Talk:Creationism/Archive 23

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Christian myth?

Why does this article refer on more than one occasion to 'the Christian myth..'? The author may believe creation as described in Genesis is a myth, but that's entirely subjective...—Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.168.247.125 (talk)

From Mythology : "In the study of folklore, a myth is a sacred narrative explaining how the world and humankind came to be in their present form."--LexCorp (talk) 17:19, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Right, except that the Bible isn't folklore and in modern usage, the term myth always implies something which is in no way true. I'm aware that this has been discussed in much more detail on other discussion pages, but my point is that other words could be used here - myth is incorrect and is used, I suspect, primarily by non-Christians in order to offend... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.168.247.125 (talk) 20:16, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

From Folklore: "Folklore culture, including stories, music, dance, legends, oral history, proverbs, jokes, popular beliefs, customs, and so forth within a particular population comprising the traditions (including oral traditions) of that culture, subculture, or group." Emphasis is mine. The Bible is the single most important piece of folklore in the Christian culture (particularly the parables section). Myth as used in the article is exactly correct. The only correct alternative that comes to mind is Creation Myths so maybe change 'the Christian myth..' to 'the Christian creation myth..' is a good edit. Your suspicions are groundless and as an addendum, me thinks some Christians will find it very offensive if you demote their sacred narrative from the myth status to simply a narrative. Your failure to assign the correct meaning of a word given its contexts and, further more, substitute its meaning with the one that gives most offence to a Christian subset group should not be the basis for editorial changes to this article. The average Christian's intelligence is greater than what you seem to credit them with and I think most, if not all of them, will clearly understand and assign the correct meaning of the word "myth".--LexCorp (talk) 21:42, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

'Myth' does sound offensive to Christians in this context, however most Wikipedia editors have decided to use this to cover the less commonly understood 'scholarly' use of the term, which does not necessarily imply that the text is not true. ^rossnixon 01:47, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Something I feel worth pointing out is that Universally used terms are often preferable to less widely distributed terms. Basically, it's best to keep it simple yet formal. For example, "wall" is prefered over "bulkhead" as most people will recognize wall whereas many people will get confused over bulkhead. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 03:46, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

The use of the words "Christian myth" do not portray a neutral standpoint. It should be changes to "biblical scripture", as this is not offensive to any user, and is not portraying Christian nor non-Christian standpoints. Francisoh7 (talk) 02:42, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

The use of the words "Christian myth" does portray a neutral standpoint. I go to Georgetown University, a Catholic university, and in my theology class we refer to biblical stories as "myths." Every text we have read for the class does likewise. It is not about offending anyone, for it is simply the academic way of referring to such stories. If a reader extracts negative connotations from these words then that is their logical fallacy and Wikipedia has no business using euphemisms to appease their qualms. I move to archive this discussion now as it has no potential for improving the encyclopedia. from hajatvrc with WikiLove @ 02:58, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

It never stops to amaze me as an atheist how uninformed are the majority of theists about their own faith. For something so central to their lives, and may I dare say eternal salvation, they seem to dedicate very little time to reflect and study on their own religion. It is understandable that some theist have problems with the dual meaning of the word "theory" and try to use it pejoratively when referring to evolution (I am referring to SOME theist) but for them to misrepresent the word "myth" is just plain astounding to me. One of the main staples of any group of people that share a culture is precisely a rich mythology and folklore that culturally binds them even when they are separated in geographical space and/or time. I agree that we should close this discussion but also suggest we left it in here for everyone to read and hope some of it stick to their minds.--LexCorp (talk) 03:32, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

The term "myth" should be changed to "story" to remain neutral. There has been much debate here on the meaning of the term "myth" and that is the point. Why make it confusing or misleading to the reader? Debate or not the definition in Merriam-Webster uses terms such as ostensible, imaginary, and unverifiable. Clearly this definition is the source of the debate. Just change it to "story" to avoid unnecessary argumentation. This is not the forum for that - the page should be neutral and the word "myth" is not neutral. Toneron2 (talk) 06:19, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Story has no formal definition and is commonly used to describe fiction or lies (check the definitions). "myth" when used in a formal term has only one definition and by no means does it imply falsehood. Because some people might not understand that does not mean that we shouldn't use it per WP:RNPOV and WP:WTA#Myth and Legend. Nefariousski (talk) 20:00, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

This article is a good example of why wikipedia is not used as a source. There is so much biased information here ,where as, if you went the evolution page it is much less biased. Evolution has no critism on the page and even the Charles Darwin won't mention that he married his first cousin as far as I can see. Remember, it is your wikireality just because it is or is not on here does not make it so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.166.224.192 (talk) 16:47, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Bearing in mind that this is not a discussion forum on the topic of Creationism (per WP:TALK and WP:NOTAFORUM), do you have any constructive suggestions for improvement of this article which you would like to discuss? Gabbe (talk) 17:10, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Also bear in mind that we have implemented an in-article note and a FAQ question both explaining the meaning of "myth" and why it is used in the article as a way to mitigate confusion from uniformed readers as to the meaning of "myth".--LexCorp (talk) 17:16, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I have a suggestion that may be a reasonable compromise. Could the in-article note be moved up to the lead section, instead of sitting down low in a footnote? Or at least put a brief parenthesis when the word myth is first used (it's currently on the second instance of the word, which is a mistake), suggesting that the reader see the footnote for an explanation of the term as it is used in this article. Something like: "(for an explanation of myth, see [footnote])".


An article as well-documented as this one is has such an abundance of footnotes that I don't normally read them as I'm reading the article. I'm not a creationist by any means, nor am I ignorant of non-pejorative definitions of the word myth, but when I started reading the article I was immediately put off by the word, and I didn't notice until quite a lot later that there was a footnote explaining its use.


Wikipedia (as I understand it—please correct me if I'm wrong) is intended for use by the general public, not only by people who happen to know that the word myth has a single "formal definition" (whatever that means) that includes no negative connotations whatsoever. Clearly I don't know what all English speakers think, but I and everybody I know ordinarily read myth as if it were a synonym for fable, but slightly more pejorative than fable is. If I were a creationist (and as I said, I'm not) I would be offended by the word. We don't want to offend people if we can avoid it, do we? The people most likely to be offended by the word until they understand how it is being used in this article are the very ones who have the most to gain by reading it, which they may not do if the introduction uses a term they misinterpret.


Regardless of what its formal definition is, I'm pretty sure the word myth is most widely understood by ordinary English speakers to mean a story made up by relatively ignorant people to explain natural phenomena, a story that may have some element of moral or psychological truth in it, but little if any fact. That's how I learned it in elementary school, and what you learn that young is hard to unlearn: that definition still fuels my initial gut reaction to the word, as I discovered today. A TV show called MythBusters (the title alone should tell us something) reflects what surely is a very widespread if not universal popular understanding of what a myth is; the show's web site has a quiz called "Myth or Fact", in which we guess whether a commonly accepted story is true or not. Do we want people to assume we have that attitude toward their religious beliefs if we can avoid it?


I understand now why the term is used here, and I no longer have any problem with it personally, but it is naive to assume that everybody who reads this article will also read the footnote. I missed out on the consensus discussion, and if somebody already suggested this solution and it was rejected, I apologize for resurrecting it. But it seems as if a very small modification like the one I've suggested could help ameliorate the problem (and let's be honest: there is a problem, or this discussion never would have happened).


It's fine to expect the reader to accept the formal definition, but would it hurt to make it just a little bit easier for him or her to find the definition? Leaving the article as it is invites controversy, and surely nobody really wants that. We're here to inform, aren't we—to help people?—not see how far we can go before somebody gets offended. I believe we can defuse the issue significantly without compromising the article's integrity at all.

--Jim10701 (talk) 05:08, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I would have to agree that the term "myth" is very misleading, not to mention highly objectionable to the majority of those who would consider their self to be creationists. If this page is suppose to be an unbiased page rather than coming across as naturalistic propaganda, it should be amended. Quintessential1 (talk) 19:41, 3 March 2010 (UTC)JPD

Unfortunately per WP:WTA#Myth and Legend, WP:RNPOV, WP:NOT#CENSORED we don't consider feelings and objections based on appeal to emotion when considering whether to use the word or not. As long as it's being used in its formal sense and due diligence is made to establish formal use and formal context it's perfectly acceptable (per policy and multiple debates that all thus far have turned out to support formal usage). Nefariousski (talk) 19:56, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Misleading how? Did you read the FAQ at the top of this page? The note referred in the article?--LexCorp (talk) 19:59, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Gallup Poll about Young Earth Creationism

This poll http://www.pollingreport.com/science.htm is proving contentious as to whether it should be included in this article and if so how phrased. To summarize the positions as I see it the nays say that the poll questioned people only about what they believed with regard to the creation of humans (10,000 BCE) and not the Earth. Therefore using the poll to justify the line "Young Earth creationist views are held by as many as 44%" is not correct. The other side, and I'm quoting Rossnixon from his/her summary "yes, but you will find there is no group of note than says both that the earth is billions of years old and humans are less than 10,000 years old". I think there are two issues here, not being able to find such a group (and I don't even know how to begin looking) does not justify reinterpreting the original article even if we're convinced the two versions practically mean the same thing -- we should not make those kinds of judgement calls and just use the original wording. The second issue is that it's been over 20 years since I held any religious belief but I'm almost positive that I did, at one point, believe that the Earth/universe was billions of years old but that humans were 6,000 - 10,000 years old (my need to reconcile science and religion). While I might have been unique in this belief as a young teenager I can't help but think I must have gotten it from other people. Yes, that's anecdotal, but I think that's all that's necessary to demonstrate that the possibility exists for groups of people to hold both views (Earth=billions, humans=thousands) which renders the current phrasing misleading. SQGibbon (talk) 04:35, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I think I have found one exception to the conflation. Jehovah's Witnesses seem to accept millions+ years for the earth (they have increased it from 50,000) but less than 10,000 years for Adam and Eve. Someone may be able to confirm that. If they were a fringe group, we could ignore that, but it appears there are about 7 million (worldwide) - so I presume they break the poll's usefulness. Comments? ^rossnixon 01:39, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I think we all agree that the poll is a decent source, but that it doesn't substantiate the statement "Young Earth creationist views are held by as many as 44%". Gabbe (talk) 09:43, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Realistic

This passage here: Since the end of the 19th century, belief in creationism has decreased as scientific theories have been presented that may support more naturalistic explanations for the universe and for life.

Should be changed to: Since the end of the 19th century, belief in creationism has decreased as scientific theories have been presented that may support more realistic explanations for the universe and for life. Jbhf1 (talk) 02:02, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

The word "naturalistic" is more accurate and less-POV as everyone has their own interpretation of "realistic". --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:09, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I have to disagree. A fair amount of human evolution happened in the desert, and The Real is a desert! So, it isn't too far off the mark to refer to evolution as "realistic". Cosmic Latte (talk) 16:12, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Religious belief

The article opens with the assertion that "Creationism is the religious belief..." The quoted statement is both sourced and true ... a lot of the time, anyway, but not in every instance. Implicit in the opening line is that creationism cannot be anything other than a religious belief. Given this implication, let's say (hypothetically) that I believe that X ("X" being any supernatural entity that feels personally meaningful to me, and--as it turns out--only to me) created all of everything because he/she/it simply wanted to. My belief would match the remainder of the article's definition of creationism. It would not, however, meet several definitions of "religion". If this belief contributes to my "selfhood", then it meets Thomas Luckmann's very broad definition of religion. Such a belief could fit quite nicely with Alfred North Whitehead's summary of religion as that which one does with one's "solitariness". Belief in X might be somewhat consistent with Paul Tillich's description of religion as that which makes one experience a sense of holiness and awe. X could, at least in theory, accomplish this for me. But consider Peter Berger, who stated that this meaningfulness must be of the sort that makes everything seem "humanly significant". Maybe my belief in X doesn't go quite that far. And it doesn't have to go so far as accepting that a God or saviour exists (in contrast to the belief that religion makes such acceptances); my "supernatural entity" could be nothing but a sentient blob of ectoplasm. Or consider Clifford Geertz, who saw religion as a "cultural system". If my belief is idiosyncratic, it's not a "cultural" system. And so on. I would change the line to something like, "Creationism is the belief, often of a religious nature, that..." What do others think about this suggestion? Cosmic Latte (talk) 14:46, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I have to object to this. I don't see how creationism - the belief that everything appeared abruptly by a supernatural creator - can be anything but religious in nature, given its fundamentally supernatural/spiritual premise. This change should be undone. Not to mention that the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the largest scientific organization in the world, considers it to be a purely religious belief, along with intelligent design. 98.168.192.162 (talk) 09:50, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and made this change. Please let me know if there are any problems with the change or with my rationale. Cosmic Latte (talk) 12:21, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

"Creationism is the belief, often religious in nature, that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe are the creation of a supernatural agency..." How can a belief in a supernatural being having created something not be religious? Janfrie1988 (talk) 18:40, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Agree. I reverted the edit.--LexCorp (talk) 18:47, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Disagree. As would Berger and Geertz (see above). And so would Stuart Kauffman[1] and Barbara Ehrenreich.[2] If Creation can be a process of emergence, then Creation-ism can defy the scientific tenet of reductionism while not becoming "religious" in the slightest. Unless, of course, we define religion along with Luckmann. Basically, both "religious belief" and "creationism" are too conceptually nuanced to be treated (respectively) as category and subcategory. A belief in creationism is often--but not necessarily--a religious belief. Cosmic Latte (talk) 20:11, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Well you will have to agree that those are quite fringe interpretations of creationism. This article deal with the belief of supernatural creation. For any other interpretation you will have to really start a new article specifying no supernatural causes. Mixing the two only bring confusion to those not familiar with the subject. It even looks a bit like WP:Synthesis on your part.--LexCorp (talk) 21:31, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

My basic point is still that the extent to which creationism is a "religious belief" seems largely relative to how the individual conceives of religion. Belief in creationism is not, for example, prescribed by the Bible; it's neither code nor creed; and the Book of Genesis doesn't say, "Read me literally!" One thinks of religious belief as something shared by all or most adherents of a religion--as belief that naturally follows from religion. For example, Christians generally believe in a Resurrection and a Second Coming--these would be "religious beliefs". But there are plenty of Christians out there who think that creationism is pure balderdash. So I would think either that this article (while still noting the connections between creationism and religion) shouldn't package creationism into "religious belief", or that the religious belief article should be edited so that it doesn't define religious belief in terms of code and creed. I've had trouble finding sources that define "religious belief", but I did come across one source which defines it, quite liberally, as belief in "that which is utterly self-existent or nondependent". Even with this definition, though, "religious belief" would (as far as I can tell) exclude creationism. A proposition such as "God exists" would be a religious belief, because God's existence is held to be a cosmological given. So are things like miracles and resurrections. But a belief in a divinely inspired Earth, while obviously attached to religious beliefs, can't be bundled up into "religious belief" because it does not propose that life on earth is "self-existent or nondependent". Just the opposite: It posits that all life is entirely dependent on God's will. God's will, per se, is said to depend on nothing but itself, and so belief in it would meet the given definition of religious belief. But belief in creationism doesn't seem to meet this very broad definition, let alone those that defer to code or creed. I would think, then, that although creationism can be called a belief that is connected to or dependent upon religious beliefs, it can't really be condensed into "religious belief" without overlooking some important nuances. Cosmic Latte (talk) 19:36, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Of course Creationism is religious. It may not be what all adherents to a particular religion believe, but for those who do believe in it, it's part of their religious belief. No fiddling with words or nuancing can separate the two. Even if creation believers don't see it as part of their own or any mainstream religion, it's still religious. It's obviously not scientific. Is there a third category, not yet defined, somewhere between those two? Seriously, I cannot see that it can be described as anything else but religious. HiLo48 (talk) 20:19, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

This source uses terms like "religiously inspired" and "religiously based". There are (hypothetically) instances in which creationism could be neither inspired by nor based upon religion; but for the most part, it seems to have a strong religious basis. So, I'm not denying that creationism is in a sense "religious", and I'm not denying that it's a belief. But the phrase "religious belief" implies a certain, doctrinal formality which creationism lacks, or--if we go with the source I gave above--a certain independent, self-sufficient, basic character which creationism also lacks. Creationism can be based upon religion, but it's not the base per se; it's not the "religious belief", but rather an auxiliary world-view centered upon more solid, "religious beliefs". Cosmic Latte (talk) 21:01, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

P.S. Since the phrases "religiously inspired" and "religiously based" are verifiable (and, I think, more defensible than simply "religious belief"), I propose using either "religiously inspired" or "religiously based". (Personally, I like the poetic connections of "inspired", which has a religious etymology, is related to "spirit", and literally means "breathed in"--Genesis 2:7, anyone?--but suppose that "based" might sound more neutral.) Cosmic Latte (talk) 21:13, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree with your suggestions. I prefer the current version. The "Religious" adjective does not automatically imply a doctrinal formality. Any belief that appeals to a supernatural actor is religious in nature. "Religious belief" is also verifiable, you only need a copy of the source. Furthermore your 2 suggestions are not definitions of the subject, while "religious belief" is a definition.--LexCorp (talk) 23:32, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I suppose we might have to agree to disagree on some points. As it stands, though, it really all depends on whatever it is that Eugenie Scott says on p. 114 of Evolution Vs. Creationism, considering that that's the source provided. The word "religious" seems to have been added and removed so many times that it's difficult to tell if "religious belief" or just "belief" is verified by Scott. Of course, I'm not going to change anything without consensus. Even with consensus, though, I would hesitate to change anything without a quotation from the Scott source, since that provides a starting point. Cosmic Latte (talk) 15:34, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Dating back to the time of Jesus...

