, a question and a statement of one of the fundamental laws of human morality. Dabbler 11:36, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
By the way I tried to find any statement that supports Salva's claim that free use is permitted but I couldn't easily locate it on the site and I don't have the time to search the site completely top to bottom. Dabbler 11:39, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
The site claims that "All material copyright© 1998 by Carl E. Baugh", it doesn't say that anyone can use the images. Joshuaschroeder 15:24, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
Added image to Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images. If no copyright information is provided, the image will be deleted. -- Ec5618 15:40, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

Understood - I may have confused the source for the image. No matter, I will see if I can get permission. Salva 16:22, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Approaching Creationism

This may seem radical, but I think this article needs to start with what Creationists actually believe and not try to water it down with semantic hair-splitting. Something like "Creationism is the doctrine that the universe and all life were created by God, possibly in the form in which they currently exist, along with the evidence that is currently taken to support evolution." Then proceed to describe what most people who use the term "Creationism" today believe. This would be a much shorter article and information about creation beliefs of other religions, creation myths, etymology, etc. would go in a separate article. I realize that I am using the term Creationism to refer to a mostly-US, mostly-Christian movement, but that's primarily who is using the term these days. Shoaler 17:55, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Take a look at Abrahamic creationism. It covers the 'mostly-US, mostly-Christian movement'. -- Ec5618 20:11, May 19, 2005 (UTC)