Talk:Creation myth/Archive 2

Move the biblical interpretation to a religion Wiki
The paragraph in the Section "Judaism and Christianity", which discusses the literal authority to the creation myth there, should be moved to "Creation (theology)" or so. Reasons: Stutters (talk) 14:25, 11 June 2008
 * None of the other creation myths is followed by an indication that, or a discussion if, people do not take the story literally
 * The Wiki is about "stories of how the world or a culture" began. It is a list of stories. A discussion if any religious people take the story literally belongs to the relevant religion Wiki.
 * It is an interpretation of a story. I propose to just put the stories here.
 * "None of the other creation myths is followed by an indication that, or a discussion if, people do not take the story literally". There is no requirement for exactly the same information to be provided for every myth.
 * "A discussion if any religious people take the story literally belongs to the relevant religion Wiki". This is a better argument. I do think, though, that attitudes towards the myths are within the purview of the article.
 * The sentence on whether the myth is taken literally should be either removed or retained. It shouldn't be adorned with a "but this is true for lots of myths" sentence. Ilkali (talk) 15:33, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree on the adornment, that was pov. It all just made the impression on me that it was thought that the other stories were to be taken literally, which is a bit silly of course. well, just leave it

Stutters (talk) 16:04, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I must ask WHY there isn't Judaism or Christianity or Catholicism listed here. Until then, Islam section shall be henceforth deleted. Please add sections for the other Abrahamic religions. Islamophobia is not tolerated on Wikipedia.--Velanthis (talk) 22:40, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I am puzzled by your objection. It is precisely the existing "Judaism and Christianity" section that is being discussed above.  Plazak (talk) 23:29, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Not same as origin myth
When I search for "origin myth", I get redirected to this article. But "origin myth" is not equivalent to "creation myth", at least as the latter term is used in this article. This article seems to equate creation myths with cosmogonic myths. In other words, it limits the term "creation myth" to stories that describe the creation of the universe. But surely there are origin myths (for example, a myth that tells how a certain animal got its tail) that are narrated separately from the creation of the universe.

See this passage from Mircea Eliade: "Every mythical account of the origin of anything presupposes and continues the cosmogony. From the structural point of view, origin myths can be homologized with the cosmogonic myth. The creation of the World being the pre-eminent instance of creation, the cosmogony becomes the exemplary model for "creation" of every kind. This does not mean that the origin myth imitates or copies the cosmogonic model, for no concerted and systematic reflection is involved. But every new appearance—an animal, a plant, an institution—implies the existence of a World" (Mircea Eliade, Myth and Reality, Harper & Row, 1963, p. 21). I suppose this passage could be interpreted either as implying that origin myths are simply part of the cosmogonic myth or as implying that origin myths are distinct from the cosmogonic myth. However, I think it's fairly obvious that "origin myth" is here being used to refer to any story about the origin of something ("I call you Peter, and upon this rock I will found my church..."), whereas "cosmogonic myth" is being used to refer only to stories about the initial creation of the world ("In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth...").

At any rate, either "origin myth" should not redirect here, or this article should treat cosmogonic myths and origin myths as distinct types of creation myth. --Phatius McBluff (talk) 03:57, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * This article isn't much more than a list at the moment, so any improvements will be most welcome. Cheers, Ben (talk) 04:21, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, I tried to fix things by creating a separate article for Origin myth. I also added a notice at the top of this article that gives a link to Origin myth. --Phatius McBluff (talk) 18:15, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Bias
I know this is likely not the first time it has been suggested, but as an open-minded person, I think myth here is a derog term. Negro is not defined as a derog term either, but how it is used can speak volumes. To most people, despite it's Webster's defenition, myth means B.S. So either do a better job of re-educating the general public or take some action. I suggest that the article be simply Creation. Perhaps even Creation theory. You will get less people up in arms, which, I assume, is what someone is trying to do.Wjmummert (KA-BOOOOM!!!!) 20:08, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Creation means lots of things (see the disambig page) and the words myth and theory both have specific, different, meanings in the context of an encyclopedia. This isn't the page to argue over the bias of a term (many, many pages use the term, and this page is not special in some way), so your best bet is to take it up at WP:NPOV or something if you think there is a bias problem. Cheers, Ben (talk) 01:52, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Ben, you are right, the word theory would not work. That's not what this article is about.  I am not claiming to know what the proper title to this page is, but if you have to explain TWICE in the beginning of the article why it is not biased.... then it likely is biased.  It's like saying "I am calling you a Wetback in the nicest possible way."  It's crap.  This article touches, as it should, on many different creation theories from many different orgins, but the title, Creation myth, is singular, meaning it only talks about one.... and the one most will assume is Christianity, which is covered in a seperate article.  Again, I don't know the answer, but if it looks like a rat....  How about Creation mythologies?  That would not be too specific. Wjmummert (KA-BOOOOM!!!!) 00:56, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you talking about the myth box on the top right? I don't think it's very encyclopedic, so if you remove it I won't object. I'm not sure what others will think though, since at best it does help some people understand why the article title is what it is. Maybe it should be incorporated into the notice at the top of this page or something. Anyway, the article title isn't biased since it uses the standard term, and Wikipedia guidelines suggest article titles should be singular (which makes sense - Book talks about all books), so Creation mythologies is out. If you're objecting to the title because you believe a particular creation myth, and take offence at your belief being labelled a myth, then you don't have a leg to stand on. Wikipedia isn't censored. Myth is the proper term, but as I said, if you feel it somehow violates a NPOV, then this is not the place to take up that problem since the term is used throughout the encyclopedia. Cheers, Ben (talk) 01:24, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * My beliefs, and yours, are moot on Wikipedia. I'm only struggling to find a word that will make everyone happy.  That may not exist.  I don't have a problem with the infobox, I simply have question that if the word myth were replaced with something more subtle, we will no longer need the infobox, becuase nobody will be offended.  I understand your argument on singular verbage, but I think it's a bad fit for this article, and a few others.  One example is the page Chicago Cubs futility theories, which tells of a few theories for the Cubs 99 year title drought.  A singular term would not work there, and I think also not here.  Thanks for you time. Wjmummert (KA-BOOOOM!!!!) 68.74.125.58 (talk) 16:09, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely nothing is wrong with the term myth. This is established terminology by far in the relevant academic fields. I have linked to Google scholar in support of this contention several times already on this very talk page, as well as to the Britannica article "Creation myth". The non-myth crowd continues to regurgitate the same tired arguments all thoughout this talk page. My response is: do a little research, please. Search for some scholarly precedent for calling cultural cosmogenic narratives something other than "creation myth" or "cosmogenic myth". Then we can discuss the merits for a name change on the basis of those sources, and the others weighing on the other side. Until that time, however, all of this discussion runs completely counter to WP:NPOV, which says that we should go with whatever the majority of sources use. And so far only pro-"myth" sources have been given. siℓℓy rabbit (  talk  ) 17:02, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I would suggest you do a little research yourself. You are arguing something completely different than what I am.  I'm not a religious zealot that is offended by the term myth.  This article is not even really about the Genesis version of Creation, rather a list of different "myths."  Notice there.... I did not writh "rather a list of different 'myth'."  Why?  Well, that would make no sense.  Perhaps the proper title for this article is "List of Creation myths," since that is exactly what it is, whether YOU like it or not, you are wrong, and based on the tone of your reply you are CLEARLY biased. Two examples;
 * If you go to the Wiki article on Dialect it is a singular term, since it explains WHAT dialect actually is, which is in contrast the the article List of Chinese dialects, which explains many different subtopics all based on different dialects. Why use the plural term?  Why does this (and all articles like it) not violate your sacred policies?  Likely because it does not fit your PRE-Determined agenda.  If you read Ben's comments further up this page, he, a supporter of the title as it currently is, admits that this page is actually only a list.  Should this article only explain what a creation myth is then you may title it as is, but once you use this page as a forum to list the actual mythologies or beliefs in specific, it's no longer valid, unless it is an extremely minor subtopic, such as Burger King being a footnote in the article on Hamburger.
 * Have you been to the actual article on Myth. Not only does the article CLEARLY say that myth means falsehood (see the See also section), but it lists Mythology as a main article.  So that makes the proper title of this page Creation Mythologies.Wjmummert (KA-BOOOOM!!!!) 20:21, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I've started a discussion about this below. Cheers, Ben (talk) 14:50, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Organisation
This article starts as being about the concept creation myth but then branches up up into listing all known creation myths and actually simply telling them. So I'd say there needs to be a concise and possibly separate list List of creation myths (where the article actually was previously) with clear inclusion criteria and links.--Tikiwont (talk) 10:29, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

