Talk:Creationism/Archive 16

Creationism and the supernatural
Lest an edit war ensue, let's discuss the wording of these 3 sentences:


 * One of its principal claims is that ostensibly objective orthodox science is actually a dogmatically atheistic religion. Its proponents argue that the scientific method is incomplete, as it intentionally excludes certain explanations of phenomena, particularly where they point towards supernatural elements. This effectively excludes religious insight from contributing to understanding the universe.

Ramdrake deleted the 5 words indicated by HTML strikout, saying:


 * science can exclude the supernatural and **not** be incomplete.

I put them back, saying:


 * the sentence is talking about the views of Creationists - pls meet me in talk

Can we discuss this? --Uncle Ed 15:17, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * It is an irrelevant value-judgement to insert wording that science is "intentionally incomplete" because it excludes the supernatural. If you are that passionate about these five words, at least provide a verifiable cite for this sweeping claim. --ScienceApologist 15:22, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd say it's a pretty sweeping claim that Creationism's principle claim is that science is primarily atheistic, the whole paragraph is a pretty sweeping claim in of itself. I don't think "ostensibly objective orthodox science" (Is science even referred to as "orthodox", and what does ostenibly mean anyway) is dogmatically atheistic, I normally only hear that applied to evolution and theories concerning evolution whenever I read the subject coming up :/. Homestarmy 15:47, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Joshua (SA), are you saying that the POV of Creationists, that science is "intentionally incomplete" as you put it, is irrelevant to this article? --Uncle Ed 15:53, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Naturalism is the principle that all phenomena in nature must have a natural (material or physical) explanation. The assumption of naturalism specifically excludes any form of design (including creationism) as an explanation for the origin and diversity of life. The standards should state that biological evolution is a naturalistic theory that intentionally excludes design from consideration. Many scientists feel that naturalism should not be invoked as a guiding principle in origins science, since it restricts the objectivity of investigations. If naturalism is invoked as a principle, this should be explained to teachers and students.


 * Well, that is merely one creationist viewpoint, the intelligent design creationism perspective. Intelligent design is not only a minority view within science, but within creationism as well. There is a spectrum of other creationist viewpoints that do not conflict with science. This seems a simple matter of assigning due weight. FeloniousMonk 17:46, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay, now we're getting somewhere. Since you know so much about it, can you explain (preferably in the article) which Creationists accept the restriction of science to physical causes, and which Creationists object to it. Please include numbers or percentages, if you know them.


 * By the way, am I reading you right or was that a typo up there, where you describe ID as being a view that is "within science"? I thought you were dead sure that ID was utterly outside of science! ;-) --Uncle Ed 17:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * It's a typo; as you already know ID claims to be science, but the scientific community rejects the claim. YEC and creation science both reject or accept parts of the scientific method and scientific evidence to the degree that they support a literal interpretation of Genesis. This is already covered sufficiently in the article. Creation science's offspring, ID, has at times explicitly rejected the scientific method, but again, it's not that simple. While at the same time intelligent design proponents condemn the scientific method as flawed, they also claim to be supporting science, as a complete reading of your cite given above shows. I think that using it to support the passage (lifted from the article of Ann Coulter's Godless: The Church of Liberalism apparently) "One of its principal claims is that ostensibly objective orthodox science is actually a dogmatically atheistic religion" is misleading; it really doesn't support the passage that was reverted. Citing Coulter here wouldn't be appropriate either, as she's not really a notable source of scholarly thinking on creationism if you know what I mean. FeloniousMonk 18:15, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't dream of quoting Coulter as an authority on anything - she's a polemicist and publicity hound - other than her own political ideas.


 * But let's return to the viewpoint that "the scientific method is incomplete, as it intentionally excludes certain explanations of phenomena, particularly where they point towards supernatural elements".

Thats only incomplete from a non scientific interpretation of what incomplete means. I mean from a scientific standpoint, the supernatural is not a serious possibility, so it can be complete despite the factr that religious theories remain uninvolved in its explinations for everything it encounters.80.192.59.202 18:38, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Are you attributing this POV to all Creationists generally, or to YECs and CSists only? Or to ID proponents mainly or what?


 * And again, which Creationists accept the restriction of science to physical causes? --Uncle Ed 18:29, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

2RR
sorry for typing through the above contributer's contribution. I was rather over eager to respond and hadnt checked the edit page properly in the dark:}80.192.59.202 18:49, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, 2RR's is my limit for today. If you all want me to discuss my changes, while you reserve the right to make changes without discussion, fine. Have it your way. But I question the propriety of acting according to such a double standard.

Saying that an addition to the article should be removed because it's tendentious is the same as saying it should be removed on the grounds that it advances a point of view. The ArbCom has asked contributors not to do this. So, unless you want arbcom scrutiny, you might to rethink this strategy. --Uncle Ed 16:21, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Edits that are poorly researched and unverifiable can and are routinely removed. What's tendentious is your continuing practice of making edits that are poorly researched and unverifiable as if to bait people into reverting them. --ScienceApologist 18:46, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Please provide a few examples of my "poorly researched and unverifiable" edits. I will research and verify them. --Uncle Ed 18:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

A poorly researched edit
Cut from intro:


 * In many religious traditions, creationism is the active promotion of an origin belief that humans, life, the Earth, or the universe as a whole were created by a supreme being or by another deity's supernatural intervention, usually in addition to or specifically opposed to scientific consensus on origins . (changes only partially shown, pls refer to the history)

This is incorrect, because it's still Creationism even when not actively promoted. And I think the scientific consensus angle refers to pseudoscience, not theology. See Larry's Big Reply - which I'll dig up for you in a moment. --Uncle Ed 15:48, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Creationism and pseudoscience are inherently entwined. You cannot whitewash to try remove the fact that it is at odds with science. &mdash; Dunc|&#9786; 16:14, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * If you can find a published source which says this, I'd be happy to see it added to the article.


 * I'm pretty sure "Creation Science" is tagged with Category:Pseudoscience, is that what you meant? --Uncle Ed 16:23, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Talk.origins contains a large number of well written and scientific articles debunking the claim of creationism, including it's claims to be scientific. Jefffire 16:24, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Good, please add a reference to a claim of Creationism to be scientific. And distinguish between Creation Science - which is a specific attempt (or groups of attempts) and Creationism in general.


