Talk:Neo-creationism/Archive 1

Conflicting POVs (not just disagreement)

I admit I am not a supporter of creationism, but to counter its arguments I need to know what they are. I turned to this page for help on neo-creationism and found it confusing. Some some parts of the page say that neo-creationism aims to cast creationism in a non-religious way - that it disputes the scientific basis for evolution, and looks for scientific evidence of creationism (perhaps meaning that "Creation Science" and "Intelligent Design" part of neo-creationism). Other parts of the page say specifically that neo-creationsism aims to take creationism away from scientific debate because it rejects the enlightenment view of what kinds of logical thinking is valid (ie it is back-to-basics Creationism which has no interest in reprsenting creationism an alternative SCIENTIFIC theory). I would be happy if the page said that SOME PEOPLE use neocreationism to mean the first and some people use it to mean the second, but that is not what the page says. My best guess is that neo-creationism includes "creation science"; and that the second point of view was just an evolutionist having a dig at ALL forms of creationism. But I am willing to learn, so can someone who genuinely knows what neocreationism says (or who wishes to clearly state that there is a debate over what it is) please help ? 62.25.106.209 12:55, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't anyone who calls himself a neocreationist. The term is just an evolutionist epithet. What you are observing is inconsistencies in how evolutionists badmouth people they don't like. Roger 00:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV

Wow...

"As do postmodernists, neo-creationists reject the traditions arising from the Enlightenment upon which modern scientific epistemology is founded. Neo-creationists seek nothing less than the replacement of empirical and logical evidence with ideology and dogmatic belief. Thus, neo-creationism is considered by Eugenie C. Scott and other critics as the most successful form of irrationalism.

I'm no fan of the Discovery Institute, but at least the middle sentence here is like...its like, if a perfumier wanted to make essence of POV, he'd use that one.Corbmobile 12:55, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to reword some of this article to make it more NPOV. Please don't take any of the edits personally; I'm just trying to uphold a more encyclopedic tone. Particularly, I was looking out for the following things:

Avoiding generalizations
Making clear the opposing viewpoints without exhibiting bias toward one or the other
Avoiding the use of extraneous wording/punctuation to cast doubt on a position ("so-called", "legitimate", putting quotes around "science", etc.)

Deklund 07:46, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly a fair cop I'd say. I've replaced one or two of the changes that I think are fair to leave in. Your mileage may vary. --Plumbago 10:00, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In an attempt to avoid generalizations you've added equivocations. It's no gernalization to say that all Neo-Creationists claim to present scientific theories while making thinly veiled religious allusions with an open and often hostile opposition to what they term "Darwinism." These points are what specifically distinguish Neo-Creationism from Creationism. It's simply not a matter of "most," "some," or "many" and "often": Either they they distinctions in their arguments, or they're not Neo-Creationists, but run-of-the-mill creationists. FeloniousMonk 15:57, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, talk about an absolute violation of NPOV... I especially like the parts about "Neo-creationists seek nothing less than the replacement of empirical and logical evidence with ideology and dogmatic belief." and "Motivating the neo-creationist movement is the fear that religion is under attack by the study of evolution." To say this article needs to be repaired would be a bit of an understatement. Izuko 03:15, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PEJORATIVE POV The term "neo-creationist" is apparently never used by Creation Science or Intelligent Design. It was apparently coined by critics such as Miller. Its application to Intelligent Desin is considered pejorative or an insult, and an attempt to tag ID with "creationist".