I have no other grievance apart from the (seemingly) hijacking of creationism by Christians. There are plenty of other earlier religions, myths and sagas that mention it. Creationism certainly dates from earlier times than the first century AD. Brutal Deluxe (talk) 22:36, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

There are certainly other stories of creation for other religions. Those are covered in general in places like creation mythology. Creationism, however, is a specific movement that is specific to Abrahamic faiths.Farsight001 (talk) 00:54, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

As per Farsight001 above I restored the material.--LexCorp (talk) 01:56, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Of course, but Jesus did not invent Abrahamic faiths, therefore the history of creationism does not date to the time of Jesus, but to an earlier time, the beginning of history, possibly.Brutal Deluxe (talk) 11:50, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Creationism dates to a specific time in the Abrahamic faiths, but as far as I can tell, that time is in the 20th century. In the Middle Ages, the Church accepted Aristotle's views about how the physical universe was created, and viewed the first chapters of Genesis allegorically. Certainly many Jews interpreted them allegorically as well. Philo of Alexandria interpereted the creation stories allegorically, and I think that is the earliest interpretation we have. As for Jews before Philo, well, what evidence do you have that the people who wrote the first two chapters of Genesis intended that they be taken literally? Creationism is an ideology that developed in the 20th century or perhaps late 19th century as a reaction against modernity. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:25, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Changing legit Wiki Links

There is a user who is going back and changing all proper wiki-links in this article to an old article title. Now that old article title was only in effect for 2 months, and yet all the wiki-links were changed to match that. Somehow this user didn't object then. Now that the article is changed back, that user is pushing that the wiki-links remain the same. Does anyone else see this as pov-pushing? I certainly do. SAE (talk) 03:13, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Lutheran belief

Why does one of the paragraphs reference the Lutheran church as a church that does not hold the Bible as applicable to the physical world? I am not trying to fight or argue, but as a Lutheran I am curious as to where this reference was acquired. To my understanding, nowhere in Lutheran doctrine is the Bible discounted as a source of knowledge of the physical world. Help?Prussian725 (talk) 02:54, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Anyone?Prussian725 (talk) 16:53, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Having looked out some references, I've rephrased it as "consider that there is no conflict between the spiritual meaning of creation and the science of evolution." For additional info, see Judge Jones interviewed by The Lutheran | NCSE and linked articles. . . dave souza, talk 17:56, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the ref's dave. I myself am a LCMS Lutheran, whereas judge Jones III is ELCA. Don't know if the distinction is pertinent enough to mention, but it might be considered as there are some differences in belief. What do you think?Prussian725 (talk) 14:00, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Different synods or groupings may well have different beliefs on this, the current statements in the article are well supported and by describing the views of "Most contemporary Christian leaders and scholars from mainstream churches" clearly indicate that a minority differ from these views. The situation may be parallel to the Roman Catholic church which has a leadership position that accepts the science of evolution subject to it not being interpreted in an atheistic way, but some groups within the church support creationist views opposing the science of evolution. Have you sources giving an estimate of the support of various views? The section already goes on to describe various views, you may wish to propose revisions to the wording. . . . dave souza, talk 19:10, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Religious belief, revisited

I'll acknowledge upfront that I've recently taken issue with the opening line's introduction of creationism as a "religious belief". I backed off from that argument (i.e., the position that labeling creationism a religious belief was over-simplistic), pending a look at the source already provided. I haven't checked that source and haven't seen that anyone else has checked it, and I retain my final position that the legitimacy of the opening phrase hinges on what the source says. So, I do not mean to rehash my old/original position here. However, as I was editing the article today, I still sensed something awkward about the first line. The problem, IMO, is that it's simply redundant. Even if we understand religious belief as belief generally in a supernatural agency, what we ultimately have, in the assertion that "Creationism is [a] religious belief [about] a supernatural agency" is, "Creationism is a religious belief pertaining to the object of a religious belief." To avoid this sort of redundancy, I might suggest rephrasing the line as something like, "Creationism is the belief that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe are the creation of a supernatural, or religious, agency." Or, perhaps, "Creationism is the belief that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe are the creation of a supernatural agency of religious import." Or even, "Creationism is the belief that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe are the creation of a supernatural deity." Or just, "...the creation of a deity." Again, I acknowledge having raised (and relented on) a related theme a while back. I trust my fellow editors not to assume that I'm trying to push any particular POV (e.g., some form of naturalistic legitimation), but nonetheless offer evidence of my neutrality to any... shall I say, non-believers. ;-) Basically, regardless of whether or not the opening line is over-simplifying, I wonder if it might be overstating its idea. Cosmic Latte (talk) 20:12, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I have the second edition of the book. I found this on page 114 regarding Creationism as a religious belief

"McLean v. Arkansas was tried in federal district court... The Arkansas ACLU would argue that because creation science was inherently a religious idea, its advocacy as required by Act 590 would violate the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution." That is what I can find on page 114. But it goes on further about the trial and how the defense was unwilling to use people from the ICR due to the fact that they wrote Christian apologetic material.

Essentially by passing Act 590, the state of Arkansas was acting in the advancement of religion (by allowing for the teaching of creation science). The Act was overturned in that court case because creation science is a religious belief.ZgokE (talk) 21:53, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Cosmic Latte - I do see your point about the clumsiness of the opening sentence right now. There is redundancy in there. My first leaning was towards your suggestion of "Creationism is the belief that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe are the creation of a supernatural, or religious, agency." However, I think it's important to emphasise in the wording that by far the strongest promotion of creationist views today is from the more fundamental Christian organisations, largely within the United States. (And this comes from someone constantly working to remove US centric aspects of Wikipedia!) To mention "supernatural" before "religious" in your definition seems to put an inaccurate slant on that. How about we reverse those words, giving us.... "Creationism is the belief that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe are the creation of a religious or supernatural agency." HiLo48 (talk) 23:37, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

What is a religious agency? Sorry but that sentence does not make any sense. For what is worth I do not see any redundancy or clumsiness in the current version. Also extra ref from Decision in Kitzmiller v. Dover, by Judge John E. Jones, December 20, 2005 at page 43 reads "The overwhelming evidence at trial established that ID is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory.". I hope "view" as synonym of "belief" is not too problematic as it is mentioned as such in almost all dictionaries.--LexCorp (talk) 00:25, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I concur with LexCorp ZgokE (talk) 09:14, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

True--"religious agency" doesn't sound quite right. To rephrase my initial thought, "religious belief [about] a supernatural agency" just sounds a bit like, "religious belief about a religious idea". Perhaps omitting "religious" and adding "deity" (e.g., creationism is the belief ... a deity or other supernatural agency") would do the trick. Or, perhaps, omit "religious" and replace "supernatural agency" with "Creator deity", which even has its own article. Or, of course, leave as-is: I still sense a copy-editing issue with implying "religious" twice in one sentence, but I have no doubts (after reading the above) that "religious belief" is verifiable regardless. Cosmic Latte (talk) 16:10, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Growing evidence for naturalistic explanations

Don’t be sorry, be specific. Point out the evidence (I maybe missed it), rather than simply be disdainful and patronising. Mannafredo (talk) 14:43, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Cosmic Latte deleted the relevant paragraph. I agree with the deletion in that it was unsourced and irrelevant to this particular section.--LexCorp (talk) 15:08, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Also, Mannafredo, even if that passage as a whole had been relevant to the surrounding text, abiogenesis would not have been germane to the passage. That abiogenesis may be something of a mystery does not mean that "detailed scientific and naturalistic explanations" of abiogenesis have not been offered. They exist; they're just debated and in need of greater synthesis. And that, really, is how it often goes in academia: If there is a God of the gaps, he's lord over lots of things that scholars study. Cosmic Latte (talk) 16:24, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I thought the passage seemed fine relevant to the heading ‘…naturalistic explanations’. The evolution bit that’s left is only part of the picture - post-origin-of-life. My problem with the passage was that it seemed to ignore the ‘gaps’, and by doing so include all the gaps (including the origin-of-life) under the ‘Growing evidence…’ part of the heading. It is this particular gap, to me a biggy, that I don’t think there is ‘growing evidence’ in solving at all - hence its being recognised as an on-going ‘mystery’ as you put it. Mannafredo (talk) 07:57, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Typical. Mannafredo (talk) 09:54, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Seriously, it's interesting but not necessarily a big step towards understanding abiogenesis. Work in progress. . . dave souza, talk 10:32, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

revert by Scientizzle

I am not advocating spontaeneous edits, but the most recent edit by a random IP has brought to light an uncited statement that I think deserves some sort of reference, since it does speak for literally millions of people around the globe. I understand that it does only say "many" Christians, but this language is somewhat floppy and does not entail any factual data. Thoughts?Prussian725 (talk) 16:59, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

For reference this was the revert. The claim in question

Many Christians around the world today accept evolution as the most likely explanation for the origins of species, and do not take a literal view of the Genesis creation narrative.

comes before other claims attributed to the source found at Miller, J. D.; Scott, EC; Okamoto, S (11 August 2006). "Public Acceptance of Evolution". Science. 313 (5788): 765–766. doi:10.1126/science.1126746. PMID 16902112. For what it's worth, I think the "many" may fall into WP:WEASEL territory, but it's a claim clearly supported by the source (that outside of the US & Turkey, "Western" nations are far less literal in their interpretations of scripture and less antagonistic its relationship to science). — Scientizzle 17:17, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Theory

Shouldn't it be referred to as a theory, much like evolution? --Iankap99 (talk) 02:07, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

No. It's not a theory to most of those espousing it. It's part of their religious belief. Theories can be tested. Religious belief can't. HiLo48 (talk) 02:12, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, that religious beliefs cannot be tested is a myth, they can ... and have turned out false. The real reason is that theories have loads of corroborating empirical evidence (testable ideas are called hypotheses and hypotheses gain the status of theory if they have accumulated a significant body of corroborating evidence). Evolution has exactly that, whereas creationism has none (or rather: has in fact been falsified). --JorisvS (talk) 17:53, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I tend to agree with all of that. However, no amount of scientific falsification will ever stop the believers believing. HiLo48 (talk) 01:19, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Probably, but the more reason not to give in to this myth so extremely convenient to the believers. --JorisvS (talk) 14:54, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Both Evolution and Creationism have gone through beliefs that turned out false and both have gone through evidence that seemed to turn out false. It really depends on who you listen to becuase I have heard both sides of the story wether proving their belief or disproving the other and they both sound really convincing. Certain Creationists actually to try to prove their point of view (and disprove the other) in a scientific view much like Evolotutionists do. Kent Hovind is an example of an person trying to do that. But when one theory is associated with an religion it doesn't matter what can be proven or tested. For the religious people will still cringe to their faith anyways. And in some ways Evolutionists aren't any different than that. Jhenderson777 (talk) 16:08, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Evolution of the debate

Some 20 years ago in an archeology course at the University of Utah we were given a break down of how old the Evolution-Creationism debate was and what its origins were.

Neptunism vs Plutonism (18th century)

Catastrophism vs Uniformitarianism (Early 19th century before Darwin)

Creationism vs Evolution (19th century after Darwin)

Does anyone know of any books that support this concept that we could use as reliable references?--BruceGrubb (talk) 08:59, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi, if you're asking for reading material on the history of creationism, and thus the 'debate', then I'd recommend looking for works by Eugenie Scott, as head of the NCSE she's an authority on that kind of information. (edit, whoops, forgot to log in. also, not sure if her work will go back to pre-Darwinian times.) --SeldooN (talk) 23:40, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately that's a rather simplistic breakdown of the creationist debate. Numbers, Ronald The Creationists covers the rise of modern creationism from Darwin's time onwards. The debates over Neptunism vs Plutonism and Catastrophism vs Uniformitarianism were all part of a developing willingness to view geology as a natural process open to historical analysis rather than religious revelation, and were not split on creation vs. evolution lines. History of Science: Early Modern Geology by Ian Johnston gives an outline, there's some more detail in Bowler's Evolution: The History of an Idea. The early split between evolutionary ideas and creationist religion in a broad sense is discussed in Secord's Victorian Sensation, which like Numbers and Bowler is already listed in the article (under references/further reading). Some interesting info on the geological context is given in Herbert, Sandra (1991), "Charles Darwin as a prospective geological author", British Journal for the History of Science, no. 24, pp. 159–192 pages 171–174. . . dave souza, talk 08:32, 18 July 2010 (UTC) Herbert pages checked and linked dave souza, talk 16:55, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

It was the extremely long time needed for plutonism (rather than sedimentation after the great flood) and uniformitarianism, which took some time to move seashells from the bottom of the ocean to the top of the Alps, discussed in Lyell's book, which Darwin used to consider natural variations and selection as a mechanism of evolution. However, my reason for appearing is to yet again complain about the definition of 'creationism'. I believe that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe are the creation of a supernatural agency, but I'm certainly not a creationist! Could you narrow your small philosophical group to exclude me? Thanks! PS. Darwin was a well-known and excellent geologist. His theory of coral atolls hasn't been replaced, I believe.

Geologist (talk) 13:58, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

It's a bit confusing about time spans, as the catastrophists of the early 19th century such as Darwin's tutor Adam Sedgwick considered the Earth to be extremely ancient, but subject to a series of catastrophes and "creations" rather than infinitely continuing the same processes as Lyell thought. Both were a bit wrong in modern terms, and the exact age was problematic for the extreme timespans Darwin thought were needed for very gradual evolution. You'll presumably be interested in The Structure and Distribution of Coral Reefs, have still to write up the arguments that developed with the younger Agassiz rather than the immediate acceptance of Darwin's theory which some sources rather misleadingly suggest. So much to do! . . dave souza, talk 18:29, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Hang on. You have just said that you precisely fit the definition of creationism given in the first sentence of the article, but are not a creationist. Then what is YOUR definition of a creationist? HiLo48 (talk) 17:25, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

HiLo48: Whether "theistic evolution" is a form of creationism or not is a point of contention. Gabbe (talk) 18:31, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree. My question still stands. HiLo48 (talk) 21:38, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I think the lead's become a bit of a mess, looking back this may have been a bit better, haven't checked every version. The History of creationism may help a bit. Basically, the term "creationism" was in little use in the 19th century, though Darwin did use "creationist" a few times in private correspondence (first example) to describe the prevailing concept in the 1850s that there had been a series of "creations" of life forms, which might have been miraculous or might have been through an unknown natural process – that was the subject of scientific discussion from at least the 1830s. At that time the term was more commonly in use for Creationism (soul). In the 1920s the term was co-opted by the anti-evolution fundamentalist movement, and in the 1960s became widely associated with young earth creationism, but was still used by old earth creationists, and its use for general belief in creation was argued for some time, not sure how long. Thus it has multiple meanings and our article should explain that, but wikicruft tends to obscure that sort of clarity. . dave souza, talk 18:20, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Biostratigraphy is far from my field, but the fossil record has always shown innumerable discontinuities, whose cause eluded the 19th Century geologist, such as Sedgwick. Modern ones have evidence of massive volcanoes, cosmic collisions, and other catastrophes. Explaining observed phenomena using only processes that take place uniformly and an Earth's age well over 6000 years was the passion of James Hutton, who mapped ... well, plutons in Scotland for decades. :-)

Neptunism vs Plutonism

In England, at least, this was accepted; while it took a long time for the igneous nature of basalts to be accepted by continental geologists. They had been thought deposited by the 'great flood'. I do know that, though French publications were highly attractive, it wasn't until Bunsen's chemical work on lavas in Iceland that 'plutonism' replaced 'neptunism'. It was so hard to swallow that I'm not sure Germany's finest field geologist, von Buch, ever fully accepted it. I should think this debate would be important to creationists.