 * If some scientists exist who consider religious faith itself to be pseudoscientific, that's another story. Are there scientists who comment on matters of religious faith, in the context of the creation-evolution controversy? I'd be looking for something in the following form:
 * Itzal Bilgewatre wrote, "The Jewish Bible says that God created the world from nothing, but that is patent nonsense. Science has shown that matter has to come from somewhere. Judaism is therefore pseudoscience. " --Uncle Ed 16:55, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Ed, you're confusing creationism with creation theology. They are not the same thing. --ScienceApologist 17:53, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I find it hard to see a difference between creationism and creation theology. Therefore I am tempted to remove Cat:pseudoscience. Perhaps someone has a reference/link that will change my mind? rossnixon 21:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * You know, looking at the creation theology article, it does claim that the two subjects are different, but doesn't appear to say exactly how. It merely appears that the creation theology article is wider in scope, as this one focuses more on the Abrahamic traditions, in addition to, of course, trying to make counting back geneologies trees sound like pseudoscience. Homestarmy 21:03, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree that the creation theology article could use some clean-up work. The basic idea is that creation theology centers around the theological implications of a God who creates the world. This is different from creationism which is the near-propaganda advocacy of a requirement that people believe in a world that was created supernaturally. Creation theology isn't as strident nor does it require people to believe in a literal narrative surrounding a supernatural source for existence/universe/earth/life/humanity. --ScienceApologist 00:29, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Not everyone claims creationism to be a science, or even thinks of it as a science. Some do, but you can't slap a derogatory (yes the term pseudoscience is often considered derogatory) label on this topic as a whole.  I'll even support maintaining within the text of the article that some consider creationism to be pseudoscience.  But to place the entire article in the pseudoscience category is to render an unfair and not universally accepted judgement on the subject as a whole.  Dr U 00:23, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm rather neutral on the categorization issue myself. I see creation science as being the pseudoscientific branch of creationism (creationism in-and-of-itself may or may not have any scientific pretense). Nevertheless, as creation science is a part of creationism, it may be argued that a pseudoscience categorization for this topic is warranted. A poll might be useful here. --ScienceApologist 00:26, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * That would be analagous to placing the [Category:Fish] on the article Animals, reasoning that it is justified because some animals are fish. Clearly, that would be silly.  If the whole doesn't fit into a category, it should not be lumped there simply because a subpopulation might qualify.  Dr U 00:48, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * No, it's not quite that bad. It's more like placing the category "Conservatives" on the article about "United States Republicans". --ScienceApologist 11:27, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Creationism is the 'religious belief' alone. Creation Science is the optional 'pseudoscientific' support of Creationism. The other supports of Creationism are faith and Biblical evidence. rossnixon 01:45, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Correct. However, there are very few creationists who reject creation science. They probably exist, but they're not the easiest people to come by. Sorta like "liberal Republicans". --ScienceApologist 11:27, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * But could any of those creationists even want to accept creation science in the first place if they didn't have the religious belief first? Homestarmy 17:48, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Who knows? The answer to this question probably belies verifiability. Certainly some groups claim that you can evangelize by using science without appealing to the bible -- I would assume they are relying on "creation science" to do this. More than a few of the most vocal "convert Creationists" make the claim that they came to faith by considering the "evidence". I would dispute this as a bald fact, but if we assume they aren't lying, it sure looks like they are saying that you can believe creation science without believing on the bible and maybe there is a feeling that the overwhelmingly atheistic scientific community could be converted if they just carefully considered the evidence without their "atheistic sunglasses" on. --ScienceApologist 17:58, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Well then, if it defies verifiability, it seems to me that the position of Creationism can't always be confirmed to be based primarily on Creation Science, and therefore for any instance where one might find Creationism, it would seem to me quite a stretch to suppose it would always be rooted in "pseudoscience". Homestarmy 02:13, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Of course creationism isn't always rooted in creation science/pseudoscience. Some creationists base their claims purely on the Bible and reject "man-made science" outright. However, that doesn't necessarily mean that it is an incorrect categorization. Categorization isn't an "all-or-nothing" endeavor. The argument can be made (reasonably) that there is enough overlap between creationism and creation science that the pseudoscience tag is justified in the same way that one might make the argument that the article on US Republicans should include the Coservative Politics category even though there are Republicans who are not "conservatives". Sometimes focusing on exceptions as we are here (as in creationists who don't engage in pseudoscience) serve to illustrate general trends that might allow for an accurate categorization. I'm firmly neutral on the question of whether this article should be categorized as pseudoscience. I can see both sides. --ScienceApologist 13:51, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Another reason to not flag this as pseudoscience, is that there are creationists amongst Jews, Moslems, and I presume, other minor religions. These religions possibly never invoke science in support of their beliefs. Tell me if I'm wrong. rossnixon 20:49, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Other "minor religions"? That's just plain insulting.  Hinduism is a minor religion?  Sikhism?  Buddhism?  Taoism?  Jainism?  Only Abrahamic religions are "major"?
 * Second, your point is absurd -- "These religions possibly never invoke science in support of their beliefs". Do you know this as fact?  Hell, Muslims were among the greatest astronomers and mathematicians because of their religion as they needed to properly reckon the beginning of Ramadan among other things.  Would you please educate yourself before sticking your bible in your mouth.  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  23:36, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Expanding on Jim's comment: Islamic and Jewish apologetics attempt to use science in the same way that Christian apologist do. Hinduism does a lot of that too (and in fact Hindus have tried to get their "science" put in the public school system in California in a way similar to what christian creationists have tried to do(and no I'm not being US centric, just making the point that almost identical behavior has occured even in the same countries)). JoshuaZ 23:49, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

The creationists of Turkey routinely use the creation science arguments to bolster their claims, so these Islamic creationists "invoke science" just as much as the Christian ones. --ScienceApologist 01:36, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I left Hinduism out of my list of major religions only because I was not aware that they believed in a "creation". Apparently "Brahman started the creation of an evolving planet and we who are part of Brahman are constantly evolving." - whatever that means. Do they use "creation science" to support that? Refs please. rossnixon 01:43, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


 * would be one. JoshuaZ 01:50, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Here's a good thing to remember. Creationism is not a scientific theory, but a religious belief. The opening to this article confirms it: "In many religious traditions, creationism is...". Creationism as a general term has nothing to do with modern science.

Creation Science is a recent movement which is more linked to science. Most people do consider it pseudoscience, but that issue belongs on the Creation Science article, not the article on Creationism, the religious belief that Creation Science supports. Tschel 02:10, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I was following you until you said "that issue belongs on the Creation Science article". Conceivably we could address the issue in both places. In fact, we probably should simply because creationism is so often conflated with creation science these days. That doesn't necessarily mean we must categorize creationism as pseudoscience, but the impulse does have merit. The best thing to do is consider the reader. Will most readers come here expecting to read solely about the religious belief of creationism or the pseudoscientific advocacy of creationism? I'd also point out that the difference between creation (theology) and creationism might be of use to this question. --ScienceApologist 14:07, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I think SA raises a very valid point here. Given the present political environment, especially in the States, I would venture to propose that most people looking up creationism will be less interested in the theology, but rather more interested in looking into  creationism/creation science to see what all of the fuss is about.  Thus, the impulse to flag creationism itself as PS is rather understandable, and given the conflation of the terms among the 'οι пολλοι, the media, and creation proponents themselves, unavoidable.  It is, after all, "creation science" that is used in the attempt to validate creationism as an intellectual (or scientific, if you must) concept, rather than as mere theological dogma/myth.  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  14:17, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Good points; however, the "pseudoscience" issue belongs only in the creation science sections. Remember, creationism has been around for thousands of years before the advent of modern science. If we categorize Creationism under "Pseudoscience," we are blatantly stating that the worldview of millions of people in ancient times, educated or uneducated, was "pseudoscience." That goes against the definition of pseudoscience, since their theological beliefs were never portrayed as science in the first place. Therefore, it is silly that all of the ancient traditions related to creationism should be thus categorized under "Pseudoscience." Tschel 17:25, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Creation Science section
I am endeavoring to amend the NPOV of the Creation Science introduction, as there has been a general consensus that the original wording is unacceptable. (See discussion page.)

This is not vandalism! If you don't agree with my changes, please try to amend them further, but reverting is not helpful in this case. Comments are welcome. Tschel 17:43, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Creationism in Islam?
With jihadist beliefs and idealogy asides, are there any information or links on creations or intelligent designs in mainstream Islam?
 * I know they have stuff of their own, because I googled for it once or something, and there was some Islamic site with Creation science on it :/. The one I found said something about butterflies, their arguments seemed to focus on different things than Creation Science in Christianity normally does. Homestarmy 16:19, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


 * See Islamic creationism,, , . &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  21:12, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


 * There's also five different links at the bottom of that wiki article, just so you're aware whoever started this section. Homestarmy 00:18, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd of thought you could look in the same Torah that christians and Jews look in for the Islamic view. Of course colour me wrong if thats not true Duckmonster 02:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Alas, Islam seems to of been created based on the idea that the Torah and Bible was/were corrupted. (Don't ask me how, I don't see how it would of been technically possible) Homestarmy 02:50, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

"try to incorporate" as opposed to "incorporate"
Ross and I seem to disagree which phrasing is better. I support "try to incorporate" because that doesn't comment on whether or not the incorporation is successful where as "incorporate" makes them sound like it was successful. Would simly "use" be a reasonable alternative? JoshuaZ 02:51, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


 * It's a moot point: SA deleted the sentence (and for good cause, I think). &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  17:19, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

ARGH
This only covers Christian and Jewish creationism, but mainly Christian. What happened to other forms of creationism? Zazaban 02:33, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Just needs someone to write it - how about you? --Michael Johnson 14:06, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not that informed about it unfortunately... I came here to educate myself on it. Zazaban 19:08, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Creationism is the "active" acceptance?
I'd be bold and change it, but i'm not heavily familiar with the editing atmosphere of this article, and i'm very curious as to how exactly "active acceptance" made it's way into the intro, it doesn't appear cited, and I don't understand why creationism would have to be "actively" accepted by someone for them to actually be a creationist. Homestarmy 16:28, 24 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Good point, Homes. I'm not sure what passive acceptance would be.  I removed it.  Let's see what happens.  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  23:19, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

