Talk:Hinduism and creationism/Arch1

to afd

what is the purpose of this article. it just looks like crap to me. i be taking it to afd soon.nids (♂) 19:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I read the California textbook controversy article or at least skimmed it. I wanted it more prominently in the article but a previous editor removed it. I have no idea why. I know nothing about tensions inside the Indian community and nothing about the controversies and who RSS is or is not or even what a Dalit or a Brahmin is. I also read several reviews of the california case in the press, some of which are in the references.

My understanding, which might be faulty, is that:

There is a group of ISKCON that is trying to make the case that Darwinism or evolution is bad because it contradicts Vedic scriptures.
This was met with a lot of controversy. A book was even written about the controversy as a response to the scientists who responded to the ISKCON anti-Darwin books. I did not include that 2nd response in the article because it is just a stub
There are also some who have linked anti-evolution sentiments to some Hindu fundamentalists. I gave the references
I think there is definitely a group of Hindus that disagree with Darwin/evolution etc.
I think there is definitely a group of Hindus that agree with Darwin/evolution etc. I also read about a group of Hindus that claim that Hindus discovered evolution before Darwin. I did not include that in the text because this is about a CREATIONIST movement, like creationism and Islamic creationism and Jewish creationism. Of course there are Christians who claim evolution is compatible with the bible, and Muslims who claim it is compatible with the Koran and Jews who claim it is compatible with the Torah. And there are members of all those faiths who claim that evolution was known before Darwin in their sacred writings. But those voices are not the creationst voices. Those are the voices that are in accord with evolution in various ways. And this article is not about them. And none of the other creationist articles are about them either.
In general creationism is about fringe movements in various religious that are often anti-science, and certainly anti-evolution, and often textural literalists.

Is that clearer? what is wrong with what I have said?--Filll 19:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I would have no problem with including a section about mainstream Hindu beliefs or other pro-evolution Hindu beliefs in this regard. Are we talking physical evolution, or mental evolution or spiritual evolution or what here? If you can get ahold of statistics or anything about how big the groups are relative to each other, even better. If there are major proponents of this, with good cites available, they can be sourced. However, the whole point of people called creationists is that they are not mainstream, at least not in the modern world.--Filll 19:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ISKCON is a fringe cult which is not even recognised as a Hindu by orthodox groups. (For the reason that they accept converts). even in Iskcon, the creationism is a view of small number of people. Your cite does not even represent .0001% of Hindus.

california textbook controversy was about negative portrayal of Hinduism and Hindus. See the proposed changes for example. Those californian textbooks were about ancient culture and religions, and not about Science.

I dont know if there is any verse in Quran/bible/old testament that could comprehend evolution. They are very clear in this aspect, world was created in six days.

