Jump to content

Talk:History of creationism/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

False statement

The history of creationism begins with the ancient Hebrew text describing creation according to Genesis

This statement seems not only false but culturally myopic when viewed in relation to the article on origin belief. --Viriditas | Talk 11:22, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
Agreed. I have changed it accordingly. I have also added a paragraph on Herbert Spencer. Joshuaschroeder 18:40, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Pope John Paul II quotation

Concern about the John Paul II quotation in the "intelligent design" section: I don't see how John Paul II's view that God created a "spiritual soul" has anything to do with evolution of species through the process of natural selection. JPII's idea of a soul is not based on scientific theory, and everything else he had written suggests that his understanding of biology is based on mainstream science. The teachings of the Catholic Church don't line up at all with advocates of Intelligent Design or Creationism. In fact, the Vatican bureaucracy has repeatedly dismissed "intelligent design" as pseudoscience. Here is a link from CBS News describing one dismissal of Intelligent Design: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/01/18/ap/world/mainD8F7BDS03.shtml I strongly, strongly suggest that this quote be deleted, since it makes it appear that John Paul II endorses Intelligent Design, when in fact he didn't. Any other thoughts on this? I'm not a wikipedia member, otherwise I would sign in.

Just remember, just because something is pseudoscience doesn't mean that it can't possibly be true. rossnixon 02:07, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Darwin's Black Box.jpg

Image:Darwin's Black Box.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 00:59, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:The Genesis Flood.jpg

Image:The Genesis Flood.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 07:09, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

US Bias to the article

The article focusses almost exclusively on the history of creationism in the USA, and has nothing on the the history in any other country. This is a wopping POV error and needs correction John D. Croft (talk) 03:11, 28 April 2008 (UTC).

In The begining

Surely the history of creationism goes back to some time when a shepard was sitting on a hill watching his sheep and one of the kids came up and asked, "Dad where did we come from", rather than admit they didn't know they just made something up. Now obviously this was going on on hills all over the place, and eventually produced religion.--Jirate 13:16, 2004 Dec 9 (UTC)

maybe your religion was born like that. Judaism was born of an Egyptian prince who led his people out into the wilderness and seemed convinced that he had a historical record of the geneology from the first man. Christianity was born of thousands of people who were fully convinced that a healer, miracle-worker, and prophet rose from the dead. Ungtss 13:28, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Nonsense, they are just the outlayer, the latest level of patches to either cover up the inconsistencies or to gain more power for the profit. --Jirate 13:54, 2004 Dec 9 (UTC)
Perhaps this idea of yours goes back to when you were a little kid and asked your dad where the idea of religion came from, and rather than admit that he didn't know, just made something up. Now obviously this was going on all over the place, and eventually produced this fairy tale that religion is made up. Philip J. Rayment 13:49, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
No it's actually an idea of mine own developed from talking to religous people and noticing how they never took resposibility for anything always said it was down to someoneelse they called God who made them do it, even though they didn't want to.--Jirate 13:54, 2004 Dec 9 (UTC)
Okay, so you made up the idea that religion is made up. But presumably you think that religion that is made up is worthless, so for consistency your made-up idea is worthless. So why should we take any notice of it? Philip J. Rayment 14:27, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the place to discuss this subject —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.14.119.168 (talk) 04:30, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

You don't have to it's up to you, but as you've just pointed my view has exactly the same intelectual merit as religion.--Jirate 14:59, 2004 Dec 9 (UTC)
that's a question of history ... but as you said, "it's up to you:)." Ungtss 15:47, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
is it possible that religions can start out healthy and turn sick? Ungtss 13:58, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
More likely than the other way around, but in the end I think it's a branch of politics most of the time.--Jirate 14:02, 2004 Dec 9 (UTC)
well that's the core difference of opinion here. you think religion has evolved and improved from "shepherds on hillsides." i think it has deteriorated from men who walked on water. that's why i continue to call myself a christian despite the rampant corruption among "religious people" -- because i think Jesus' message[1] is the truest around, and I think history reflects my view. Ungtss 14:24, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
So you are saying that it is more likely something (religion) started out "sick" and became "healthy"? How many things work that way? Most (all?) "bad" things are actually good things corrupted, not the other way around. Philip J. Rayment 14:27, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
No I said the complete opposite quiet clearly. it is more like to deterorate than improve.--Jirate 14:59, 2004 Dec 9 (UTC)
You are right, sorry. I did misread you. :-( Philip J. Rayment 15:46, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
oops sorry -- i missed the word "than" in your comment, "more likely than the other