"Myth"???
I don't understand the use of the word "myth". By definition, a myth is something which is untrue.
 * Exactly ... 123.255.38.129 (talk) 00:34, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I just looked up the word "myth", and I see that it doesn't always imply falsehood or improbability. But that meaning of the word (a false historical story) is gaining strength, and I don't think the word "myth" should be used to describe things that might be true. I would much prefer a word like "theory", or some other similar word. "Creation Theories" would be a better name for this articles.--Caleb Murdock (talk) 09:25, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey Caleb, there is a note at the top of this page with some relevant info. Ben (talk) 09:35, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * If we need a notice to clarify the meaning, then why don't we just use a word that better reflects the intended meaning? Why not call the article "Creation Traditions" or something similar instead of "myth" that implies falsehood (even if unintentional)?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.109.120.55 (talk) 15:04, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The article uses well-established anthropological terminology. There are thousands of scholarly articles employing our current word-choice versus just a few hundred using "creation tradition".   siℓℓy rabbit  (  talk  ) 15:11, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Anthropology is not exactly an ally of the Church. Bad argument Wjmummert (KA-BOOOOM!!!!) 20:42, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I see that there is a note at the top of the page explaining the use of the word "myth" and that it does not automatically indicate falsehood, however, the word does tend to carry a negative connotation (see Myth). I therefore second Caleb Murdock's suggestion of "Creation Theory".  D a n si m a n  ( talk | Contribs ) 18:54, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Theory carries a conjectural connotation in popular culture too, but we don't let that get in the way of our scientific articles using standard terminology. Likewise, this article should use standard terminology. Ben (talk) 19:03, 23 August (UTC)
 * We cannot call it a "theory" - that would be confused with the scientific term "theory", which creation certainly doesn't fall under. "Myth" is fine; you're talking about an old story with no proof, and the guidelines state that the best word for such a case is "myth". 217.44.32.250 (talk) 11:50, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Possible alternative: "stories"? Looking up and down the talk page, this one word "myth" seems to be the focal point of controversy in the entire article. Are we so attached to a word? I don't see any particular reason to take offense at "List of creation stories" or something of the like. Perhaps if this issue were resolved once and for all it would be possible to focus on improving other aspects of the article. »S0CO ( talk 00:40, 19 October 2008 (UTC)


 * So far, I have seen no compelling reason to change, except that certain folks take offense to the established terminology in the relevant field of anthropology. References aplenty have been provided to substantiate the choice of "myth", but no (or very few) rebutting references have surfaced.  I vote no change until a good reason, firmly rooted in reliable academic sources, is given.   siℓℓy rabbit  (  talk  ) 01:55, 19 October 2008 (UTC)


 * This objection will probably continue to keep bobbing up as long as the article is not merely about defining "creation myth" but also includes a list of various beliefs that have been identified as creation myths. A sizable portion of the items in the list don't fit the definition as given in the lead (and the lead doesn't fit the EB definition cited).  According to EB, a creation myth is religious and symbolic (among other things).  Several of the listed items are not either, or at least are arguably not one or the other. A content fork could aid in clearing this up, at least in this article.  Leave this article to lay out what a creation myth is, and fork the list into something else, which may or may not include "creation" or "myth" in the name.  Editors can get on with making this a quality article. I know that renaming the article as a list has been suggested (and tried) but then the defining portion is as out of place as the list currently is. At least a fork will separate the contentious portion out and leave the rest to be developed without the ongoing disagreements.LowKey (talk) 14:00, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Anti religion?
Why do i get the impression that nearly every word in this from the opening title to what i have read is extremely anti religion?

The fact that it's called a "Myth" should be prove enough to overhaul not only the title, but the contents. The only area in witch i have read (Judo-Christan) is extremely inaccurate, and more or less calls it a lie.