GA Re-Review and In-line citations
Note: This article has a very small number of in-line citations for an article of its size and currently would not pass criteria 2b. Members of the WikiProject Good articles are in the process of doing a re-review of current Good Article listings to ensure compliance with the standards of the Good Article Criteria. (Discussion of the changes and re-review can be found here). A significant change to the GA criteria is the mandatory use of some sort of in-line citation (In accordance to WP:CITE) to be used in order for an article to pass the verification and reference criteria. It is recommended that the article's editors take a look at the inclusion of in-line citations as well as how the article stacks up against the rest of the Good Article criteria. GA reviewers will give you at least a week's time from the date of this notice to work on the in-line citations before doing a full re-review and deciding if the article still merits being considered a Good Article or would need to be de-listed. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact us on the Good Article project talk page or you may contact me personally. On behalf of the Good Articles Project, I want to thank you for all the time and effort that you have put into working on this article and improving the overall quality of the Wikipedia project. Agne 22:47, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The most obvious reason to me, for the low number of in-line citations, is that this is sort-of a "super article". By that I mean that in is has a wide general "scope"; covering issues raised in many other articles, such as Creation science, various religious views, creation-evolution controversy, and others. I expect the more specific articles will have the majority of the in-line refs. rossnixon 01:57, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Perhaps its too wide if much of it can't be inline cited.... Homestarmy 02:03, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Preposterous. That kind of attitude specifically conflicts with Summary style. --ScienceApologist 21:05, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Uhh, the summary style says to make paragraphs shorter and relate to a new article when they get too long, how is that supporting making articles wider and wider in scope? Homestarmy 00:56, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I have made a request regarding this issue here. --ScienceApologist 21:04, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * You know, looking at some of the refs inside the list, some of them actually do list the page numbers and seem to cover a topic which would be in a specific spot of this article, I dunno why they aren't already inline :/. Homestarmy 21:07, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Because the article is OLD and there were many more styles for referencing before someone came up with the ref tag. Please fix them yourself if you have the time. --ScienceApologist 21:09, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

TOCleft
I vaguely remember discussing this before, but why is the TOCleft being used? Particularly under the creationism template which is pushing it well into Overview. It is inconsistent with Wikipedia TOC positioning and is a bit confusing. - RoyBoy 800 23:55, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I see no reaosn for this either. For this article, the TOC worked perfectly well in its default position. -Silence 08:22, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Unverifiable
Wikipedia content policy

Information on Wikipedia must be reliable and verifiable. Facts, viewpoints, theories, and arguments may only be included in articles if they have already been published by reliable and reputable sources. Articles should cite these sources whenever possible. Any unsourced material may be challenged and removed.

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader must be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, because Wikipedia does not publish original thought or original research.

For further information, visit Verifiability, No Original Research and Neutral point of view. Thank you for helping make Wikipedia the most reliable encyclopedia on earth!


 * Adding boilerplate and tags is not a useful way to discuss the article. Please be specific with the problems of the article. Keep in mind that this article is about creationism, not advocacy for (or against) creationist beliefs about origins. It probably can use some more references, but I don't thing a general tag is warranted.--Stephan Schulz 23:56, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I do NOT want advocacy. I simply want an article that readers can trust. This article needs to comply with the Wikipedia content policies - WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV - and although there's obviously been an effort to comply with NPOV, there's a serious deficiency in WP:V. Unless and until any reader can determine that any fact presented has previously been published by a reliable source, the tag both warns readers that the contents do not meet Wikipedia quality standards, and it recruits editors to perform the work needed to bring the contents up to snuff. ClairSamoht - Help make Wikipedia the most authoritative source of information in the world 00:55, 29 September 2006 (UTC)


 * You've responded to a complaint about using boilerplate responses with a response which is practically boilerplate. If you cannot take the time to specify which parts of the article you think needs sourcing then you should probably not think anyone is going to bother trying to decipher exactly what you are referring to. The article has 11 in-line notes, 13 in-line hyperlinks, and 15 references at the end of it. Much of the article is actually Summary style with the bulk of the actual content existing in other articles which have their own references. And for the record, Citing sources does not specify that any fact needs to be cited. If there are specific facts you think need to be cited, please take the time to indicate them. If there are sections in particular which need citation, label those with the appropriate tags. Blanket tags are not helpful. You are wasting a lot of people's time at the moment.
 * You do not recruit anybody to anything but confusion and frustration when you do not take the time to be specific. If you are genuinely interested in improving articles I recommend you try another approach. At the moment you have just irritated people, and I still do not really know what in particular is bothering you about this article. --Fastfission 01:10, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that YOU NEED TO CITE YOUR SOURCES.

"This divine intervention may be seen either as an act of creation from nothing (ex nihilo) or the (re)-emergence of order from pre-existing chaos (demiurge)." Says who? You need to cite a source.

"As such, creationists hold to additional beliefs that go beyond scientific descriptions of nature." Says who? You need to cite a source.

"Various forms of creationism are found principally in religions of the Abrahamic faiths and in Hinduism, although such beliefs can in theory be found in many other religious traditions." Says who? You need to cite a source.

"In modern usage, the term creationism has come to be specifically associated with the brand of conservative Christian fundamentalism which rejects various aspects of evolution, cosmology, and other natural sciences that address the origins of the natural world." Says who? You need to cite a source.

That's just the first paragraph. Do you need me to go through the entire article, sentence by sentence? According to WP:V, any editor can remove content without sources; that'd be a lot easier for me. And according to WP:V, you'd have to come up with the cites in order to put it back in. The rules say the burden is on the editor wanting to include the content, not the editor wanting to exclude it.

But I don't want to destroy the article. All I'm asking is that it be improved to meet the Wikipedia standards for acceptable content: WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. ClairSamoht - Help make Wikipedia the most authoritative source of information in the world 02:11, 29 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The article has a solid list of supporting references, and links to a wide variety of websites. There is no need to cite any and every line of the article, that would make it unreadable. Do you honestly believe the statements are not supported by the cited references? --Michael Johnson 03:30, 29 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Um yes. For example, which reference refers to Hinduism? Addhoc 12:55, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Looking at this article again, I'm afraid that a lot of it is poorly sourced and there are a good number of very contentious statements. To go through them all would be very, tedious - I've put in a few Fact tags and adjusted some of it to neutral language. NBeale 07:16, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Neutrality from the viewpoint of an apolgist?  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  02:41, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


 * ...Or Neutrality from the viewpoint of an skeptic? :D It's what ends up in the article that matters, not whether any of us are apologists or skeptics. Homestarmy 03:07, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I think the point of neutrality is that it should be pretty well impossible to tell which parts of the article were written by whom. NBeale 07:25, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Sermon?
Someone has tagged the St Augustine quote as a Sermon. Really? The writings of a Saint read like a sermon? You shock me. I don't think this is what the Sermon tag was intended for, and should be removed. If the editor doesn't think the quote should be there, then that is a different matter, and could be discussed. --Michael Johnson 06:09, 7 October 2006 (UTC)


 * In my opinion, the section should be removed along with the tag. Wikipedia articles should quote relevant secondary sources to explain the subject, and not finish with a quick sermon by someone's favourite saint. Addhoc 09:08, 7 October 2006 (UTC)


 * If you are going to reintroduce this section, could you include a secondary reference or explain why this section doesn't require a secondary source in terms of WP:V and WP:RS. Thanks, Addhoc 09:34, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

"Creationism" (immediate divine creation) v. Traducianism
This otherwise quite good article fails to contain a section on "Creationism" (immediate divine creation). This is the "creationism" that contrasts with Traducianism. Please see point #3 at http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04475a.htm for more info on "creationism" (immediate divine creation). I may have time to add this section but would be pleased if someone beat me to it. :-) CyberAnth 03:45, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeast and Chimpanzees paragraph
The reference for the 96% of chimp DNA is fine. However the following sentence "Even if the theory of evolution was disproved, this would not imply separate human creation, which is feature of creationism in the Abrahamic religions" isn't supported by this reference. Again, the next sentence isn't supported "It is exclusively in the public sphere, where young Earth creationists (especially in the U.S.) have fought for recognition of their world view, that the debate about creationism and evolution continues." Accordingly, I suggest this paragraph should be removed unless references are found. Addhoc 15:43, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The first of these sentences is obviously true (disproving evolution does not imply special creation) and does not need a cite. For the second one, it would be nice to have one, yes. But the current Fact tag is misplaced. --Stephan Schulz 16:44, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, as it happens I agree the first sentence is obviously correct, however my reading of WP:V is that it would still require a citation, due to the approach of verifiability, not truth. Regarding the second sentence, I gather this implies there is no longer any meaningful debate in the scientific community about whether evolution happened. Again, this may be correct, but a citation would be appropriate. Finally, I'm not sure why you think the current tag is misplaced. Addhoc 17:36, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I think the first sentence is obviously true under Common knowledge. For the second, I apparently looked at an old version. Still, the Fact tag should be at the end of that sentence. And yes, I think your interpretation is correct (the basic facts of the ToE, i.e. common descent, descent with modification, natural selection, ... are accepted in the scientific community)--Stephan Schulz 18:58, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


 * This comment may need to be deleted, as I just skimmed through this article. However, I think there needs to be a distinction between hardware and software here, if that is even a valid analogy. (how do I put ip and date in? maybe i shouldn't be commenting here...)

