Talk:Creationism/Archive 17

Cleaning up article: evolution not part of creationism.

Since this article is specifically titled creationism, there is another article on evolution, and yet another on the creation-evolution controversy, I intend to move all discussion of evolution to the controversy page, where it is more properly placed. Any objections? Trishm 06:31, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion has rapidly changed into one which involves far more topics it seems. Homestarmy 06:57, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not at all sure whether this is a good idea I'm afraid. Can we think about it for a day or two, and see what other editors think? NBeale 08:25, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, that's the idea. I should mention what got me on this tack. It's the line in the overview:

Creationists take the position that neither theory is verifiable in the scientific sense, and that the scientific evidence conforms more closely to the creation model of origins than it does to the evolutionary model. [9]

It just seems that it would be better placed elsewhere.

Trishm 12:06, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

However, leaving out the strong controversy might cause Undue weight. It'd have to be trimmed carefully.Adam Cuerden ^talk 23:56, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you elaborate, please? I can see that it would be undue weight if evolution were discussed here. I feel the lines are an attack on evolution, in a forum where the balancing view is not appropriate. Trishm 01:19, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which lines are we talking about, exactly? May well be misunderstanding you. Adam Cuerden ^talk 03:24, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's in the second paragraph in the overview:

Creationists take the position that neither theory is verifiable in the scientific sense, and that the scientific evidence conforms more closely to the creation model of origins than it does to the evolutionary model. [9]

I have actually changed "creationists" to Gish, which is more specific, since the reference is a link to Gish's website, comparing the merits of creationsim and evolution. If I were to choose a single article to put this argument in, it would be the [creation-evolution controversy], not creationism.

My concern is actually a structural one. This article is about creationism, and should stick to the topic. After the definition and explanation, the impact of creationism is also appropriate to the article. i.e. the push to get it taught in schools, whether it should be taught at all, what class it should be taught in. The conflict arises from the attempt to classify creationism as science. Once we get into the discussion of the relative merits of creationism and evolution, we have crossed the boundary between the two topics. I think there should be a link to creation-evolution controversy, and the discussion should continue there, rather than be repeated as nauseum, with varying quality, across the myriad of articles touching on any of the topics involved. The duplication is unmanageable, and actually obscures the issues on both sides. Trishm 11:16, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the effort to clarify the discussions in the article, I have been looking at the wikipedia guidelines. Quite apart from the structural issues, I also have concerns about whether the citation is appropriate under the the reliability sources guidelines. If it were a personal or organizational opinion, then of course the citation would be allowable. However, it is presenting itself as a scholarly science article, making makes controversial scientific assertions. The views however, are totally unsupported by the scholarly science community. Hence, it does not meet any of the criteria of reliability of sources when dealing with scholarly articles, which require that the claims made be supported by scholarly consensus in the appropriate field. Here is the reference:^[1]

Does anybody have anything that does meet the guidelines that would support the claim that evolution is not supported in a scientific sense? Trishm 01:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A quick search found this, but there's bound to be a better one: http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/v3i6f.htm ^ross ^nixon 07:49, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This one is quite good http://www.samizdat.qc.ca/cosmos/origines/myth.htm ^ross ^nixon 08:57, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a handy link: Is Evolution Science, and What Does 'Science' Mean? ... dave souza, talk 09:17, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, time to pick the best so far...

Thanks for those two links, Ross. I agree with you, that there is probably a more persuasive one than the first. There is little detail, and it reads like a straw man argument.

The samizdat article is much more persuasive, except that it blows itself out of contention in the conclusion:

"It is well-known that social Darwinism was the main basis for Hitler's notion of the superiority of the Aryan race which served to justify the massacre of six million Jews. Would we dare again place power in the hands of someone who really believes in the theory of evolution?"

It is hard to argue that nationalism, racism and pogroms started with Darwin, or even Hitler. As for anti-semitism, Christianity is not entirely blameless. [1]. The line about where power can be placed can all too easily be turned against Christians, and hence I would be reluctant to use that source as an example of the Creationist view.

Dave, thanks for the link. It is a very nice piece on the criteria used to distinguish science from non-science, but quite heavy. Its central theme is that just as scientific theories change over time as new evidence crops up or new understandings emerge, so even the concept of what science is changes over time. In its conclusion, it endorses evolution as a science.

The best so far, then, on the Creationist side is this one:http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/v3i6f.htm And this for the rebuttal:Is Evolution Science, and What Does 'Science' Mean?

Any others out there?

Trishm 00:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Christian and Scientific Critiques both need re-writing

I'm afraid the Christian and Scientific Critiques both need re-writing. The former gives excessive emphasis to one article by a non-notable commentator. The latter is largely un-sourced soap-box, and contains some sweeping statements that are un-necessary and incorrect. Not sure quite how to proceed, thoughts/attempts welcomed.NBeale 08:50, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your first objection seems to be based on a belief that sources in Wikipedia articles have to be notable. This is not found in Wikipedia policy or practice; rather, most well-sourced articles use sources which are not by themselves notable but speak about a notable topic. Sources have to be verifiable and reliable -- not notable.

Your second objection is well-founded. We have much better coverage of the scientific evidence against "creation science" in other articles already. --FOo 21:58, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My own sense is that the science critique in this article should say simply that Creationism is not science. (well-cited of course), and point to the creation-evolution controversy. Further than that, science has nothing to say about creationism as such, since we are talking about religious belief. Since the article is flagged as being too big, what do other people think? By the way, I support NBeale in that the religious critique is unbalanced: a few lines of summary for the A of C, several paragraphs for George Murphy. Trishm 23:58, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the article is too long, these could be spun out to another article, and short summaries retained here with links. They do need a lot more references. And there is a lot more that could be put in Christian and/or religious criticisms. After all, there are other religions besides christianity! I do not feel that the history of creationism and science is explored very well. And the critique is pretty attenuated, frankly.--Filll 01:06, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

conservative - semantics

In the context of religion, the label "conservative" is used, particularly in the US, to describe a particular way of viewing religion, tending toward a literal interpretation of the bible.

Elsewhere, "conservative" in the context of religion would mean belonging to a long-standing religious organisation, most likely Eastern Orthodox, RC or Anglican, with an emphasis on tradition.