List of changes i propose

- 2nd paragraph 1st sentence   original "The second story reiterates the origin of humans."
 * proposed change  "Starting on the 6th day, God makes clear the origins of mankind along with the land animals of the Earth"

Why it's important: It's a little more than a simple 'story' for those who believe it, it is much more neural as a story infers something else to many people as well as being accurate as God had made Humans during his week of creation, and it elaborates in greater detail.

2nd paragraph 3rd sentence. original " He puts him in a garden called Eden, and brings the created animals to Adam for him to name"


 * proposed change "And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.

Why it is important: God did not just put Adam in the garden, God designed it after he made Adam. It also explains it from the Bible itself taken a direct quote.

2nd paragraph 4th sentence. original "This task shows that none of them was a suitable companion."
 * proposed change "God then brought animals into Eden for Adam to name, when Adam had named all of the kinds of animals he realized their was none of his kind witch saddened him"

Why it is important: It was Adam who felt down because he had none of his kind, so God made Eve ( a Female Human) to be his companion.

2nd paragraph 8 sentence. original "God then expels them from the garden so they do not also eat from the Tree of Life and become immortal in their cursed state."


 * proposes change " God then expelled them from Eden for committing Sin, for God can not be in the presents of Sin and thus Adam and Eve where cursed with death and the whole of creation became in-perfect prone to disease mutation and overall unpleasant things"

Reason why it is important: I have never heard the tree of life be described as a literal tree with fruit, in everything i have read it was a metaphor of God himself. I believe this change would be a much better re-wording of it.

The last sentence and paragraph  Original   "Biblical commentators throughout the ages have remarked on the degree of literal authority that is granted to the accounts of Creation. Maimonidies, in particular, commented that the account of Creation should not be taken literally"

While this is true, it should also be noted that many scholars insist that it is to be taken literal (in particularly the Hebrew original wording, not tainted by translation into English) Ken Ham CEO of Answers in Geneis ministry and research teams is a staunch defender the literal interpretation of Genesis.

That is why i believe much of this needs to be re-written. I Would be glad to, although i have no idea how to go about it.

75.179.172.189 (talk) 22:36, 4 August 2008 (UTC) Jade Rat
 * I believe that the current wording is clearer and more straightforward than the proposed changes. As to your last point about the literal interpretation, that viewpoint should certainly be mentioned and cited.  Plazak (talk) 13:32, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * No, no, no. The changes you propose are not ones which would make the article more encyclopedic - it would completely skew the article from being NPOV to a Christian point of view. It is not the job of an encyclopedia to propagate any religion. 217.44.32.250 (talk) 11:54, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed. It's Wikipedia, not preachipedia.64.7.147.20 (talk) 14:18, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

How has this not been marked as politically biased?
The rabid cynicism is overtly present and needs to be adressed. Wikipedia is meant to be about the unbiased exchange of information, not the enforced beliefs of certain individuals. This page needs to be renamed to something less pejorative than "myths" and can somebody please explain what "allegories" can be found in any of these Creation stories? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.171.254.66 (talk) 01:53, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