Catastrophism vs Uniformitarianism

Uniformitarianism didn't exclude catastrophic changes in flora & fauna between the Cambrian, Ordovician, & Devonian periods and many hiatuses between. However, the success of explaining most of geological history by those slow & uniform changes seen today did require great periods of time. It was this that was presented in Lyell's text, which Darwin (I read) was influenced by. The 'great flood' was the only catastrophe drawn on by continental geologists; and this didn't agree well with stratigraphy (I have read Sedgwick: he was a plutonist); and the bending of strata by rushing water wasn't as attractive as the Scottish theories, which required deep burial & uplift. The 'uniformitarianism' vs 'catastrophism' (floods & wrath) debate would appear an important creationist debate as well.

Darwin the Geologist

BTW, I've a copy of Darwin's famous (short) paper on coral atolls. It seemed remarkably clever, to me, as a young geologist; and I assumed it had no trouble being accepted. However, I never read anything by A. Agassiz on reefs: his book, at least, was on Alpine glaciation and its role as a uniform force of geologic change. I've not read Darwin's observations on earthquakes, however.

Apology to Mr Souza: It was a book by Louis Agassiz that I read (or skimmed). Alexander was his son. Strangely, I had read Grabau's 'Stratigraphy' more carefully, but didn't remember A. Agassiz's contribution at all. My apology. Here it is:

http://books.google.com/books?id=zQ4CAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=geology+inauthor:Grabau&hl=en&ei=JJFHTNrBA8HgnAeJvIHUAw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCgQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=atoll&f=false

(The two authors discuss different kinds of reef.)

What I had read of was Charles Darwin, 1840. 'The Origin of Coral Reefs and Islands' from Journal of Researches into the Geology and Natural History of the Various Countries Visited by H.M.S. Beagle, p. 554-9. London.

This was reprinted in Mather, K.F., and S.L. Mason, 1939. A Source Book in Geology. NY: McGraw-Hill. Geologist (talk) 02:00, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

In this collection of reprints are papers by Darwin on the important subject of differentiation of a volcanic rock by the floating of feldspar crystals, a reasonable (at the time) explanation of granite selvages parallel to foliation at the base of a granitic synform, careful measurements of sea cliffs containing littoral (shallow) sea shells, and a discussion of how life might appear to have formed suddenly at the base of the Cambrian: Darwin suggests, correctly, that metamorphism of the pre-Cambrian may have obscured any evidence. The excellent references, correct use of language, and impeccable reasoning suggests to me that Darwin was more than the competent geologist he claimed. Few, if any, geologists today write so well in such differing specialties. Geologist (talk) 02:00, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Definition of Creationism

I had never heard the word 'creationism' until I moved home to California, where I was stunned to be welcomed as an atheist, to be shunned. So, I've no special interest in knowing what a modern creationism is. (No offense, but I thought all had died out in the 19th Century.)

Two requirements that I don't seem to have would, however, appear necessary: (1) a belief that there must be some animosity between science and religion; and (2) a failure to recognize that religion is based upon faith, and science is based upon objective observation & measurement. Scientific truth is not religious truth. If one should have a deep, religious experience during a temporal lobe seizure (with sufficient clinical indications), can one not commune with God or with 'God within us' (our soul) during that seizure? (In fact, many mystics have experienced exactly that.) We have both subjective experiences and objective ones. I don't see a clash. A definition of 'creationism' should be written by a disinterested person; and that clearly isn't I.

Regularly I donate to the SPCA & Humane Society, and I'm very, very pleased, religiously, with the concept that all sentient being are relatives; though I'm ashamed at our arrogance and treatment of animals. I feel confident in stating that the first line of your definition should be changed. Geologist (talk) 10:23, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Creation Debates that created the Science of Geology

Mather & Mason's book of fine reprints (from about 1480 to 1898, refernced above) contains samples of the best geologists' papers of the period covering Neptunism & Plutonism, and Uniformitarianism & Catastrophism. These were very important creationism debates that distilled from observation, the creation of 'geology' as a science. Von Buch did finally accept the igneous origin of basalt, Sedgwick's acceptance of 'Plutonism' appears, a ten page summary of Hutton's 'Theory of the Earth' is here, Lyell writes on Uniformitarianism, and Werner writes on the sedimentary origin of all rocks.

There should be many books in the History of Science on these debates; and Google Books and the Internet Archive should have many, public domain, full PDF books on these debates: they created geology and are most important. The articles should be fascinating. (My first geology course was to read Holmes's traditional text and Velikovsky's 'catastrophic' text, while evaluating the observations & conclusions by each. Good stuff.) If is BruceGrubb is near a university, the History of Science Department might have a specialist. Good luck. Geologist (talk) 02:17, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

NPOV issue

Whilst reading though the article (at 04:15, mind you), I came to the conclusion that this whole thing must have been written in an effort to perpetuate the "science v religion" mentality, especially prevalent in the introduction. I though the point of a Wikipedia article was to inform about the topic at hand. It seems much of that could go into Creation–evolution controversy, being the more appropriate place for what is such a digression here. Ninjayofthefunk (talk) 09:35, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Creationism, at least as it is used here, refers to the belief in the supremacy of particular religious explanations over all others when it comes to questions of origins. That is, literal interpretations of religious texts trump all other explanations, whether scientific or just those of a different religion. In a sense, all religions contain elements of creationism (i.e. God, ultimately, brought everything into being), but they don't necessarily venerate a particular explanation of how and when this occurred. Latching onto a specific explanation, and ignoring/disparaging alternatives, is the creationism meant here. And, in this sense, it is necessarily in opposition to science (and other religious traditions/interpretations) since it holds to things that are either demonstrably untrue or for which there is no, or contradictory, evidence. And since this opposition extends way beyond evolutionary biology, moving text as you suggest would be inappropriate. Anyway, does that help? --PLUMBAGO 09:53, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

You might want to be very careful about the "things that are either demonstrably untrue or for which there is no, or contradictory, evidence" part. The existence of polystrate fossils throughout the world, creatures rapidly fossilized away from volcanoes and other sources of "catastrophic" fossilization, dinosaur bones with DNA intact (I'm not going to insult your intellect by saying there was blood in there for certain, but no DNA should still exist in an unfossilized bone for so long, let alone 65 million years) are direct contradictions to what evolution expects, amongst other contradictions I can't think of at 2:30am. That's ignoring the astronomically slim odds of male and female appearing together, the inability to explain us not already existing at heat death, the rate of genetic information deteriorating vs being created (even amongst animal populations with natural selection to guide them) and other broad issues with naturalistic evolution (that is, these only deal with evolution devoid of any supernatural which would act as an impetus for the things which would circumvent these problems, e.g. spontaneous creation and/or guided evolution). As far as the article itself goes, I see your point now and agree. Ninjayofthefunk (talk) 06:31, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but nothing you listed qualifies as a contradiction to what evolution expects. For example, the reason for polystrate fossils was known over 140 years ago. Ironically, creationists commonly use an image from the very book that gave us said reason when speaking about polystrate fossils. Again, those are not problems for evolution, because it has long had the answer to those questions. It is only a problem for the creationists, who don't want to even know that the answers already exist.Farsight001 (talk) 11:06, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Farsight001 is right - none of these examples poses serious difficulties for evolutionary biology (or, for that matter, evidence in favour of creationism). Anyway, regardless of this, I'm glad that my explanation cleared up the boundaries for the subject of this article. Cheers, --PLUMBAGO 15:39, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Equally ironically, it was those selfsame polystrate fossils which played a major role in causing geologists to abandon Flood Geology; the existence of polystrate fossils with their fine rootlet systems intact and growing through multiple layers of sediment supposedly laid down by the Flood pretty much kills the idea. In any case, Farsight is correct; none of the examples offered poses any type of difficulty for evolutionary biology or deep-time geology. --BRPierce (talk) 17:30, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

NOMA

I'm having trouble working out what the closing clause of this sentence from the Scientific critique section means ...

"The non-overlapping magisteria has been rejected by some scientists such as Richard Dawkins, who hold that scientific methods disprove religion as an idea whilst disproving creationism."

The "whilst" is confusing since it doesn't fit with the "disprove" on either side. One might expect a "prove" on one side of a "whilst" with a "disprove" on the other (i.e. "X is disproven whilst Y is proven"). More generally, the wording here could be expanded so it's clearer that Gould was eschewing creationism when he was talking about religion. That might make it easier to explain why exactly some scientists reject NOMA. Cheers, --PLUMBAGO 09:35, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I see. What the sentence is trying to convey is that Dawkins is rejecting Gould's idea that religion and science are two separate domains, and that Dawkins argues that at the same time as disproving religion, scientific methods disprove claims which are within the domain of science such as creationism. Take a look at p.66 of The God Delusion [3] where Dawkins singles out Creationism, arguing that NOMA makes it easier for scientists espousing it to gain sympathy from "the mainstream of clergy, theologians and non-fundamentalist believers." I'm happy to see this reworded/expanded, I just wasn't at all happy to see it deleted by someone targetting articles that mention Dawkins. Dougweller (talk) 10:37, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, reading the whole section again makes me think that NOMA is just part of the problem and that a broader rewrite is in order. How's about ...

"Science is a system of knowledge based on observation, empirical evidence and testable explanations of natural phenomena. By contrast, creationism is based on literal interpretations of the narratives of particular religious texts. Some creationist beliefs involve purported forces that lie outside of nature, such as supernatural intervention, and these cannot be confirmed or disproved by scientists. However, many creationist beliefs make testable predictions about phenomena such as the age of the Earth, its geological history and the origins, distributions and relationships of living organisms found on it. Early science incorporated elements of these beliefs, but as science developed these beliefs were gradually falsified and were replaced with understandings based on accumulated and reproducible evidence. Some scientists, such as Stephen Jay Gould, consider science and religion to be two compatible and complementary fields, with authorities in distinct areas of human experience, so-called non-overlapping magisteria. This view is also held by many theologians, who believe that ultimate origins and meaning are addressed by religion, but favour verifiable scientific explanations of natural phenomena over those of creationist beliefs. Other scientists, such as Richard Dawkins, reject the non-overlapping magisteria and argue that in disproving creationism, the scientific method also undermines religion as a source of truth. Irrespective of this diversity in viewpoints, since creationist beliefs are not supported by empirical evidence, the scientific consensus is that any attempt to teach creationism as science should be rejected."

I need to figure out which references I can scavenge from the current text, and which statements need new ones, but does this sound like a plausible reinterpretation of the current paragraph? Cheers, --PLUMBAGO 12:57, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Possible sources

Review: Creationism and Its Critics in Antiquity | NCSE suggests a useful source for those with the time and interest to explore the philosophical origins of creationism. Also, A chance to explore Darwin's Universe | NCSE gives a link to a downloadable pdf of sample pages, including a brief though perhaps rather simplistic outline of Bryan's reasons for setting creationism off as an anti-evolution crusade. . . dave souza, talk 11:11, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Refocus of first para

The first paragraph of the lead went on a rather offtopic discussion of the history of geology, when as sources show the term creationism developed as part of arguments over the origin of species, and indeed early creationists such as Bryan were firm believers in an ancient earth. I've therefore refocussed this paragraph on the origins of the controversy and usage of the term. The text and references I've removed are replicated below in case they're of use for the body of the article. . dave souza, talk 09:42, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Offtopic or excessively detailed info removed from lead

In the 19th century, British geologists and other scientists argued that the world was considerably older than the 17th-century, scripture-based calculation of less than six millennia. In the United States the apparent discrepancies between science and religion were seized upon and amplified in "cultural warfare" over whether science or religion could provide the most "authentically American" creation story. By the 1920s, Biblical creationism had become "the standard alternative to" scientific explanations of the biosphere.

The above info may be of use in the body of the text, but is rather too detailed or offtopic for the lead. . . dave souza, talk 09:42, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I have moved the below section from the main Creationism page to the talk page because it is irrelevant to the main topic. The article is about Creationism, not evolution.

Growing evidence for evolution

Main article: History of evolutionary thought

See also: History of science

From around the start of the nineteenth century, ideas such as Jean-Baptiste Lamarck's concept of transmutation of species had gained a small number of supporters in Paris and Edinburgh, mostly amongst anatomists. Britain at that time was enmeshed in the Napoleonic Wars, and fears of republican revolutions such as the American Revolution and French Revolution led to a harsh repression of such evolutionary ideas, which challenged the divine hierarchy justifying the monarchy. Charles Darwin's development of his theory of natural selection at this time was kept closely secret. Repression eased, and the anonymous publication of Vestiges of Creation in 1844 aroused wide public interest with support from Quakers and Unitarians, but was strongly criticised by the scientific community, which emphasized the need for solidly backed science. In 1859 Darwin's On the Origin of Species provided that evidence from an authoritative and respected source, and gradually convinced scientists that evolution occurs. This acceptance was resisted by conservative evangelicals in the Church of England, but their attention quickly turned to the much greater uproar about Essays and Reviews by liberal Anglican theologians, which introduced into the controversy "the higher criticism" begun by Erasmus centuries earlier. This book re-examined the Bible and cast doubt on a literal interpretation. By 1875 most American naturalists supported ideas of theistic evolution, often involving special creation of human beings.

At this time those holding that species had been separately created were generally called "advocates of creation", but they were occasionally called "creationists" in private correspondence between Charles Darwin and his friends. The term appears in letters Darwin wrote between 1856 and 1863, and was also used in a response by Charles Lyell.

[[{{{1}}} (number)|{{{1}}}]]

The material that you object to as irrelevant is in fact directly relevant and its importance is highlighted in the second sentence of the article:

• "However the term is more commonly used to refer to religiously motivated rejection of certain biological processes, in particular much of evolution, as an explanation accounting for the history, diversity, and complexity of life on earth (the creation-evolution controversy)."

Specifically, the rise of Creationism as a socio-political movement in the U.S. was a direct result of advances in Biology and Evolutionary theory and the history of Creationism in the U.S. is closely tied to the History of evolutionary thought. These topics certainly belong in the article. Doc Tropics 18:07, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Final say

Why is it that thoughout both this article and many others relating to creationism and evolution that the evolutionist side has the main and final points, and that the articles are written in such a way as to provide an unbalanced view? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Banak (talk • contribs) 21:21, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Much of the notability of Creationism is in the juxtaposition with Evolution; thus, there are parts of this article (e.g. the parts you are asking about) that describe the consensus of the scientific community about Creation as an alternative to Evolution. Remember, Wikipedia must fairly represent all significant points of view, but it does *not* have to give them equal validity. MildlyMad^T_C 21:34, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

An added thought: if you're looking for the religious aspects, you might be interested in Creation Myth. MildlyMad^T_C 21:39, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Though I do not support creationism at all, I do agree with you that the article is unbalanced. The section involved in the recent edit war is only one part of this. In normal parlance, the word creationism is limited to those who reject 'natural' explanations for the world. e.g. the Encyclopedia Britannica says it is the "counter-evolutionary, fundamentalist theory or doctrine that postulates that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by God out of nothing" - but then EB has an overtly scientific/liberal basis.