There certainly are a few Anti-Darwin, anti-evolutionary creationist hindus. But they are simply non-notable. And there is no Hindu creationist movement atleast.nids (♂) 19:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ISKCON: I know ISKCON is small and fringey. Many people have said they dispute whether they are Hindus or not. Of course, the same could be said for many fringe Christian, Jewish and Muslim groups as well (and is said). But they are very important for one main reason; they are very influential in western countries. And since most of the users, at least so far, of English Wikipedia are in Western AngloSaxon Countries, so ISKCON is probably the dominant form of Hinduism that Westerners get exposed to. This will change with time probably. But ISKCON is very visible in Western countries. California Case: The sources claimed that the california textbook case had consequences for the teaching of evolution. Now maybe I read them wrong, or the sources got it wrong. This has to be verified. About Antiscience: There is someone with a templeton foundation grant writing books about such things and writing many articles. Now maybe she is a nut, but she sounds quite notable at least from a Western perspective. No normal person just waltzes in to get one of those grants. About evolution in other sacred writings: I am no expert in biblical or Koranic hermeneutics, but if one digs around in WP and the literature, you will find those claims made. There are many ways to interpret the text. All parts of these books can be interpreted in just about any way imaginable. That is why there are several thousand different Christian sects; they interpret the bible in different ways. About 6 days: Including that 6 day thing. Some interpret 6 days to be 6 days, some to be 6000 years, Some to mean 5 billion years, etc etc. I could probably find 100 different interpretations of that in scholarly discussions of that part of the text. Which is why it is all sort of nonsense, frankly. Movements: I do not want to imply that there is some massive "movement" in the same way that there is a Christian Creationist movement in the US, which is probably unique. However, I wanted to demonstrate that there are people motivated enough to argue against Darwin's theory of other faiths besides Christianity, and motivated enough to make websites about it and write books. Notability: There are enough of them to at least make people notice. The National Center for Science Education certainly noticed them enough to have a bunch of articles about them. And they are the main anticreationist clearinghouse in the US, and so they are notable enough for NCSE. --Filll 20:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its simply wrong that california case had consequences for the teaching of evolution, even if you can source it. For the first part of your response, i am okay with moving this article to ISKCON creationism. Even if iskcon represents hindus for the westerners, it does not mean that it does represent hindus. There are too many points of differences. Anything about Hinduism gets more complexed when discussed for we do not have a single book to follow. There are multiple ones and even than it depends who follows what.nids (♂) 20:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Creationists do not represent Christians. But they claim they do and all other Christians are not real Christians. Same with Catholics etc. Wahabis and Islamists and Sufists do not represent all Muslims, but they will claim they do. Lubbavitchers do not represent all Jews but it will be claimed by many that they do. And on and on and on. So sure, the vast majority of Hindus might believe in evolution in the Darwin sense. So do the vast majority of Christians. And the vast majority of Jews. I am not sure about the Muslims but there certainly are a group of pro-evolution Muslims that will claim that the Prophet knew it 1200 years before Darwin and wrote about it in the Koran. I am not claiming some fringe elements represent all Hindus. Just as the Christian Creationists do not represent all Christians, although they would sure claim that they do, and attempt to prove it too. So this is no slur against Hindus, just as Jewish creationism is no slur against all Jews. These are people who:

claim they are of faith X (Hindu, Muslim, Jewish, Christian, etc)
follow at least some subset of faith X, possibly distorted
claim that their religious version of human history and plant and animal history on earth is correct, not the evolution version of the history of humans on planet earth and plants and animals on planet earth and the origins of the species are incorrect and follow a different time frame than that science has dictated (man has been around for maybe 200,000 years or so, life on earth about 4 billion years, the earth for maybe 4.5 billion years.), longer, shorter, etc.

I think I would say that anyone of any faith who satisfies roughly those 3 requirements, is a creationist. They do not have to be loud about it. They do not have to demand anything. They do not have to have a "movement". They just have to believe it.--Filll 20:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

THEREFORE, if any person claims, based on Vedic scriptures or teachings:

"I believe that man was alive at the same time as dinosaurs", they are a creationist.
"I believe that the earth is more than 5 billion years old," is a creationist
"I believe that man does not evolve physically with time" is a creationist
"I believe that my ancestors were NOT rat-like creatures, and before that lizards, and before that fish, and before that primitive sea creatures" is a creationist
"I believe all living creatures on earth do not have the same ancestors" is a creationist
"I believe the earth has been through multiple cycles of rebirth and men were recreated each cycle" is a creationist
"Man is descended from demigods and goddesses at the start of each cycle" is a creationist

You see what I am driving at?--Filll 20:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a slur against any group, if they claim that they are creationists. In this case, you have found a reference to a small number of people from a fringe sect of Hinduism. So it should be safe to move this page to ISKCON creationism. If there were multiple sects, then the heading could remain same. Hinduism is not responsible for every hindus bizzare claim. It becomes notable only if there are substantial number of adherents to a particular view. Its just like saying that KKK says its a christian, but we cannot say that it represents christianity. Hope i am clear about it.nids (♂) 20:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your other points were fine, but

"I believe the earth has been through multiple cycles of rebirth and men were recreated each cycle" is a creationist.