 * As I pointed out above, there are thousands of articles available on Google scholar, showing that the terminology "creation myth" is well-established in its present sense throughout diverse fields of cultural anthropology and theology. There is even an encyclopedia Britannica article, which actually does somewhat of a better job of summarizing the philosophical aspects of creation doctrines. siℓℓy rabbit  (  talk  ) 02:46, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Does that make it right? Because some people think so? Besides which why is that the section on the Big Bang keeps getting removed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.89.74.189 (talk) 12:23, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * In order to be consistent with reliable sources, Wikipedia should not, will not, and does not, invent its own terminology. As for the big bang section - why would you think it satisfies the definition of a creation myth? The suggestion you were given the last time you edited it in still applies - if you can't see the distinction then perhaps you shouldn't edit the article. Ben (talk) 12:33, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't ask that Wikipedia create it's own terminology, I suggested it use terminology that already exists, and don't even try to tell me "Creation Myth" is the only know or accepted term. But hey if that's what they are calling reliable these days then so be it. Apparently Wikipedia, what was meant to be a place for the open-mided discussion of facts, is under the charge of a select close-minded group who have simply accepted things like The Big Bang as irrevocable fact instead of looking at these things from a scientific or intellegent perspective. At the very least if "Myth" is to be the title of this article and "Myth" apparently does not imply that something is untrue then The Big Bang Theory, as an unverified theory, does belong on this page along with all the other "Myths" and should not be removed. How can that be disputed?
 * Wikipedia is "closed-minded" by design in that sense. It can only represent what reliable &mdash; usually academic, journalistic, or scholarly &mdash; sources say in proportion to the weight of those views.  Our job here is not to right great wrongs, or to give all viewpoints an equal representation, but only to represent those published by reliable sources.  Calling the big bang a "creation myth", while interesting, would need some fairly solid sources backing it up.  In fact, if this is going to be here at all, it should have the form: "In the context of the creation-evolution debate So-and-So has drawn parallels between the adherence of the scientific community to the big bang hypothesis, and the fundamentalist cristian doctrine of biblical inerrancy."  Or whatever.  At any rate, in the scientific context the big bang hypothesis is not a dogma or myth, although it could be argued that it has taken on the status of a cultural myth (a view which I would endorse, provided the text can suitably distinguish between the scientific and mythological aspects of it).  As a scientific theory, the big bang hypothesis has been repeatedly assailed by competing hypotheses (such as the steady state universe), and turns out to be the one which best supported the available evidence, in particular the cosmic microwave background radiation.  Your proposed addition, as far as it goes, is facile and unencyclopedic.   siℓℓy rabbit  (  talk  ) 22:47, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, thank you, you have answered my question. I was mistaken in thinking this site was here to give all viewpoints and equal representation without bias. It was not a religious claim I assure you, more so a nihilistic claim that all theories on the Universes beginning remain entirely unproven, and that to refer to a group of peoples genuine, rational beliefs as nothing more than myth is close-minded and arrogant. That being said, I am satisfied and I graciously rescind my appeal —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.56.5.180 (talk) 04:09, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Wrong, it doesn't have to give "all the viewpoints", it has to give correct information. Nothing more, nothing less. Stop trying to push religion into places it doesn't belong - this is an encyclopedia, not a religious text. 217.44.32.250 (talk) 11:59, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Sumerian and Babylonian
Just like to point out that (1) a Flood myth is not an Origin myth - the Ziusudra stuff is off-topic; and (2) the Enuma Elish creation story begins before the appearance of Marduk - this is only part of the story. PiCo (talk) 05:56, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Not a myth
Creation is not a myth so I'd like the title changed. If anything is a myth its evolution The C of E (talk) 06:15, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Are all the creation stories in the article non-mythical, or are you referring to one in particular? Plazak (talk) 20:10, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Evolution does not fit in this article or any dealing with creation as none of its postulates provide information for it, but rather changes in biochemical composition and its effects on populations. Bob is my Uncle (talk 20:50, 30 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The creation myths listed here are legends from various cultures, each equally implausible given modern scientific knowledge. Cosmology and the theory of evolution are hard science, backed by evidence. Bubbha (talk) 11:27, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I think we can ignore this, it's some annoyed fanatic who doesn't like it when we don't take their rubbish as fact. Evolution isn't a myth, it's a fact, with evidence proving this, and a theory to explain it. Note that theory doesn't mean "guess" - it's explaining a proven phenomenon using the available evidence. Creation, on the other hand, is an old story with no proof: it's a myth. Wikipedia can't change the fact that it's a myth, and it's certainly not going to misrepresent it by calling it anything other than a myth. 217.44.32.250 (talk) 12:02, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Myth means false
It is obvious to anyone who reads the title of this article that “Myth” means false and that it is not written from a Neutral Point Of View. An NPOV would have the title as something like “Creation Stories”. The common usage of the term “myth” in the English language means false. You can say that it means something else but it does not mean anything else to at least 95% of the people who read it. If you don’t believe that then you are fooling yourselves. If you don’t believe in creation by a supreme being, that’s fine. Write whatever you want to. But don’t say that the “myth” in this title means anything other than false. If you do you’ll be lying. Personally, I don’t think you can have an entirely neutral point of view. But, if you say that Wiki has a NPOV and you are dedicated to that fact then you must change this title. Otherwise you’re just another bunch of hypocrites. I cannot even believe that you editors actually think this title is not derogatory and biased. You can have your little postings saying that isn’t what it means, but nobody (except maybe you) believes that. The fact that it hasn’t been changed speaks volumes about your real intent. You want to insult people and then tell them that you didn’t mean it that way. After the first few thousand people were insulted you should know that it is an insult whether you mean it that way or not. The fact that it remains demonstrates that you don’t have a NPOV and you think it is okay to insult millions of people. If that is what you want to do then that’s fine. Just don’t lie about it.Oceanberg6 (talk) 22:38, 19 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Maybe call it "Creation lies", would that be better? After all one meaning of "story" is lie: "don't be storying now Johnny." I know rename it "Creation lies - 'cept one" ... and you know which "one" that is, no?
 * You might read WP:AGF and not be maligning all the good editors here by calling them liars, how 'bout WP:Civil. Vsmith (talk) 00:02, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I think your response clearly demonstrates my point. You do not have a neutral point of view. I've read both of those links that you mentioned and I want to apologize if you truly believe that the "myth" in the title does not mean false. However, it seems from your response that is not the case. Also, if you do not believe that a large majority of the people that read this article understand it to mean false then I think you are lying to yourself. So, do you believe that the "myth" in the title means false? Do you believe that a large majority of readers believe that it means false?Oceanberg6 (talk) 19:11, 20 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The neutral point of view
 * The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting verifiable perspectives on a topic as evidenced by reliable sources. The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being judged as "the truth", in order that the various significant published viewpoints are made accessible to the reader, not just the most popular one. It should also not be asserted that the most popular view, or some sort of intermediate view among the different views, is the correct one to the extent that other views are mentioned only pejoratively. Readers should be allowed to form their own opinions. Wjmummert (KA-BOOOOM!!!!) 01:06, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Folks, please, the term myth has more than one meaning. The popular "myth => false" definition is clearly not the definition being used here, just like the popular "theory => conjecture" definition isn't used when using the word theory throughout the encyclopedia. Academia, not popular opinion, reigns supreme here. See WP:UNDUE if you want. Ben (talk) 01:33, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Who is Wikipedia for then? Is it for Academia? I don't think so, they don't need it. It's for normal everyday readers, right? If the huge majority of normal, everyday readers define "myth" as meaning false (and they do) then it means false. Your unwillingness to accept this fact is perplexing. If Wikipedia isn't an encyclopedia of the people and for the people, then what is it? If a word is commonly understood to mean something by a huge majority of people, then that's what it means. You can edit and say it doesn't, but it does! By leaving the title of this article as is you are saying that all of these stories and/or beliefs are false. That's what you are saying to virtually every reader that comes along. Is that Wikipedia's intent? If it is, just say so. If not, change the title to "Creation Beliefs". Thank you 64.73.243.90 (talk) 00:04, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