I wonder if the problem is the creationism2 template at the start. This seems to me an abuse of the infobox system and makes it look as if the article is the property of creationists - and therefore those with opposing views try to counter them, producing the inbalance you have noted. Nowhere in the History of Creationism article is it suggested that the word was used much before the latter half of the 19th century and I think both articles should be trimmed of most material predating this. It's fair enough to point out that most Christians accept evolution but this article isn't about 'creation myths'. For that, look elsewhere.

I've looked in the religion and belief infobox templates without finding anything suitable: do we need to create a new template? Chris55 (talk) 14:43, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Creation Science

This article could use some more eyes. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 03:58, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Slanted

This article is definately slanted toward the evolutionary viewpoint. That seems odd given its subject. For instance, there very first sentence includes the unrelated phrase "religious belief". Like the evolutionary belief system, the creationism belief system uses the area of science to support itself. Those who only use some Biblical sources are misunderstanding the point of it all.

I believe that the real confusion comes in by not understanding the foundational issue of science, with the side issues of evolution and creation as interesting belief systems side-notes.

Evolutionists should have no business contributing to this article, any more than creationists should be expected to know about evolution. (True scientists need not apply in either case.) Without a clear basic understanding, the article's authors will never be able to reach the level of accuracy and truth necessary for a real encyclopedia. - KitchM (talk) 23:29, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

You may find the FAQs at the top of this page helpfull. Neutrality has been discussed many time if you care to read the archives.--Charles (talk) 23:43, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Please read WP:DUE and examples of prominent majority scientific views of creationism (e.g. AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF OF 72 NOBEL LAUREATES, 17 STATE ACADEMIES OF SCIENCE, AND 7 OTHER SCIENTIFIC ORGANIZATIONS). These views are that creationism is indeed a "religious belief", that evolutionary biology is well-founded science, not a "belief system" and that creationism lacks any legitimate scientific support. Wikipedia gives due weight to these views. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:59, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Biased

This text reads to me to be biased. If you read the Bible literally then the solar day was created on the 4th day, and therefore the 7 days of creation cannot be solar days. So I do not understand how people taking a liberal view of the text, applying solar days to the first 3 days before the solar day was created, can be said to be literalists or fundamentalists. Anyone taking the text literally cannot do this. This was pointed out by St Augustine of Hippo so this is a valid orthodox historical view. Of course anyone is free to make any interpretation but please do not claim that they are taking the text literally which distorts their view. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChilternGiant (talk • contribs) 00:01, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I believe that this is one of the arguments between YECs and OECs. Regardless, your views are WP:OR. Your viewpoint requires a WP:RS before it can be mentioned in the article -- and multiple and/or prominent ones before it can be given prominence. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 02:45, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

This view of Augustine's is mentioned (in less detail) in the Judaism and early and medieval Christianity section. However the page is already 110k, so adding in yet more detail isn't a terribly good idea. Totnesmartin (talk) 11:13, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but we'd need a mention of it in the context of (modern) 6-day/YEC creationism, for it to have any relevance here. Otherwise sticking it into the middle of this article would be WP:SYNTH. Would probably agree with you on length -- as it stands, this is meant to be an overview article, with details going into the articles on various forms of creationism (with Young Earth creationism being the relevant one for this topic). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 11:47, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

What exactly did St Augustine say about evolution and solar days in Genesis? The main article doesn't actually quote him and so could be slightly harder to understand.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Englishnotbritish (talk • contribs) 19:18, 17 February 2011

Our source shows Augustine as rejecting literal 6-day creation in favour of simultaneous creation, with the six days being a meaningful logical framework. Our Judaism and early and medieval Christianity section summarises these issues. The source provides some translated passages, you're welcome to seek out a more extended version of his work but we'd need a secondary source to provide any evaluation of that original text, see WP:NOR. . . dave souza, talk 19:51, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Minor Changes

In the "Re-Emergence in the United States" section I did a very minor cleanup. I simply removed a few extraneous commas in the first sentence, moved a link to United States to the term's first appearance in the section, and made a small change to correct repetitive wording (both of the first two sentences previously began with the phrase "In the United States" which seemed awkward to me). Hope no one minds. 98.116.207.197 (talk) 19:43, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

"Many Christians around the world today accept evolution as the most likely explanation for the origins of species"

The truth of this phrase would appear to be blindingly obvious as theistic evolution is the official position of, e.g., the Catholic Church, and is cited to Public Acceptance of Evolution, which states "Catholics and mainstream Protestants generally accept variations of a theological view known as theistic evolution, which views evolution as the means by which God brought about humans, as well as other organisms." clearly supporting this claim. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:46, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

The change from "most" to "many" (I was confused by something else when I said "some") has been made in March of last year with no valid reason or new source ([4]). Since you won't let me ask to source this modification, I'm restoring "most" and replacing the actual link by the one you found. By the way since I live in a non English-speaking country there's no way for me to "look up the source to find which is more accurate" at the local library and I'm not willing to buy the online access to this article but fortunately you were able to find another website to look the article up for free.--Chrono1084 (talk) 13:38, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I have no problem with either "many" or "most". I do have a problem with demanding a second source for material that is already well-supported by a source. The appropriate thing to have done was to (do what I did and) go back to the source and see what it says. As it happens this source is available online. If it turns out that the source isn't available online, then the thing to do is to use a {{request quotation}} to find out what the sources actually says. Alternatively, you could simply have reverted the change on the basis that no new source was introduced, nor supporting analysis of the existing source given (I doubt if he's even read the source), to support the change. Given that Rossnixon has somewhat of a reputation as a creationist POV-pusher, it is unlikely that such a revert would have been disputed by the majority of editors. The problem here is a lack of clarity as to what your purpose was, not a fundamental disagreement. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 14:06, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Good to know that it was the lack of clarity of my purpose that was the problem. The source should have been at the end of the sentence, not the end of the paragraph. The article wasn't accessible until you had the good idea of finding and displaying the Richard Dawkins' link. The thing is it took me some time to find out when and by who the modification has been made: I hadn't been on this page for a long time.--Chrono1084 (talk) 14:22, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

The convention tends to be that an inline citation is assumed to cover all material back to either (i) the previous citation, (ii) the previous {{cn}} tag or (iii) the start of the paragraph, whichever is most immediate. Except where the cited source changes, sentence-by-sentence citation is the exception rather than the rule. I would agree that finding the exact source of such anomalous little changes can be a pain. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 14:40, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Where can I find this convention? For my part, I always use <ref name=""/>--Chrono1084 (talk) 04:40, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

As I said, it is a "convention" (not a rule), so must be found by looking at how articles are referenced in practice (not by looking up WP:XXX). The number of occasions where adjacent sentences have explicit citations to the same source is comparatively rare. A citation is assumed to cover everything before it until something 'interrupts' its control (generally, another citation, a {{cn}} or the start of the paragraph). It is not uncommon to see whole paragraphs cited (just once, at the end) to a single source. This is in some ways a good thing, as the more (different) sources cited within a paragraph (or worse, within a sentence), the greater the chance of WP:Synthesis creeping in. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:01, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok, thanks :)

Native American Creationism

Any chance i can add a small section about Native American Creationism to the article? 86.10.119.131 (talk) 18:57, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

The chance would depend on you providing verification from a reliable secondary source that specifically describes it as creationism, thus avoiding synthesis. . . dave souza, talk 19:55, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Archives

Archives 2-11 are, for some reason, redirects to archive 1. does anyone know if there is a reason for this?Farsight001 (talk) 02:53, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

"Evolutionist" a pejorative?

A minor edit skirmish has just occurred over this matter. I don't feel it's pejorative where I am in Australia. I'd be happy to be called an evolutionist. Is it different elsewhere? HiLo48 (talk) 02:51, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

It's not a minor skirmish, it's not even a kerfuffle. This has been decided long ago. Find one evolutionary biologist who refers to themselves as evolutionists. You can find a few, both which don't care, they know they're scientists. Basically, it started in that science calls the whole creation story as "creationism", with the -ism referring to a belief system. So the religious right began using "evolutionist and evolutionism" as terms to make the fact of evolution appear to be a religious belief. It's not. In fact, one of your fellow Aussies, Ken Ham, uses the term all the time. That should be enough to be convincing.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 03:01, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

That's a tough thing to judge, but in America and in my experience it's generally used in a pejorative manner. Sort of like, "oh, they're one of those; we don't like that alternate view."; the problem, of course, is that any other view aside from evolution is actually the alternate view. GManNickG (talk) 02:58, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Regarding "evolutionist"

This revert is because the term "evolutionist" is considered pejorative and is used to somehow equilibrate religion to evolution. Religion is a belief. Evolution is a science. One does not "believe" in evolution. One accepts it based on the facts or on its merits. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 02:55, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Whilst evolution may not be a faith, you still have belief in it. Scientific theories are every bit as 'believed' as a faith. One accepts one's faith based on it's facts or on it's merits also. I do however understand that evolutionist could be pejorative, and so have not used that name in the article. What was in the article was clearly incorrect (it did not in any way match up to the terms used in the citation), however, and required correction. I chose the term 'non-theistic view of evolution' as the term used in the citation was 'Humans evolved, God had no part in the process'. I hope that is agreeable. Jkennedy561 (talk) 11:39, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Not necessarily. One can directly believe in the validity of science as a process, and derive individual theories as a kind of secondary understanding without necessarily believing in the individual theories. It's kind of a circuitous logic, but it makes a difference in the philosophical underpinnings of science. Science as a whole must be taken upon "faith", but individual tennets can be brought under careful scrutiny before being accepted. Evolution itself doesn't really have beleivers(well, it does, but they're separate from the scientists). i kan reed (talk) 13:15, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Creationism Intro

Why is a secondary source better than a primary source when dealing with what creationists state that they believe? Dan Watts (talk) 17:15, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

See WP:SECONDARY. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 17:34, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

"Types of Biblical creationism" section

The table in the "Types of Biblical creationism" section totally misinterprets the referenced Gallup poll. It makes the error of correlating the 3 Gallup categories with the 5 listed creationist views. In fact, the first three creationist views correlate to the "God created humans in their present form" Gallup category, and the last two creationist views can correspond to either of the two other Gallup categories (humans evolved with/without God's help). The Gallup poll does not well-distinguish these views.

A more correct accounting is the first three creationist views are held by 40% and the last two are held by 54%.

173.172.51.3 (talk) 04:59, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

No -- Progressive creationism does not believe that God created humans (de novo), but that he adapted them from earlier primates -- hence the "progressive". And the 16% does not cover either ID or TE -- both of which assume God's guidance/providence in the process. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:04, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Misquoting Maimonides

I found it rather annoying when the article stated that "Maimonides described the story of Eve and the serpent as "most absurd in its literal sense; but as an allegory it contains wonderful wisdom, and fully agrees with the real facts". This is an excerpt from his book, Guide for the Perplexed (chapter 30, paragraph 19), and, according to [5], what the scholar really said was: "The following is also a remarkable passage, most absurd in its literal sense; but as an allegory it contains wonderful wisdom, and fully agrees with real facts, as will be found by those who understand all the chapters of this treatise. When the serpent came to Eve he infected her with poison; the Israelites, who stood at Mount Sinai, removed that poison; idolaters, who did not stand at Mount Sinai, have not got rid of it. Note this likewise. Again they said: "The tree of life extends over an area of five hundred years' journey, and it is from beneath it that all the waters of the creation sprang forth": and they added the explanation that this measure referred to the thickness of its body, and not to the extent of its branches, for they continue thus: "Not the extent of the branches thereof, but the stem thereof [korato, lit., 'its beam,' signifying here 'its stem') has a thickness of five hundred years' journey." This is now sufficiently clear. Again: "God has never shown the tree of knowledge [of good and evil] to man, nor will He ever show it." This is correct, for it must be so according to the nature of the Universe. Another noteworthy saying is this: "And the Lord God took the man, i.e., raised him, and placed him in the Garden of Eden," i.e., He gave him rest. The words "He took him," "He gave him, "have no reference to position in space, but they indicate his position in rank among transient beings, and the prominent character of his existence. Remarkable and noteworthy is the great wisdom contained in the names of Adam, Cain, and Abel, and in the fact that it was Cain who slew Abel in the field, that both of them perished, although the murderer had some respite, and that the existence of mankind is due to Seth alone. Comp. "For God has appointed me another seed" (iv. 25). This has proved true." He was talking about an extra-biblical source probably popular in the early 12th century. May I have someone's permission to delete the part about Maimonides? If you disagree with anything I've said, I'd be more than happy to reconsider. Thank you. Wekn reven i susej eht (talk) 07:19, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

The issue is that Maimonides did not take a purely literal reading of the text. Forster is the cited source, p. 8, which says:

"Maimonides, for example, probably the greatest Jewish exegete after Rashi, is quite explicit that parts of Genesis 1-3 cannot be taken literally. In, eg, the context of the snake, Eve and the tree of life, Maimonides has:

The following is also a remarkable passage, most absurd in its literal sense; but as an allegory it contains wonderful wisdom, and fully agrees with the real facts, as will be found by those who understand all the chapters of this treatise."

Would you be happier with the quotation given by Forster in its entirety? . . dave souza, talk 07:48, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. Wekn reven i susej eht (talk) 14:23, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

It isn't that I don't agree that Maimonides didn't take a purely literal reading of Genesis 1-3 (although I have yet to come across material that backs the claim), it's just that the passage cited isn't even talking about the bible! It was talking about a way of viewing the time period from the Fall to Seth in comparison with the tree of life popular in that day; 'In the Guide 3:14 Rambam also refers to a distance of five hundred years’ journey, which is what the Talmud gives as the thickness of each of the spheres. The knowledge of the spheres is the first stage towards metaphysics, which Rambam considers to be the highest form of knowledge. Thus, the trunk of the tree of life is astronomy, and the branches are metaphysics. In Guide 1:30 Rambam explains that ―eating‖ can refer to acquiring intellectual knowledge,10 and ―water‖ alludes to wisdom. Thus, the idea of the waters of creation springing forth from beneath the tree is that the tree is the source of wisdom, and eating from it refers to the acquisition of knowledge. The tree of life is thus a symbol of how one can connect with God (thereby attaining eternal life) via absorbing knowledge. A person can eat from the Tree of Life and live forever. When God states regarding the Tree of Life ְּו ַע ָתה ֶפן יִ ְּש ַלח יָדֹו ְּו ָל ַקח ַגם ֵמ ֵעץ ַה ַחיִים ְּוָא ַכל ָו ַחי ְּלעָֹלם - this is not negative, it is just stating a possibility.' That is why it is 'absurd' to take the view that the tree of life literally spanned a time period of 500 years. Wekn reven i susej eht (talk) 14:41, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Dave, does help you understand what I'm saying? With your consent, I will edit out the Maimonides' quotation. No more and no less than the quotation". Wekn reven i susej eht (talk) 09:15, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I do not understand what this argument is about. Wekn, have you even read Guide to the Perplexed? Maimonides is saying that the opening of Genesis should be read allegorically, not literally. That's the point. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:28, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Slurbenstein: Yes, I have read Guide to the Perplexed. In Hebrew as well as English. I do not want to edit the statement about Rambam; just the quote.