regarding this, we just dont have enough evidence for or against it. You must have gone through the pulsating theory of universe. We sure cannot say anything about how many bigbangs have occured.nids (♂) 20:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well that is true. However, if such things happened, it was not all taking place on planet earth for sure, although I am not sure exactly what Vedic scripture claims.--Filll 21:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And in any case, Christian and Muslim creationists are notable for their shear volume. Not sure about Jewish though. In case this movement grows, than there sure can be an article about it. But for the time being, it simply cannot stand AfD on Notability grounds.nids (♂) 20:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In many countries, Christian creationists are a tiny fraction of the population. At most a percent or less. Certainly in Japan they are almost nonexistant. In Scandanavian countries they hardly exist at all. In canada you could live your entire life and never meet one, quite easily. Muslims are more of a mystery to me, although I do know that in some muslims countries they do not allow evolution to be taught in schools like Pakistan. However, the Pakistan scientific organizations endorse evolution, and as I said, some Muslims claim the Koran anticipates it and this proves the Koran is the only true correct holy book blah blah blah. I have had a few discussions with Muslims trying to convert me trying to prove that all of scientific knowledge is foreshadowed in the Koran.

What about calling it Vedic creationism? Although I think Hindu is accurate, because they are hindus or claim to be, and they have creationist beliefs. Even if they are 10,000 out of 1,000,000,000 hindus and every other Hindu does not believe that they and a snail are not related by common ancestry, that 10,000 is still Hindu (or claims to be) and still has creationist beliefs. I have to get more input; the last indian editor I spoke to did not think it was inaccurate, but I do not want to offend anyone. I am not sure how it offends however. --Filll 21:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I told you that its not offensive in any way. Now christian and muslim creationism is notable for it does have impact. In US educational system or Pakistani system. You dont need to be an expert to read Quran and infer that it is a monotheistic religion which says world was created. As far as Hinduism is concerned, there is no one sacred book. However, if the number of creationists becomes notable or they have an impact, (i.e. ban teaching evolution in Indian schools, or anywhere in the world for that matter) than we can surely have an article on this. Till then, it is just a fringe view of a small sect called ISKCON. It should be pretty safe to move this article to ISKCON creationism and than explain that they consider themselves creationist Hindus. I believe analogy to KKK fits here.nids (♂) 21:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I hope you do not mind if I get some more input to verify this.--Filll 21:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ofcourse i will wait. Please also find some sources that make it (hindu creationism) notable. For the time being, i am removing the californian textbook controversy as it is completely unrelated to evolution/creation. Thanks.nids (♂) 21:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Except for that texbook stuff (which I have to investigate further I guess), those quotes are directly from a religious text of a Hindu religious leader. Are those not his quotes? Not from his text? Also are you claiming the templeton scholar does not exist and did not write those things in articles and books?--Filll 22:00, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pah... California Textbook Controversy was a three-way bitch fight with all the hyperbole flung around (yes even by Univ of Illinois "scholars")... Needless to say it didnt have anything to do with evolution and creationism... anthropology perhaps... अमेय आर्यन DaBrood^© 23:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ISKCON Links

In terms of ISKCONs views in regards to evolution see the following links:

Life Comes from Life - written by A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada (founder of ISKCON).
A selection of quotes and small essays - mostly by Bhaktivedanta Swami

I'm assuming they'll be useful for referencing etc..., and as many are by Iskcon's own founder you can be sure they represent the canonical Hare Krishna viewpoint. Regards, Gouranga(UK) 23:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No on AFD

My reasoning:

If a religion has a Creation myth, it ought to be an article in Wikipedia, and it should be a part of the Creationism group of articles
Although a "branch" of Hinduism pushed the California issue, that does not preclude the fact that Hindus have a creation myth. The US branches of Christianity are much more intolerant of Evolution than European branches, but it's a part of the whole Creationism story.
Hinduism is one of the larger religions in the world, and by that alone, it should be a part of the Creationism, to show the breadth of the creation myth amongst the worlds religions.