way:)." then we're in agreement:) -- i just look for the good stuff wherever i can find it, and have found a whole lot of good stuff in the bible ... and a whole lot of bullshit in religion today. makes me wonder:). Ungtss 15:47, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Some ppl are stupid in suggesting man made god rather than god made man. One day the truth will be known and as they say 'the grim humour of the situation is evident to those who have eyes to see, and wit to appreciate it'. Primitive religion since the beginnings of man are and will be more important than rationalism will ever be. Portillo 00:38, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Creationary

As seen elsewhere:

Noun

Evolution

Adjective

Evolutionary

Noun

Creation

Adjective

Creationary

Not so strange. AshforkAZ (talk) 01:49, 1 November 2010 (UTC)


"Creationary" is only "seen" in creationist publications. "Evolutionary" is found in most dictionaries, including the OED. According to the OED, the correct adjective meaning "Of or pertaining to creation" is "creational" -- but notes that even this is rarely used. In any case, your false equivalence would appear to violate WP:GEVAL. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 09:42, 7 November 2010 (UTC)


cre•a•tion [kree-ey-shuhn] –noun

  1. the act of producing or causing to exist; the act of creating; engendering.
  2. the fact of being created.
  3. something that is or has been created.
  4. the Creation, the original bringing into existence of the universe by god.
  5. the world; universe.
  6. creatures collectively.
  7. an original product of the mind, esp. an imaginative artistic work: the creations of a poetic genius.
  8. a specially designed dress, hat, or other article of women's clothing, usually distinguished by imaginative or unique styling: the newest Paris creations.

Origin: 1350–1400; ME creacioun < L creātiōn- (s. of creātiō ). See create, -ion

—Related forms

  • cre•a•tion•al, adjective
  • cre•a•tion•ar•y [kree-ey-shuh-ner-ee], adjective
  • an•ti•cre•a•tion, adjective
  • an•ti•cre•a•tion•al, adjective
  • pre•cre•a•tion, noun
  • self-cre•a•tion, noun

—Synonyms 1. production, development, formation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AshforkAZ (talk • contribs) 17:35, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

  1. Random House/Dictionary.com isn't a particularly authoritative dictionary. I would therefore strongly prefer OED's "creational".
  2. I have yet to see the word used, in this context (or in any other context, for that matter), outside Creationism's self-imposed intellectual ghetto. I am therefore loathe to use such terminology in an encyclopaedic article meant to be giving WP:DUE weight to the scholarly majority viewpoint.
  3. Taking it to be equivalent to "evolutionary" (or applying it to any field of scientific endeavour) would appear to violate WP:GEVAL.

HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:32, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Kinds in the lede

The final paragraph in the lede, on Biblical 'kinds' appears to violate WP:LEDE which states "Significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article...". It is also in violation of WP:LEDECITE. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:38, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Balance?

I would note that the article makes only passing mention of Gap Creationism and Day-Age Creationism, in spite of the fact that these were the dominant forms of creationism from the creation of modern geology in the early 19th century, through to the early 1960s. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 11:16, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Article structure

This article has way too little structure. It is mostly isolated/unconnected short paragraphs with nothing linking them together. And too many of these are simply bald statements of scientific advances, with no discussion of how these advances molded (proto-creationist) and creationist thought. I'm going to attempt to rewrite to give some structure. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:14, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I would further suggest that much of the material requires sources discussing how these events relate to the development of Creationism. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:20, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