The quotation will be edited after 07:19, 1 June 2011 if no reasonable objections come up. If someone reverts the edit, we can talk it over on this thread. I try my best to follow the 1RR rule. Wekn reven i susej eht (talk) 18:59, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

What difference does it make that you read it in Hebrew (why would someone read it in Hebrew)? Anyway, you have not "said" anything. You just say you want to delete the quote, and then you provide other quotes. You write, "it's just that the passage cited isn't even talking about the bible" which is untrue. The quote refers to a "passage." The "passage" is a portion of the Bible. So the quotation is certainly about the Bible. All your other quotes are off-topic fluff. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:14, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I, too, am pretty confused here. Wekn, do you think you could try to be a little less verbose? I find it hard to understand what you're trying to say a lot of the time N^oformation ^Talk 22:29, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

@Slurbenstein: where did I say I'd replace it w/another one? Answer- in the first paragraph. When did I change my mind? Answer- in the 8th paragraph. If I ever do this again, I will state it in bold. Sorry. 'Passage' in this case does not mean the Bible, but one of Maimonides' contemporaries/predecessor's treatises. If you find a passage written by the scholar expressing the view in the article, please post it. I just don't approve of twisting other people's words. Wekn reven i susej eht (talk) 12:33, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

@Noformation: sorry about that. I've highlighted the most important part of Rambam's text. How about we ask a few Jewish editors who study old Hebrew literature to give their opinions? Wekn reven i susej eht (talk) 12:33, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Note: in the paragraph before the one from which the quote was stated, Maimonides used the phrase, 'another Midrashic remark of our Sages'. Wekn reven i susej eht (talk) 12:41, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

@ Wekn, it's very nice of you to offer your interpretations of the original text, but by suggesting getting Jewish editors to advise on the basis of their studies of old Hebrew literature, you've clearly missed the whole point of our no original research policy. Opinions on primary sources have to be based on reliable published secondary sources. In this case, Forster has published the opinion that this passage by Maimonides illustrates non-literal interpretation of the bible, specifically of the Genesis text. You don't even seem to differ from this general point, so there's no reason to remove the example. If you think our wording should be modified to reflect the views published by Forster more accurately, please suggest proposals for improving the wording. . . dave souza, talk 14:40, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Dave. I stand corrected (you'll notice my user page says I've only been an editor for 5 days). I'm still in the process of reading (and finding) all the policies. I'll consider modifying the wording. Wekn reven i susej eht (talk) 07:51, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I'll move the date up to January 1, 2012. I can't seem to find anything by Maimonides that backs the claim. Weknreven i susej eht ^{Talk• Follow} 09:02, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Backs up what claim? The claim that Maimonides' argues that much of the Bible should be read figuratively and not literally? Well, you say that you have read Guide both in English and in Hebrew (although I am stil not sure how this matters) means that you surely found this passage:

The object of this treatise is to enlighten a religious man who has been trained to believe in the truth of our holy Law, who conscientiously fulfils his moral and religious duties, and at the same time has been successful in his philosophical studies. Human reason has attracted him to abide within its sphere; and he finds it difficult to accept as correct the teaching based on the literal interpretation of the Law, and especially that which he himself or others derived from those homonymous, metaphorical, or hybrid expressions. Hence he is lost in perplexity and anxiety. If he be guided solely by reason, and renounce his previous views which are based on those expressions, he would consider that he had rejected the fundamental principles of the Law; and even if he retains the opinions which were derived from those expressions, and if, instead of following his reason, he abandon its guidance altogether, it would still appear that his religious convictions had suffered loss and injury. For he would then be left with those errors which give rise to fear and anxiety, constant grief and great perplexity.

This work has also a second object in view. It seeks to explain certain obscure figures which occur in the Prophets, and are not distinctly characterized as being figures. Ignorant and superficial readers take them in a literal, not in a figurative sense. Even well informed persons are bewildered if they understand these passages in their literal signification, but they are entirely relieved of their perplexity when we explain the figure, or merely suggest that the terms are figurative. For this reason I have called this book Guide for the Perplexed.

Slrubenstein | Talk 05:37, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I have placed in bold (is that o.k. with you?) the quotation I considered adding. The quotation used by the author of the article, however was not talking about the genesis creation narrative; When I said, 'although I have yet to come across material that backs the claim', I was speaking of the belief that Gen 1-3 was not to be taken in a literal sense. You're right that it doesn't truly matter if you read it in Hebrew or Russian or Mandarin-you can still miss the meaning. I'm just a language fanatic (see my userboxes: I'm fluent in 1/2 a dozen languages and not even 30 yet) who wants to understand the context better. You know, the Guide is required reading for Medieval Hebrew Literature classes. Wekn reven i susej eht ^{Talk• Follow} 08:40, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Dude, it's a free country, bold whatever you want. I am glad you know so much about the context of the book. But it is a little funny, the book being required in Medieval Hebrew Literature classes, given that it was not written in Hebrew. But obviously there is no law against reading translations. Slrubenstein | Talk 09:16, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Right you are! It was written in Arabic (but guess who first translated it). Thank you. I read Yehuda Alharizi's translation. I do not recommend reading it in a second language unless you absolutely have to (only good once). Wekn reven i susej eht ^{Talk• Follow} 09:39, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Article text on the basis of secondary source

While translating and understanding ancient texts is worthy, for our purposes we need to base the article on reliable secondary sources discussing the implications of that primary source for the subject. From Forster, Roger; Marston, Dr Paul (2001). "Chapter 7 - Genesis Through History". Reason Science and Faith. Chester, England: Monarch Books. ISBN 1854244418 –

Maimonides, for example, probably the greatest Jewish exegete after Rashi, is quite explicit that parts of Genesis 1-3 cannot be taken literally. In, eg, the context of the snake, Eve and the tree of life, Maimonides has:
"The following is also a remarkable passage, most absurd in its literal sense; but as an allegory it contains wonderful wisdom, and fully agrees with the real facts, as will be found by those who understand all the chapters of this treatise."

At present the article says
The tradition of such writers as Abraham ibn Ezra consistently rejected overly literal understandings of Genesis, and Maimonides described the story of Eve and the serpent as "most absurd in its literal sense; but as an allegory it contains wonderful wisdom, and fully agrees with the real facts".
Here's a suggested modification:
The tradition of such writers as Abraham ibn Ezra consistently rejected overly literal understandings of Genesis. Maimonides discussed a treatise on Eve, the serpent and the tree of life, as "most absurd in its literal sense; but as an allegory it contains wonderful wisdom, and fully agrees with the real facts". dave souza, talk 11:11, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Whatever you want to do is fine with me, Dave. It seems kind of funny that various editors (including myself) have already used that quote in this discussion 4 times. Wekn reven i susej eht ^{Talk• Follow} 11:24, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Wekn, you're the one saying the current wording is incorrect. Do you accept that the proposed wording is correct? . . dave souza, talk 11:32, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Not yet. I'm doing a lot of research on the topic. Wekn reven i susej eht ^{Talk• Follow} 14:15, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I've been doing some more research on it which can be found here. Wekn reven i susej eht ^{Talk• Follow} 10:01, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I think the discussion here ought to be about whether or not the secondary source used is reliable. If the secondary source has indeed made a blatantly incorrect assessment of the primary source, then it is not usable. If it is a reasonable assessment of the primary source then it is fine. If you are unsure as to the reliability of the source then the content should be removed until further evidence is found. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jkennedy561 (talk • contribs) 12:16, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Right. Wekn reven i susej eht ^{Talk• Follow} 11:24, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I think it's pretty obvious from the quotation that Wekn has highlighted that referring Maimonides' comment to Gen 1-3 is totally incorrect. The story referred to is an entirely different fable. Therefore the source is not reliable. Chris55 (talk) 10:18, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Strong relationship between religion and politics in contemporary America

Quote: "The significantly higher percentage of Republicans who choose a creationist view of human origins reflects in part the strong relationship between religion and politics in contemporary America. Republicans are significantly more likely to attend church weekly than are others, and, as noted, Americans who attend church weekly are most likely to select the creationist alternative for the origin of humans." Four in 10 Americans Believe in Strict Creationism-Belief in evolutionary origins of humans slowly rising, however, GALLUP.--87.178.104.202 (talk) 21:48, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't see what that has to do with the quoted material, please elaborate.--Jacksoncw (talk) 22:12, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Lutherans

Liberal Lutherans such as the ELCA support evolution.

Conservative Lutherans such as the LCMS and WELS oppose evolution.

Db63376 (talk) 18:26, 2 September 2011 (UTC)db63376

Growing evidence for evolution

I question why this irrelevant section was put in the article, especially when there is no Creationism section in the Evolution article. If anyone can come up with a logical reason why it is in the article, I would like to know a logical reason why there is no creationism section in the Evolution article.--Jacksoncw (talk) 22:23, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Creationism, as we now use the term, is a re-branding of anti-evolution which responded to the growing evidence for evolution and it, s general acceptance in science. . . dave souza, talk 23:04, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

It is impossible to understand creationism except in the context of evolution. As Dave says - creationism wouldn't exist without evolution. Guettarda (talk) 23:22, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Creationism did exist before evolution, it just didn't have the label. The belief has been around since the creation of man. I don't get your meaning, the belief that a being created the universe has been around forever, long before evolutionism.--Jacksoncw (talk) 01:23, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Not quite. The phenomenon we recognize as Creationism today dates back only to the 1920s, long after Darwin introduced his theories. It was an outgrowth of Fundamentalism and a reaction to German thinking during WWI, which the Fundamentalists believed was at least partially due to what they imagined as "Darwinism". Modern Creationism is indeed a reaction to Evolution, without which it would not exist in its present form(s). Modern Creationism was invented as if in an intellectual vacuum, and is not a continuation of previous schools of thought on creation. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 01:53, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

It most certainly is a continuation of previous schools of thought. The article itself states: "is the religious belief that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe are the creation of a supernatural being." This belief has been around since man existed. Its present form may have been altered during that time period but it certainly cannot be said that creationism is a reaction to evolution, although the title is derived from that time period the ideal most certainly is not.--Jacksoncw (talk) 02:35, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Creationism isn't the same as a belief in 'creation', either in the broad sense of a creator God (as opposed to a deistic God) or in the sense of a belief in any specific creation myth. Words can be used in more than one sense. That's especially problematic if, as in a case like this, the meanings overlap or shade into one-another. The article may not convey it well (and if so, we need to work on that), but creationism is a specifically 20th century phenomenon, born of a rejection not only of evolutionary science, but also of 19th century biblical scholarship.

By the way, you shouldn't quote Wikipedia articles to argue factual points, especially not on Wikipedia. Since, you know, you may well be arguing with the people who wrote the article. And the best you are likely to get is an admission that they didn't write as clearly as they should have. Guettarda (talk) 02:48, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Clearly the article does not convey that message very well. That's not the message I was getting at all. Might I reccomend specifying that extremely broad and extremely vague description in the lede. Because what I got was that Creationism is the belief that a supernatural being created everything, which has been around for thousands of years.--Jacksoncw (talk) 03:14, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

As late as the 1920s antievolutionists chose to dedicate their organizations to "Christian Fundamentals," "Anti-Evolution," and "Anti-False Science," not to creationism. It was not until 1929 that one of George McCready Price’s former students, the Seventh-day Adventist biologist Harold W. Clark, explicitly packaged Price’s new catastrophism as "creationism." In a brief self-published book titled Back to Creationism Clark urged readers to quit simply opposing evolution and to adopt the new "science of creationism," by which he meant Price’s flood geology. For decades to come various Christian groups, from flood geologists to theistic evolutionists, squabbled over which camp most deserved to use the creationist label. However, by the 1980s the flood geologists/scientific creationists had clearly co-opted the term for their distinctive interpretation of earth history.

— Ronald L. Numbers, Antievolutionists and Creationists

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:20, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

My previous statement still stands, the ideal has been around for millinea.--Jacksoncw (talk) 03:45, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Your "previous statement" falls flat on its face. We have a cast iron source stating that Creationism is an outgrowth/rebranding of anti-evolutionism and particularly "Price’s new catastrophism". It should be blindingly obvious that the advent of uniformitarian geology and Darwinian evolution fundamentally changed the focus of what had previously been the unopposed default assumption of the historical accuracy of (a literal interpretation of) the Genesis account. To treat 'after' as a mere continuation of 'before' is both historically (as acceptance of the literal interpretation went into eclipse in the latter half of the 19th century) and epistemologically inaccurate. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:59, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Hrafn, Jacksoncw is indeed making an important point. The lead starts out with a definition of creationism sensu lato and then shifts to discussing Creationism sensu stricto. I agree with him that this is confusing and needs to be addressed. Not everyone who fits the definition of the lead would consider themselves or be considered by most to be a Creationist. Most Christians, Jews and Moslems hold that belief. Practically all Catholics fit that description, for example, but there are not many Catholics who are Creationists.

Creationism (big "C") is not simply holding that belief, but actively rejecting selected conclusions of various branches of science because they are perceived as conflicting with that belief. It is in its very essence a reaction to science, and the article does indeed do a poor job of establishing that at the outset.

I submit that the scope of this article needs to be more clearly defined, so that the reader is clear about whether creationism or Creationism is being discussed in each particular section. The history section also needs work to make it clear that what we call Creationism today is a 20th century movement with no roots in the past. The way it reads now, it is no wonder that Jacksoncw sees continuity between previous schools of creationist thought and the modern forms of Creationism.

It may be obvious to you and me that, in the section in question, Creationism sensu stricto is being discussed. However, I cannot fault Jacksoncw for assuming otherwise. The fault is in the article, and we should be grateful to Jacksoncw for pointing out the inconsistency so that it can be addressed. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 09:25, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

This paragraph belongs in either the Evolution page or the Creation-Evolution Controversy page, period. It contains no information in understanding the concept of Creationism and displays a bias that does not belong in an encyclopedia article. The Creation-Evolution Controversy page is ALWAYS going to try to creep in here and everywhere else it can via people with their own agenda. I hope Wiki doesn't lose its integrity and cleans this article up from everything that is not Creationism information. Thinktank33 (talk) 16:55, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

"It contains no information in understanding the concept of Creationism": wrong. It contains no information useful to understand the concept of "belief in creation", but that's not the subject of the article either. As explained above by others, Creationism sensu stricto was born in the 1920s precisely as a reaction against the theory of Evolution.Spree85 (talk) 14:02, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

One question: is the article on Creationism "sensu strictu" or "generalno"? It seems to cover a larger area w/a focus on the recent movement. Then, those paragraphs on the broader meaning of the term could be described as the conditions (from a Hx point of view). Wekn reven i susej eht ^{Talk• Follow} 19:08, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Judaism

It appears that under the Movements section Judaism has two sections. Can these be consolidated? Mthoodhood (talk) 19:21, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Claims vs. statements

Diff Weasel words are unsupported attributions, such as "It is said that" without naming who said it. Here the issue is about differences such as the one between "claimed" and "said" in contexts such as "...intelligent design, which was subsequently claimed to be a new scientific theory."

WP:CLAIM does not forbid the use of words such as "claim," but calls for them to be used judiciously.

In this context the word "claim" is correct, since the statement's credibility was indeed called into question in court, in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District. The judge's ruling explicitly stated that The overwhelming evidence at trial established that ID is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory.

__ Just plain Bill (talk) 12:51, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Agree. Also, replacing it with "says" or similar becomes quite clumsy when it is not an individual doing the 'saying'. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 13:52, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

'Says' and 'state' are more neutral. 'Claim', however, would be more appropriate in a sentence specifically about a trial and *only* about a trial. ^rossnixon 02:53, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Have put back two 'claims' that seem relevant. Have I missed any? ^rossnixon 03:05, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually, it would be appropriate anywhere the claim/statement has been discredited or heavily contradicted -- per WP:GEVAL. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:18, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not happy with this group of changes by Rossnixon, which appear to change "said" to "claim" everywhere discussing points of view opposite to creationism, and "claim" to "said" everywhere discussing points of view supportive of creationism. I don't believe that's what Bill and Hrafn were suggesting above, nor is it a change with the goal of neutrality in mind. I've reverted. Ross, please discuss such changes here before instituting them again, so we can agree on a scope under which to change the wording globally throughout the article. Also, Ross and Mthoodhood, there seems to be a lot of edit warring going on over this... please discuss the change instead. Edit warring is unlikely to accomplish anything productive.   — Jess· Δ♥ 05:34, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Neutrality does not mean giving two viewpoints equal weight. Can you provide some reasoning as to why you disagree with the changes.IRWolfie- (talk) 17:59, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Exactly, but you have it the other way around. rossnixon was making the changes as to subtly give more apparent credence to creationism. Anyway, those changes are months old. It has already been reverted.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 18:19, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Topic drift

The article claims that creationism rejects scientific conclusions. This claim is wrong. The truth is, that evolutionism rejects scientific findings, as anyone knows who is familiar with the topic. 18:33, 22 November 2011 (CET) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.162.68.39 (talk)

Without particulars supported by a reliable source, your assertion is just that, a baseless assertion. If you want to be taken seriously, please provide specifics. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 18:04, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Section titled "Christianity" - formerly "Judaism and Christianity

I propose a different name for the section... Judaism has its own section slightly further down the page that focuses more specifically on Judaism. The section that was formerly titled " Judaism and Christianity" seems to change focus from first Christianity (with a minor mention of old Jewish views; which are covered in the history section anyhow) then focuses entirely on the Bible. user:Mthoodhood brought the point up a month ago and suggested the two sections were consolidated... but there's nothing more than two sentences on Judaism to consolidate from the first section.