RECOMMEND DELETING THIS TERM AND PAGE as foundationally contarary to NPOV principles and an effort by critics to tar Intelligent Design. DLH 15:25, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'Also Recommend deleting this page' I myself am a creationist and I have never heard of the term neo-creationism, and I am big into the debate between the two points of view. and man this page needs to be deleted, it is really just some guy saying a term that sounds like an insult and making a bunch of bashes against creationism. Russianfriend742 00:47, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From Darwin to Hitler

Just to head off any claim from Rich that the DI is not promoting his book "From Darwin to Hitler," a Whois search for the book's website domain name, darwintohitler.com, reveals that it was registered by the Discovery Institute: [1]. Additionally, the institute's name and logo are prominently displayed on the site's front page: [2]. FeloniousMonk 00:11, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Surprisingly enough though, it really is published by MacMillan. I saw that edit yesterday, assumed it was just another dash for respectability by the NCs, but it turns out to be correct. I don't know what MacMillan are thinking (apart from dollar signs). --Plumbago 09:33, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

By Weikart/130.17.182.200's own admission yesterday [3], From Darwin to Hitler was funded by the Discovery Institute, so MacMillan had little financial risk. As for being peer-reviewed, MacMillan lists it in its history/social sciences catalog. So peer review there is a very different thing that PR for scientific articles and books. FeloniousMonk 02:33, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So basically, because Hitler and Streicher, et al, misunderstood Evolution (or at least twisted it to their own ends) that's proof that Evolution is evil? I don't know, the misunderstanding and twisting reminds me of a few IDists I've run across.

Jim62sch 02:18, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The first two paragraphs (as you have formulated them) cancel each other out, logically. The first one concludes, "It aims to re-frame the debate over the origins of life in non-religious terms and without appeals to scripture." The second paragraph states that the complaint of Neo-Creationists is that science "effectively excludes religious insight from contributing to understanding the universe." To correct this problem I will alter paragraph two. Endomion 03:25, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A lack of logical consistancy is one of the more common criticisms of neo-creationism. The passage was correct as it was and cites are availible to back it up. Sorry, but I'm reverting your changes. FeloniousMonk 03:45, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I was attempting to resolve your lack of logical consistency in authoring a putatively encyclopedic article. I'll wipe the dust off my sandals and leave you to get AfD'ed later. Endomion 03:57, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think the author of this article misunderstands the underlying argument against Darwinism from the social advocates of intelligent design. The connection between Darwinism and social decline is this. Traditional norms of morality in Western society were viewed as immutable because of the belief that a creator God had set them as part of a universal law. Darwinism challenged this belief, resulting in a secular humanistic society where human beings, not some omnipotent creator, decideed what was right and what was wrong. Consequently, the argument goes as long as Darwinism remains a social concept, not just a scientific one, moral standards will continue to decline and anarchy could be the end result. Therefore, a plastic, atheistic morality has no standards to sustain itself other than people's good will, which is self-interested.

I should also point out that Darwinism was the basis of the Eugenics Movement and the racist theories of Social Darwinism that led to the Nazi holocaust of the Jews.

Also, it should be noted that ID is really more of a restatement of 18th century Deism than an affirmation of Christian cosmology because it surmises the existance of a creator, but that still doesn't prove the ID "God" is the deity worshipped by Christians and Jews.

Too much weight is given in this article to the opponents of intelligent design and not enough is given to its proponents' counterarguments.

Macroevolution, the evolution of one species into another cannot be tested in a laboratory, anymore than intelligent design. The supporters of ID, however, accept microevolution as scientific fact, evidenced by the different breeds of dogs or species of birds.

The opponents of ID fall into the trap of disproving a negative because they already do not believe in a deity; therefore, suggesting theoretical evidence, a hypothesis, that a deity does exist is false from the getgo. Scientists are not objective because they all begin with their prejudices and work from there.--204.108.237.194 21:45, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Forest, there are trees there. Jim62sch 00:55, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

204.108.237.194, you misunderstand science. Many scientists believe in God. Since science is about developing testable hypotheses about the workings of the world, and you can't test the Lord your God, God stays right out of it. Read the statements by the Pope, and the Archbishop of Canterbury. They are fine with science. You mentioned a evidence (presumably testable) that there is a deity. And that is?