American Point of View
It seems like about half this article is from an obviously american point of view. This isn't a bad thing, but considering the amount of Americans who support creationism compared to the world average of Creationism believers, I have a feeling that this article favours the Creationism point of view, especially when considering the scientific and consensus evidence against it. Almost any creationism or Intelligent design theory disobeys or ignores around 50 scientific facts (not including evolution)agreed to by all current evidence. This huge amount of overwhelming evidence isn't made clear enough. Also, too much of the article just gives percentages of creationism support from various groups Tosayit 11:24, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd say that's about correct. The problem we have in writing this article is that the consensus against creationism is so heavily slanted that most scientists simply ignore the issue in terms of verifiable sources on the subject. There are only a few resources that actively combat creationism from the scientific perspective. The best we can hope for is to include these sources and explanations of the scientific consensus that directly contradicts. Please do add to the article as you see fit. --ScienceApologist 11:32, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I would also concur, the article is sympathetic towards creationism and is slightly US centric. There isn't sufficient emphasis that virtually all scientists, covering a wide spectrum of disciplines, overwhelmingly reject this doctrine. Addhoc 13:10, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * While the American centric issue might be serious I'm not inclined to agree with the issue of it being too sympathetic to creationism. In particular, regarding Addhoc's comment that "here isn't sufficient emphasis that virtually all scientists, covering a wide spectrum of disciplines, overwhelmingly reject this doctrine" while that is clearly true of Young Earth Creationism it is less so of other types especially theistic evolution. JoshuaZ 13:16, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi JoshuaZ, I think to some extent our disagreement relates to the difference between the formal and popular usage of the term "creationism", which is covered in the theistic evolution section, "in America, creationism has come to mean some fundamentalistic, literal, scientific interpretation of Genesis". Reading this article, I personally consider the overall tone to be different from articles such as Fossil or Evolution. Obviously the intent of Wikipedia is to have articles that are compatible with each other instead of sympathetic towards their subject. Addhoc 13:29, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

---I would like to pint out, as an American Myself, most Americans are NOT supporters of creationism. It is true that more Americans support it than do Europeans or British but most do not. - Ryanpatgray

Categories: Articles with unsourced statements
Where is this Category found in the article source? I believe that it should be removed. Dan Watts 15:33, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * It shows up because there is a fact tag or a citation needed tag in the article. --ScienceApologist 17:48, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the information. Dan Watts 19:23, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * It is due to the tag asking for a citation for the following statement: "It is exclusively in the public sphere, where young Earth creationists (especially in the U.S.) have fought for recognition of their world view, that the debate about creationism and evolution continues." -Silence 19:37, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Removing True origins link
-intranetusa
 * I took out the site on True Origins because the site was extremely biased in its support of creationism & intelligent design. It was essentially a creationist site masquerading as a non-biased site.


 * That is not a good reason to remove it. The idea is that it gives people somewhere to discuss their own POV, and hopefully leave this page alone. I have reinstated it. --Michael Johnson 04:58, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

The "Scientific critique of creationism" section takes a sober turn
I probably shouldn't be complaining because it's not my domain (I'm a firm believer of evolution), but I want to know the creationist side of the story, and right now, it doesn't look too good.

I don't know about anyone else, but looking at that section myself, every statement about the creationist point of view is a criticism, meaning there's no rebuttal. Take a look at evolution's misunderstandings page to get an idea of what's missing here.--Dlevenstein 23:56, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Summary and Overview
I've tried to improve the overview to avoid the highly misleading impression that Christian evolutionists are very rare and recent. We also really need to distinguish better between:
 * creationism in the sense of a belief that God created the world
 * (strict) Creationism as a denial of the scientific theory of Evolution. NBeale 08:02, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Well looking at Dictionary.com it's pretty clear that "creationism" really means (2) at least in US usage. So I've tried to make it clear at the beginning that Creationism => Creation but not vice versa. I really haven't got time at present to go through the rest of the article straightening out the confusions that remain there - it would be a good work for someone though. NBeale 10:07, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Your writing style was also inappropriate, and your references were functionally useless. Please discuss your issues and reach consense before making such major changes.
 * Dictionary.com? Are you kidding?  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  21:57, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Constructive contributions would be better than personal attacks. Let's separate the two issues:
 * a. Disentangling the two senses of Creationism is clearly a To Do. The overview and the article acknowledges that they exist, but they are clearly muddled. Suggestions anyone?
 * b. The statement about christians who support evolution "taking issue with the longstanding consensus of their forebears" is unsourced and simply wrong. In fact almost all the early geologists and almost all of Darwins early supporters were Christians, and on his death he was acclaimed as one of England's greatest scientists by (amongst others) the Archbishops of Canterbury and York. I have corrected that part of the overview - it really shouldn't be controversial but if it is please discuss and improve. NBeale 07:50, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * a. What two senses?
 * b. I'm confused. I understood the Christian church has been going something approaching 2000 years - or is it just a 20thC thing? The Catholic church didn't accept evolution till the mid 1950's and comdemmed it in the early part of the century. If 1950 years out of 2000 isn't longstanding, I don't know what is. --Michael Johnson 08:00, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * a. The 2 senses listed at the top of this thread.
 * b. Church's attitude to Theory of Evolution can't be older than the theory itself! As explained most of the supporters and Geologists were Christians, and the main Christian critics did so on scientific grounds. Did the Catholics really condemn the scientific theory, or materialistic philosophies that claim the support of evolution? Can you find a reference? NBeale 18:27, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the point of your edits are. At the time Darwin was writing Origin, belief in God was almost universal. In Europe and the United States almost everyone was Christian. So of course Darwin would draw his support from Christians, just as his opponents were all Christians. --Michael Johnson 12:39, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

NBeale's two senses got me thinking. Is there really anyone who uses "creationism" to mean sense 1 without sense 2? Theistic evolutionists, as far as I can tell, go out of their way to eschew "creationism". It may be that there are 2's who claim that 1 is a wider sense of the term that they choose to be more specific about. But are there actually any 1's at all who are not also 2's? &mdash; coe l acan t a lk  &mdash; 04:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

What you say seems spot on to me. I see it this way: the creationists claim that when evolution conflicts with creationism sense 2, it also denies sense 1, which it does not, of course. The argument makes scientists out to be godless heathens. Trishm 01:46, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I think you are both right on the money. Speaking as a scientist, being accused of being an atheist or evil or one of Satan's minions because I am in science really rubs me the wrong way. The claim from creationists is, if you deny biblical inerrancy, you deny God completely and you are an atheist. This is ludicrous. I have seen many quotes from Creationists who are extremely angry at people who believe in theistic evolution, because it undermines their extremist strategy. The fundamentalists and creationists want to speak for ALL Christians and in fact all religions, and dictate who is a Christian or not and who is an atheist or not. And we basically let them if we do not slam them and slam them extremely hard.--Filll 02:40, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Question regarding the "current scientific consensus regarding the origin of life"
It's true there's such a consensus among scientists. But is it scientific? Most scientists take for granted that science will eventually show how life came to be via abiogenesis, but do we know how it happened? Do we know that it happened? In short, I'm not so sure there is a scientific consensus regarding the origin of life. As always, we can: (1) attribute the statement to acceptable sources, (2) add a citation needed tag, or (3) remove the statement. Thoughts anyone? AvB ÷ talk  10:07, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure I understand your question. The sentence says "scientific consensus", i.e. "consensus among scientists". yandman  10:20, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