Maybe a little too bold in changing the name of the section to just "Christianity", but to include Judaism in the title seems misleading and confusing. Perhaps a better title would be something like "Biblical interpretation vs. Genesis", because the whole section and the sub-sections are about biblical interpretation and Christian views. Peter (talk) 17:09, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. You're right, the article's been needing that distinction for a while. Wekn reven i susej eht ^{Talk• Follow} 17:07, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

• The problem is that (i) as they share a common creation myth, the views of Judaism and Christianity overlap, & (ii) although the section in question is now titled 'Christianity', it still contains material on Judaism. I therefore think merging the Christianity and Judaism sections would make sense. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 08:49, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I do not believe that Jews and Christians share a creation myth. Many parts of the Jewish Creation Myth are in Genesis Rabbah and I have never seen any evidence that Christains give that any importance. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:21, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps unequal shares? From my limited understanding, the basis has a lot in common, but various denominations in each put a different emphasis or discards different bits, or hold differing interpretations. As in the interesting case of Philo who seems to be a Jewish scholar who had little or no impact on Judaism, but was very influential in early Christianity. Even if they misunderstood him. . dave souza, talk 23:59, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, if you are talking about News during the time of the Kingdoms or the Babylonian Exile, the Hebrew Bible provides examples of three different creation myths. if you are talking about Jews today, many Jews belive in a lot of things that are not in the Hebrew Bible, e.g. Genesis Rabah. Similarly, I think that the creation myth of most Christians includes a war with Lucifer leading to his change from being an angel in heaven to th ruler of hell - Jews do not believe in this at all. As for material specifically in the Hebrew bible, Jews certainly interpret it differently from Christians. As you probably know in Hebrew the story does not being "In the beginning;" for Jews the opening is more like "When God began creating the heavenbs and the earth" which is not at all the same thing ... Jews do not believe in "the fall." Philo is definitely a marginal figure in Judaism (although certainly of great interest to historians) - if anyone wants to know what nmost Jews think about creation, the first sources to look at are Rashi's commentary and Genesis Rabbah. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:34, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Sensu Strictu Creationism

So, if this article is about the 're-branding of anti-evolution which responded to the growing evidence for evolution and its general acceptance in science' (Dave Souza, an earlier post), where is the article on Creationism as a belief that a supreme being created the world (not necessarily restricted to modern times)? Should there be an in-article separation or two separate articles or no article...ideas, anyone? Wekn reven i susej eht ^{Talk• Follow} 14:10, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Genesis creation narrative and creation myth in general.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 15:25, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

GI. Thanks. Wekn reven i susej eht ^{Talk• Follow} 19:01, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

• Ex nihilo also covers this general topic. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 09:12, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Theistic evolution

Can we have a section on Theistic Evolution? It is the belief that God created everything by means of what has been discovered in science. Technically it is a form of Creationism, so is it possible for it to have a section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.228.223.184 (talk) 21:01, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually, we still have a section on creationism#Theistic evolution but for some reason the sections on old earth creationism, young earth creationism etc. have been rolled into creationism#Views in the United States. Less clear about the continuum of views and the sequence, not a good idea. . . dave souza, talk 21:11, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

The 'Creationism internationally' section is a complete dog's breakfast. We have TE & the Catholic Church tossed in there, as well as various individual European and Middle-Eastern countries listed independently of 'Europe and Middle East' and 'Islamic countries'. The forms of creationism are currently discussed as an (un-ToC-listed) section called 'Types of Biblical creationism' within the Christianity section. This is ludicrously improper WP:WEIGHTing. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:57, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

(The lack of ToC listing was due to a limiter-tag. I've restructured things so that they're hopefully in a more easy-to-find hierarchy -- with 'internationally' divided up by continent, and the forms of creationism no longer in a sub-sub-sub-sub-category.) Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:27, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Can we have a section on this that is more conspicuous? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.228.223.184 (talk) 03:48, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Not without giving it WP:UNDUE weight -- TE is after all a topic on the border of creationism, not at the center of the topic. It'd be a bit like giving the Straits of Gibraltar "conspicuous" listing in an article on Europe. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:55, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Except the Strait of Gibraltar much smaller in comparison to Europe than Theistic evolution to Creationism. Wekn reven i susej eht ^{Talk• Follow} 16:13, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Then substitute Mediterranean Sea for Straits of Gibraltar. The same argument applies. Currently TE gets the same level of prominence as YEC, OEC, etc, which are actually forms of creationism -- it is hard to see how it is reasonable to give a form of non-creationism greater prominence in an article on creationism than prominent forms of creationism itself. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 02:27, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually, Hrafn, I agree with you. Just happened to notice a bit of exaggeration. Wekn reven i susej eht ^{Talk• Follow} 15:07, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Andrew McIntosh

• Andrew McIntosh (professor) has no qualifications or experience relevant to evolutionary biology.
• Andrew McIntosh has no qualifications or experience directly relevant to highschool science education.
• Andrew McIntosh therefore has no expertise relevant to this article. Therefore for the purposes of this article he is just another ignorant Creationist (hardly a rare category). He is therefore a WP:QS and cannot be used for "unduly self-serving" claims (like "We are just simply a group of people who have put together ... a different case.")
• RichardDawkins.net is hardly a prominent source.
• Per WP:WEIGHT & WP:FRINGE, we do not give non-prominent-published fringe viewpoints any prominence.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 02:47, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Abrahamic God

MOS:CAPS#Religions, deities, philosophies, doctrines and their adherents states "In a biblical context 'God' is always capitalized when referring to the Judeo-Christian deity". This means that Abrahamic god should be replaced by Abrahamic God, and the former should probably be WP:RFDed. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:27, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I would argue (and have, along with several others, in my Edit summaries) that in the expression "the Abrahamic god", the word "god" is not being used as a proper noun. It is therefore improper (and quite odd) to capitalise it. HiLo48 (talk) 05:42, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Lacking the quoted bright line guideline, an argument could be made that "Abrahamic god" is the equivalent of "Norse gods", so should not be capitalised. Given the quoted guideline, and the patently obvious point that the "Abrahamic God" is "the Judeo-Christian deity", MOS is unambiguously that it should be capitalised. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:55, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I do wish people pushing religious POVs would be more honest here. Such dishonesty does your religion no credit. You are repeatedly avoiding the fact that the expression under discusion is "THE Abrahamic god". With the word "the" there it's just plain bad grammar to capitalise a word which is NOT a proper noun. HiLo48 (talk) 06:09, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Wait, Hrafn is pushing a religious POV? N^oformation ^Talk 06:12, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Could people, instead of accusing me of dishonesty for pushing the "religious POV" of Christianity (which it happens I apostated from 20 years ago), point to a reason why the MOS guideline I stated, and which would seem to be explicitly and directly relevant to this situation, is in some way inapplicable? I don't bloody well care if it's a proper noun or not because (i) it appears to be in a grey area between proper nouns and common nouns (which is probably why it gets its very own explicit bright line guideline in the MOS) & (ii) because whether or not it is a proper noun doesn't matter to the guideline I quoted -- which does not refer to "proper noun" but rather refers to "Judeo-Christian deity". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 08:40, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

An MOS should only be required when there is doubt. I cannot see any doubt. The word "god" in this context is not a proper noun, hence no capital. If you want to appeal to the MOS to override good grammar, so be it, but it will be sad for Wikipedia. HiLo48 (talk) 09:20, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not especially interested in what the MOS has to say on this point, but it seems to me that HiLo48's viewpoint has a lot to recommend it. Compare president in "President Obama" vs. "the US president" (though some might disagree with that usage!) or "the presidents of several UN member states". "God" in "the Abrahamic god" is not a title, just a word. If you capitalise God here, why not "the Abrahamic Deity"? SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 09:43, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Last I checked, unlike the Judeo-Christian deity, the former-senator-for-Illinois was not near-universally referred to in the English language simply as "President" (without any qualifier). "Yahweh" is not commonly used, "Obama" is. This renders your analogy/comparison more than a little unhelpful. As I said before, "God", as used in the English language for the Judeo-Christian deity, is therefore in the grey area between proper and common noun. We have MOS for a reason -- to create consistency and avoid unnecessary arguments, particularly in grey areas. So speaking for myself, I am interested in MOS, unless and until somebody presents a compelling reason for ignoring it. A bad analogy is not a compelling reason. But on the flip side, I have no intention whatsoever in getting involved (on either side) in any further edit-war over this side-issue -- and have probably wasted enough time on arguing it on talk -- so do as ye will! Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 10:24, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I think this can go either way: MOS says one thing, grammar says another. Ultimately it's not that important though as I doubt the public is going to notice it. N^oformation ^Talk 01:54, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I actually agree with Hrafn. I think it does need to be changed to "Abrahamic God". Zenkai251 (talk) 01:15, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Hrafn the Apostate: it has a nice ring to it. I agree with him too. PiCo (talk) 07:54, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

You lose a little thing like your religion 20 years ago and its still the only thing they remember about you. :P Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 08:00, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
(And its not as though I didn't find a couple of other ones to replace it with. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 08:04, 23 December 2011 (UTC) )
(Incidentally, Julian's byname is a tad inaccurate -- as there seems to be no evidence that he ever was a Christian. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 08:03, 23 December 2011 (UTC) )

Personally I never lost my religion - I never had one in the first place; I approach the bible purely as literature, which possibly makes me unique among editors of this group of articles. I've just seen the ambiguity in what I wrote above: I meant I agreed with Hrafn, not with Julian - though in fact I do agree with Julian, being pagan by nature. PiCo (talk) 08:09, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I tend to read it as a goldmine of anthropological information about the Jewish people, rather than simply as literature. Read in its historical context, it tells a lot about their fears and aspirations. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 08:23, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

The odd thing is that I'm more interested in, and know more about, the Bible now than I did either when I was a Christian or when I was losing my religion. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 08:30, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Per WP:MOS, I support User:Hrafn's proposal. With regards, Anupam^Talk 10:01, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

• Hrafn is correct regarding WP usage. Look over these search results for "the abrahamic god". In every instance except the current one under discussion, the entries read "the Abrahamic God" DonaldRichardSands (talk) 14:33, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Donald is right. Wekn reven i susej eht ^{Talk• Follow} 11:54, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Many times in my life I have been in a minority, and right. HiLo48 (talk) 23:17, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

HiLo48, this discussion is not about whether this Wikipedia usage is right or wrong. It is more, when you are in Rome, do as the Romans do. An encyclopedia is "better" if it follows an internal consistency. Wikipedia could just as easily go the other way, but it hasn't. Also, the right and wrong here should not be viewed as moral right or wrong. This Right or Wrong applies to the Wikipedia universe only, not all universes. Wikipedia could be persuaded to change policy on this, but that is a different matter indeed. :) DonaldRichardSands (talk) 13:14, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Or: when on Wikipedia, edit sensu Wikipedia. Wekn reven i susej eht ^{Talk• Follow} 13:21, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

I say again, the ONLY time one needs a Manual of Style is when there is doubt in normal grammar. I see no doubt. It's only selfish Christians who create doubt by wanting to impose an artificial rule on others, demanding that their god is somehow more significant than all others. And therein lies a BIG problem.... HiLo48 (talk) 13:58, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

(i) I am not a Christian ("selfish" or otherwise -- as most regulars on this article are aware). (ii) I (a) believe their is "doubt" due to "God" in the English language being in the grey area between proper and common noun, and am in favour of following MOS on this.
All of which means that HiLo48 is completely talking out their arse. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 14:17, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

I HATE the use of the word "their" in that expression. Another ugly piece of grammar! And I did not accuse you of being a Christian. I said the doubt (in your mind and others') was created by selfish Christians. It's certainly not normal grammar. HiLo48 (talk) 14:23, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

(i) It is standard English grammar to use "them"/"their" for third-person-singular-of-unknown-but-non-neuter-gender -- so live with it. >:) (ii) You said "only", and I have been explicitly stating that there is doubt, which means, yes you were calling me a "selfish Christian" -- so yes, I feel insulted. At least you could have called me something interesting like a 'sociopathic Thoth-worshiper'. If you keep this up, I'm going to get out the Random Shakespearian Insult Generator -- and then you'll be for it! Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 14:40, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Woah! Lets keep it calm. Wekn reven i susej eht ^{Talk• Follow} 16:34, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

I've now realised that Hrafn and I are speaking of different variants of English. I'm Australian. Nobody here would say "HiLo48 is completely talking out their arse". If someone was that cranky with me, and didn't know my gender, it would be "HiLo48 is completely talking out of his or her arse." It's one of those English language things. Many versions around the world. Maybe the issue of capitalising god when it's not a proper noun is also in that area of difference. I'm guessing Hrafn is American. (Apologies if it's a bad guess.) America is a very Christian country. Australia is not. It could explain the whole issue of our different perspectives on this. So, where to go? Do we make this American Wikipedia, rather than English Wikipedia, or do we attempt to ascertain usage among all English speakers around the world? HiLo48 (talk) 22:43, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Given that I lived in Aus for a few years (nice people, interesting fauna, crazy political system), and am fairly Anglophilic in my reading & watching habits, I rather doubt if it's a dialect thing. PS, Wekn et al: a little hint, the chance that anybody talking about sociopathic Thoth-worshipers and the Random Shakespearian Insult Generator is being in the least bit serious is about the same as a snowball's chance in hell. What do I have to do to get a laugh around here, break into The Philosophers' Song? Sheesh -- tough crowd. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:31, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

My name's not Bruce, but I do have a brother-in-law of that name. We shared a few beers over Christmas. HiLo48 (talk) 06:57, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, the Pilosopher's Song would be nice, thou fusty clay-brained haggard! =) Wekn reven i susej eht ^{Talk• Follow} 14:41, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Ok, that's just a fairly daft debate. It's THE abrahamic God; i.e. there is only one. And His commonly used name is "God". If I had a pet cat whose name was "Mongommery the Third", but whose nickname was "Cat", it would be perfectly reasonably for me to use "Cat" as ether a proper noun; "my tabby Cat" or a common noun; "my tabby cat". Plus, God is that accepted usage. Grammar is full of exceptions/compromises. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.101.50.102 (talk) 22:16, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Note It seems like most people are in favor of the change. Have we reached a consensus? Zenkai251 (talk) 21:27, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Certainly not unanimity, but I'm used to certain cultural biases in Wikipedia, so I guess I can put up with this one too. HiLo48 (talk) 22:30, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I really don't think that this is a cultural thing vs. a MOS thing. Being raised in America, I would use your style because it's the grammatically correct one. If you started a discussion or RfC on the subject at WP:MOS I would probably back the change. N^oformation ^Talk 22:35, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

So, will someone make the change now? Zenkai251 (talk) 03:53, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I guess I'll do it. Zenkai251 (talk) 03:13, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Identical chart appears twice in article

The chart Response to the Statement, "Human Beings, as We Know Them, Developed from Earlier Species of Animals appears twice in this article, first at Creationism internationally and then again at Prevalence. I haven't even attempted to read this whole article, but it appears there's at least some overlap or duplication of discussion as well. My impression is that some general cleanup and organizing of the whole article would help a great deal. Milkunderwood (talk) 05:38, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Fixed it. Wekn reven 17:17, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