To avoid confusion, I have replaced the term "conservative" with "literal".Trishm 11:29, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

abiogenesis

In the intro as part of the definition of a Creationist, was the phrase "They do not accept abiogenesis ..."

Abiogenesis, as I understand it, is the current understanding of the physical processes by which life may possibly have originated. It is not so well established that not accepting it should be notable in any group, so I have removed it. It did not have the weight to belong in the group of far more established science topics such as evolution, age of the earth and formation of the solar system.Trishm 21:41, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Second paragraph reference

"Various forms of creation are found; principally in religions of the Abrahamic faiths such as Christianity, and in some Dharmic faiths such as Hinduism, although such beliefs can be found in many other theistic religions. [Citation needed]." I seem to remember Joseph Campbell's Power of Myth discussed creation myths,stories,etc in various cultures in Power of Myth. That may suffice.GetAgrippa 04:59, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, GetAgrippa, I just took the paragraph out, just before I read this. The reason I did that was that, even with a citation, it simply has no connection to the rest of the article. I only fully realised this when I started to add something about beliefs about creation in all world cultures, including Native Americans, Bushmmen and Australian Aborigines. It was then blindingly obvious, even to me, that the article has nothing to do with the general creation outside Christianity (even Judaism is given short shrift), and the paragraph was leading the reader to assume that the article was more general than it is.

I suspect that the way forward for other cultures is to write other connected articles, where full weight can be given to the different beliefs and traditions. Let this article stand as it is, about Creationism as understood by Christians who take a literal view of Genesis.

Trishm 10:16, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree in principle with Trishm's removal of the paragraph, Creationism is also used to refer to similar literal sects of other Abrahamic faiths, thus Jewish creationism and Islamic creationism which should also be covered by this article. I've not seen references using the term to Dharmic faiths such as Hinduism, so citations would be needed for that. .. dave souza, talk 10:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I agree that the title "Creationism" should cover at least the Abrahamic faiths, and possibly others. But when I look at where the additions would go in the article that exists, it would need to be just under the definition, before the main text, which is, as far as I can tell, exclusively Christian.

That indicates to me that what we have is "Christian Creationism" masquerading as a general "Creationism" article. Any thoughts on how to resolve this? Do we use disambiguation? Do we change the title? Do we put in a paragraph under the definition to link to the other articles (like what I removed, only more explicit in its function)?

Trishm 11:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have made some small investigation of this issue, and I am still nowhere near complete. However, there is definitely

Islamic creationism
Jewish creationism
Hindu creationism (which I just wrote, and also is clearly a source of some heated controversies, including in schools: take a look at Californian Hindu textbook controversy or some of the references to Hindu creationism- it is pretty heated and you do not have to go very far before you find people wanting to kill each other over this flavor of creationism)

These are all essentially movements to reject evolution and replace it aggressively with some fundamentalist interpretation of Genesis, or the Vedas or the Koran. There might very well be Jainist or Sikh or Buddhist etc creationist movements as well; I have not investigated those. On the other hand, if you want to investigate creation STORIES and not aggressive creationist MOVEMENTS, then look at Origin belief and at Creation within belief systems. There might be more relevant articles, but that is at least how I see it.--Filll 17:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It has been years since I read Campbell's Power of Myth but I recollect that creation stories-myths are a by product of almost all cultures-Abrahamic religions, African cultures, American indians, Hindus, Asian,etc. Creationism has become associated with Christianity yet it seems a human culture phenomena. The origins and significance of creation stories in human history seems a worthy topic. I recollect certain themes were almost universal so seems fertile ground for examining the belief in the belief. Commonalities of creation stories, purpose of creation stories, influence of creation stories, etc. GetAgrippa 05:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"teach religion" versus "providing religious instruction"

I hope this isn't covered elsewhere, or archived already. I'm not a regular on this board, I just had a thought when I read this article. Here [[2]] it says "In the US, it is not permitted to teach religion in public schools". Now I know how contentious this kind of topic is, but on semantic grounds I have trouble with this. Theology/philosophy classes and discussions of any religion and/or religion in general are not prohibited by law. In that light, it might be more clear to change the phrase to something along the lines of it is prohibited to give religious instruction, or teach that one religion is correct, or something like that. Thoughts? Invidus 18:36, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are no prohibitions on teaching religion. The prohibition is on officially propagating a religion. Students, of course are free to do the latter (freedom of religion is guaranteed by the Bill of Rights), athough some schools have tried to squelch it. Pollinator 21:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And my understanding is that it is illegal to require the teaching of creationism as science in a school system, but teachers are free to voluntarily teach creationism in science classes. At least that is my understanding; maybe someone else will have more information.--Filll 23:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is only semantics. As the original author of that bit, my intention was to point out that in Australia, where you have religious instruction in public schools, the "ID in the science classroom" debate was very short-lived. "Provide religious instruction" would remove the ambiguity. Trishm 22:35, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the thoughts. I'll make the change to "provide religious instruction."Invidus 23:02, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rough draft of article on creationist organization

Please look at it and give me your comments: User talk:Filll/AllAboutGod--Filll 02:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV?

Click to see why I believe this article does not respect WP:NPOV

Sincerely, Ceid 08:38, 19 January 2007 (UTC)ceid Ceid 08:38, 19 January 2007 (UTC)January 19, 2007[reply]

Hello Ceid,

A point to consider:

America is not the world. Athough new churches such as the southern baptists you mention are relatively popular in the US, they are neither by their numbers nor by their age "major" churches. The major religions all more or less accept evolution (John Paul II's assertion being the most media-friendly example).

As for the rest, I suggest you read in detail Creation-evolution controversy. It's a bit long, but then again, so is the debate. yandman 09:26, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ceid, I read your letter, well as much as you read the whole article. In other words, I stopped after the 10th paragraph or so. The reason? Because this has all been said before, and thoroughly debunked. First, 84% of Americans believe in Creationism? Wow, that just means your country will fall further behind the rest of the world in Science. Most, no just about every single scientist in the world believes in the FACT of Evolution. Oh, I could go on. Science doesn't work in polls. Most Jewish and Christian sects ascribe to the facts of evolution. And that about ends it. This article, Creationism, is about as NPOV as you can get considering the fact that Creationism is a myth. Orangemarlin 07:38, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I re-read this letter, and what makes me laugh is that if you change some of the wording, it would be the letter a lot of editors would claim about Wikipedia--that it is an American Christian POV encyclopedia. Orangemarlin 18:14, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a long post you gave, so I'll only answer a few points.

