Talk:Creationism

Semi-protected edit request on 7 January 2020
Please remove reference to all instances of evolution being "scientific". Evolution is just as much an unprovable religious belief system (called atheism) as any creation hypothesis. Stating evolution as "scientific" is misleading at best and simply lying at worst. Let's keep Wikipedia a safe and informative platform and not one for spouting off religious dogma. Thank you. William.The.Honest (talk) 21:16, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
 * ❌ Plainly nonsense. Theroadislong (talk) 23:07, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Requesting to expunge all instances of evolution being called "scientific" because one can not be bothered to differentiate atheism from evolution and religion is to have the article rewritten as antiscience propaganda, and runs afoul of WP:FRINGE, WP:NPOV, WP:SOAPBOX and WP:NOTAFORUM.--Mr Fink (talk) 23:14, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 March 2021
Change the following: "Since the 1970s, the commonest form of this has been Young Earth Creationism which posits special creation of the universe and lifeforms within the last 10,000 years on the basis of Flood geology, and promotes pseudoscientific creation science. From the 18th century onward, Old Earth Creationism accepted geological time harmonized with Genesis through gap or day-age theory, while supporting anti-evolution. Modern old-Earth creationists support progressive creationism and continue to reject evolutionary explanations.[8] Following political controversy, creation science was reformulated as intelligent design and neo-creationism.[9][10]"

To: "Since the 1970s, the commonest form of this has been Young Earth Creationism which posits special creation of the universe and lifeforms within the last 10,000 years on the basis of Flood geology, and promotes pseudoscientific creation science. From the 19th century onward, Young Biosphere Creation accepted the age of the universe and the age of the Earth, while accepting creation week as six sequential ordinary days and continues to reject evolutionary explanations as well as progressive creationism. From the 18th century onward, Old Earth Creationism accepted geological time harmonized with Genesis through gap or day-age theory, while supporting anti-evolution. Modern old-Earth creationists support progressive creationism and continue to reject evolutionary explanations.[8] Following political controversy, creation science was reformulated as intelligent design and neo-creationism.[9][10]"

References to be found: "Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset and David Brown authored their Commentary on the Whole Bible in 1871. It is a comprehensive, verse-by-verse exposition that is still recognized as one of the great whole-Bible commentaries. Preacher Charles Spurgeon wrote “I consult it continually.” In their commentary on Genesis chapter 1 they concurred with key points 2 and 3 (above).  http://newgeology.us/YBC.pdf Also: http://creationwiki.org/Young_Biosphere_Creation_(YBC) wessteinbr Wessteinbr (talk) 02:13, 15 March 2021 (UTC) Wessteinbr (talk) 02:13, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Looks like undue weight to a tiny minority view, lacks reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, in particular we need to see independent sources. Also, any wiki is unacceptable as a source, particularly creationwiki. . . dave souza, talk 16:27, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Biblical basis
I feel the biblical basis section needs more sources and more scholars analyzing the matter.

Because I feel like there is more information regarding that section.CycoMa (talk) 16:35, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Neutrality
I challenge the "neutrality" (Article Policy) of the word MYTH when referring to the Genesis account of creation. There are several definitions, and the one chosen by your source, a skeptic of creationism, is derogatory of the Genesis account. A common understanding of the word MYTH is that it's an invented story, idea, or concept; an imaginary or fictitious thing or person; an unproved or false collective belief that is used to justify a social institution.{Dictionary.com} Article is tainted. The word "myth" as used by skeptics of the Genesis account of creation does not come from a "Neutral point of view" as required by Article Policy. It would be sufficient to simply call it "the Genesis account." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roglenoff (talk • contribs) 06:54, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * - I've refactored your comment slightly, since that section header you created was exceedingly long - I hope you don't mind.
 * The use of the word 'myth' in this context is actually discussed explicitly by the cited source which appears directly after the word is first used in the article (Scott 2009, p58). Here is a brief extract: ...the word myth is a term of art in the anthroplogical study of cultures. The common connotation of myth is something that is untrue, primitive or superstitious – something that should be discounted. Yet when anthropologists talk of myths, it is to describe stories within a culture that symbolise what members of that culture hold to be most important. A culture's myths are unquestionably important, and myth is not a term of denigration. In that context, I believe that it is the appropriate term to use in our article. Best Girth Summit  (blether)  08:42, 22 June 2022 (UTC)


 * it's hard to believe you've even read the article, as the first sentence says "Creationism is the religious belief that nature, and aspects such as the universe, Earth, life, and humans, originated with supernatural acts of divine creation". No where do we refer to Genesis as a myth. We say "Genesis creation narratives". And see Creation myth. It's not our fault that so many people misunderstand the use of myth in this sort of context. Doug Weller  talk 08:47, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Christian Criticism
The very first line in the Christian Criticism section states that: " Most Christians disagree with the teaching of creationism as an alternative to evolution in schools." I am challenging this claim.

As the (2) citations for this statement cite two books to support its stance (none of which have undertaken the required scientific polls or other methods to verify its legitimacy), I am challenging unsubstantiated assertion. It is simply an opinion held by these two authors, which are not real proofs to support such a broad assertion. It is much more accurate to say that Some rather than Most disagree, since these two books on their own cannot justify a broad claim as so, and should be shown as so. DSXG Plays (talk) 20:15, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Only a small minority of fundamentalist Christians - mostly in the United States agree with the teaching of creationism as an alternative to evolution in schools there are many sources for this. Theroadislong (talk) 20:26, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * “Most Christians worldwide, as represented by statements from their governing bodies, are in fact accepting of biological evolution as being fully compatible with their faith.” . Theroadislong (talk) 20:34, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Adnan Oktar
The article about Adnan Oktar, which was written under the title of Islam, should be removed. Adnan Oktar is the leader of the organization and is currently in prison in Turkey. Because he is dishonest, his statements are also not valid. 78.190.128.59 (talk) 19:01, 30 December 2022 (UTC)


 * I made this edit, I don't think we lose much by not mentioning him here. Even if The Atlas of Creation is an interesting book. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:40, 30 December 2022 (UTC)