That's it for now. Orangemarlin 22:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are mixing it up... California Textbook controbersy didnt have anything to do with creationism or even Hindu scriptures, it was all about portrayal of Hinduism. Hindu Creationism implies that is a political pressure group or something. You could move it to "Creationism in Hinduism" and add refrences from Hindu sciptures rather than draw references heavily from an ISKON cultist. अमेय आर्यन DaBrood^© 22:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are looking at an article that was already chewed up. Possibly because it offended. I do not know. Look in the history and see if you are offended and tell me why.--Filll 23:02, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One was the Hindutva part. Though I personally reject their ideology, your edits could well have been sourced from polemical Indian leftist websites! You see Indian politics is an emotve issue! I'd suggest doing a lil' background research before pigeonholing entire movements as supremacist... अमेय आर्यन DaBrood^© 23:20, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neologism

Thats what i think of all this Hindu creationism business... ISK0N isnt even viewed as Hindu by many AND it certainly isnt the dominant form of Hinduism in West. अमेय आर्यन DaBrood^© 22:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ISKON not dominant in the West? Maybe not. But it sure is the most visible sect or Hindu-like faith by far, IMHO. And I could find quite a few million people to agree with me.

Also you have to realize that several other themes of this article have been removed already. You can find them in the history.--Filll 22:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I live in UK. We have over 0.7 million Hindus here and only 4-5% are ISKON cultists. ISKON is hardly representative of mainstrream Hindu view... अमेय आर्यन DaBrood^© 22:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I live in the US, which last time I checked was a bit larger than the UK. And in Canada and the US, and probably Australia as well, they are visible. They might be nuts (they are in my opinion), but people know them. There might be many more quiet Hindus, but they are invisible frankly.--Filll 23:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AND last time i check only about 0.2 % of world's Hindus live in North America. When you call it "Hindu creationism", you imply mainstream Hinduism. अमेय आर्यन DaBrood^© 23:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the word "creationism" or "Creationist" is derogatory in your eyes? I hope to understand what the problem is here. If there is a tiny sect of some religion, it is still a part. It does NOT imply that all Hindus are creationists, whatever that means to you. It is like an article on red cars does not imply that all cars are red. Even if only 0.001% of the cars are red, the article is not about the 99.999% of the cars that are not red NOR is it implying that they are. You see my source of difficulty and confusion over this?--Filll 01:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I see, (1) according to the sources cited in the article the anti-evolutionary interpretation of a Hinduism creation myth is limited to ISKCON, (2) ISKCON itself claims that it is not a sect of Hinduism. Doesn't that imply, that the article should be titled ISCKON creationism rather than Hindu creationism ? Abecedare 00:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I have explained repeatedly here, there was more content but it was removed. I think it might have been offensive I am not sure so I have to wait until I can understand exactly what kind of hornet's nest this is. If one looks for "hindu creationism" on google, one gets over 1000 hits and not all ISKCON. --Filll 01:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize if I judged too early based on the current version. Can you please point me to the relevant archived version so that I can educate myself on the topic ? I am new to "Hindu creationism" but very well versed and interested in both evolutionary science and the whole young-earth creationism/ID nonsense. Abecedare 02:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you look in the article history, you will see I basically stopped editing it at some point and others started. When I stopped, it was sort of at its maximum size. I now am learning about all the offensive things I unknowingly did by following advice and the literature blindly. Now I will try to learn a bit so I can write something more politically correct. I do not mind stepping on a few toes but I only want to do it if is quite accurate and defensible. of course I cant know that without learning more about the cultural issues invovled.--Filll 04:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I went back and read the "original" version. Personally I didn't find anything it said offensive, but its surmise of a conflict between Hinduism (either theology or practice) and evolution were incorrect IMO. That is not to say that Hinduism preaches evolution (although another fringe group will argue even this POV). Rather one could consider Hinduism (along with Buddhism and the likes) to be an exemplar of Gould's NOMA doctrine. Abecedare 04:59, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Still, no valid reason has been given for keeping this article. This article can safely be moved to ISKCON creationism. Accounts for Hindu myths of creation have already been dealt with in Creation_within_belief_systems#Hindu.nids (♂) 17:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hang on I want to rewrite it to not be as offensive or POV. I will probably call it something else too, but probably not that. Ok? or should I move it now so you do not feel offended? --Filll 18:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have a suggestion. lets move this article to ISKCON creationism. You collect evidence of creationist beleifs in Hindu scriptures. I have already provided one link to you. We can ofcourse have an article titled, Creationist beleifs in Hindu scriptures or something like that which discusses the verses implying creationist myths.nids (♂) 18:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article title