  • The scope of the topic needs attention. The OED tells us that creationism is "The theory which attributes the origin of matter, the different species of animals and plants, etc., to ‘special creation’". The reference to supernatural should be taken out of the lead. And we should put a section about the Big Bang and modern creation theories along with the history of rival theories such as Steady State. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:18, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Oh really? Looking at the NAS source you cite (which is the 1999 rather than the current edition) we find on page 7 "The advocates of "creation science" hold a variety of viewpoints. Some claim that Earth and the universe are relatively young, perhaps only 6,000 to 10,000 years old. These individuals often believe ... that all living things (including humans) were created miraculously, essentially in the forms we now find them. Other advocates of creation science are willing to accept that Earth, the planets, and the stars may have existed for millions of years. But they argue that the various types of organisms, and especially humans, could only have come about with supernatural intervention, because they show "intelligent design." In this booklet, both these "Young Earth" and "Old Earth" views are referred to as "creationism" or "special creation."" ..... Spot the supernatural connection. . . dave souza, talk 19:06, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
None of the sources you cite talk about BB or SST as being "creationism". Your claims about what Creationism (and subsidiarily 'Special Creation') is, amounts to WP:OR, and is heavily idiosyncratic in terms of WP:RS scholarship on these subjects. It also conflicts with the scope defined in Creationism. I therefore see no reason to alter the scope of this article to match your claims. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 03:08, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Augustine quote

c. 426 – Augustine completes City of God, in which he wrote:

"Some hold the same opinion regarding men that they hold regarding the world itself, that they have always been . . . . And when they are asked, how, . . . they reply that most, if not all lands, were so desolated at intervals by fire and flood, that men were greatly reduced in numbers, and . . . thus there was at intervals a new beginning made. . . . But they say what they think, not what they know. They are deceived . . . by those highly mendacious documents which profess to give the history of many thousand years, though reckoning by the sacred writings, we find that not 6,000 years have yet passed."

(i) This article is already rather riddled with quotations. (ii) This quotation lacks a full citation. (iii) This particular quotation makes such liberal use of elipsis that I have concerns that it may misrepresent Augustine's views. I think it would be better to move it here until we can find a secondary source that actually says this, rather than threading together so many fragments. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:27, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Jerlstrom "prominent" scientist?

In what way is Jerlstrom (editor in chief of "Creation") one of Australia's "prominent" scientists?

His career in science (according to his CV on their homepage) peaked with a "postdoctoral fellow" position, lasted 14 years, yielded seven papers (4 of which he is first author) and (according to scopus) an H-index of 5. If that makes one a "prominent" scientist down under things look worse for you guys science-wise than than they do soccer-wise...

82.35.105.51 (talk) 06:34, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

[clarification needed] Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 14:34, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Darwin

I removed the reference to Darwin introducing natural selection as it was described by Edward Blyth (a creationist!), 25 years before Origin of the Species. I also removed the references to Darwin not intending to oppose religious accounts but rather opposing Lamarck, as I don't believe it to be true. Stephen Jay Gould claimed that Darwin did intend to oppose the biblical creation story, and as I understand it Darwin implicitly accepted Lamarck's ideas. Philip J. Rayment 12:59, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

---

In my opinion, that reference to Darwin does not belong there at all. Darwin was not a creationist; he did not contribute to creationism; he did not change creationism. Darwin is irrelevant to the History of creationism--just as Jesus Christ is irrelevant to the History of Judaism. That insertion of Darwin into the History of creationism is only an artifact of the constant evolutionist nuking of the Creationism page--interrupting the explication of the theory with advertisements for motorcars that have nothing to do with the theory.

The format of the Evolution page is about right. Everything about Darwin and evolution should be moved to a minor section "Creationism and Darwin" that would be the structural and logical equivalent to the current "Evolution and religion" section of the Evolution page--presenting the most significant competitive theories. ---Rednblu 17:44, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I believe that it is vital to refer to Darwin in the history of Creationist thought. Creationism as a movement arose in reaction to Darwinism so of course it is relevant to consider it. My understanding is that Darwin hesitated to publish his theories because of the outcry that he knew they would cause. he was only persuaded to publish when he realised that Wallace had developed a similar theory and if he didn't publish he wouldn't get the credit for all his work. Michael Glass 03:52, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Ehem, Philip: Jesus Christ, I will point out is very very very very very very very relevant to Judaism. Especially Messianic Jews. Weknreven i susej eht Talk• Follow 08:01, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
I will point out, however, that before Darwin popularized evolution, creation was just a generally accepted fact in the scientific community. The creation-evolution controversy, on the other hand was a response to Darwin's theory. Weknreven i susej eht Talk• Follow 08:04, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

When did the "creationism controversy" begin? With Democritus or with Darwin?