Why one is a "theory" and one a "belief". Evolution is a theory because it is constantly peer-reviewed. It is open to change or even rejection at any time if contradictory evidence emerges. In fact, it is supported by observed evidence for "micro-evolution". While "macro-evolution cannot be observed directly, indirect evidence suggests it is likely to be true for larger scales. Creationism is a belief because it is based on mainly theological arguments and religious doctrine. It is not testable in any meaningful sense. One could just as easily say that there is no such thing as magnetism, because the Flying Spaghetti Monster simply uses his noodley appendages to do it instead. From a scientific perspective both that and creationism would not be considered a scientific theory. That's not to say it isn't necisarrily true, just that it isn't a scientific theory.
About "mainstream churches". Roman Catholicism has 1,090 million members, Anglican has 73 million, Lutheran has 70 million. Baptist churches (total) also have 70 million members. That paragraph needs more balance, but not too much, as Catholicism alone is about half of all Christians. See the list of Christian denominations by number of members.

Without having read this, I came to the same conclusion as Ceid. As I result, I have made adjustments that seek to address the issue. NigelCunningham 06:14, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With the American level of support for creationism, why not add the Scientific American statistic, with reference, to the Prevalence of creationism section?
You asked for references to "In fact, both Jews and Christians have been considering the idea of the creation history as an allegory (instead of an historical description) long before the development of Darwin's theory of evolution." The next sentence is "Two notable examples are..."
For the contradictions in Genesis, I do not think the link you gave actually answers any of the criticisms laid down by the referenced articles.
"They seek to ensure that what is taught in science classes in schools is compatible with what they believe" - true. I've reworded that.
Some scientists oppose evolution. True enough, but there are many, many, many more that reject it.

I'm not going to wade through all your points. Feel free to improve the article, remembering that you need to write from a neutral point of view also. --h2g2bob 21:56, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Special Creationism

Why do we not define it in this article?--Filll 01:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it doesn't exist, that's why we havent defined it there :). Homestarmy 01:33, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very funny. Of course it exists. It is throughout the literature, both creationist and anti-creationist.--Filll 01:41, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've often wondered this myself. However, a year and a half ago when I thought to try to write such an article, I found to my surprise that there weren't any good (that is to say, reliable) sources that define and analyze special creationism as a subset of creationism (specifically the subset that defies scientific consensus). I think the idea has merit as a way of teasing out the anti-science creationists from the fideists, spiritualists, symbolists, etc. who accept creation theology but reject an anti-science stance based on their belief. --ScienceApologist 02:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. I hear the term all the time, and to be honest, I have no clear idea what it means. So I thought, since this is an encyclopedia, WE should have a definition.--Filll 02:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know the term is used a lot. Interestingly, it isn't verifiably defined or analyzed in a way that we can use as a source for writing an article on the subject. At least, that's what I've found, but if you can dig up something it might be a major coup-de-grace. --ScienceApologist 02:25, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Before we try to destroy each other....

Does anyone even know if the reference given, a book titled "Abusing Science: The Case Against Creationism" even claims that flood geologists are the most common creationists associated with Biblical creationism? Because if there's no way to know if the reference given supports the sentence, it seems to me whether Ross is trying to "purify" creationism (whatever that means) or not, the weird flood geologist thing shouldn't be in the article. Homestarmy 01:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let me explain "purify" at least with respect to Flood Geology. This article is all about Creationism, and although it appears that creationist thought runs the gamut from OEC, who more or less reconcile science and evolution with a creator all the way to YEC who take Genesis literally, and one editor cannot decide which portion of that range of ideas to present. So if you or another editor happens to think that Flood Geology is just too much to stomach for a good Creationist to believe in, well, I'm not sure that works. So when I said "purify", I meant that RossNixon was trying to make the article more palatable (thought I don't know for sure, since I never understand his edits). Orangemarlin 07:33, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have also run across instances where some creationist will try to maintain that creationists have no problem with common descent or microevolution or macroevolution or natural selection or speciation. But then, I have to ask them, what is it about evolution that they do not like? And they usually are unable to tell me. Even William Jennings Bryan, the Scopes Monkey Trial prosecutor and great evangelist dismissed all of genesis and accepted evolution except for the Adam and Eve account. I was reading earlier that even at some evangelical colleges they sometimes have faculty who are teaching biology that really believe in the tenets of evolution and teach it; however, when the board of directors asks, it is much simpler and easier to tell them not to worry-every single faculty member is a creationist! Because it is much more politically correct in some circles to say "creationist" than "evolution supporter", because of the negative connotations associated with the word "evolution".--Filll 13:05, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whoooah there, I wasn't asking about political correctness, i'm just wondering about the actual fact at hand, namely, the thing about the particular creationists in the sentence at hand generally being assocated with flood geologists or whatever. And, as i've said in a way, it doesn't really matter whether Ross is trying to make creationism more palatable or not, that's not an excuse to leave something in an article and claim its referenced if nobody can show that the reference given actually references the fact. I don't know if the reference given cites the thing being argued over or not, which is why i've asked. Homestarmy 14:19, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All I am trying to point out is that the term "creationism" covers an extremely wide set of beliefs.--Filll 14:41, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then why does the sentence in question suppose that, in this one case, it mostly applies to flood geologists? It seems like a sort of weird assertion honestly, i've never heard it before. I mean, I know there's creationists who are flood geologists because i've watched their shows, but most YEC types being flood geologists....? Homestarmy 17:01, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the wording is funny and frankly I do not understand the sentence. It should probably be rewritten.--Filll 17:21, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit conflict) I suppose that since creationism usually has an extremely literal reading of the Bible at its core, it's to be expected that most creationists would support some flavour of flood geology. Perhaps they'd focus on other aspects of creationist earth history, and only be "flood geologists" in the same way that an oceanographer might be a "quantum physicist" (i.e. would support its propositions without necessarily being au fait with the topic). But it would seem odd to me were creationists to insist on a literal reading of one part of the Bible, but be more laissez faire on another part ("Sure, Eve was created from one of Adam's ribs, but a global flood? Are you out of your mind?"). That said, I suppose that creationists like Hugh Ross and other Old Earth creationists are trying to do exactly this; so I guess I'm not being imaginative enough. Anyway, enough rambling. --Plumbago 17:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, as ridiculous as it sounds, this is what they do. And in fact, every single biblical literalist does the same thing, since the bible is contradictory and full of errors etc. They will claim they follow it exactly to the letter, but that is BS. And that is why creationists fight with each other; they cannot agree what is appropriate and what the bible really says.--Filll 17:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is what drives me completely batty about Creationism. At least Evolution is a consistent fact with only very subtle differences from scientist to scientist, and that's only as new theories arise. Just about every "creationist" has a different description of what they believe. Take the Noah's Ark myth. We've got some editors arguing that "kinds" mean genera, when that means they're not taking Genesis literally, they are "translating" it to fit their story better. Frustrating. Anyways, for this article to be truly NPOV, all creationist myths have to be exhibited. Orangemarlin 18:13, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(to Plumbago) While true that most creationists who read the Bible literally probably do support flood geology, I don't know how that makes them actually be flood geologists, I know i'm not one and the only ones I know of are the ones I see on television :/. I mean, if the source given actually does suppose most of us are somehow all flood geologists, then maybe some attribution is in order, (I mean, the title looks like its a pretty biased source) but otherwise....Homestarmy 18:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreeing with Homestarmy, I also am not a geologist, but I am a creationist. I am sure that Orangemarlin did not mean to say that I equate to (am equal to) a geologist! ^ross ^nixon 00:28, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps its some hidden talent we all have inside of us. Maybe if we concentrate reeeeal hard, the powers of flood geologists everywhere will flow through us! Concentrate......feel the force of flood geology flow through your veins Ross....but beware the dark side of the flood, approximently 1,000 feet below sea level. Nobody wants the dark side of flood geology i'd hope. Hard to breath and whatnot. Homestarmy 00:36, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree entirely. We may talk about "flood geology" but it is unfair on professional geologists to call it's proponents "geologists". --Michael Johnson 00:37, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