Trishm 22:08, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Afd FYI

There is no tag on the article page, and this article is ~~not~~ on the Afd page - but Endomion apparently created an Afd page for this article. I am completely confused by this. Feel free to do whatever seems appropriate. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Neo-Creationism KillerChihuahua 05:20, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Do they call themselves neo-creationist? vs PEJOATIVE PREMISE

The Darwinism article says:

The term is mostly used by its enemies. As biologist E.O. Wilson has noted, "Scientists don't call it 'Darwinism'." [Newsweek Nov 28, 2005]

Isn't it true for neo-creationists? Do the ID proponents call themselves neo-creationist at all?

Thanks, nyenyec ☎ 15:10, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, they don't. Proponents of Intelligent Design would, almost by definition, consider "neo-creationist" an insult. Kind of like the distinction between someone who calls themselves "pro-life" but is labeled "anti-choice" by their opponents. Is it true? Well, kinda. Depends on who you ask. Would they reject the label? Yes. Is it inflamatory? Absolutely. BradC 17:42, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then the foundational premise of this page is POV! Needs alot of editing to put the perspective of both sides in.--DLH 02:20, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE Neo-Creationism as a pejorative description It appears that neo-creationism is a pejorative term coined by evolutionists to tar Intelligent Design with the tag "creationism." Apprently it is never used favorably by ID practioners of themselves. e.g. it is not mentioned at ISCID.org. It's only use at uncommondescent.com is in one quote of Miller's. The onlyl occurrence at IDthefuture.com is to the book Traipsing into Evolution on the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial and its use there by evolutionists against ID. Creation Science seeks to compare empirical evidence with the Bible. Intelligent Design only pressupposes that intelligent causes exist and examines empirical evidence for evidence of intelligence vs a closed system of natural causes.

e.g., in arn.org it occurs in "Darwinism, Design and Public Education" section IV Critical Response "Design Yes, Intelligent No: A Critique of Intelligent Design Theory and Neo-Creationism, Massimo Pigliucci."

Recommend DELETING "neo-creationism" as a descriptive term for ID and only mention its use as a pejorative term. DLH 12:55, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this entire article should be deleted. The term is not in common use, and appears to have been created merely to cause confusion among other views. It is not accurately describing anyone view. It violates NPOV. Schlafly 20:05, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This objection was already covered in a previous failed AFD. The article survived as the claim of lack of notability was found to be specious. The interesting thing here is that belying the claim that the article is POV is the fact that it's only ID proponents and other creationists who try to claim it's not a notable term, i.e.; those here who only represent one particular POV. And a POV that would no doubt benefit from seeing the article deleted. FeloniousMonk 20:43, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Concur with FM, this is inflammatory trolling IMNSHO. Please limit comments on talk pages to how to improve the article. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:45, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with FM and KC. This is beyong inflammatory trolling, it is more a matter of being utterly clueless. Not in popular use, eh -- then why does it generate 240,000 hits? Troll somewhere else please, there's nothing to pee on here. Jim62sch 21:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jim62sch: "neo-creationism" has 1,400 hits in Yahoo vs 4,020,000 for "Intelligent Design" i.e., 2870:1 Similarlly 10,700 for "neo-creationism in Google compared to 16,800,000 for "Intelligent Design" i.e., 1570:1. 0.03% is clearly a minority perspective on this. Please recheck you numbers.DLH 04:35, 7 June 2006 (UTC) Please explain AFD and cite your sourceDLH 04:39, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS Jim62sch I consider your statements to be ad hominim See: WP:ATTACK Please withdraw and conduct a civil discussion.DLH 04:35, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AFD = WP:AFD. Um, again DLH, as I've pointed out to you before elsewhere, both your numbers and reasoning here are flawed. "neo-creationism" + "intelligent design" = 781 hits on Google: [4] "neocreationism" + "intelligent design" = 3,790 hits on Google: [5]

Aside from the numbers all that is necessary for the article to be justified is us to show that parties significant to the topic use the term in a signficant way (permitting attributing the term per WP:NPOV), which we already do: Pigliucci uses it often, [6], as does Matt Young [7] , even Henry Morris [8], and the NCSE: [9]