 * No, the two are not interchangeable. The former rests on science, the latter on the assumption that scientists are better equipped to make assumptions than lay people. See also Scientific consensus. Just in case this doesn't help, I'll rephrase my question(s): Is there a scientific consensus regarding the origin of life? If so, who says so? And what, exactly, is that consensus? AvB &divide; talk  10:39, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Scientific consensus represents the shared opinion of virtually all experts in a specific field. Consensus among scientists is the shared opinion of virtually all scientists regardless of their field of expertise. AvB &divide; talk  10:47, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, I get it. In this case, both are true: Virtually all experts in the field of evolutionary biology, indeed virtually all biologists and virtually all scientists (in all fields) accept the theory of evolution. To quote the article on evolution: "There is overwhelming scientific consensus supporting the validity of evolution". The list of those for and against evolution can be found at Creation-evolution controversy, which also has an interesting quote from Newsweek magazine:
 * "As reported in Newsweek magazine, 29 June 1987, Page 23: 'By one count there are some 700 scientists with respectable academic credentials (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) who give credence to creation-science...'"
 * Hope that helps. yandman  12:51, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks. However, this relates to the theory of evolution. (I'm familiar with the quote; I believe it was inserted into this article after I had requested sources for the related claim.) Anyway, my question is about the scientific consensus on the origin of life. AvB &divide; talk  13:52, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Once again I missed the question... I don't think there is any consensus on the origin of life. There are quite a few theories, with some common ground between them, but nothing standard (echoing recent work in particle physics). However, the page this question is asked on leads me to believe that you want to know whether there is a consensus against a certain "theory". I would say that the consensus against creation-science, covering everything from the Big Bang to Lucy, covers this too. yandman  14:15, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Hm, interesting point. That would depend on the actual questions asked then. AvB &divide; talk  15:09, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Couldn't find it on-line. For now I'd say we could use a better source. AvB &divide; talk  15:33, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I think we have no notable sources declaring a consensus on the origin of life (more specifically abiogenesis) so this has to go. Proposal (paragraph 3 of the introduction):
 * In addition to their rejection of Darwinian evolution, such creationists often also reject abiogenesis and the scientific consensus regarding the geologic history of the Earth, formation of the solar system, and origin of the universe.

AvB ÷ talk  13:28, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Would a pubmed search do? . Hmm, You could call that original research. On the other hand, if you get that anal about original research, you could end up end up with the the infinite regression about there being no sources declaring that there are no sources declaring that there are no sources for ...
 * You end up shorting out the purpose of the No original research rule, which is there to prevent people from mucking articles up with statements which don't have scientific consensus in the first place. :-P
 * So check pubmed on the evolution (pubmed doesn't carry many geology, astronomy, or physics articles), and if there's a rough consensus on evolution and abiogenisis, then that will have to do, IMHO.
 * Makes sense?
 * Kim Bruning 14:03, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, yes, that makes sense. Perhaps I should have said I tried to find sources myself before asking on this talk page - and my search included PubMed (hard to miss actually; Google indexes their databases pretty thoroughly these days). All I found was one non-notable creationist who said that all evolutionists believe in abiogenesis and one non-notable naturalist who said there is no consensus (paraphrasing but you get the drift). But I think you missed the problem I flagged up. It's this: the current text says that there's a scientific consensus; that begs the question: what is the consensus? One expects a specific consensus theory. A general expectation among scientists from all disciplines does not make a consensus. My main problem here is probably that consensus is a very important qualification on Wikipedia; it lends a lot of weight to information. It seems to me that declaring a consensus without clear sources is the epitomy of OR... So, I'm still waiting for someone with better search skills (or more time) to come up with the info. AvB ÷ talk  16:51, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I see only mild opposition to my proposal. Perhaps this updated proposal will get some support:
 * In addition to their rejection of Darwinian evolution and abiogenesis, such creationists often also reject the scientific consensus regarding the geologic history of the Earth, formation of the solar system, and origin of the universe.

AvB ÷ talk  11:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Added some cites for evolution Adam Cuerden talk 12:39, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

As you say these cites give some insight into the scientific consensus regarding evolution. However, they do not solve the problem I flagged up (WP currently claims the existence of a scientific consensus regarding abiogenesis without any sources). AvB ÷ talk  14:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I've implemented a revised version of the proposal, including Adam's citations. Improvements welcome, as always. AvB &divide; talk  01:32, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

When did the intro get changed with the numbers?
It appears that whoever did it intended to somehow separate them so that they could use caps in reference to one definention and no caps in another, which seems a bit odd to me since the article ought to be written well enough that a reader can understand which is which in context anyway, but my main problem with this is this sentence: "Where the distinction is important in this article we'll use a capital C or Creationism(2) for the 2nd, more specific sense." Self-references = very bad. Homestarmy 17:00, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * And how is the first word of the article not the beginning of a sentence, with the semicolon separating the first part from the numbers, its like the beginning of two sentences. Homestarmy 20:57, 25 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree. Addhoc 17:27, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Apology for inadvertant typing inserted
I just noticed that "heyy" was added when I tried to edit the article earlier; I have no idea how it got there, but since it was not there before my edit I will apologize for its accidental inclusion. Thanks to Coelacan for removing it, but calling it vandalism implies intentional malice which is not the case here.

Day/age and Relativisitc creationism
Whether or not the details of Schroder's approach are correct it is clearly true that time from 'outside' an expanding universe would look very different from time inside it (as per many multiverse theories). Schroder is a serious published author and an important ref for those who are trying to maximise the consonance between the Bible and science. He is involved at least somewhat in Anthony Flew's conversion to theism. I appreciate that some people find anything to do with creationism, in any sense, "ridiculous" and that is their right. But it is not right to supress references to this approach. In the entry I don't think I take a POV on whether it is valid - if I do please improve the text don't just revert. Thanks. NBeale 15:52, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I improved the text by removing it. See the link at top of the section you're editing, there's a whole article dedicated to the topic, going into detail here is unwarranted.   Put it there.  *Spark*  15:56, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

"evidence of Creation" article
I don't intend for this to be controversial, or anything of the sort. I'm just looking for an article, and wondering if I am looking in the wrong places. Given as there is an article on evidence of evolution, is there a similar article demonstrating evidence of Creation? I don't know if I am perhaps looking in the wrong areas. If there is not an entire article, does anyone know of the whereabouts of a section in an article that discusses evidence of Creation/Intelligent Design (outside of the Bible)? If so, could someone please provide a link for me? Thanks in advance. :) --Dreaded Walrus 03:12, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I suspect such an article would quickly be AFDed out of existance for not having enough "scientific" support, or it would just be force-fed with extensive rebuttles for any evidence contained therein :/. Homestarmy 06:00, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah Homestarmy is probably right...since it would be hard to have the scientific support.__ Seadog ♪ 06:03, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * However I can't seem to find anything in the deletion log.__ Seadog ♪ 06:04, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * That was my thought. Is there any article that either of you know of that even has a section that discusses any evidence that Creation/Intelligent Design "happened"? Or is it all based upon the Bible? I myself "believe" in evolution, however a friend of mine told me there was much evidence for Creation, "perhaps moreso than for evolution". So I figured I'd ask around here. :) Thanks anyway. --Dreaded Walrus 17:52, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The problem here is that if you do find a page on Wikipedia listing "evidence for Creation" anywhere, chances are some other editors have long ago listed it in the Pseudoscience category and found oodles of references from people refuting it, and most likely denying many opportunities for rebuttles with Undue Weight, since sadly, most of the rebuttles aren't on high reliability websites while the evolution side references often takes the form of university statements, famous reaserchers, etc. etc.. Depending on the question you want answered though, if you're just looking for evidence that Creationists use to justify God's existance through the existance of the universe, that'd be the Teleological argument most strongly, but unfortunently, Wikipedia's articles on that argument and those like it are rather low quality. (The teleological one has no references it seems for one thing). And I don't mean low quality as in "I'm a Creationist who's fed up with those articles not supporting Creationism", I mean low quality as in their poorly organized, don't have many editors looking at them, have large tracts of unreferenced statements and whatnot, are often filled with weasel wording so that they can have at least some content, or other legitimate encyclopedic problems like that. Your friend sounds like he might know a better place for evidence heh. Homestarmy 18:08, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Creation is self-evident. Every morning, I wake up and see evidence for creation! Creationism has the same evidence as evolutionism. It's the interpretation of the evidence which varies somewhat, depending on the worldview and accompanying presumptions of the enquirer. rossnixon 00:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * ...Er, no. Creationism has The Bible. Evolution has the world. Adam Cuerden talk 00:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Ross, I don't want to turn this into a creation v evolution discussion so I'm going to try to keep it brief. That claim is a common creationist one and it has zero basis in fact. Evolution explains many things like the phylogenetic tree and cladistics which are only reasonably explained through evolutin. There is no a prior reason a creator who was poofing things would create the nested hierarchy of life but it is wonderfully consistent with what one would expect from evolution. In 1840 almost no scientists accepted some form of evolution and by 1900 almost all bioligists did. Why? Because the evidence didn't allow for other reasonable interpretations. JoshuaZ 01:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Ross is right - there's no way to distinguish a world that was created to look like it had come about through natural processes from one what had come about through natural processes. But that doesn't mean that there's any evidence for creation.  Guettarda 02:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * While that statement is true in the strict sense, we can distinguish between a world that came about through largely natural processes and a world created without regard to natural processes who wasn't acting in a deceptive fashion. In that regard, the evidence makes far more sense to interpret as supporting evolution unless one posits a deceptive deity. JoshuaZ 02:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, of course, but that's a different issue. Guettarda 03:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Or, more correctly, evidence for creation that meets Reliable Source and Undue Weight guidelines :(. Homestarmy 02:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * To JoshuaZ. Your examples of hierarchy are pseudoscientific (not observational); except for cases of sideways "evolution" (no increase in complexity or new traits). And as for "no other reasonable explanations", by that of course you actually mean "no other reasonable explanations that I am comfortable with". The Bible is actually a Reliable Source, whereas scientific consensus changes every day. rossnixon 09:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Err....no it's not. Read WP:RS. We can only use the Bible to talk about itself or Christianity. yandman  09:39, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Er, I think what he's refering to is the old apologetic argument that the Bible is constant and therefore somehow better. Among other problems no one is critiquing the bible just certain failible humans interpretation of the text. Also, this is equivalent to saying that if two people are arguing and one of them is willing to change his mind and the other is not we should assume the one who is not is automatically correct. Finally, regarding the pseudoscientific claim, Ross I'm not sure what you mean- the hierarchies are observed that's the whole point. In fact, Linaeus noticed them well before Darwin and based his entire classification system around them. If the hierarchy didn't exist the modern classification system would be useless. JoshuaZ 02:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Here are 29 evidences described in great detail. Adam Cuerden talk 09:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I think a fairly powerful article on evidence for or room for God in science could be compiled. I do not think I would call it creationism however. Some might want to call it that. I have a partial list of evidence. some of which is treated quite seriously by real scientists. Even by Dawkins. --Filll 01:36, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