<reduce indent> The flood seems to be a defining issue for YECs, in that Eugenie Scott's The Creation/Evolution Continuum of 2000 defines YEC as "usually reserved for the followers of Henry Morris, founder... of the Institute for Creation Research (ICR), and arguably the most influential creationist of the late 20th century.... Henry Morris defined antievolutionism in its modern form. In 1961, he and John C Whitcomb published The Genesis Flood, a seminal work that claimed to provide the scientific rationale for Young Earth Creationism.. [it] was the first significant 20th century effort to present a scientific rationale for special creationism. "Creation Science" was fleshed out by subsequent books and pamphlets by Morris and those inspired by him. The Institute for Creation Research (ICR) remains the flagship creationist institution to which all other YEC organizations look." There's an interesting precedent at catastrophism#Cuvier and the natural theologians section which cites Rudwick for the claim that Cuvier set out a local flood scenario, but William Buckland and Robert Jameson modified the idea to match the bible. .. dave souza, talk 15:31, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Organizations from the early rise of the modern YEC movement are one thing, but Young Earth creationists as a whole is quite another thing. I've never even heard of Henry Morris, while what you've got here certainly supports that most YEC organizations are seen as more or less big on flood geology, it doesn't say anything about the perceptions of Young Earth creationists as a whole, (Or the more vauge category of Biblical creationists for that matter) who certainly existed before these organizations did anyway. Homestarmy 18:30, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Widely reported Newsweek article

While updating the citations and references on the Creation-evolution_controversy, I came accross this:

“

As reported in Newsweek magazine, 29 June 1987, Page 23: "By one count there are some 700 scientists with respectable academic credentials (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) who give credence to creation-science..."

”

This is widely quoted, but as far as I can tell, only in the context of evolution/creationism tensions. Worse, nobody that I can find has a good reference (e.g., article title, author, etc.) Could somebody please verify that this is the correct Newsweek issue, and provide details necessary for a proper citation (e.g., author, article title, issue, volume, etc.) Without this, we have no way of knowing if this was a letter to an editor, or something Newsweek will stand behind. Considering the high tensions in this subject, we don't even know if the quote was there. Providing other information usually associated with a quotation from a weekly news magazine will make the quote more believable. As it is now, it could just be an original mis-characterization of the article widely repeated.

So if you have access to a large library that has this stuff archived somehow, could you please provide details. (Or maybe you even have the issue in question). You can either update the reference, or provide the information here, and I will do it for you. Thanks

NOTE: I originally posted this here. I have been uable to get to a large library, and am posting the issue on this article's talk page because the reference is also cited here. StudyAndBeWise 04:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi StudyAndBeWise. I'm afraid this sounds like one of those lists that creationists often crank out to bolster their scientifically-bankrupt credentials. It would only be significant if said 700 scientists had actually published material supporting their faith-based ideas in peer-reviewed scientific journals, and I can assure you that they haven't. It's really not worth your time tracking down the Newsweek source; it counts for next to nothing when stood next to the bald fact that creationism has no presence in the scientific literature. You might like to have a look at the related article Project Steve. Cheers, --Plumbago 09:04, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry StudyAndBeWise. I've been shooting from the hip again, and managed to completely misunderstand your post. Anyway, I don't think there's any reason to doubt that 700 scientists (0.15%) backed some sort of creationism-friendly statement (especially in 1987, when "scientific creationism" was all the rage). But while it wouldn't be a bad thing to track down the source, I think it would be a waste of time. Unless these scientists have published anything to back up their beliefs, it has no significance beyond the simple fact that some scientists are creationists in their private lives. Anyway, sorry about before. Cheers, --Plumbago 09:13, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As reported in Newsweek magazine, 29 June 1987, Page 23: "By one count there are some 700 scientists with respectable academic credentials (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) who give credence to creation-science...".(Keeping God out of the Classroom, Larry Martz, and Ann McDaniel, Newsweek, June 29, 1987, p. 23-24). I am waiting for the library to send me a copy of the article from their archives. I have it on order at the moment. I have not yet been able to find the article online.--Filll 14:51, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think our readers would be interested in the proportions of people in general - as well as "scientists with respectable academic credentials" who believe is the various aspects of creationism. For me, anyway, one of the biggest differences is between those who reject the fossil record ("God created the fossils 6,000 years ago") versus those who accept it ("Dinosaurs lived over 80 million years ago").