"Creationism internationally" is full o' bull

In the "Creationism internationally" paragraph, it is stated that creationism has an effect on scientists, universities or society in European countries. No, it does not have one. Not at all. The whole paragraph should be deleted until proof can be shown that officially approved European educational institutions such as legal universities even have creationism as a topic of their scientific research. Otherwise, this whole article is totally biased junk and a marketing tool for a cult. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.157.55.84 (talk) 16:03, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Can you back up this claim with reliable sources? Wekn reven 16:56, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Skimming the article, I don't see where this claim is made: could you point out the relevant wording? . dave souza, talk 17:33, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Exactly! Wekn reven 17:39, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Creationism is not co-terminous with Christian belief

The article is POV if it suggests that all Christians are by definition Creationists. The dictionary definition indicates that Creationism is specifically belief in the literal interpretation of the Creation Account in Genesis, or specifically that Creationism is the counterpoised to evolution. It therefore gives the inaccurate perception that all Christians consider that the Creation account is to be interpreted literally and that evolution is not accepted in Christianity. This is clearly not the case, certainly as far as mainstream Christianity is concerned and it is misleading to give the impression that all Christians are exclusively ideologically Creationist. JohnArmagh (talk) 16:42, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

You're introducing a new inaccuracy if you imply that all Creationists believe in the literal interpretation of the Creation Account in Genesis, or specifically that Creationism is the counterpoised to evolution. As the article notes, the term means different things to different people, and there is a spectrum of Creationist beliefs. Intelligent design is creationism, while avoiding any specific biblical belief, but its proponents commonly deny that by seeking to limit creationism to YEC. Similarly with theistic evolution, "in America, creationism has come to mean some fundamentalistic, literal, scientific interpretation of Genesis. Judaic-Christian faith is radically creationist, but in a totally different sense. It is rooted in a belief that everything depends upon God, or better, all is a gift from God." See the section in the article. . dave souza, talk 17:20, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

All Christians believe in Creation by the Abrahamic God - but to infer that means they are Creationist is misleading. If anything the lead should be simplified - as it is it infers something which simply is not true. JohnArmagh (talk) 17:25, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Ah, lede editing again. One of the reasons why it is so difficult to get a consensus on how they should sound is that most everyone has already formulated their own ideas about the definitions and key concepts of the topics being introduced. Just a forewarning in case such a discussion should ensue, be sure to invite a number of editors that might be frequently involved in editing the article and other closely related ones. Wekn reven 18:34, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

• There are multiple definitions of "creationism", as the article shows, backed up by A Spectrum of Creation Views held by Evangelicals and The Creation/Evolution Continuum | NCSE. Even "belief in the literal interpretation of the Creation Account in Genesis" is contested: for example, an OEC "controversial, lesser known literal interpretation of the Genesis narrative that does not contradict the scientific evidence for an Old Earth.". Both YEC and OEC use the term for their respective interpretations. It may be common for the term to be used of YEC beliefs, or anti-evolution beliefs, but the range of views exists and must be clear from the outset. Having said that, it may be possible to find a form of words and sources supporting the more literal positions as the commonest use these days. . dave souza, talk 19:55, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

At the very least the lead should categorically state that its description of Creationism is "in the broad sense", and that that sense is by no means a universal definition

Example Sources:

• http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/christianity/beliefs/creationism_1.shtml
• http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wic.html
• http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/topic/arguments-we-dont-use
• http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/creationism/
• http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7613403.stm
• http://www.thefreedictionary.com/creationism
• http://www.thefreedictionary.com/creationist

JohnArmagh (talk) 20:05, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Just looking at a few, these support the complexity I'm describing: ToA usefully notes "creationism" refers to a wide range of beliefs, "The differences between types of creationism are not minor. Most of the creationist beliefs described below are mutually exclusive, and often their differences are as great as their differences with evolution. Many creationists disagree as much with other creationists as they do with evolutionists." It also notes non-Biblical creationism in other cultures, something our basic definition should allow. . .dave souza, talk 20:37, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I think Scott's model represents everything the best, although I must point out one can be both a Geocentrist and a "Flat earther", but simultaneous belief in both YEC and OEC is nearly impossible, unless you doublethink. Intelligent Design on its own as a belief is really agnostic (not sure where to place that in a model), and a fine line should be drawn between "Atheistic" or "Agnostic" evolution and all the rest, because they fall into the Naturalistic belief system. Wekn reven 15:52, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Philosophically there is a line between theistic beliefs and "Atheistic" or "Agnostic" philosophies (or beliefs, in some cases), but the latter two accept exactly the same evolution science as theistic evolution, which includes varieties of creationism in the broad sense. ID is essentially theistic with the proviso of half-heartedly allowing the potential of substituting the aliens of Raëlism for the God of all its leading proponents, and doesn't fit well with our various definitions of Agnosticism. . . . dave souza, talk 17:30, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps a suitable rewording of the lead could be along the lines of: Creationism, in its broadest sense, is the religious belief ...." JohnArmagh (talk) 12:04, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I think it would be best to start of with the narrow sense, and mention the broad sense at the end of the lead. The term is much more often used in the narrow sense than in the broad sense. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 12:07, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Then you need to change the lede, because: "Creationism is the religious belief that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe are the creation of a supernatural being..." is so broad that it applies to any monotheist. It gets less broad when "Abrahamic God" is referred to (what do the Dharmic creationists believe?). But the common use of the term "Creationism" are about those that believe in the creation account of their specific scripture, to the exclusion of any other account (including that of science). A creationist need not be a Young-Earth Creationist, but even so, the common use of the term refers to people who deny the evolution of human beings from other primates. But there are theists who believe that human beings evolved from primate ancestors shared in common with great apes, but they also have "the religious belief that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe are the creation of a supernatural being...". So what are they? Are these people Creationists (even though they ascribe to the evolution of species) or are they not Creationists (even though they ascribe to "the religious belief that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe are the creation of a supernatural being")? Which are they? 71.169.191.83 (talk) 20:38, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

These theists describe themselves as creationist in its proper sense, as shown below. . dave souza, talk 21:51, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Are you deliberately missing the point? Who the hell are "These thesist"? No one that I know of. The point is, Dave, that the lede essentially identifies persons having "the religious belief that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe are the creation of a supernatural being" as creationists. Nearly every non-fundamentalist Christian or Jew would have that particular religious belief and not identify themselves as a creationist or with creationists. Please deal with the question put to you, rather than sidestep it. 71.169.191.83 (talk) 17:42, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

OK - I've taken a look at an equivalent scenario - the article Evolution is purely narrow-sense - with a link to a disambiguation page for links to other uses - one of which being Evolution (term). The lead as given in Creationism is more appropriate for a page Creationism (term), which itself may be appropriate for Wiktionary (as noted on the tag on Evolution (term)) JohnArmagh (talk) 17:25, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

As the sources show, "Creationism" covers a spectrum of beliefs, despite common misuse of the term in recent years. "Fr. George Coyne, (Vatican's chief astronomer between 1978 and 2006):"..in America, creationism has come to mean some fundamentalistic, literal, scientific interpretation of Genesis. Judaic-Christian faith is radically creationist, but in a totally different sense. It is rooted in a belief that everything depends upon God, or better, all is a gift from God." We need to clarify these issues in this article, not obscure them. . 21:51, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Creationism Internationally / Prevalence

It seems odd that these two sections are separate, let alone have a whole load of material between them. Is there a particular reason for this that I'm missing? If not, I'd suggest making the latter a subsection of the former, possibly moving the last part of "Prevalence" on the education issues in the US elsewhere or making it into a separate section.Dr Marcus Hill (talk) 12:57, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually, what bothers me is the weight problem. Creationism is rarely an issue in Europe, and when it is, it's usually isolated incidents by isolated cranks that soon get ignored. A good case in point is Poland, where MPE Maciej Giertych made a fool of himself and the whole country by pushing it on the floor of the European Parliament, and proposing that it be taught in Polish schools. The proposal was immediately shot down by his own son, who was Minister of Education at the time, and is as far right wing on the political scale that you will find without turning over large rocks.

Also polls showing popular support should be treated with extreme suspicion, as the response ususally depends on how the questions are worded.

That's the only time I have ever heard about creationism in the Polish press in the ten years I've lived here. Even placing the single word "Poland" in the article is not justified, as it gives the impression that it is a seriously debated issue here. I suspect the same is true for most, if not all, of the European countries mentioned. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 13:08, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

True. Whilst there are well funded organisations trying to push creationism in the UK, any politician who likes getting votes roundly condemns them - unlike in the US, where strongly pushing for evidence based scientific education is a vote loser in a lot of places.Dr Marcus Hill (talk) 09:04, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Evolution in Hinduism

British geneticist and evolutionary biologist, J B S Haldane, observed that the Dasavataras (ten principal avatars of Lord Vishnu) are a true sequential depiction of the great unfolding of evolution.[8] The avatars of Vishnu show an uncanny similarity to the biological theory of evolution of life on earth.[9] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.26.223.225 (talk) 12:03, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, cut and pasted sequences with no attribution (so we can't find the original source) and no reproduction of the sources cited internally are less than useful. Secondly, and I'm no scholar of Hinduism so I'll gladly retract this if I'm wrong, but I don't think that Vishnu's avatars are part of the creation myth, they're just how he appeared in the already-created world (and a quick perusal of Daśāvatāra seems to bear this out), so even if it were properly sourced, it doesn't belong in Creationism.Dr Marcus Hill (talk) 16:05, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Denialism category

This article pertains solely to a religious belief. We do not categorize theism as "denialism" or any other religious belief as "denialism" because this runs up against WP:NPOV. It is not our place to judge the truth of any particular religious view. Creationism can encompass young earth creationism or theistic evolution so it is even worse, but even if it was just the young earth variety the "denialism" category would be inappropriate. Religious beliefs should not be categorized as "denial" under any circumstances.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 19:44, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

This isn't an article about theism. It's about creationism, a belief that runs directly opposed to evolution. It is, essentially, denial of scientific evidence of evolution. Regardless, categories are there because the article might be of interest to people who are interested in that category. The LGBT category would be appropriate on, for example, the article about Benedict XVI, not because he's gay, but because he has teachings directly related to the LGBT community. By putting this article in the denialism category, we are not saying that creationism IS denialism. Rather it saying that creationism may be a subject of interest to those interested in denialism. Farsight001 (talk) 20:33, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Categories are about what any category is about. It is about grouping items together based on shared characteristics. A religious belief should not be categorized as denialism because it implies that a characteristic of the religious belief is that it denies reality. That is where the NPOV issues come up. Most religious beliefs lack scientific proof. Should the article on miracles be categorized under denialism?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:08, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

"Denialism is choosing to deny reality as a way to avoid an uncomfortable truth. Author Paul O'Shea remarks, '[It] is the refusal to accept an empirically verifiable reality. It is an essentially irrational action that withholds validation of a historical experience or event'." So, is the truth "uncomfortable", is it empirically verifiable, is denying it essentially irrational, and does it withhold validation of a historical experience or event? You decide, then I'll comment on your decision if I see anything wrong with it. Wekn reven 08:21, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Creationism is a religious belief. Labeling it "denialism" implies that the belief denies a "truth" that says the belief is wrong. That violates NPOV. Some creationists don't even disagree with evolution or the big bang and those people are explicitly mentioned in the article. Labeling creationism as denialism thus ends up applying to the belief that God is the cause of the universe and life as we know it.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 14:20, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Quite true. Wekn reven 09:09, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

As the similar discussion at Talk:Intelligent Design shows, the consensus is that ID is denialism. Although there are indeed some people who might be labelled as Creationists who don't deny some subset of the vast swathes of science ignored by biblical literalist YECs, by their very definition these people believe that at some stage in the history of the universe there was necessarily an intervention by a supernatural entity. I'd say that one example of such weak creationism is ID: they say nothing about cosmology, but claim evolution can't have worked without their unnamed invisible friend futzing with DNA at some point. If even this weak form of creationism can be put in the denialism category (and it blatantly can), then Creationism, especially given the most commonly undestood meaning of the term, is clearly denialism. Dr Marcus Hill (talk) 12:23, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Then, Dr. Hill, are those principles which are rejected by the biblical literalist YECs empirically verifiable realities? Also (not quite related), I would like to point out that Wikipedia is rarely ever concerned with "the most commonly undestood meaning of the term", rather the "scholarly meaning of the term" -- and then, if there are multiple common scholarly uses, we get into heated debates (sadly). Wekn reven 15:23, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

The principles rejected by biblical literalist YECs are indeed empirically verified realities, including but not limited to the process of evolution and the common descent of life, the age of the earth and the universe (including the well founded physical underpinnings of radiometric dating), the geological processes that formed the Earth (and the fact that a global flood never happened and could not have formed the structures seen today) and many others. The examples I've given are merely the ones that spring to mind which are supported by as overwhelming a weight of evidence as any seen in science. For such a broadly used term as Creationism, the scholarly meanings can (and do) drive the content of the article, but we should not restrict the inclusion in a category simply because the category only includes some of the things covered by the term. To judge this, we should give consideration to what the term "Creationism" covers and how this set of beliefs intersects with what can be called "denialism". Since that intersection covers the majority of "Creationism", we should apply the category. Consider this analogy: we could have a category of "oviparous animals". That category should include Reptile, Fish and Amphibian but not Mammal - all of these include both viviparous and oviparous members, but the first three are overwhelmingly oviparous and the last overwhelmingly viviparous. Similarly, since the vast majority of beliefs classified as Creationism are denialist, the category should apply here. Dr Marcus Hill (talk) 10:27, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm always wary of the term "denialism" and just prefer the less pejorative, and more broader term "pseudo-science". --Harizotoh9 (talk) 10:36, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Creationism isn't necessarily pseudoscience. "Creation science" and ID are, but creationism can include forms which make no attempt to be science. It's simply denial of the fact of evolution. It's beside the point anyway - this is a discussion about whether this article belongs in cat:Denialism. If we accept that cat:Denialism is a category we should have on Wikipedia, then of course evolution denial belongs in the cat. As with ID, the discussion is being raised in the wrong place. If it's inappropriately insulting, let's AFD Denialism- after all, we don't want any articles in Wikipedia that hurt people's feelings - or CFD the category.

Categories are navigational aids. They are tools for grouping things together. So the relationship is from there to here, not here to there. Now, if someone wanted to use "denialism" in the lead, the arguments made here would be appropriate. But the only reason against inclusion of an article in a category is that it's not accurate, or not adequately verifiable. Since creationism is used as a classic example of denialism, it's appropriate. Guettarda (talk) 13:44, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

@Dr. Hill: Just an fun side-note: ever heard of the term ovovivaporous? Then to the rest, as an important point to notice: there is still the lack of a differentiation in this article between historical Creationism (as a belief -- it was taken for granted, and the name "Creationism" was not therefore necessary) and the modern movement, which the article seems to focus on. Three hundred years ago, in the days of Isaac Newton and Carl Linnaeus, "Evolution" (as a scientific theory) did not exist, and nor did a vast majority of concepts employed by most of modern science that are rejected by the vast majority of, say, scientists who hold to a young earth special creation; therefore they were denying nothing -- nothing at least that was around to deny.