 * DW, your friend who told you that there was much evidence for Creation, "perhaps moreso than for evolution", may have been thinking of the statements commonly made by evangelical creationists such as Answers in Genesis or of course of the intelligent design claims: both have been explored by the US courts, and the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District case concluded with an exhaustive exploration of whether ID is science which exposes the basic premise: the argument from ignorance. William Paley had a good go at it with natural theology. However there's nothing to stop there from being evidence outside science, though of course the supernatural has this annoying habit of being too intangible to be called evidence. Existence of God looks like covering a lot of the ground. If you still feel there's a need for an evidence of Creation article, then feel free to start one: the above points and links would all have to be included in it. However it would be likely to boil down to "people who find something that science has yet to explain, or disbelieve the scientific explanation, take that as conclusive evidence of supernatural Creation". The ways of gods are mysteriously indistinguishable from chance. .. dave souza, talk 09:56, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I have repeatedly approached "Creationists" and religious types here and not one has taken me up on the offer to help them write an article, a REAL article with real evidence or at least the hope of real evidence of a creator, supernatural events etc. Unfortunately, it is not as easy as cutting and pasting mined quotes taken out of context and arguments that were decisvely dismissed 100 years ago from a creationist web site. They are not as brainless as "the dinosaurs all died in the great flood, and all those fossils are the bones of creatures that died in the great flood". To do this properly you probably cannot attack the favorite targets of the ranting bible thumpers, like evolution and the big bang. You cannot do this without VERY hard thought and effort, at least as hard as what scientists are doing. What is interesting to me is that not one creationist has ever taken me up on my offer. It strikes me that they are not really interested in thinking or compiling evidence for God scientifically etc. They are more interested in being annoying and using the same worn out arguments that failed 10 years ago, 50 years ago or 100 years ago. Interesting isnt it?--Filll 14:03, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Proposal to open up discussion to debate Creationism
Most of the sites in Wikipedia on their discussion pages allow debate. Only a few do not and I also note that 99% of the Fundamentalist generated sites do not allow discussion also. Magnum Serpentine 17:03, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Debate is supposed to be technically allowed on all talk pages, you shouldn't be banned for it or anything as long as you don't break any policies alot :/. What exactly do you want to talk about concerning this article? Homestarmy 17:18, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * A small precision: Debating the article is allowed on all talk pages. yandman  17:44, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Well I don't think its right for someone to tell people who want to debate creationism to take it off Wikipedia's website and to some creationist web site. Magnum Serpentine 05:22, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Allow me to explain further here is a direct quote from above.

[quote]IMPORTANT - If you wish to discuss or debate the validity of creationism please do so at talk.origins, True.Origins Archive, or Wikireason. This "Discussion" page is only for discussion on how to improve the Wikipedia article. Any attempts at trolling, using this page as a soapbox, or making personal attacks may be deleted at any time.[/quote]

This is what I am talking about. And I have debated other things on other discussion pages. This is just one of a few that will not allow itMagnum Serpentine 05:26, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

The talkpage guidelines are pretty clear that talkpages are for discussing articles, not to debate the subjects related to the articles. People who come to talkpages wishing to soapbox or wishing to debate the validity of creationism really should go elsewhere. That's not to say that limited discussion of issues is not allowed provided the intent of the discussion can be seen (at least nominally) to be toward improving or justifying the content of the article. --ScienceApologist 06:43, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Exactly. Talk pages are not for debating, proselytizing, or otherwise attempting to convince others of one's own point of view. They are for collaborating on the article. While this may include describing different points of view, pieces of evidence, &c., it should be pretty clear where the difference is. --FOo 07:01, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


 * You should look at the Pluto page. There is productive debate in the discussion pages thereMagnum Serpentine 23:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * talk.origins, alt.talk.creationism Gzuckier 16:05, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Introduction to creationism, or a clean up of the Lead
Homestarmy suggested that an introduction to creationism article was was needed. I am not convinced, but I do think your lead could be cleaned up a bit. What do you think? do you want specific comments?--Filll 01:37, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Creationist car??
Umm, ok, so what's up with that?

It sounds like they're trying to paint people who believe God created the universe to be ultra-patriotic, red-neck, uneducated people (with no sense of taste, either). Whoever came up with that lie? Honestly that sounds like slander and propaganda. It's also a very uninformed and biased position. Is it that hard to fathom that people who believe in Creation can be educated, articulate, intelligent people with a diversity of political opinions, just like any other group?

I don't get what the creationist car is supposed to say. Is this supposed to be a an accurate description of an average Creationist car? Does my Prius count as a creationist car? Can we put a picture of it on this site and label it "creationist car"?

Obviously there's a message that's trying to be sent with that picture: People who believe in Creation are dumb lunatic extreme-right-wingers without critical thinking skills.

Please.

So stop the slander. If you want to argue against creationism, can't you at least do so honestly without resorting to propaganda? This isn't even supposed to be an argument page, it's supposed to be an accurate, unbiased presentation of creationism. And this picture hardly fits the bill. I will wait until tomorrow to actually delete the picture in order to allow for some feedback and possible rebuttal.

MS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.181.150.190 (talk • contribs) (07:31, 21 December 2006


 * The creationist car is supposed to say what it says on the car. Someone opposed to "evolution" feels that a good way to get their message across is to paint it on their car. It exists. If your car is covered in slogans which you feel illustrate the article better, feel free to upload an image to the Commons, and we can look for consensus as to which image is best for the purpose. But don't go deleting things because you're making assumptions about the car owner. .. dave souza, talk 09:08, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I've edited the caption slightly to make it clear that it's a pro-creationist car. -- ChrisO 09:21, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Oops, missed that last edit. I changed it too, this time to "anti-evolution". Feel free to change back (wouldn't "pro-creationism" be better than "pro-creationist"?). Anyway, regardless of the caption, I have always liked this particular illustration of the type of creationism that fully rejects evolution. AvB &divide; talk  09:34, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Including the car on the page provides a nice illustration (IMHO) of the populist and grassroots nature of the creationism movement. It's something that everyday individuals feel is important enough to paint up their car for.  As such, it's a good example of the straightforward tactics of the movement.  In some respects, this could be contrasted with the scientific community, where more formal articulation is the norm.  But that sounds terribly pretentious, so I'll stop.  Cheers, --Plumbago 09:39, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * You'll find several more pictures of the car on Flickr (search for "creationism car"). Amusingly, the license plate was NOPRIM8... -- ChrisO 09:42, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The article needs more pictures, frankly. And this picture is a good start. I would like to have a picture of the "icthus" symbol eating a "darwin" fish with legs on it. Maybe some pictures of prominent creationists like Ham and Hovind. I think that the alligator on the car's hood has a very happy look on his face and is very charming. It is true that it creates a certain image of creationism, but to dispell that, all you need is some evidence of better scholarship and thought. I have offered to many creationists to help them with an intellectually substantial article on evidence for a diety. Not one has taken me up on it. That speaks volumes.--Filll 14:58, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm starting to learn about wikipedia editing, so if I make any mistakes in terms of protocols for the talk page, please forgive my ignorance. My POV is that creationism is ridiculous, and evolution is fact. That being said, I think the creationist-car picture is not appropriate. Even in the context of describing creationism as a grass-roots movement, it's a somewhat over the top portrayal of the average creationist.