This distinction is often left unclarified. Perhaps this is one of the reasons that User:Schlafly and others get so excited about labelling ID or its supporters as "Creationists". They may feel they are being lumped in with "geology-deniers", while feeling that they are merely disagreeing with the interpretation of what geology tells us.

Would anyone like to help me create a table which clarifies this? If so, jump in at User:Ed Poor/creationism table. Thanks. --Uncle Ed 15:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you can find data for each of the probably 50 or more creationist views, then that would be interesting. It sounds very difficult to me. I have some statistics at level of support for evolution.--Filll 15:26, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't thinking of anything that comprehensive. For a start, I'd be happy to classify the top 90 to 95 percent. Like, are most Americans Young-earthers? Last statistics I saw broke it down as 45% Young Earth, 40% Old Earth, 15% Evolution (i.e., not guided by God). That seemed to cover all but about 2% if I recall the Pew Center poll correctly. --Uncle Ed 15:36, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that is semi correct, but you are not including all the types of Young earth and old earth and evolution. It is far more complicated than that. For example, where is theistic evolution? Remember, theistic evolution is the biggest category in the US, among the public and among scientists. Some of those YEC and OEC believe in biblical literalism, and some do not.--Filll 16:14, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply below. --Uncle Ed 16:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NPoV ??

In this article or any religous related article, reaching a NPoV is extremely difficult. A religous related article is going to be made up of religious PoV's. This is an atheists PoV by the way. GoodDay 21:35, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Believe it or not, it is possible, but it takes work. For example, the article only uses verifiable sources. So, Evolution is a fact. A supernatural being controlling evolution is faith, and cannot be verified. That's why Creationism and all of its kindred spirits (like Intelligent Design and Creation Science) are considered pseudoscience, meaning you cannot utilize true scientific methods that can be published in a verified peer-reviewed journal. Of course, the Christians believe these articles are POV, but I think it is presented as NPOV as you can. Don't even bother to read the abortion article. I have no clue how that was written. Hockey is infinitely more fun. Orangemarlin 21:48, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, agreed. GoodDay 21:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evolution is fact. Creationism is pseudoscience. You think this is NPOV???—Preceding unsigned comment added by Eldrebreath (talk • contribs)

Well yes actually :)Abtract 09:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I seriously doubt the person who posted that comment meant the kind of evolution that's been experimentally proven. Homestarmy 14:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i do not belive in evolution —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.204.25.3 (talk • contribs).

This conversation is getting a bit inane, and someone attempted to revert part of it for some silly reason. However the person above should sign their posts. Orangemarlin 18:45, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't say "silly". The above comment ("i do not belive [sic] in evolution") has no relevance to improving the article in question, therefore removing it is not that unreasonable. yandman 18:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe one should ever delete anything from a talk page of any article. Unless, you find something in something YOU posted isn't clear, so you fix the grammar or something. Even if the garbage posted above makes no sense. I don't know how to add signatures, but it is clear who posted it. Orangemarlin 19:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As a side note, sometimes it's a real pain in the NPOV of my rear-end to do things on Wikipedia. It was not easy adding these things to unsigned comments. Orangemarlin 19:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Get the name from the history, and use {{unsigned|username}}. yandman 19:49, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prevalence of creationism (topic order?)

In the Prevalence of creationism (7.0) heading, wouldn't it be more logical to have:

The western world outside the United States heading before the United States heading - as the US is a subset of the western world.

In fact why is western world even defined with reference to the United States?

I know creationism is a topic which is hottest in the US, but isn't that like writing an article about London with all references comparing London to the US e.g. "Big Ben is nice, it looks a little like the Washington Monument but is sort of square all they way up, brownish and has a clock in it" - Wikipedia is en.wikipedia and not us.wikipedia. -- Quantockgoblin 13:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Guided" evolution

Responding to Filll's question above:

...you are not including all the types of Young earth and old earth and evolution. It is far more complicated than that. For example, where is theistic evolution?

First off, I think there is already some confusion over what belief in "theistic evolution" refers to. It seems to mean any of:

Evolution is true, and it's the "hands-off" way God brought all present species into being
Evolution is true, but God intervened in each case or in major cases to create new species
Evolution is not true, so God had to create each new species directly

This is not covered well in the Theistic evolution article. Cases one and two are blurred together, I think.

This leads to the situation I've illustrated at Talk:Guided evolution, where the two "camps" wind up talking at cross purposes, because each uses a different definition of the sides in the debate. Creationists appear to be claiming everything but "unguided evolution"; evolutionists appear to claiming everything but "Young-Earth creationism".

It's a mess, and all the sniping and ruffled feathers isn't helping. Let's try to work together on this. --Uncle Ed 16:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Well I think that is a nice chart/table. I think it is more complicated however. For example, I have encountered some young earth believers that believe in at least some parts if not most parts of evolution. Some people believe that the rules that the universe operates under (and result in evolution) are the product of a divine design, and classify those people who subscribe to that as creationists. Some creationists believe in biblical literalism and some do not. Some creationists disagree with the biblical interpretations of other creationists. The only thing that is very well defined in this entire mess is the "modern synthesis" evolution theory. However, even this becomes more complicated because there are assorted other evolution hypotheses that have not yet been tested, or accepted, or other evolution hypotheses that have been tested and found wanting.--Filll 17:09, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Supporters of evolution look at it like this, I think:

Evolution		"Creationism"
Evolution	Theistic evolution	Young-Earth creationism

Old-Earth creationism would then fit in with the middle category, but the place of neo-Creationsm (including ID) is a problem. When evolution supporters call ID supporters "Creationists", do they mean to lump them in with fossil record-denying Young-Earthers? (I hope not, but the way some design advocates take offense, I guess THEY feel a bit lumped.)