 * This discussion is in real danger of being archived on the basis of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT if the anti-"myth" folks are just going to continue to rehash the same tired arguments without responding to the points that have been already been made. As I have said before in every other thread treating this topic, give sources for other terminology, and then the relative weight of those sources can be discussed.  But without any sources, there is no discussion.   siℓℓy rabbit  (  talk  ) 00:10, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I do not need to give references for commonly understood terms. Do you dispute that 90% of the people that read this article understand that "myth" means false? If you dispute that then you do not know people. Your talk about sources of terminology, etc. is just a bunch of smoke that means you don't want to admit the obvious = the word "myth" in the title means false. I think the title is derogatory and it is meant to be derogatory. If that is your intent, then it worked. If not, change it. It's not a complex issue. If the title stays then the editors are aware that it means "Creation Falsehoods" or something like that and that is precisely what they intend it to mean. If that's what you want then that's fine. At least, admit that. Where I come from we have the guts to say what we mean. We do not insult people and then tell them that it wasn't an insult. Would you go out on the street and ask somebody which false religion they believe in? If you wanted to irritate them or you were crazy you would, but otherwise that is not an acceptable form of behavior. Why would the editors of Wiki allow this to happen here? It doesn't make sense and it is not right. Please change the title. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oceanberg6 (talk • contribs) 00:48, 23 September 2008 (UTC) Oceanberg6 (talk) 00:51, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I have already given many references on this very talk page that the nomenclature "creation myth" is broadly used in the relevant fields of anthropology, in addition to having enough currency for the Encyclopedia Britannica to have an article on the subject, by this name. It is true that you don't need references to have an opinion, but to have a voice in matters of content for an article on this encyclopedia, you need to adhere to the policies and guidelines that govern that content.  One of those policies advocates that we should adopt a neutral point of view.  The relevant part of this guideline as it applies to the present discussion is WP:WEIGHT.  If a majority of relevant sources use the disputed terminology, then that is what the encyclopedia article should go with.  So far zero references (let alone reliable sources) contesting the "myth" term have been provided.  I do not object to a serious discussion in which all sides are presented (with references backing them up), but to engage in a debate on whether the term myth as it is used in cultural anthropology is or is not appropriate potentially runs afoul of the policy against original research.  So, if you are making a point that has some textual support backing it up, please present the text.  Otherwise, please stop filling up the talk page with the same old arguments.  It is not going to get anywhere.   siℓℓy rabbit  (  talk  ) 01:17, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to waste my time digging up sources for what 95% of the people that read this article understand the term "myth" to mean. Either you are realistic about it or not. Either you insult people or you don't. It's obvious what your choice is. I was just hoping that being practical was something that those that edit Wiki would be. Obviously, that is not the case. I should have known better. I'm sorry I wasted my time.Oceanberg6 (talk) 02:03, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


 * As providing sources is one of the core policies at Wikipedia, I find your admitted aversion to doing so somewhat puzzling. Perhaps you should consider contributing to other projects, such as Conservapedia or the CreationWiki or similar project which does not require that you provide sources for your statements, rather than Wikipedia which does require sources.  The fact is, no one has yet proposed any viable alternative to "creation myth" which is backed by good, reliable sources.  As far as Wikipedia policy goes, that's the end of the story.  Any other discussion is just noise.   siℓℓy rabbit  (  talk  ) 02:13, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Have you tried contributing to to these without sources? Have any of such contributions gone unchallenged? LowKey (talk) 02:51, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * While personally, I would call them myths, there are still millions if not billions of people who believe some of these creation myths to be literally true. This does create an issue regarding neutrality, since the term "myth" basically means falsehood or lie. A possible alternative would be "accounts of creation", which avoids the negativity associated with the term "myth". Accounts of creation is a phrase used in literature, for example
 * google book search
 * google scholar search
 * Shambalala (talk) 05:21, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Not that a google scholar search holds the ultimate authority on this, though it can give a good indication, but with 421 references with the term "creation myth" in the title, versus your 51, the indication (by a margin of nearly 9-1!) is that the article should stay where it is. I've lost count of how many times people have had to repeat that the word myth does not imply falsehood on this very page. Read the link at the top, read the info box on this articles page, read the talk page, read its archive, whatever, but just stop wasting everyone's time here by regurgitating the same ignorant crap. There is no neutrality issue because you don't like it (or think others might not) - I don't like a lot of things, but to ask for everyone else to be sensitive to this by working around my dislikes has got to be the height of arrogance. Grow up, read up, and lighten up. Stop wasting peoples time. This goes out to everyone in the IDONTLIKEIT crowd. Thanks for stopping by! Ben (talk) 07:09, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * If you have lost count of how many times your position has to be explained, you should maybe be thinking that it is because it is an unlikely position The fact "myth" and "lies" have been suggested as practically equivalent shows that even those who are ostensibly subscribing to this notion of "Myth does not equal untrue" actually apprehend myth to imply untruth. The info box etcetera are conveniences to justify retaining the word myth, and this retention is not because it is precise or accurate but because it implies falsity.  It is bait switch, using a formal definition of one meaning but a common understanding of another.  "Creation Accounts" would be prefectly acceptable to those wishing a NPOV article.LowKey (talk) 02:51, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Literally millions of people don't like it, not just one. It gets regurgitated because the title is ignorant crap. You can always justify anything in your own mind, but that doesn't make it right. And talk about being arrogant, you basically think that you have the right to tell everybody that doesn't agree with you (and there are billions of them) that they believe in "myths" because you are so smart and you know all of the answers about life. Boy, it must be nice to be so superior. I can see that being practical and realistic doesn't work here. That's too bad. It doesn't surprise me though.Oceanberg6 (talk) 19:48, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Folks, no need to get angry, these are just suggestions. The terms "creation account" or "accounts of creation" are essentially synonym s, though based on google scholar, creation myth is used more as a title. But creation account and its variations may ultimately be used just as commonly. What I do suspect is a bias in usage towards western religions. When referring to western religions the term 'creation account' and its variants are used. When referring to indigenous or tribal religions the term creation myth has been applied. The implication being that these tribal religions were somehow less credible and could be classified as myths even by people who were religious. Pascal Boyer refers to such biases in Religion Explained.Shambalala (talk) 19:52, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Some Fang people [a present daytribe in Africa] say that witches have an animal-like extra internal organ that flies away at night and ruins other people’s crops or poisons their blood. It is also said that these witches sometimes get together for huge banquets where they devour their victims and plan future attacks. Many will tell you that a friend of a friend actually saw witches flying over the village at night, sitting on a banana leaf or throwing magical darts at various unsuspecting victims.