And let me introduce you to the line imediately above that:
This article describes the creationism controversy.
We don't need to create another page, we already have the page and it's this one. You're getting the purpose of this page confused with the Creationism (theology) page. --Steinsky 00:45, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Nope. You are picking a very unrealistic view of how old the "creationism controversy" is. I have in hand a translation of a gentleman who lived before Christ who had his own movement and explanation in controversy with the creationists. He wrote:

Nothing from nothing ever yet was born.
Fear holds dominion over mortality
Only because, seeing in land and sky
So much the cause whereof no wise they know,
Men think Divinities are working there.
Meantime, when once we know from nothing still
Nothing can be create, we shall divine
More clearly what we seek: those elements
From which alone all things created are,
And how accomplished by no tool of Gods.

And this gentleman writing before Christ proceeds to lay out a series of explanations that learned men knew was right: Who would create the Creator? Lifeforms had metamorphosed slowly under natural forces into other forms--and eventually into the living animals around us. And there was no need for a Creator to intervene. Certainly, this gentleman living before Christ was not even close yet to guessing at natural selection, but he certainly opposed creationism, and the creationism movement surely condemned him as a heretic and likewise those who similarly tried to figure out the details of how we could metamorphose over many generations from beasts to men. Aren't you interested in the facts? ---Rednblu 02:12, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'm aware that there were people before Darwin who questioned the logic of creation myths, but before Darwin there was no organised "creationist movement" like we see today. People simply believed and creation and since nobody who questioned it had a better idea, it was no difficulty dismissing the ideas. The controversy only really got started with Darwin, because Darwin could provide an alternative. That is why Darwin needs to be mentioned on this page, if only because his ideas definitely did change the creationism controversy. --Steinsky 02:46, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

---

In what way do you think that Darwin's ideas changed the "creationism controversy"? Creationism continued to argue from the old-fashioned foundation of faith. Look at the facts. Do you mean to say that Darwin's ideas changed the "evolutionism controversy"? That is, probably you can find some writings of Thomas Huxley that support the idea that Darwin's ideas changed the "evolutionism controversy" by giving the evolutionists a hypothesis "to get hold of clear and definite conceptions which could be brought face to face with facts and have their validity tested." [2] But that did not change the "creationism controversy" one whit; the creationists still argued from faith and common sense--as they have for over two thousand years. ---Rednblu 03:17, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Hmmm, then I suppose the creationists could argue their movement began when God created the universe... Weknreven i susej eht Talk• Follow 08:08, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Creationism Internationally

With the exception of the US subsection, most of this section covers creationism purely from a modern (rather than historical) perspective, and is therefore off-topic for this article. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:00, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I second that. Weknreven i susej eht Talk• Follow 08:11, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for reminding me -- I'd forgotten about that point -- long since time I took WP:SILENCE for acceptance & moved the section over to Creationism. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 12:40, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Dubious history

The history begins with (section Early history)

Anaxagoras and Empedocles, in the 5th century BCE

while the intro asserts

The term creationism in its broad sense covers a wide range of views and interpretations, and was not in common use before the late 19th century.

For me this is a confusion of unrelated debates. Anaxagoras and Empedocles invented a philosophy in a time where there was no scientific method, opposed by other philosophers that claimed an eternal universe.

The modern creationism is a movement of hot-headed provokers that declares their private "holy war" against modernist society based on scientific methods, in order to gain some kind of perverted status in their own idiosyncratic society, not using proper philosophical arguments (that said by an anti-creationist and evolutionist Lutheran Christian believing that Lord God created universe in the act of Big Bang and then started evolution abt -4.1 Gyr or so).