The public relations upshot is that the supporters of evolution say that most people "believe in evolution", including the middle ground of theistic evolution.

But opponents of evolution look at it another way:

"Evolution"	Creationism
Unguided evolution	Old-Earth creationism	Young-Earth creationism

The public relations upshot of this alternative view is that the supporters of Creationsm say that most people "don't believe in evolution". They want to claim the middle ground, too.

It looks to me like a fight over the middle ground, with some on both sides exploiting ambiguous terminology. I'd sure like to see the ambiguity cleared up. Then there'd be a lot less fighting at Wikipedia. Whether that will affect the "real world", I haven't the faintest idea. :-)

(Due to an edit conflict, I cannot respond yet to Some people believe that the rules that the universe operates under (and result in evolution) are the product of a divine design, and classify those people who subscribe to that as creationists. Please bear with me.) --Uncle Ed 17:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ed, the term theistic evolution along with the other "types" comes from Eugenie Scott's The Creation/Evolution Continuum of 2000, with the minor modification that what she calls Evolutionary Creationism is merged into it as the only difference is theological, and not very clear. You'll note that this merged type is clearly distinguished from nonreligious Materialist Evolutionism which would appear to relate to your Unguided evolution, and in the other direction from Old-Earth creationism. If you have a look at her definitions that should help clear up ambiguity: to cite her, "The Creation/Evolution Continuum, like most continua, has few sharp boundaries. There is a sharp division between YEC and OEC, but less clear cut separation between the various OEC persuasions. Even though OECs accept most of modern physics, chemistry, and geology, they are not very dissimilar to YECs in their rejection of descent with modification." and of theistic evolutionists, they "vary in whether and how much God is allowed to intervene -- some come pretty close to Deists. Other TEs see God as intervening at critical intervals during the history of life (especially in the origin of humans), and they in turn come closer to progressive creationism. In one form or another, TE is the view of creation taught at mainline Protestant seminaries, and it is the official position of the Catholic church." Hope that shows you the "evolutionist" viewpoint cited by the NSCE and TalkOrigins Archive. .. dave souza, talk 18:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ed, I think this is an interesting proposal. However, I've observed that there is actually a range of ideas that go from unguided evolution all the way YEC, and there seems to be subtle differences. It's almost like a range of species!!! Orangemarlin 19:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually they go even farther than the vanilla YEC to the modern geocentrism and the flat earth society. There are also strange variants like the Adamites who believe there were two creations (corresponding to the two creations in the bible), sometimes with billions of years between the two creations. And then some who believe that common descent, neoDarwinism etc applies to all animals except for humans. Then there are other strange syncretic versions that combine creationism with UFO visitation, or theosophy and spiritualism or witchcraft and astrology. On the other end, there are people who call themselves creationists who claim they are biblical literalists but who nonetheless agree with microevolution, macroevolution, speciation and common descent. It all gets to be a bit much. However, I do think Ed has made a good observation, and it might be interesting to make an article on taxonomy of creationism.--Filll 19:41, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, what Dave just said!!!! Orangemarlin 19:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ed, this edit to theistic evolution confused the intro, so I'll try to edit that to bring it nearer to Scott's definition... dave souza, talk 19:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"interpretation" can't make anything consistent that isn't already consistent

"This literal interpretation requires the harmonisation of the two creation stories, Genesis 1:1-2:3 and Genesis 2:4-25, which require interpretation to be consistent [6][7]. " Is the word "interpretation" here a euphemism for "fudging" or otherwise manipulating the meaning of the text? This is not the definition of the word "interpretation" and perhaps is POV. Would anyone have a problem changing it to: "Adherers of this literal interpretation claim the two creation stories, Genesis 1:1-2:3 and Genesis 2:4-25, are in harmony and consistent [6][7]." --PSzalapski 20:15, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds very reasonable to me to make that change. However, they DO interpret them as not being inconsistent. Perhaps you have never discussed this issued with them? Many of them even deny the 2nd account exists. Many of them claim it is a summary or restatement of the first account. Many of them claim that all evidence to the contrary, the two accounts are identical. Some claim the two accounts correspond to two separate creations. And many other variations.--Filll 01:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I own up to writing that passage, in which the word interpretation is used slightly ambiguously. What I was trying to say is that it is impossible to believe the two accounts of Genesis are both true word for word as written. It requires a non-literal interpretation to make the two passages consistent. There is nothing wrong with this, most Christians interpret these passages allegorically anyway. The point is that what is called a literal interpretation of the Bible isn't really. The citations at the end are to a Christian site which more or less fudges it, demonstrating that you need more than what is written in Genesis to reconcile the two accounts, and a skeptics site which lays the passages side by side, to clearly demonstrate that there are inconsistencies.Trishm 11:37, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I should say that the accounts are consistent if you read the subtext: God created the earth, and everything in it. No one else, no other god, those idols that the other tribes worship are not gods, they are part of God's creation. The accounts are inconsistent only if you read them as a history text.Trishm 11:41, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