I was mentioning these and other such exotica over dinner in a Cambridge college when one of our guests, a prominent Catholic theologian, turned to me and said: “This is what makes anthropology so fascinating and so difficult too. You have to explain how people can believe in such nonsense.” Which left me dumbfounded. The conversation had moved on before I could find a pertinent repartee—to do with kettles and pots. For the question: “How can people possibly believe all this?” is indeed pertinent, but it applies to beliefs of all hues and shades. The Fang too were quite amazed when first told that three persons really were one person while being three persons, or that all misfortune in this vale of tears stemmed from two ancestors eating exotic fruit in a garden.
 * Shambalala (talk) 19:57, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Oceanberg6, please, my argument doesn't rest on what I think at all, and you know that. It rests on that fact that the term is the established standard term in the relevant literature. If that somehow makes me arrogant, then so be it, I really don't care. Shambalala, I don't disagree with anything you said, and I think it probably has a lot to do with the same old objections that appear on this page every now and again. But I don't see how this argues for a change in the article title? Cheers, Ben (talk) 00:49, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Of all these RS's that use "Creation Myth", how many do NOT treat the subject matter as inherently untrue or unsupported? The answer to that may be an indication of whether the term is POV or not.  I assume that a signifanct number a dealing with accounts in a manner that would label them unfactual.  If there are also a significant number that deal with accounts in a manner that labels them factual, then maybe the term may be considered NPOV.LowKey (talk) 02:51, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The article title reflects the term used in majority of the reliable sources. If the reliable sources take position 'x' on the topic, then that is for the article content to reflect. Ben (talk) 04:46, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Then why does it disclaim exactly that reflection? It is bait and switch pure and simple.  Under the radar POV; the common understanding is the "impact" desired, but the uncommon definition is pointed to when this is questioned.LowKey (talk) 00:36, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the majority of these "reliable sources" view them as being false. That's why they use the term "myth". That's the problem. Just because the majority of articles on this subject are written by atheists or agnostics and they believe them all to be myths doesn't make it right to insult people about their personal beliefs. And that's what this title does. If you don't believe that then take a little personal survey and it will become clear to you that most people believe the title means false and is derogatory. Personally, I think that is the true intention of the title and I don't think it will be changed.Oceanberg6 (talk) 23:15, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * A suggestion, open an RFC with suggestions on possible names, alone with the current name. Shambalala (talk) 23:28, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I would rather see some kind of "internal" consensus check first, as RFC seems to bring in "drive by" comments by those who may or may not appreciate to-date discussion (and frankly probably don't wish to devote the time to reading through it all).LowKey (talk) 00:36, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * As far as I can tell, the internal consensus is to keep the present title. Unless there is some legitimate reason, backed by sources, to overrule the vast majority of sources in this matter.  siℓℓy rabbit  (  talk  ) 00:53, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Which is why I suggested to avoid the RFC for now. The legitimate reason is the cognitive dissonance of using "myth" based on sources that use "myth" to mean "untrue" and then have a box saying that myth DOES NOT imply untrue.  Well, that's my reasoning anyway.  You'll find the majority is not that vast, and that there is a systemic bias at work here.  "Account" in the title is more neutral, but unlikely to ever actually happen.LowKey (talk) 01:04, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Myth seems neutral to me. How is the majority not that vast?  Here is a google scholar search with over 6500 hits.  Here is a scholar search with 451 title hits.  Also, as I have repeatedly noted above, the Encyclopedia Britannica includes an entry on Creation myth.   siℓℓy rabbit  (  talk  ) 01:28, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Neutral to you, and probably to many others, but decidedly negative to many others and apparently to many sources (at least according to editors here). The fact that the search includes "myth" excludes results that don't use the term, which is what I was getting at regarding systemic bias.  I can't offer a simple solution to that.  But like I said, my problem was with the dissonance between the usages of "myth".  I see you pulled the box, which takes care of that, at least as far as I am concerned.LowKey (talk) 02:25, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The article Creation according to Genesis was initially titled Creation accounts in Genesis. If Wikipedia is to be consistent by the standard we apply here then the article should be "Genesis creation myth". That probably won't happen. This in my opinion is where we have consistency problems. Its acceptable to have a Sumerian creation myth but probably not acceptable to have "Genesis creation myth". Shambalala (talk) 03:44, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * "Account" instead of myth really should be acceptable for all of these, but I think is unlikely. Too many seem attached to the word "myth" in this context.  I for one definitely do not believe the Sumerian creation account per your example to be factually true, but I have no trouble calling it an account. LowKey (talk) 04:36, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Myth means false section break

 * Neutral to you .. but decidedly negative to many others -- LowKey (talk) 02:25, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I haven't seen anyone here argue that term is neutral to themselves as a reason to keep, the argument is to keep since it appears to be the neutral term with respect to the reliable sources. On the other hand, everyone here arguing that the term isn't neutral feels it is personally offensive (to themselves or others). Personal feelings or biases are no argument for or against using the term. Can everyone please read Naming conflict before continuing? There are particular points worth noting: Cheers, Ben (talk) 06:11, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Is the name in common usage in English? (check Google, other reference works, websites of media, government and international organisations; focus on reliable sources)
 * Subjective criteria (such as "moral rights" to a name) should not be used to determine usage. These include Is the use of the name politically unacceptable?
 * Do not invent names as a means of compromising between opposing points of view. Wikipedia describes current usage but cannot prescribe a particular usage or invent new names.

You are not addressing the point that all of these "sources" are writing from the point of view that "myth" means false. That's what they say and that's what they mean. You will not find one article written about creation accounts by a Christian or Jew or Muslim that has "myth" in the title. So, of course, someone that believes all of these accounts to be false will label them as myths. So now what do you do? Just add them all up and see if there are more stories with myth in the title than stories about creation that don't have myth in the title? That's a popularity contest. Is that what Wiki is all about? It is obvious that anybody that wants to keep this title believes in the evolution of man. There are some who believe in that way but still think the title is biased and derogatory and believe that it should be changed. Thank you to those people. Then there are those who believe in some sort of God. 99% of those or more would take offense at the use of the term "myth" in the title. They see it for what it is and what it is meant to say. The title says that these are false beliefs and that is what the intent of the title means to say. A huge majority of people, except for some of you editors maybe, understands that this title means false creation accounts. The question then is does Wikipedia want to continue to say that there is no God and that everybody who believes in one is a fool. Because that's what this one word in the title implies. It's your choice. You can say that if you want to. But I want you to know that is what it says and nothing less. If you don't understand that then you are fooling yourselves and are very unaware. I've got to believe that most of you are very aware and thus you choose to make derogatory comments towards people that don't believe in atheism.Oceanberg6 (talk) 20:00, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