The new article title (Hindus who are creationists) sucks hard. I don't know why the old one was controversial, but this one needs to be changed immediately. If "Hindu creationism" was controversial because it implies that there is actually something called that, I would suggest "Hinduism and creationism" which emphasizes that they are two seperate ideas. If you're looking for something more similar to this but actually in line with our article naming policies, it would be "Creationist Hindus." Recury 21:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am standing on my head here trying avoid offending anyone. I do not care about the naming conventions. I am just trying to keep the article from being destroyed because it offends someone.--Filll 23:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like the "Hinduism and creationism" title since then the article can discuss how the two isms interact, rather than have to discuss only the intersection of the two. Abecedare 23:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am disgusted enough to consider removing the article and putiing it in another creationist article where it can be properly protected from overly sensitive editors who do not want to suggest that there are any people who might get nondarwinian ideas from vedic scripture anywhere on planet earth. --Filll 23:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be disgusted. We weren't around when the Evolution article was first written, and I'm sure there were battles that were fought, and the final work is pretty fine. It's happening here but this is a work in progress. People are going to be offended by anything written on any topic. I have a hard time reading the article Jews for Jesus, because I find the group to be disgusting, anti-Semetic, yada yada and yada yada. But I read the article and I find it balanced and fair. I could find a thousand articles which are just as hard to read. Editors with more expertise are going to chime in, and provide better edits, and someday, it will be edited by a group of people who aren't you. If it gets bad we can do a RFA or RFM, and work out the issues. That being said, the title sucks really bad. I think that "Hinduism and Creationism" makes sense. I'm going to make the change, and hope I don't create a revert war out there!!! Orangemarlin 00:46, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is fine but somehow we lost the text. This is the old text that offended them so badly.Filll 00:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're kidding. I didn't change anything. Orangemarlin 01:00, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its ok now. So it just took a while for the servers to catch up I guess.--Filll 01:04, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hinduism and creationism is fine and it can discuss the relationship between the two. Nobleeagle ^[TALK] [C] 04:30, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Swastika

I know that it means something to Hindus, but that Swastika gives me shivers every time I look at it on this page. Does it really have to be there? Orangemarlin 00:49, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well it is their most holy symbol apparently. It is on all their houses schools buildings etc.--Filll 00:52, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I just read up on the symbol. It's like a christian cross I suppose. Symbols should have no meaning, especially for a scientist, but some just do. I'm all right with it, it's just a bit disturbing. Orangemarlin 00:59, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did some research and found that in some synagogues built before WWII, it is in the building design or mouldings etc. It means luck or good will or divinity or something depending on the culture; even american indians use it. I even found some pictures of it being used in Israel. I saw a documentary once where they interviewed some Rabbis of a synagogue and they were asked why they didnt remove it and they said they were not going to knuckle under to that Tyrant's misappropriation of a holy symbol blah blah.--Filll 01:03, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hitler seems to have permanently wrecked Hinduisms most holy symbol. Nobleeagle ^[TALK] [C] 04:28, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. It is a shame really, but I think eventually people will put it in the right perspective. After all, when I see a pink triangle now, I think "gay" I do not think death camps. --Filll 04:33, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]