questions from new person

Hey everyone, I'm pretty new here. I just saw some news story on creationism in the US and had some questions. What happens to kids of people who teach creationism when they go to college and take biology class? I would imagine a scene where the students who went to normal public school in progressive cities start laughing when people start telling a professor s/he is all wrong when s/he starts talking about evolution. Do people who raise their kids as creationists even allow them to go to accredited universitites? I'm not trying to judge or make fun, I'm just curious. I grew up near big cities and if anyone ever started saying some of the things that creationists often seem to say, they'd be laughed out of school by all the other kids. Please inform me about how this works. GingerGin 05:22, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think college kids would laugh exactly. Almost every research oriented or secular university in the US teaches evolution as the primary foundation of biology. I guess someone could go to a university with creationism as their high-school educational background, and learn about evolution. They could reject it, but still pass the biology course, or maybe actually understand evolutionary biology. It would be impossible to go on in biology either at a graduate school level or medical school without the evolutionary science knowledge and understanding. If you have a child who has been home-schooled in Creationism, then I'd suggest a couple of things: your child could go to a religious university or avoid taking biology courses (sad for a liberal arts education, but it's an alternative). Orangemarlin 05:38, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do believe Ken Ham did what Orange suggests with learning about Evolution and passing his biology courses despite being a Creationist, though he doesn't seem to of turned out worse for the wear from it. Homestarmy 15:15, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Ham is Australian, and did his applied science degree in Environmental Biology in Queensland. I'm not sure when he became a fundamentalist, because they were pretty thin on the ground at that time in Australia. I know that when I saw him in the early-eighties, fundamentalism was pretty radical. He was the only one I saw trying to recruit that didn't have a US accent.Trishm 01:18, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Will they be allowed in college at all? There’s a court case right now over this very situation. Some students from Christian schools are being denied entrance to state-run universities in California. [3] ^ross ^nixon 00:42, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Surely the answer is that someone with creationist religious belief has three options - (1) do not study life sciences (2) answer the questions correctly and pass (3) answer the questions according to their beliefs and fail. As for other students "laughing" at them, I doubt it. Universities are known for the diversity of views that are expressed within them. --Michael Johnson 02:10, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This does not bode well.... Homestarmy 00:44, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not go too far here. The University of California, a very competitive university system, has the absolute right to determine what are the core courses required by all high school students entering the system. If the core courses include science, then so be it. Frankly, if they want to go to an exclusive university, then they should meet the requirements. If they don't, there are numerous outstanding colleges in the US that don't have these standards. Orangemarlin 00:52, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's actually not quite accurate: There's a court case over them being forced to do remedial clases, because what their school did was not deemed acceptable (in several subjects, not just biology.) The school, naturally, didn't want to have its classes deeped unacceptable, so sued:

"The battle started back in late 2005, when UC reviewed Calvary's courses and decided that several of them -- including "Special Providence: Christianity and the American Republic and "Christianity's Influence on America," both history courses; "Christianity and Morality in American Literature," an English course; and a biology class -- did not meet their curriculum standards, and would not be counted toward the admission requirements when Calvary students apply to UC.

Calvary does offer other classes that would fulfill the requirements; and its students also have the option of taking the SAT II to gain admissions credit in these areas instead. In past years, Calvary students have been admitted to UC at a slightly-higher-than-average rate, which makes discrimination much harder to claim." Adam Cuerden ^talk 01:05, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in the matter of academic freedom, I hope they lose the court case. In the matter of religion vs. science, it's more complicated. I think taking the SATII is a good compromise. Orangemarlin 01:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely amazing.--Filll 01:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably hope Calvary loses? Adam Cuerden ^talk 01:47, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right. Calvary loses, UC wins. And I'm not talking NCAA basketball. Orangemarlin 01:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reason for a University to be required to accept substandard nonsense as appropriate preparation for university admission. They have no "right" to gain admission to the Univ of California or any other school. I hope they get their asses handed to them. This is obnoxious fundy bullying and that outrageous article in Answers in Genesis complete with quote mining had my blood boiling. This kind of deceit and blatant money grubbing demonstrates that these kind of people at AIG are the worst kind; liars, cheats, sleezy and ignorant to boot. Aggressive ignorance is the worst, in my book. Parents are free to pay to send their children to Bob Jones University or Liberty University, where they will get a degree that qualifies them to be a McDonalds fry cook.--Filll 02:05, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think either of those collages has a Doctrate of Burger-Flipping however. Homestarmy 02:21, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, but that is not the point. I am not sure if either one is even accredited, to be honest.--Filll 02:35, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unless there's some serious whitewashing going on, Bob Jones University is definently accredited. I was going to say Liberty is too, but a google search brings up what look like different collages with separate names.... Homestarmy 02:44, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Creation science paragraph again

Creation science Main article: Creation science "Creation science is the technical arm of the creationist movement. Most adherents believe that God created the Earth only a few thousand years ago, and that the scientific evidence supports their interpretation of scripture. Various claims of these creation scientists include such ideas as creationist cosmologies which accommodate a universe on the order of thousands of years old, explanations for the fossil record as a record of the destruction of the global flood recorded in Genesis (see flood geology), and explanations for the present diversity as a result of rapid degradation of the perfect genomes God placed in "created kinds" (see creation biology)."

Most Creation Scientists adherers do not claim that "the scientific evidence supports their interpretations" but rather something more like what Answers in Genesis have been saying for a while. Both evolutionists, and all form of Creationists/IDs have the same evidence; what makes a different is the set of axioms that you use to interpret those evidences. Creationists claim that the interpretation of certain facts make more sense under the axioms set in Genesis 1. An examples is:

Fact: The Grand Canyon exists.
Axioms: 1. Uniformitarianism 2. Biblical Catastrophism or other Creationist View
Interpretation 1: Took a little water (colorado river) and lots of time (supposed millions or billions of years)
Interpretation 2: Took lots of water (global catastrophe, commonly known as Noah's Flood) and a little bit of time (the time the earth was covered with water of the flood)

Just wanted to clear that out, and I'm going to make the change to something on this topic, if there is any disagreement let me know! :)

Biblical creationism

I created this article from the redlink on the lead paragraph. Please expand and improve, as I'm not too sure how to organize this. bibliomaniac 1 5 05:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirected to a more complete, if awful, page. Adam Cuerden ^talk 18:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Table

While the table that was put in is interesting, I'm worried it oversimplifies the different types especially in regard to ID. JoshuaZ 07:29, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I take the very studies from the bible. I mean this is the guide book of what the recorded stories were. If you did not believe in God then there would a great punishment after deathUser:Creation Christian

Your comment isn't exactly useful for the page. From what I understand, the Bible doesn't differentiate between different types of creationism. WLU 21:23, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Creationism and Common descent

Please vote on the relevance of this section on the article common descent. -- Pbarnes 03:24, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

47% Americans

Sorry if this has been mentioned beofre but I really don't think that 47% of americans believe in young earth creationism - certainly significantly more than half of the Americans I have met seem to believe in dinosaurs and the like. Also I don't know wikipedia policy but isn't "Americans" a bit vague, couldn't it imply citizens of the United states, North American or both American continents. Also the statement probably needs a source. -Guest9999

Quite possibly both the survey and you are right. People are capable of believing two contradictory things so long as they arn't confronted with the contradiction (even then many people will deny a contradiction). BTW creationists don't usually deny the exitance of dinosaurs just claim they were killed in the flood. As for the American bit, I think it clear from the context it refers to the USA, but maybe it could be clarified. --Michael Johnson 21:41, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic creationism and other focus problems