Creationism can be ridiculed on it's own merits, and there's no need to resort to misrepresentations of creationists. Unless you can cite an article stating that creationists are known for painting their cars in ridiculous manners, the creationist-car picture should be removed. I'm not confident enough in the particular rules of WP or the way to go about it, but I'd appreciate that consideration. 67.87.223.102 00:21, 10 March 2007 (UTC)Shvetz

Proposed Changes
There are two things that I noticed: Firstly, why the 10,000 year old limit for young earth creationism? I thought it was common for YEC to go to 20,000 years or so. Also I didn't see a mention of each day is a 1,000 year creation period that is held in some Christian creationist circles. Have these items been previously discussed? Thank you 66.75.8.138 19:59, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I think the "1 day = 1000 years" is rarely (if ever) applied to creation. One major problem is that many plants can't survive 1000 years without birds and insects (e.g. pollination). rossnixon 03:31, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm thinking of an ICR Acts & Facts article where their guest writer talked about the age of the earth with adding 6,000 years for the creation process. I'm not sure how prevalent or meaningful this view is, but I thought I'd bring it up since I hadn't seen it discussed.  Also, do you have any knowledge of Creation beliefs for a 20,000 year old earth?  I was first told this many years ago as the general Creationist standard. 66.75.8.138 21:52, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * See day-age creationism JPotter 03:41, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Scientific Critque Removed
When the Admins who monitor the article on "Evolution" allow Criticism of evolution to be posted there, then we will allow scientific critiques of Creationism here. This is an article about Creationism, not its validity.

If Wiki Admins can say things like "You cannot post critiques here because this article is about Evolution being true or false, it's about Evolution itself", then we can say "You cannot post critiques here because this article is about Creationism being true or false, it's about Creationism itself"

Or have a run into another double standard?

Ymous 20:52, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Evidently I have. User:Filll has made his political beliefs and bias very plain once again. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ymous (talk •


 * Having personal opinions and bias does not stop one from seeking a NPOV about any given subject. Educators do it all the time. GetAgrippa 00:28, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

contribs).
 * Ymous, you cannot just eliminate a whole section without discussing it and getting consensus. I reverted your vandalism.  Orangemarlin 21:08, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh I wouldn't go so far as to call it vandalism, I'm willing to assume good faith that it was an edit with good intentions. Just seriously misguided. Mathmo Talk 02:47, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

There is a large section in evolution dealing with the controversy. There are many many articles dealing with creationism. However, it is a minority view. I am working on an article to document that carefully. No problem with minority views, but it should be made clear what is a minority view and where the evidence lies.--Filll 21:10, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


 * What is a minority view? 95% of the people on this planet believe in a higher power in one form or another. That sounds like a "consensus" to me, and definitely not "a minority view"Ymous 21:19, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually the fraction of the US that professes belief in a higher power has been dropping considerably. I think it is dropping because fundamentalists have made such jerks of themselves that it turns people off. I think fundamentalists might be doing the work of the devil, more than the work of God in fact. What do you think about THAT? I think those that believe in God and have no doubt about it in the US is about 60% and dropping; this is still more than in most other industrialized countries . Those who believe in biblical inerrancy is only about 30% of the total. And those who accept the right wing fundamentalist view of creationism is smaller still (about 15% I think but I need to find the reference; it depends on how the survey was done and what questions were asked). And this is in the US which has the strongest religious beliefs of any industrialized country by far. So the consensus is that creationism, strict creationism, is a minority view world wide. Sorry. We can get better figures for you but it sure looks like a minority view to me. Prove me wrong. I dare you.--Filll 01:17, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Not really. First off, a great deal of the US is nonreligious and doesn't believe in higher powers; it is about 10% of the population. Second, Europe is even more atheistic. Third, China is even more atheistic, and the old Soviet Union has tons of atheists dwelling there. Fourth, they aren't who are important. What is important is what the relevant authorities, not "the public", believe, and most of the world does not believe in creationism. In fact, outside of the Middle East and parts of the US, it is very much a minority view, and has absolutely no scientific support. Titanium Dragon 00:56, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Just to make this known, I left a polite notice on User:Ymous' talk page, noting how such deletion of a section may be percieved as being in violation of WP:POINT.--Dreaded Walrus 21:12, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


 * It's not vandalism. did you miss this part?

IMPORTANT - If you wish to discuss or debate the validity of creationism please do so at talk.origins, True.Origins Archive, or Wikireason

If you do not allow critiques of evolution in the evolution article because it's not he place to debate the validity of it, then you must not allow the critique of creationism.Ymous 21:17, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * That notice has been on the article for months because many trolls and vandals and basically malcontents of various kinds wanted to stop all work on the article from happening and forcing the editors to debate them instead. I didn't put it there. I think none of the people you have targeted put it there either. Nothing wrong with debate, but there is a limit to how much can be tolerated and where it should take place. What is wrong with that?--Filll 21:21, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


 * When does the three reversion rule kick in? Are we there yet? --Filll 21:18, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * (after edit conflict with User:Jason Potter, below) - The WP:3RR suggests that the 4th revert is the one not allowed, but also mentions that it is the spirit of the policy, rather than the exact letter, that is enforced. With regards to the section of this talk page Ymous quoted, I did not miss that part. I also did not miss the sentence directly after it, which states "This "Discussion" page is only for discussion on how to improve the Wikipedia article."
 * In other words, the section quoted relates directly to the talk page, not the article. --Dreaded Walrus 21:22, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Ymous, this would imply that evolution and creationism are on equal scientific grounds. This is not the case. Doing what you propose would violate the Undue Weight provision of the NPOV policy. Thanks, JPotter 21:20, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Well for one, they would be if users like Orange, Filll, Agrippa would stop censoring factual evidence that pokes holes in evolution, but yes, Creationism is not scientific. Why don't you have a scientific critique on everything in this entire site? Dragons? Witches? Isalm? Faries? Why something like Creationism? It's only because they want to give more weight to their belief.


 * Am I the only one that can see this?--Unsigned

All these should be addressed. There is no question. But no one is threatening to replace science with dragons in schools, or science with fairies in school. Witches is slightly more of a threat, but nothing like creationism. Islam is a threat, but not as immediate. This is a matter of addressing the most serious issue first.--Filll 17:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I have definite opinions and bias concerning evolution and creationism, however I don't let my opinions get in the way of contributing to a science article or any article. I believe in evolution. I also became a born again christian in my mid forties. Odd enough, I also attend an evangelical protestant church. Being a scientist doesn't disqualify one from being a christian, nor vice versa. I don't see the world needing Christian crusaders driving people away from Christ. I see the agenda driven pursuit of creationism doing just that. GetAgrippa 16:58, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Agrippa. I have my own religious bias. I am NOT an atheist. I even taught Sunday School for years. I am a scientist as well but not a biologist. But I think we have to be very careful about letting superstition and supernatural into science. Also, I just found a nice cite for one of the articles I am writing with orangemarlin about the dangers of creationism driving people away from Christianity. However, these next articles will be handled very differently than the last one, that is for sure.--Filll 17:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

''' IMPORTANT - If you wish to discuss or debate the validity of creationism please do so at talk.origins, True.Origins Archive, or Wikireason '''

'''If you do not allow the critique of evolution, then you must not allow the critique of creationism. Period. That is a double standard. An extreme bias.''' —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ymous (talk • contribs) 21:26, 28 December 2006 (UTC).
 * You're not the only one that can see that, but see my response above for a response to it. :) --Dreaded Walrus 21:28, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Ymous, I gave you a page and invited you to write something to it, on the evolution talk page. Instead, you seem to prefer acting in an antisocial manner. This is not good. And it will have consequences, I assure you.--Filll 21:30, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, when it's 1 against 12 (and counting), I find it a little hard to write anything. Quite the cabal you guys have here. How can the 3RR apply when they are 5 people protecting something, and admins who don't uphold their own policies?