This is more than sufficient to justify it's own article, much less mention in other articles. Just because it's profoundly unpopular with those it describes is not evidence that it is not a useful term. Fundamentalists generally object to be called fundamentalists, but that doesn't alter the meaning or significance of "fundamentalist" after all. FeloniousMonk 05:38, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Science and neo-creationism

Cut:

Much of the effort of neo-creationists in response to science highlighting gaps in understanding or minor inconsistencies in the literature of biology, then making statements about what can and cannot happen in biological systems.

This sentence, previously the topic sentence of the Tactics paragraph, states that people are responding to science, which implies that Neo-creationism is "anti-Science". At best, this claim needs attribution (i.e., if it's a fact); more likely, it's just some critic's POV (in which case it still needs attribution). --Uncle Ed 17:57, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you know the subject Ed if that seems like pov to you. Can you give us one example of a significant neo-creationist argument that does not involve polemical exaggerations or misrepresentations of minor disputes or inconsistencies in scientific literature? Just one would be fine.

Polemical attacks evolutionary theory using conflated, contrived "controversies" or misrepresentations of trivial inconsistencies in scientific literature are the single unifying hallmark of neo-creationsim, Ed. The passage is not a viewpoint and needs to stay in the article. FeloniousMonk 18:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't change the subject. The problem with the sentence is that it states that people are responding to science, which implies that Neo-creationism is "anti-Science". I don't object to the "effort ... consists of polemics" part.

The sentence needs repair, and then it can be put back. --Uncle Ed 18:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, Ed, the sentence is accurate and I've restored it. You haven't made a case here that it is and you are clearly unread on the topic. FeloniousMonk 19:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ed, the sentence strikes me as accurate. Furthermore it doesn't seem to have the implication you associate with it anyways, since people respond to science all the time in ways that are science and ways that are not science. JoshuaZ 19:06, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any problem with the sentence either, it is obviously accurate to anyone who has studied the issue. Jim62sch 21:24, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've added cites to sources supporting the various passages Ed has objected to here. FeloniousMonk 21:44, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Ed here, and the ad hominem attacks against him are uncalled for.

The whole article is a straw man attack on Philip Johnson and a couple of others as being anti-science. Johnson claims to be pro-science, so it is certainly a POV to say that he is anti-science.

There is an article on Johnson, and plenty of criticism there. I even agree with some of those criticisms, but that is beside the point.

An article on neo-creationism should present the theory of neo-creationism by those who call themselves neo-creationists, and then have criticism in a section afterwards. This article does not even present the neo-creationist POV, or even make a good case that there is a neo-creationist movement. If Johnson calls himself a neo-creationist, then perhaps the article could refer the reader to the article on Johnson for more info about him. As it is, the article reads like a sneaky way to attack Johnson without having to say what his views even are. A fair article would present a balanced view and let the reader decide. Roger 09:28, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Neo-creationism" as pejorative

I see by the dispute above that this is a touchy subject, so I'm going to the talk page first. I don't think this article should be deleted as it certainly does have some currency of usage. However, as far as I can tell, the term is used exclusively or almost exclusively by critics of intelligent design. Here is my suggestion (to which I invite replies): There should be a section in article, or it should say in the opening paragraph, that "neo-creationism" is mainly a term used by its critics, roughly analogous for the opposite reason to the usage of "Darwinism," and that no proponents of intelligent design use it to describe their own positions (see, e.g., [10]). Thoughts? Simões (^talk/_contribs) 22:03, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course this article is a completely one-sided attack on Intelligent Design (ID). No one :calls himself a neo-creationist. The was invented solely to attack ID, and to try to take advantage of court rulings against creationism. The term neo-creationism is not comparable to Darwinism. There are Darwinists who happily call themselves Darwinists, and Darwinism has been in the dictionary for a long time. Neo-creationism is not. It is just a meaningless epithet. The article makes all sorts of silly claims, such as saying that the neo-creationists reject modern science and that they are motivated by fear. An article on neo-creationists with a neutral POV would feature the opinions of the neo-creationists, if there are any such people. If there are no such people, then no article is needed. There are lots of other articles on this subject matter, such as Creation-evolution controversy. I suggest removing this article as hopelessly biased. Roger 23:21, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some agreement with the above. At minimum it should be noted in the article that no one calls themselves neo-creationist. JoshuaZ 23:28, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to hear that we agree on something. Go ahead and make the edits. Just to give you an idea of what I think would be a more NPOV, I inserted this first paragraph:

Neo-creationism is a neologism used by Eugenie C. Scott and a few other evolutionists to describe those who oppose her political campaign to promote the theory of evolution in the schools and to extinguish the criticism that they claim to be religiously motivated. They attempt to relate the Intelligent design movement and other non-mainstream views of evolution to earlier movements that lost American court battles under the name of creationism. What follows is a description of neo-creationism from the point of view of those who think that it is the work of the devil. Roger 22:05, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that was certainly more neutral. Jim62sch 22:22, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it was more neutral. I defend my edits on the discussion page. Can you? Exactly what is wrong with the paragraph that you deleted? Roger 22:29, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are kidding, right? -- "What follows is a description of neo-creationism from the point of view of those who think that it is the work of the devil." 'nuff said. Jim62sch 22:34, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am not kidding. What follows is certainly from the pov of those who hate neo-creationism. It does not include material from the neo-creationist pov, if there is such a thing.

What about the other sentences that you deleted? Are they correct or not? If incorrect, what is the error? Roger 22:47, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It uses non-neutral language and applies undue weight, that's what. FeloniousMonk 22:57, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You find a significant, credible source per WP:V and WP:RS that rejects the term and makes the claim that it is a perjorative and it will be added to the article, using appropriately neutral language, of course. FeloniousMonk 23:26, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No one calls themselves "Judicial Supremacists" or "Leftist Evolutionists," either...[11] And you want to talk about one-sided attacks and meaningless epithets? The article is well supported by cites of the term being used by both secular and non-secular sources. The use of the term neo-creationist is alreadr attributed to it's source and those who use it, meaning the objections here are baseless. FeloniousMonk 22:57, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to comment on Schafly's attempt at rectifying this issue other than to say it was not at all from a NPOV. How about the following as an opening?

"Neo-creationism" is a term primarily used by critics of intelligent design with the intent to more revealingly label the activities of the intelligent design movement. The word is generally not used by anyone to describe their own position, and proponents of intelligent design often consider it a pejorative <ref>Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness Club at the University of Texas, Dallas "Some members of the scientific elite purposely misrepresent ID theory, by associating it with a host of pejorative phrases. Intelligent Design theory is by no means 'Creationism Lite,' 'Intelligent Design Creationism,' 'Neo-Creationism,' or 'Stealth Creationism,' as such labels are misnomers of ID, and they don't convey the true presumptions of ID theory."</ref>. The movement itself exists to restate creationism in terms more likely to be well received by the public, policy makers, educators, and the scientific community.

Simões (^talk/_contribs) 00:14, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I actually think that you first 2 sentences are an improvement over what is currently in the article. The last sentence is biased because it only states the POV of the critics. Those in the intelligent design movement vigorously deny that they are just restating creationism. The sentence should not be in the definition of neo-creationism, although a later paragraph could say that critics make that accusation. Roger 01:55, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The last sentence is mostly in its original form. And while members of the movement publicly deny that they are merely restating creationism, the Wedge Document shows they are doing precisely this among other things. Simões (^talk/_contribs) 02:24, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You may think that the ID folks are disingenuous, and they may think that E. Scott is disingenuous. Republicans may think that Democrats are disingenuous, and vice versa. NPOV requires describing peoples' views based on what they say that their views are. Yes, I know about the Wedge Document, and other WP article discuss it in detail. Roger 03:02, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then I'm not sure what the problem is. If you know about the Wedge Document, then how can you claim it's only the opinion of ID critics that "[t]he movement itself exists to restate creationism in terms more likely to be well received by the public, policy makers, educators, and the scientific community?" As revealed by the Document, this is also the opinion held by the major proponents of ID (by virtue of "see[ing] intelligent design theory as an accepted alternative in the sciences and scientific research being done from the perspective of design theory," which serves one of the "governing goals" of "replac[ing] materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God"[12]). It seems pretty cut and dry if you ask me.