It strikes me that Islamic creationism, as a major force in Turkey, needs a much larger section, and that we could really use a more whole-world perspective in our examples section. Talk:Intelligent_design#Status_of_Intelligent_Design_elsewhere may be useful for compiling this, as may the Intelligent design article (now a Featured article). I'll, of course, help as best I can. Adam Cuerden ^talk 11:19, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The marble image: suggestion

I've created the image to the right. It may or may not be considered terribly wonderful, but I'd like to at least get discussion going on the idea of replacing the fuzzy blue circle as the image for the Creationism side-bar. Every time I see that image, I'm horribly confused, as it's so non-representational, in contrast to the sidebar "topic" images that appear everywhere else in Wikipedia. The image contains elements of the creation myths of three cultures that developed at different time periods, and thus represent a sampling of the creationism concept throughout the history of man. -Harmil 22:22, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Too complicated. I really don't think the image matters. Orangemarlin 23:04, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a good idea, but... I think it's rather too small and too busy to make sense. Er, and isn't the Michaelangelo part (at least) copyright? SheffieldSteel 00:32, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, please don't focus on the suggestion as "we need to use this image," but as, "the image we have is horribly confusing and bears no relationship that a casual reader can determine to creationism." If you have ideas, please improve the image that I uploaded, or suggest your own. Just, please, don't leave what's there. NO picutre would be better than a glowing blue circle. -Harmil 14:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um, I'm not seeing a glowing blue circle. Has it been replaced already? Adam Cuerden ^talk 00:35, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it would seem so. -Harmil 08:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moved "Creation of Light" image

I thought the large "Creation of Light" image that was at the top of the page was poorly placed, since the exact same image is in the infobox directly below it. Additionally, placing the infobox beneath the image caused the infobox to not be right-aligned and did not look attractive. I moved the large image to the Citations section, and moved the infobox up to the top of the page where infoboxes are usually found, and which is consistent with the other articles with the infobox.--Puddleglum Marshwiggle 02:30, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup

I've tried to avoid making any major change in meaning or intent, major points:

"Strictly, Creationism is a philosophical perspective that presupposes the existence of a supernatural creator." is useless as a core definition, as there are many things that presuppose this and are not creationism. "Philosophical perspective" might have good context in the cited book, but it is too vague here - in what sense philosophical? In what sense a perspective?
Removed "or" - I've never heard of creationism that states that humans were created, but that the universe was not, or vice-versa. If anyone has a cite to the contrary, please re-add and cite.
"Contrasts" is more neutral than "conflicts". Something can be spiritual without being theistic (which is the proper term). A cite should be provided for this for those that want to persue the subject.

–M^T 19:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Creationism sidebar

By the way, you probably all noticed, but I've made some tweaks to it. This mainly has to do with getting it to play nicely with other sidebars it's often found with - same width and so on, so they can be grouped into one "holding" table. Adam Cuerden ^talk 21:09, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

I tink that this should be moved to "Theory of Creationism." It is more accurate and more NPOV. I am a creationist by the way so I am not doing this because it is my POV. God bless:) --James, La gloria è a dio 22:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're spamming a few articles with the same comments. Thanks, but no thanks. Orangemarlin 23:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with my Jewish friend. :-) ^ross ^nixon 01:51, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Creationism

I don't get it....why do you believe in this when there's so much evidence that we EVOLVED? I mean, I understand faith and everything and believing in a higher power, but if He created everything then how was He created? It doesn't make much sense to me, especially now that I'm in Biology and we're learning the scientific side of everything. Yeah....so I don't exactly understand!

Please don't use article talk pages for debating the topic of the article. The short answer might be something like the following: Origin stories are a part of mosts religious mythologies, and in some religions or shades of religions, fundamental beliefs are more closely tied to those mythologies; therefore, the two aren't easily separable. In addition, evolution deals with changes on scales of millions and billions of years, a timeframe for which the human brain is ill-equipped to grasp. While it is easy to observe the effects of evolution on short time scales, many people have difficulty extrapolating that to timescales comparable to the age of the Earth. The origin problem exists for both supernatural and scientific explanations of the origin of the universe. Most people who believe in a single God believe that God has existed eternally and was not ever created. If you have further interests in exploring these topics, I could help you find some resources on the Internet or try answering further questions. Feel free to ask me on my talk page. — Knowledge Seeker দ 19:01, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Accuracy of the article

I question the accuracy of the article on the use of this term. The definition the article provides makes it appear as if Creationism is the same as having a literal interpretation of the bible. That is a point of view skewed to the American perspective-- creationists are more widely people that argue the bible against other theories of pre-history. I shall analyze the sources for this article to see if this article does indeed follow them closely.Lotusduck 04:06, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please give substantive points of dispute, rather than just stating a general impression of the article. You're probably right that there is an American bias here, just because there usually is on Wikipedia -- but it's worth noting that the very first few sentences of the article point out that Biblical creationism is only one kind of creationism, although the intro goes on to state that the term "creationism" is usually associated with Christian fundamentalist creationism. --FOo 04:52, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Macroevolution"

I removed the quotes around the term "Macroevolution" in the chart. I think that this is in the interests of NPOV, since the quotes imply that the term is nonsense. I think it is appropriate to use Creationist terminology to discuss Creationism.

If removing the quotes gives the word too much validity, perhaps the word should become a link to an explanation of the term. --Brilliand 03:41, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I never noticed until you deleted them. I agree with your logic, but I think wiki-linking the term might be the best idea. Orangemarlin 03:45, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wikified the first occurrence of the term in the section. --Brilliand 16:52, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

^ see e.g. http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/12/12_1a1.html or http://www.creationresearch.org/creation_matters/pdf/2003/cm08%2003.PDF page 2, or http://www.creationresearch.org/creation_matters/pdf/2001/cm0605.pdf page 1

[1] see e.g. http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/12/12_1a1.html or http://www.creationresearch.org/creation_matters/pdf/2003/cm08%2003.PDF page 2, or http://www.creationresearch.org/creation_matters/pdf/2001/cm0605.pdf page 1

[1]