The emergence of "creationism" per se, should be some time around Darwin, when a lesser contingent of unwise religious people chosed delusion before restructuring their religious faith to accomodate new facts. I think the history section presents a gravely inaccurate history of creationism. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 14:51, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. "History of creationism" should not be confused with "History of the belief in God", which would be quite anachronistic, since the word was not in existence in the Middle ages, Renaissance and so on (not to mention insulting to religious people). Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 19:48, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Agree that the article should be tightened up and properly sourced, but it's a mistake to think that creationism or antievolution began in response to Darwin. Perhaps the problem is that creationism is so amorphous, and it's rather misleading to assume that Christian thought before the 20th century can be equated to the fundamentalism of the 1920s or the modern YEC creationism that really began with Morris's The Genesis Flood, albeit as a restatement of the little-noticed views of George McCready Price. A major overhaul of the article is needed, will put it on my long-term todo list but hope someone can have a go sooner. . . dave souza, talk 22:09, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
If I understand well, creationism was coined by Darwin himself. Hence, how can it not be related to the responses to darwinism. Moreover, it seems to me that nobody, with the exception of hardcore "materialists", or perhaps a few authors like Eugenie Scott (but is she that radical in her use of the word ?), uses the word "creationism" to mean "belief that God created man" : that is generally called "religious faith". The general use of the word "creationism" equates it with "denial of the theory of evolution". Having an article that equates "religion" and "creationism" is just misleading IMHO. This definition seems much more balanced to me. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 15:44, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Genesis Account, most influential and accepted as history

So, I tagged the description of genesis as the most influential creation account as citation needed because it smacks of WP:OR. I'd be very interested to see a source but I doubt the relevant information exists. That said if it's elsewhere in the article and I missed it, apologies.

I tagged the clause "which was accepted as a historical account until the advent of modern science" with, "by whom" because nowhere does this article elucidate on that point. It may have been accepted by a majority in the west, but there are other cultures and other times. Essentially I think Genesis is being given undue weight there. Thoughts? SPACKlick (talk) 17:23, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I think it's also worth mentioning of that paragraph that Genesis doesn't provide the framework for Islamic creationism. The more I read that paragraph the less I like it. Does it even need to be there? SPACKlick (talk) 11:37, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
I propose moving from this
The history of creationism relates to the history of thought based on the premise that the natural universe had a beginning, and came into being supernaturally. The term creationism in its broad sense covers a wide range of views and interpretations, and was not in common use before the late 19th century. Throughout recorded history, many people have viewed the universe as a created entity. Many ancient historical accounts from around the world refer to or imply a creation of the earth and universe.
Although specific historical understandings of creationism have used varying degrees of empirical, spiritual and/or philosophical investigations, they are all based on the view that the universe was created. The most influential force on the history of creationism has been the Genesis creation narrative[citation needed], which was accepted as a historical account until the advent of modern science[by whom?]. It has provided a basic framework for Jewish, Christian and Islamic epistemological understandings of how the universe came into being - through the divine intervention of God, Yahweh or Allah. Historically, literal interpretations of this narrative have been more dominant than allegorical interpretations of Genesis.[1]
to
The history of creationism relates to the history of thought based on the premise that the natural universe had a beginning, and came into being supernaturally. The term creationism in its broad sense covers a wide range of views and interpretations, and was not in common use before the late 19th century. Throughout recorded history, many people have viewed the universe as a created entity. Many ancient historical accounts from around the world refer to or imply a creation of the earth and universe. Although specific historical understandings of creationism have used varying degrees of empirical, spiritual and/or philosophical investigations, they are all based on the view that the universe was created.
because once the uncited and unattributed sections are removed the remainder is an island with no place in the article. SPACKlick (talk) 12:33, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Scope compared to Creationism

Please see discussion at Talk:Creationism#Scope_of_this_article_vs_History_of_creationism Jytdog (talk) 21:43, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