Finally, these complaints of yours have nothing to do with my purpose in starting this section, which is to find an acceptable way to add the information that "neo-creationism" is used mainly as a pejorative. You can start new sections for other issues you have in mind. Simões (^talk/_contribs) 03:38, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with Simoes' proposed intro is that it completely ignores notable usages of the term neo-creationism by fellow theist's like Henry Morris: [13] FeloniousMonk 04:22, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've added "Neo-creationists generally reject the term "neo-creation," alledging it is a perjorative term." to the article. But it still needs a cite from a source to support it. Anyone here have one handy? FeloniousMonk 04:17, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Morris isn't a neo-creationist, though. He's a "paleo-creationist" and enjoys watching ID proponents squirm ("It is certainly amusing to see the rug pulled out from under the feet of Catholic creationists such as Michael Behe."). If a DI affiliate used the term in self-description, we'd have a case of it not being used by critics.
For a source, the UT-Dallas intelligent design student group cries pejorative on their FAQ: http://www.utdallas.edu/orgs/idea/faqs.htm . I'm still looking for others (preferably from DI-proper sources). Simões (^talk/_contribs) 04:36, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I understand your point, but the current intro rightly carefully avoids the issue altogether. Why? Because any movement who's goal is to avoid being recognized as a form of creationism but rather to be viewed science is by necessity required to reject being identified for what they actually are, a form of creationism. There's no news there, the very nature of their position demands neo-creationists reject any linkage to creationism whatsoever. But this all too much detail and nuance upfront to deal with the intro. This is properly dealt with in the 'Tactics' section, where you'll find it now. FeloniousMonk 05:23, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neo-creationisms other than intelligent design?

What other ones are there? Simões (^talk/_contribs) 19:13, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FSM? Jim62sch 23:25, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but really? Simões (^talk/_contribs) 02:37, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As the article mentions, "Abrupt Appearance Theory." ID is by far the most notable though. FeloniousMonk 05:37, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV Again

The 'tactics' section reads like an indictment of anyone associated with the ID movement. There is a decided lack of anything approaching a 'both sides' viewpoint. --Elar a girl^Talk|Count 18:09, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article is a dispassionate description of the topic. If there are any glaring ommissions from either side then let's correct that. Exactly what content from the ID-side is missing and what sources for do you have? FeloniousMonk 19:02, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge

Neo-creationism, from my understanding of the word, is the critical author's name for intelligent design. I fail to see how this article has the information to stand on its own without becoming a content fork for a critical POV of the intelligent design movement. It should be deleted, but I will propose a merge instead. Pbarnes 16:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neocreationism is a term for a broader movement, of which ID is a part. Merging the broader idea into the narrower idea makes no sense, nor does merging the better known term into the less well known term. Guettarda 16:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merging an article into another were the latter (ID movement) is a subset of the former (neo-creationism) doesn't make much sense. ID is a form of neo-creationism, not the other way around. 151.151.73.169 17:01, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please continue discussion in the proper location: Talk:Intelligent design movement#Neo-creationism Merge

- Pbarnes 17:04, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Proper place"? You started the conversation in both places. Guettarda 17:21, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I started it...and now I'm ending it. Pbarnes 17:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But looking below you haven't really, have you? 151.151.21.99 22:30, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abrupt Appearance Theory