By the way, atheism is a religion or philosophy of life just as Christianity or Hinduism is. You just believe that we are here by accident and there is nothing beyond when your body dies. How do you find unselfish purpose in life? Or is there even any unselfish purpose in your life. If I believed that this was all there is then I don't think that I could be happy. It would be really depressing to think that my life amounts to nothing and when my body dies nobody except for a few people are going to know or care. Being a biological entity here on Planet Earth existing by accident is a very depressing thought. How do you deal with that? I guess maybe you write articles telling people that. I don't know.Oceanberg6 (talk) 20:19, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Oceanberg6, you're just repeating yourself, so I don't think you're going to get much of a response. Until you can address the arguments that have been put forward for keeping the title as is in terms of Wikipedia policy, and stop drivelling on about personal offence and atheism, this will be my last comment to you. Ben (talk) 14:56, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Ben, maybe the repetition is because nobody is addressing or apparently getting the point. You certainly don't seem to, as you have missed the point that Oceanberg6 (and others) have addressed the arguments, quite soundly and definitively. And being uncivil and insulting about discussion of atheism does not change the fact that it is relevant.  Big Bang belongs in this artcile as much as any other account.  Apparently it has been excluced on the basis either not being religious or not being myth.  Of course it is always ironic to see how defensive and dogmatic atheists get when atheism is called religion.
 * To address the arguments (once again). The term "myth" is not neutral and does not appear neutral from RS because the sources that use it at all use it negatively. Those treating the subject neutrally or affirmatively do not use "myth" in their terminology.  A google search of "creation myth" returns instances of the the term "creation myth" (well knowck me down with a feather!).  The search term specifically excludes other usages such as "creation account".  Finding a lot of articles with "myth" in the title or body indicates nothing about neutrality, it only indicates a lot of use of the term "myth", and therefore a lot disbelieving sources. But then this is not a neutral article, but at least it no longer specifically claims to be.  "Myth" is only in common usage by those that disbelieve the accounts, and it's usage as the name of the article declares them to be false. "Creation Account"  is not a WP invention, but is a term used by sources.  Unfortunately they will generally not be considered reliable by most WP editors because they do not declare the accounts to be myths.  Circular reasoning to be sure but that's life on WP.LowKey (talk) 03:29, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Defensive and dogmatic? I have no interest in defending atheism at all. Bash away. However, since my "beliefs" seem to have caught the eye of a few of you, let me list a few more of them for you, with respect to this article and Wikipedia's policies:
 * The Big Bang is not a creation myth and so does not belong in this article, since, among other more obvious reasons, no reliable sources can support that claim.
 * The majority of the reliable sources out there use the term "creation myth", and so should we per the Naming Conflict article I mentioned above.
 * Neutrality is described in detail at WP:NPOV, and I am certain that it does not claim "Neutral = LowKey likes it". For that reason, what you can show in terms of this article adhering to or violating WP:NPOV, and not your opinion on what is neutral and what is not, should influence this article and its title.
 * This talk page is not a forum, go whine about atheism and the big bang somewhere else.
 * No-one has used Wikipedia's policies, that everyone else must adhere to, to argue against using the current title. As I said earlier, your personal feelings on the matter have no bearing on this article, or any other. Until you start arguing in terms of what Wikipedia's policies have to say, there is no need for me to bother replying to you either, and so I believe I won't.
 * Cheers, Ben (talk) 04:36, 7 October 2008 (UTC).

This reminds me of government red tape. Virtually everybody knows what's going on and that it should be changed but a few people want to use regulations and pile up the paperwork to make a roadblock. You use "sources", naming conflict guidelines, and anything else to preserve this obviously biased title so that you can get your opinion prominently displayed. It is very clear to virtually everybody what is going on here. I can see that it probably isn't going to change and that's too bad. I hope that those of you, no matter what your personal beliefs are, that see this situation for what it really is will prevail in the end and the title will be changed. I appreciate your sense of fairness and that's all that I'm asking for from the others. This is one of those situations that no matter how you slice and dice it, the reality is clear to all. The title is derogatory and is meant to be so. You can say it is not, but it is and everybody knows it. You can do what is right, fair, and proper and you can change the title. Or you can be derogatory, arrogant, and unfair and leave the title as is. You can try to convince others that you are acting otherwise but it's pretty clear to virtually everyone who can read what your intent is. That doesn't make you a bad person in my book. You're just not willing to right a wrong. That's your choice. I hope you'll reconsider. Best regardsOceanberg6 (talk) 19:45, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I think everyone involved in this discussion is acting in good faith and making thoughtful remarks but with respect i think this discussion is missing the point. While encyclopedia articles are written for a general audience, their purpose is to educate.  That means articles should communicate in an accessible form the latest scholarship on particular topics.  And when it comes to scholars - in classics, history, comparative religion, folklore, and anthropology - "myth" does not mean "false" it means that the story has a particular social function.  And this indicates to us the real problem with this article: it des not draw on much scholarship.  For many if not most of the myths summarized, I bet there are several articles if not books discussing when they were composed and what that reveals about the period in history in which they were composed, or what the social functions of the myth are or were.  There could be structural analysis of the myth, symbolic analysis ... a whole library of scholarly works analyzing the myths and how they work as texts, and what they say about their context.  If you have no idea what i mean, you can start by looking at Claude Levi-Strauss's four volume Mythologiques or his more recent and accessible The Story of Lynx. manhy of the myths he discusses are not creation myths, but believe me, for most creation myths documented, there is a body of scholarship on what the myth means, the artistry behind the myth, the symbolism, etc.  Absent this scholarship, this article appears to be saying myth=false.  But the problem is not that it is saying myths are false, it is that is is NOT saying what truths the myths really do express.  And for us to know what those truths are, we would need to research the scholarship on each myth and the society it comes from, and start adding that informative, educational content into the article.  Anyway, that is what i think is the real problem here. We would be spending our time better if instead of arguing over true versus false we started investigating the rich scholarly literature on what and how myths "mean." Slrubenstein   |  Talk 01:11, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the current argument isn't so much about content, but about the title of the article. Shambalala (talk) 01:13, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I mean that if the article were based on notable views from reliable sources, and built up an account of these myths based on how scholars study these myths, the title would be fine and non-controversial. The article would be a lesson not just on specific creation myths but on how scholars study myth, and thus, what scholars mean by myth. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 01:56, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree on that. At the moment the content is a random selection of various "creation myths" rather than a comprehensive and comparative study of creation mythologies. There has been a suggestion to listify the article. At the moment the crux of the matter is whether to rename the article, "creation stories", "theories of creation", "accounts of creation" or "creation accounts".Shambalala (talk) 02:07, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * think the wod we use should follow what most academic sources use - in comparative religion, anthropology, classics, history, and folklor. So we cannot resolve this until we know the main sources.  To start with, Stith Thompson, Vladimir Propp, Alan Dundes, Levy Strauss, Frye, Gunkel, Joseph Campbell, Roland Barthes. Let's at least give an account of their definitions and methods and theories and then we can discuss the proper name, po=ssible reorganizaiton, and srtart drawign in more specialized research. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 02:16, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