I agree with Guetterada in that this should still be placed in the category "denialism", since categories are navigational aids, and do not have to only apply to those things which are inherently under that category only (excuse my Slavic sentence structure -- I couldn't find any other way to put it). Especially with those who went beyond pseudoscience and into Scientific misconduct like Kent Hovind and his "gang". Wekn reven 18:36, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

(Wildly off topic) Yes, but I didn't want to overcomplicate things when I was just after a quick analogy! There are (true) viviparous examples of all the classes I mention (but not birds, to my knowledge), which is why I used them. Dr Marcus Hill (talk) 12:23, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Right, thanks for commenting. Yeah, no analogy is ever perfect, or else it wouldn't be called an analogy! Wekn reven 15:49, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Sigh, such bias to be seen in this discussion. To say evolution, in the sense that would be necessary for the bringing about of life from single celled organisms, is an empirically verified reality, is absurd and borders on propaganda. At least creationists have the stones to declare that certain aspects need faith, instead of skirting the issue. Also, the idea of evolution leading bringing about the kind of life we see today is highly debatable. Some obstacles are entirely insurmountable based on our knowledge of science. For example, the jump from asexual reproduction to sexual reproduction. The evolution required for this would mean going from a single celled organism (usually haploid, and also containing very complex DNA (a protozoa can have around 1400 chromosomes if I recall correctly)) to a multi-celled organism (usually diploid, containing very different DNA (humans have 23 pairs totaling at 46), while simultaneously developing the mechanisms for meiosis, conception and some form of intercourse, and cell specialization. The nature of the mutations needed to make this jump cannot happen one at a time over millions of years; saying the earth is old doesn't circumvent this problem. These are mutations that would need to happen all at once, but even that poses a problem. Once you produce a cell that will become an asexually reproducing organism, you now have the problem that that cell will need a womb/egg/environment to develop in. Basically, chicken and egg paradox. A chicken that lays an egg (or rather has the genetic information and design for that) would need an egg to develop in, which need a chicken to lay it. Evolution give no solution to this. It just repeatedly says "life developed through small, slow changes over time." Never mind the issues with going from haploid to diploid, how cells even formed originally. Also, evolution uses severely outdated facts in its discussion when it says life went from simple to complex. Anyone who studies cells knows they are not simple, and single-celled organisms are highly complex. And as for mutations even bringing about positive changes, let me know when you find that. A lot of mutations cause the cells to self-destruct naturally. Now, some examples of mutations that stay, you can look at colon cancer, which requires eight mutational events, or sickle cell anemia, which was the result of mutational events in Asia and Africa. Or, for an example of what happens with addition of information, look at Down's syndrome. Finding a wide variety of extinct animals in the ground does not prove that there was evolution. And dating rocks with fossils and fossils with rocks (oh, and supplementing that with the use of poor dating methods whose accuracy is very hit and miss) is rather cyclic, don't you think? But that is a little beside the point. More to the point, you call creation denialism, however, it denies a theory, NOT a reality. And you would by hypocrites to study evolution as a theory (and that is what it is, a theory no one can agree on either; evolutionists attack each other constantly and mercilessly over many, many aspects of evolution) and then call everyone else a denialist who disagrees. Simply put, that is name calling and general card-stacking (aka, propaganda). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.248.69.229 (talk) 03:05, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Bullshit. But that essay should get you good marks at the Institute. HiLo48 (talk) 05:31, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh, such an erudite response. Oh, I fear I can never overcome such an overwhelmingly powerful intellectual response. And you call us denialists. Everything I stated are facts, and your response is to immediately lash out in a vulgar manner. If anything, you have proven my point about evolutionists using name-calling and card stacking to forward their agenda and views. Of course, there are more famous examples. Take one of Richard Dawkins's favorite phrases for example: "inteligent design and its country cousin, young earth creationism." Not quoted verbatim, but to the point. Everywhere I look, whether it is in internal discussion among atheists or whenever an atheist is legitimately challenged, there is never a lack of name calling, straw man attacks, ad hominem attacks, and card stacking. But for all these devices, the cold arbiter science speaks true for both sides. Evolution is not an empirically verified reality. It is a theory, still severely lacking what it would need to be called a law or an undeniable reality. Labeling creationism as denialism just because it is opposed to evolution is equivalent to making the aforementioned assertion concerning evolution. And that assertion would be a blatant lie, something I thought Wikipedia tried to avoid. I am not asking Creationism to be labeled as an empirically verified truth either; this is an Encyclopedia, not a text book or persuasive writing. All I ask for is proper objectivity from those creating the content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.248.66.32 (talk) 23:11, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Labeling creationism as denialism just because it is opposed to evolution - be that as it may, but that's not the basis for the description. On the other hand, saying evolution is not an empirically verified reality does a far better job of explaining the basis for the characterisation. Guettarda (talk) 23:17, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

166.248.66.32, you write like someone who is really fond of the sound of their own voice. This is a place for concise discussion of how to improve the article, not tl:dr walls of text. 68.116.168.154 (talk) 23:20, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I respond to walls of text with walls of text and I take the beating. That sounds familiar. But I digress. Fine, I will be blunt: when the above mentioned problems as well as the innumerable problems of the evolutionary theory in relation to genetics can be solved in a way that is testable, observable, and verifiable, and such things are documented and thoroughly studied by the general scientific community, then and only then can evolution be called and empirically verifiable, irrefutable fact of reality. Then, and only then, would it be ethical to label Creationism as denialism in the whole. Until then, it is just card stacking and bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.248.66.32 (talk) 23:35, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I didn't give you walls of text. I gave you brief, simple truth, but you still hit back with a verbal monolith. Standard fare, and still bullshit. HiLo48 (talk) 01:35, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Mmm, argument by assertion, with a side of "from ignorance." Next time you flex that vocabulary, how about using four tildes so the bot doesn't have to clean up after you?

Sorry, guys, I'm done feeding this troll now. 68.116.168.154 (talk) 23:57, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Young Earth Creation

God didn't need evolution to create anything. That would diminish his craftsmanship. No. The notion of a young earth creation, only a few thousand years old is the only logical alternative. If a scientist studies rock and it seems to show that they are billions of years old, it does not disproove the notion of a young earth because God created the world in a mature state. If one looked at Adam after God created him, Five minutes later, he might look 30 or 40. Does that mean that he is actually 30 or 40? No, because God created him to look 30 or 40. Jay72091 (talk) 3:55PM 27 March 2012 CST —Preceding undated comment added 20:56, 27 March 2012 (UTC).

Ah yes, the Omphalos hypothesis. Of course His Noodlieness could do whatever He wanted, and so is outwith science. . . dave souza, talk 21:18, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

What kind of mean god would try to trick people by making things look much older than they really were? HiLo48 (talk) 21:44, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Is it really mean or does he just want us to have faith? ----Jay72091 (talk) 5:05, 27 March 2012 CST — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.202.15.203 (talk)

If I wanted anyone to have faith and trust in me, the first thing I would do is stop lying.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 03:04, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Possible Cultural Bias Contributing to Weight Issue

I have concern about the weight of this article. There is a Creation myth in every religion, but this article gives undue deference to historical Christian Creationism. This is perhaps due to the controversy of this belief in "the west" but it is still a minority held belief, while the majority of many "eastern" regions & their respective institutions still teach and maintain a Creationist belief. Yet, counter-intuitively the history, influences & diversity of specific origin myths of these & other religions are marginalized as the geographic dominance they may or may not hold. If this is because the main page has become a reference mostly sourcing the Christian Creationist myth & it's current controversies might there be plans to better streamline and title the information so that access to supporting information, while fully available, wouldn't dominate a specific topic?

I would also submit that the domination of the Christian (or perhaps better stated "western") Creationism makes the representation of other beliefs intrinsically harder to organize, communicate & source as the headings seem to be driven by a "western" Christian bias. An example would be in the beginning headings: Europe, Australia, South Korea, Americas, Islamic Countries. On it's face, there are 4 geographic labels that head topics in creationism and one geo-political/semi-religious label. The countries under the "Islamic countries" span across 3 separate continents. It's unclear why the distinction "islamic countries" rather than a geographical analysis is presented or if there is a value, but it does restrict or inhibit inclusion of geographical distinctions, even in Islamic dominated regions, very difficult. And making them understood in their geographical context, as allowed with the other subjects, near impossible. I understand the issues I raised are not trivial and don't expect immediate edits. I was just looking for input on the weight issue and the consideration of the bias, not in so much as it is unfair, but that it restricts the addition of appropriate research in many areas. A factor that underlies the "weight" issue, at least in part. I am not a wiki editor so if I have inappropriately raised issues I do apologize. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.107.246.204 (talk) 21:10, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

It's a fair point that is in line with concerns about Wikipedia:Systemic bias, but the term creationism has become adopted to refer particularly to (U.S.) Christian literalist anti-evolution as well as to the Jewish and Muslim equivalents. If you or someone can find verification that the term is used for these other creation myths or beliefs, then we can expand the article accordingly. Similarly, there are good sources about the distinctive strands of Christian thought on this issue in various continents or geographical areas, we're less aware of different Islamic concepts and how they vary from place to place. As always, more reliable sources are needed. . . dave souza, talk 22:13, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the reason the article exists is that in the USA in particular there are extremist religious nutters fighting effective science education and knowledge. I'm not aware that other religions with such creation beliefs are so reactionary. HiLo48 (talk) 01:24, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Hawking quotation

"A point of creation would be a place where science broke down. One would have to appeal to religion and the hand of God" — Stephen Hawking [6]

Am I the only one who thinks the above quote looks odd in the lead? Hawking is mentioned nowhere else in the article, there's no context, and to me it reads like Hawking is making a case for religion. The archives don't seem to have any previous discussion on the subject. Looks like it was added April 4th by Plasmic Physics (talk · contribs). WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 19:34, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

You are not alone. Given...

What I have done is to show that it is possible for the way the universe began to be determined by the laws of science. In that case, it would not be necessary to appeal to God to decide how the universe began.
This doesn't prove that there is no God, only that God is not necessary. —Stephen W. Hawking, Der Spiegel, 1989.

I'd say the quote was being misused. —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 20:19, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

No, it is not being missused. In the source, Hawking is refering to the entropy problem, the inability to explain the universe before it reached minimum entropy. Plasmic Physics (talk) 23:02, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

By 'creation', Hawking is using the word in the Biblical sense.

Perhaps the quote could be moved elsewhere in the article. Plasmic Physics (talk) 23:10, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

That looks like a bit of quote mining given Hawking is an atheist, and creationism is a cultural problem, not a scientific one, thus making Hawking's expertise irrelevant. Its relevance to the page overall is unclear except perhaps as an appeal to authority. Unless Hawking goes on to discuss creationism in that article, the quote is inappropriate. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 13:58, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

It is not quote mining, read the source article for yourself, then you make an informed decision. This quote represents the sentiment of many cosmologists towards the moment of exsistance and their inability to compose an adequate theory. It is a major blow to science, an unanswerable question. It is ripe for use as ammunition for creationists. Plasmic Physics (talk) 21:34, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but that's just POV bullshit, just like creationism. HiLo48 (talk) 21:41, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Concur with WLU. Further, WP isn't supposed to be publishing things with the purpose of making "major blows" to science or to provide "ammunition" for creationists. We're supposed to represent the mainstream of scientific opinion. ARBCOM made this quite clear here where they ruled "Serious and respected encyclopedias and reference works are generally expected to provide overviews of scientific topics that are in line with respected scientific thought. Wikipedia aspires to be such a respected work." Using a Hawking quote to give credence to creationism is not in line with that statement nor many other WP policies and it is in fact quote mining because it attempts to obfuscate his position of atheism by presenting a quote that may come off as sympathetic to a POV to which he is not sympathetic. SÆdon^talk 21:47, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Is scienctific theory in general not POV - a POV that a particular theory best explains an observation?

It is in the process of becoming mainstream. Are Hawking an the other cosmologists who shares his thoughts on the matter, not respected for their scientific thought? The intention of the quote is not give credence to creationism, but to emphasise the general insufficiency of scientific theory with regard to this event. Plasmic Physics (talk) 22:12, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

What ever the intention of the quote, you said yourself that it provides ammunition for creationism - a WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE - and it is therefore inappropriate. I don't know what you're referring to when you say "in the process of becoming mainstream" but it's not really pertinent because what ever "it" is, until it's mainstream it's not really our consideration. Lastly, none of our statements should "emphasise the general insufficiency of scientific theory with regard to this event" unless that is exactly what is being talked about by reliable sources. When you use a quote to make a statement like that you are engaging in WP:OR, especially WP:SYNTH. SÆdon^talk 22:23, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

'It' "is what is being talked about by" a reliable source. I'm not giving a personal opinion of the quote, it is explained quite clearly in the article. Would someone please just read the article, I'm sure that the local university library should have a subscription, mine does. Plasmic Physics (talk) 00:04, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm familiar with it. I don't see how it's relevant to an article on creationism. To say that our lack of knowledge regarding the first nano seconds of the big bang and before indicates some sort of validity for creationism is a false dilemma and so any sort of insinuation of such an idea is WP:SYNTH at best, quote mining in the middle and an WP:NPOV violation at worst. SÆdon^talk 01:08, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. It's pure God of the gaps stuff. HiLo48 (talk) 01:18, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Then why are you insinuating that it does? Plasmic Physics (talk) 01:42, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Looks like the usual suspects have fired up ye old propaganda machine... God and the Astronomers, Revisited brought to you by the oh so reliable* Discovery Institute.

Here is the Hawking bit from the article...

While many of us may be OK with the idea of the big bang simply starting everything, physicists, including Hawking, tend to shy away from cosmic genesis. "A point of creation would be a place where science broke down. One would have to appeal to religion and the hand of God," Hawking told the meeting, at the University of Cambridge, in a pre-recorded speech.—Why physicists can't avoid a creation event

Apparently Hawking used the word God and Alexander Vilenkin talked about the need for a beginning via physics...

Vilenkin presented the failure of a beginningless eternal inflation at Hawking's 60th birthday party in 2002. He was back at the 70th party with more evidence that eternal inflation needs a good beginning. Still, he said it was news to him if that made Hawking change his mind about the need for an almighty God. There's no problem with a beginning, he said. "Historically people were uncomfortable because they didn't know what caused the beginning - it seemed to require something outside of physics. . . . Now we know there is a possibility of a natural creation of the universe," through the laws of quantum mechanics, something can come from nothing. Guth agreed. "We don't have a solid theory of how the universe originated," he added, "but that doesn't mean we have to invoke a deity." —Planet of the apes: Why were creationists cheered by Hawking's words?

Roll film. *Reliable if you need some anti-science propaganda with massive piles of dung on the side. —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 02:22, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, finally an informed analysis. Plasmic Physics (talk) 04:12, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

If I may be so bold as to say so, I think that it is clear bias to say that our gaps (explaining "inconsistencies" with creation) invalidates creationism, but atheistic gaps do not matter at all towards its validity? Burden of proof is on evolution since it is stating quite bluntly that the universe began on its own from nothing. It may not be appropriate for this particular article, but there should be a note somewhere in Wikipedia (which I hope is dedicated to some kind of objectivity) concerning this limitation. Perhaps in an article concerning evolution or the related big bang theories and such? It would be a violation of general ethics in writing to give atheistic beliefs undue strength by ignoring valid weaknesses in the theories. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.248.66.32 (talk) 23:28, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, there are thousands of different pieces of evidence of evolution and dozens of new confirmations happen every week, please take a trip to your local university and take a biology class to learn more. Secondly, evolution says absolutely nothing about the universe at large and certainly says nothing like "the universe began on its own from nothing." "Evolution" is short for "the theory of evolution by natural selection." It's not about the universe, it's about species, hence why the book is called The origin of species and not The origin of life and the universe and everything. The big bang is a subject in physics, but again, the theory does not claim that the universe "came from nothing." All you've expressed are strawmen creationist propaganda that have no congruency with the actual scientific theories you are attempting to undermine. If you want to discuss this subject then please study it first. SÆdon^talk 02:49, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Also, you're completely misunderstanding the "gaps" argument. The gaps in evolutionary theory are simply pieces of the puzzle we haven't put together yet but FYI, there are more already assembled pieces in the evolutionary puzzle than probably any other scientific theory (there is more evidence for the theory of evolution than there is for the theory of gravity), the "god of the gaps" refers to the fact that "god" is used as a placeholder to explain what science has yet to explain, and as scientific knowledge increases, there is less and less room for a god to be the explanation. For instance, humans once thought that rain was caused by a god or gods, not we have science to say that's retarded. It's only a matter of time before the gaps are too small for any meaningful necessity of "god" to exist. So again, completely different context of the word "gap." SÆdon^talk 02:54, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Anon, you might benefit from reading the entire index to creationist claims and the rest of the site. You'll find most of your errors in fact and logic addressed there. Also, evolution is about how the variations of life we see today came about. It has nothing to do with the creation of the universe. That's more cosmology (and addressed in part here).

Finally, wikipedia isn't about "objectivity", it's about neutrality - how the subject is perceived by relevant experts. Scientists have essentially no doubts about evolution in general, only the specifics. Creationists are not scientists, they are religiously-motivated political activists. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 01:29, 14 April 2012 (UTC)