"Abrupt appearance theory" is not the same thing as ID. Not even close. Abrupt Appearance Theory is a version of creation science, and Wendell Bird was pushing it long before the ID movement in The Origin of Species Revisited [14] 151.151.73.169 17:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More creationist nonsense. I frankly could care less. Maybe we should put green aliens in too. Orangemarlin 17:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure that they are neo-creationist. Guettarda 17:24, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And have you set up an experiment to test your hypothesis? I stand by my original assertion. Orangemarlin 22:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Abrupt appearance theory" is mentioned once in the article and isn't even defined. As the article currently stands, it is about the ID movement. If you want to fix it, be my guest. Pbarnes 17:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abrupt Appearance Theory and ID are present in the article in roughly the proportion they make up neo creationism, so things are as they should be. AAT is a small but notable subset of Creation Science, if it's not as notable as ID, that's no reason to exclude it because it's still the most notable form of neo creationism that is not ID. 151.151.73.169 17:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, Abrupt appearance theory isn't even defined in the article. Pbarnes 17:57, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abrupt appearance theory is just another name for ID or Creationism. It deserves a brief mention, and that's about it. Orangemarlin 17:58, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt Abrupt Appearance Theory is worthy of an article, but if it were, writing something informative about it would require buying Bird's and Morris's books, which I refuse to do. I will not help purveyors of woo feather their nests. 151.151.73.169 19:26, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the definition from Bird's book. 151.151.73.169 19:35, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Page Deletion

Let me first summarize my thoughts so everyone knows where I'm coming from.

This article is currently a fork of the intelligent design movement article. The only thing not aspects of the ID articles is the definition of neo-creationism and the definition of the "abrupt appearance theory". Basically, this article presents two sentences of information which is not already presented in other articles.
Neo-creationism is non-notable. It is primarily used as a synonym to ID which is only used in critical publication of the stance.

I propose we rework the creationism article some to include a section describing the new, "scientific" direction of creationism referred to in this article as "neo-creationism" rather than maintaining a separate article for it. This section would include a summary of ID and also mention "abrupt appearance theory" or whatever else fall under the category neo-creationism. There is quite a bit of content already on the creationism article, so I feel we could rewrite those sections without making the article that much longer. A majority of the information can be added to the intelligent design movement article if it's not already there Here is the content we can work with (it's currently under types of creationism but will probably have a section of its own):

- Pbarnes 21:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neo-Creationism

Neo-Creationists intentionally distance themselves from other forms of creationism, preferring to be known as wholly separate from creationism as a philosophy. Its goal is to restate creationism in terms more likely to be well received by the public, education policy makers and the scientific community. It aims to re-frame the debate over the origins of life in non-religious terms and without appeals to scripture, and to bring the debate before the public.

One of its principal claims is that ostensibly objective orthodox science is actually a dogmatically atheistic religion. Its proponents argue that the scientific method excludes certain explanations of phenomena, particularly where they point towards supernatural elements. This effectively excludes religious insight from contributing to a scientific understanding of the universe. Neo-Creationists also argue that science, as an "atheistic enterprise", is at the root of many of contemporary society's ills (social unrest, family breakdown).

The most recognized form of Neo-Creationism in the United States is the Intelligent Design movement. Unlike their philosophical forebears, Neo-Creationists largely do not believe in many of the traditional cornerstones of creationism such a young Earth, or in a dogmatically literal interpretation of the Bible. Common to all forms of Neo-Creationism is a rejection of naturalism, usually made together with a tacit admission of supernaturalism, and an open and often hostile opposition to what they term "Darwinism", which generally is meant to refer to evolution.