When a errant christian comes on here and wants to change established terminology, it speaks volumes to their own personal doubts. They seek to persuade others so as to convince themselves. Their beliefs may in fact turn out to be correct. But they don't have any conclusive evidence that stands the test of scientific inquiry, so they must accept the common usage until they do.64.7.151.135 (talk) 12:22, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you actually have anything to add, or are you merely using this as a forum for your opinions about the beliefs and motives of others? Blog elsewhere, please.  LowKey (talk) 02:30, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I cannot speak for errant Christians, but I can tell you that I don’t have any personal doubts about my beliefs. The reason that I don’t like this title is because it is derogatory and unfair and I feel that is the intent of it as well. The writers/editors use smokescreens like counting reliable sources or some other roadblock to argue against changing it. But if you understand common usage of the English language you don’t need an English professor to explain to you that “myth” means false and it is meant to convey that message the way it is used in this title. To give solid proof of that try to find one article where the author is talking about their own personal belief and they call it a myth. Try to find one. Anyplace! A person only calls something a myth if they don’t believe it to be true. That’s the bottom line. This title should be changed or the article should come right out and say that these are false beliefs. Oceanberg6 (talk) 05:38, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

"Non-Religious" myths in Fantasy?
There are creation myths in Fantasy literature that are described in the article as "non-religious". The first two examples are Tolkien's middle earth, and Lewis's Narnia. Narnia's creation is openly religious, by the express design of the author. Tolkien's middle earth mythology has a personal creator bringing spiritual beings into existence, and then with them creating the world. One of the created spiritual beings rebels and corrupts others. The corrupted are expelled from the "blessed realm". I cannot see the justification for calling this non-religious. I don't know about the others, but by what criteria are they considered non-religious?LowKey (talk) 00:29, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Scratch that. I changed it.LowKey (talk) 02:51, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Creation myth vs. List of creation myths
This article was just moved to List of Creation mythologies, which I've undone for now. I don't have a lot of time to type much at the moment, but I thought it would be good to get a discussion going. I do think this article is pretty much a list at the moment, but, there should still exist a "creation myth" article discussing the concept in general. I think a list of creation myths would be good too, but it should be a separate article. Can I propose we split off the list stuff into its own article, and try and flesh out this article a bit more at the same time? We can borrow from the list of creation myths article as necessary to illustrate certain concepts. Cheers, Ben (talk) 14:49, 27 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I disagree - the current version isn't a list. I don't consider there is a problem that needs fixing. PhilKnight (talk) 18:06, 27 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Perhaps a move to Creation mythologies might be a way forward. Slrubinstein is discussing something in the above thread that also bothers me: that this article doesn't focus at all on the general cultural concept of a creation myth, but instead dedicates itself to cataloging various individual myths.  To see an example of the contrast, see Britannica's article Creation myth.  (Which I keep telling people to do, but no one seems to be listening.)   siℓℓy rabbit  (  talk  ) 12:33, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It bothers me too and I have been meaning to do something about it. I am sure I tried to check the Britannica article a while ago, but it wanted me to pay to look at it. I'll try again today from computers at uni. Ben (talk) 19:28, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm in favour of renaming myths to mythologies, not least because it should reduce the amount of "myth => untrue => POV" posts we see here.  S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 21:12, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Britannica Creation Myth.Shambalala (talk) 21:15, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, that link works fine here, so I'll read through that (probably today at some point). The additional reading section looks promising. Regarding using the term creation mythologies to reduce the number of complaints ... please tell me that is not a valid reason for change. I'd prefer to keep the article where is for two reasons. Firstly, mythologies is plural, and article names in plural form are generally frowned upon. That still leaves "creation mythology" I guess, but this article should be about the concept, not the branch of knowledge dealing with them (see MW). Consider "evolution" vs. "modern evolutionary synthesis" for instance. Maybe both articles will exist at some point in the future, but I think we should focus on this one before we worry about content forks. Ben (talk) 22:53, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

New post
When I reviewed evolutionist and theistic evolutionary backgrounds they were not considered myths. The oldest living book in the world recognizes creationalism. In fact, when we review the dates of early evolutionary biologists we find the creation theory outdates them by more than 1000 years. In most cases evolutionary theoretics follow the same course as its proceeding theory of creation. If creation is a myth then we must consider evolution to be a myth as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kduncan121a (talk • contribs) 02:22, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


 * While I agree with that last sentence (for reasons already discussed ad nauseum) it doesn't actually follow from what you wrote there. "Myth" is not being defined by when the explanation originated, but by qualities of the explanation itself.  There is disagreement over the label, but there are modern "myths' in the article, so arguments regarding antiquity won't really add anything to the discussion IMO.  LowKey (talk) 06:25, 18 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Humans used to think the world was flat, but we know this to be false. So what you are saying is that since the idea that the world is flat is older than the idea that the world is round, then the earth being round is a myth.  Your logic is quite flawed. 64.7.151.135 (talk) 12:10, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Good grief. The logic above is flawed, but so is this argument here.  Sloppy logic, incorrect facts and "myth" not used in the sense of this very article. Please blog elsewhere.LowKey (talk) 02:38, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

"Supernatural"?
Why is "supernatural" specified in the lead? It is not in the cited source, and there a number of entries in the "Modern" section with no supernatural component at all. LowKey (talk) 06:25, 18 October 2008 (UTC)