"Overview" section

I think the article should be re-organized. There was a section called "overview" that summarized the entire article. However, there already exists a proper "Overview" section, called the Lede. So, I propose the "Overview" section be split up and distributed through out the entire article. Some of it goes to the lede, and some of it relevant sections within the rest of the article. I moved the first section to the lede, and the "Creation and Modern science" still exists awkwardly in the article. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 18:42, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on History of creationism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:25, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on History of creationism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:20, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

God vs god

There have been some edits/reverts in the introduction of the topic that have seen the noun 'god' alternate between having a capital and not having a capital. So what is the issue? The noun "god" is used to introduce the concept of Yahweh. The concept of Yahweh is that of the full-fledged God of a monotheistic religion, not a small-g god of any of various pantheons, such as Thor. No one ever worshipped Thor as the one true God, but people today do worship Yahweh, many of whom reside in the country of Israel. The article on Judaism is clear:

"Unlike other ancient Near Eastern gods, the Hebrew God is portrayed as unitary and solitary; consequently, the Hebrew God's principal relationships are not with other gods, but with the world, and more specifically, with the people he created.". Notice the use of the big-G "God" to describe Yahweh.

Therefore it is correct to introduce the concept without incorporating the belief or non-belief of the Wikipedia editor who wishes to introduce the concept accurately. Yahweh is one of the vocalizations of the Hebrew tetragrammaton, a special word of the Tanakh. There are languages besides Hebrew, such as Latin or Greek, and so in English, the great borrower language, that there are two words for YHWH doesn't mean there are two separate concepts. It's the same with many concepts, such as the Pentateuch and Torah - different words because of the different routes the concept took to be rendered in English . They are the same concept. The way this article has emphasized Yahweh as only a small-g god is not in line with the concept as explained in the articles I have linked to and quoted.Sotuman (talk) 23:15, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

You're close to WP:TE. See WP:RNPOV for details, see also Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Religions, deities, philosophies, doctrines. We write "God" and "the god". "God" with a capital letter is not "the god"/"a god", much less "the god Yahweh". Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:12, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
No, because there is a substantial difference in meaning between 'god' and 'God'. It is not tendentious to be aware of and differentiate the two, the same way that 'matt' and 'Matt' have different meanings and should not be confused. Since it is impossible for anyone to assert that Yahweh is 'a god' and not 'the God', the concept should be allowed to introduce itself freely and inline with mainstream concensus on the topic, which is that Yahweh was never defined as 'a god', but 'the God'. Small details are important -[[The devil is in the detail, so they say.Sotuman (talk) 00:27, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Please keep such opinions to yourself. As stated, you have engaged in WP:TE and if you persist you will be blocked, then banned from Wikipedia. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:30, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
And that's your opinion, what made you share it? You think there's value in what you type, and so do I. Instead of using scare tactics, you might try a little more good-faith discourse. Also, Wikipedia:Describing points of view is a good read.Sotuman (talk) 00:40, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
your fate here is in your own hands. Doug Weller talk 11:11, 12 February 2019 (UTC) Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:42, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu: That's right, Carpe diem!Sotuman (talk) 07:25, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Revert

I don't deny that Hume wore that, but it is WP:CHERRYPICKING. The WP:CITEd source (Madden) is from a Christian publishing house, defending natural theology. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:22, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Misleading categories

Putting everybody who doesn't believe in some form of Creationism into the category of "atheists" is a tad misleading, don't you think? Even without getting into the many religious scientists who nonetheless believe the theory of evolution by natural selection to best describe what they see in nature, there are various intermediate, non-atheist categories as well (i.e. agnostics). I'm fairly sure that there's no evidence to suggest that most people who agree with evolutionary theory are atheists (though the reverse may indeed be true). Anyway, I'm happy with acknowledging that in the 19th century this may have been largely true, but by the mid to late 20th century, as evolutionism became associated not with political radialism but with mainstream science, this became less and less the case. Some thoughts? I'm referring especially to the section on "Differing beliefs." --Fastfission 06:44, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yup, without support from scientists who are Christian, the theory of evolution would have never succeeded (when Darwin published his book, the bulk of natural scientists were theologians). There are many scientists who are Christian and accept the theory of evolution. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:26, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:History_of_creationism/Archive_1&oldid=1188690563"