Intelligent design=

Intelligent design (ID) is the concept that the complex features and characteristics of living things are better explained as having had an intelligent origin rather than being a product of the processes of evolution and natural selection. Many of its proponents are affiliated with the Seattle-based Discovery Institute, a mostly Christian think tank. They claim that intelligent design is an alternative scientific theory that stands on equal footing with current scientific explanations for the origin of life. ID could be considered a re-branding of creationism in an attempt to get it into U.S. public schools; certainly the Discovery Institute emphasizes changing public curricula. It is worth noting that in Australia, when the notion of ID being taught in science classes was raised by the Federal Education Minister Brendan Nelson, there was a public outcry. The minister quickly conceded that the correct forum for ID, if it were to be taught, is in religious or philosophy classes.^[1] In the US, public schools are not permitted to provide religious instruction.

Yes, it is obvious you want the page deleted and failing to get consensus for a merge with ID movement you're now trying to merge it with Creationism. But as I and Guettarda have explained to you a number of times already here and at Talk:Intelligent design movement this article is not a fork of the the intelligent design movement article. Neo creationism is a separate topic, and intelligent design is a subset of neo creationism. And as described at Creationism neo creationism is a subset of creationism. There's no support from anyone one but you and no consensus for deleting this artile, but even if there was, the Wikipedia community appears to have already determined it is notable according to the previous AFD. 151.151.21.99 22:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you think this article is not a fork, then find me everything which does fit in the intelligent design movement article. For instance:

Two forms of neo-creationism are intelligent design and abrupt appearance theory,[5] a claim that first life and the universe appeared abruptly and that plants and animals appeared abruptly in complex form.

and

Neo-creationism is a movement whose goal is to restate creationism in terms more likely to be well received by the public, policy makers, educators, and the scientific community.

What else is there...really?

Here are a few things which are in both articles which causes me to believe it is a fork:

neocreationism - This comes in response to the 1987 ruling by the United States Supreme Court in Edwards v. Aguillard that creationism is an inherently religious concept and that advocating it as correct or accurate in public school curricula violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

intelligent design movement - In 1987, the United States' Supreme Court decision regarding Edwards v. Aguillard effectively removed the teaching of creationism in public school science classrooms.

or...

neocreationism - One of its principal claims is that ostensibly objective orthodox science, with a foundation in naturalism, is actually a dogmatically atheistic religion.[4] Its proponents argue that the scientific method excludes certain explanations of phenomena, particularly where they point towards supernatural elements, thus effectively excluding religious insight from contributing to understanding the universe.

intelligent design movement - The movement's Teach the Controversy campaign is designed to portray evolution as "a theory in crisis" and to imply that the scientific establishment attempts to stifle or suppress discoveries that support intelligent design. The movement thereby tries to invoke or promote a distrust of science and scientists, especially where currents of anti-intellectualism are already present. In response to such criticism, campaigners claim they are confronting both the limitations of scientific orthodoxy and naturalism. Whatever the motivation, the intelligent design movement has attracted considerable press attention and pockets of public support, especially among conservative American Christians.

It just goes on an on, all the way down the article. Pbarnes 23:06, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, as Geuttarda told you above "Merging the broader idea into the narrower idea makes no sense, nor does merging the better known term into the less well known term." What part of intelligent design is a form Neo Creationism is not clear to you? 151.151.21.99 23:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What part of "this article is primarily about intelligent design and what isn't about intelligent design can be said in a concise manor in the creationism article without making the article any longer," don't you understand? Why are you so persistant about maintaining this article. You don't even take the time to login/register...why put all this effort into this debate? Pbarnes 23:50, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neocreationism is a notable subject, a notable form of creationism. Guettarda 01:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose any attempt to delete or merge this article, and I agree with Guettarda, this is notable subject. It is likely to become only a bigger topic as things develop. The community has already spoken on the worthiness of the topic for an article; already having quickly passed the last attempt delete it, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neo-creationism. The justifications given here are not just weak but specious. FeloniousMonk 03:38, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heaven forbid the primary author of the article agree with its deletion. And how do I know your not "151.151.21.99." Pbarnes 05:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

^ [15]

[1] [15]

[1]