 * I don't have all day to keep reiterating the same thing over and over. If you can't see the double standard and obvious bias, then I truly feel sorry for you.


 * Not once did I try to edit the article on evolution directly. NOT ONCE. You say that I cannot critique evolution, yet YOU can critique creationism?


 * That entire concept is sad and pathetic.Ymous 21:40, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Ymous, You've already been shown that the scientific dissent over evolution is not comparable to that of evolution. To make it equitable as you suggest, would be a violation of Wikipedia policy. The overwhelming majority of scientists accept evolution and reject creationism. The sort of equity you suggest is Undue Weight JPotter 21:44, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Ymous, my patience with you is limited. Creationists do come into the Evolution article to discuss their points.  They are open and free exchanges, nothing more, nothing less.  No one is blocked.  And yes, I review all the mythological articles, and IF I see something that bothers me, I will complain.  Most of them start off by claiming their myth or pseudoscience, so nothing is required. Orangemarlin 21:46, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Also, to suggest that you have "Not once [tried to] to edit the article on evolution directly. NOT ONCE." is betrayed by the article's history. --Dreaded Walrus 21:48, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I did not write the evolution article. I did not write the creationism article. I did not write the notice at the top of the evolution talk page to try to discourage debate. I did help a bit with the FAQ however on the evolution talk page. I have at both articles tried to argue that they should be accessible to the average reader, and that their text should be clear. I have argued to remove the "misconceptions about evolution" section from the evolution article, so far without success.--Filll 21:51, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Suppose I opened up the Encyclopedia Britannanica and looked at the article there on evolution. Do you think I would see a religious tract? What about creationism. Would I see material advocating the creationist viewpoint? I think you are expecting a bit much from an encyclopedia which has to be neutral if possible, but represent the dominant facts as we know them.--21:51, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

A religious critique of evolution is inappropriate because evolution has nothing to say about religion. A scientific critique of creationism, on the other hand, is appropriate, because creationism presents itself as an alternative to science. Simple enough. Guettarda 22:41, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually... evolution does have implications for many believers of many different faiths. You can't deny that, this is why certain groups have such as the creation research institute etc... exist. Mathmo Talk 02:50, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


 * It's a challenge for some religious people (just like heliocentrism did) - but we don't include religious criticisms of heliocentrism is astronomy articles... Guettarda 03:46, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Did you check the article before you wrote that? Because there is very large section there, actually... it is the largest part of the article. Mathmo Talk 06:37, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * It describes the historical religious criticism, not a current one--I consider that a big difference. In the Evolution article it does reference the current controversy.Orangemarlin 15:31, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * No difference really, if you read notability guidelines for instance you see it is not meant to change over time. Thus if wikipedia had existed way back then we would be covering it in much the same way in helocentrism then as we do now in that article. Mathmo Talk 16:17, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * It is interesting that heliocentrism was viewed as a serious threat to the church and biblical inerrancy and tradition for a very long time, and now the dispute which was so nasty, is now of mainly historic interest. I suspect the same thing will eventually will happen with the creationism/evolution dispute. What is the real threat, after all?--Filll 15:42, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * But surely the Heliocentricism section in question is approximately equal to the social and religious controversies and Misunderstandings sections that already exist in the Evolution article. Adam Cuerden talk 03:42, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * It would be preferable if they could be written the same way. However, evolution has to deal with a more current threat than geocentrism does. And what is interesting is that biblical inerrancy people somehow have decided now that heliocentrism is no threat at all. Why is this? Will one of you answer? If you have an answer.--Filll 16:02, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Heliocentricism never was and never will be a threat to the validity of the bible. Mathmo Talk 16:17, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * So why was it treated that way?--Filll 16:28, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey Fill, I was just reading my latest addition of Science and on the front cover breakthrough of the year is The Poincare' Conjecture Proved. I know you are a math buff, and I always thought math has not received just attention or appreciation. I had read an article a couple of months ago and now it seems Grigori Perelman has solved the problem (I think it still has to withstand scrutiny another year or something). Kudos to mathematicians what would any science be without math. GetAgrippa 01:52, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * As you would expect from somebody with my username.... I agree with your sentiment of "Kudos to mathematicians what would any science be without math", we are the foundations for science. Mathmo Talk 16:17, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Everybody here just wants to debate. Why don't the people that belive in evolution just go back to that page and stop fighting? It's obvious nobody's mind is going to change.Jesusinmysock 19:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Questions for Creationist
Did God, Satan, or man generate the sciences? It may seem ridiculous but it would seem an inevitable question. I ask because the same tools used in many fields of science (genetics,animal behavior-sociology, medical research and disease, etc)are used in evolution studies. It would be difficult to separate evolution from all the sciences so is all science in error or just evolution? Is scientific progress and knowledge the work of Satan, God, or man? My impression would be that Satan is deceiver not creator so that is out of the equation. God as creator could allow or inspire scientific thought-read Linnaeus's comments and others (whether God is real is of little importance to the impact of belief on the human pscyhe). Many contributions to literature, science, and art are inspired by belief-Islam, Christianity, Judaism, etc. The domain of faith and religion is beyond science, however the belief in belief is very much a scientific endeavor. Just curious.GetAgrippa 17:02, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Although I do not personally believe what I'm going to say, I could be convinced that a supreme being of some sort created the natural laws of the universe, but step back and let things happen. I remember have intense discussions with a Rabbi and a Priest (no joke here) trying to reconcile Genesis with science.  They both said the same thing--what is 7 days for G_d may be billions of years for man.  That's what I've never understood about Fundamentalists and their literal interpretation of the Bible; if it is truly the word of G_d, why are they so arrogant to believe that they know precisely what only G_d can know.  And given that we are not all little gods and we all lack omniscience, then why could there not be a scientific explanation for everything we see in the world.  Does that necessarily mean that all scientists are godless atheists, and all Christians and Jews (and Muslims, I presume) are biblical literalists.  No it doesn't.  But it appears that scientists are more open to reconciling their beliefs with a god of some sort, while Fundamentalists give no quarter in the arguments.  My faith and beliefs reconcile very well with what I observe in the world.  But faith is not something that can be logically imparted upon another human being--it is either there or not.  Science, on the other hand, deals with facts and observations, and they do not require faith.  Orangemarlin 17:26, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


 * It's worth reading James Moore's radio interview / article Evolution and Wonder - Understanding Charles Darwin which shows Darwin's evolution theory as coming from a religious perspective. He notes particularly the quote at the start of The Origin of Species from Francis Bacon – "Let no man think or maintain that a man can search too far or be too well studied in the book of God's word or in the book of God's works, but rather let man endeavor an endless progress or proficience in both." Moore comments "for Bacon, it's important that the works of God teach us how to interpret the word of God", then says that "There's been a reversal, and people have gone off on some extraordinary tangents in so doing. For example, opposing Newtonian astronomy on the grounds that the book of Genesis rules it out." Which summarises what we now call Creationism. The argument's between different theological positions, rather than between science and religion. .. dave souza, talk 17:55, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


 * That is a good point that you've made. There are many deeply religious people, most of whom would be personally offended to be categorized as an atheist or agnostic, who believe in evolution.  I have a close friend who is a Roman Catholic Priest and holds a Ph.D. from a secular university in comparative vertebrate morphology (which is about as evolution centric as you can get).  He finds creationists to be misguided in trying to apply the Bible to real world events.  He believes in G_d and lives the life of a devout Christian--he also believes firmly in evolution.  I'd be shocked if he were alone in this thinking.  I always wonder about someone's faith when they believe that it would be summarily destroyed by science.  How strong can their faith be?  I'm sure that Galileo, da Vinci, Newton, and others had to fight battles against the fundamentalists of their day--now, no reasonable Christian would dispute that the earth  revolves around the sun.  But in 1600, that was a battle that would put the Evolution-Creation fight to shame.  Orangemarlin 19:18, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

No creationist to answer. I guess they think I am baiting or not serious. I would like to know the logic. How can you attack evolution and not essentially attack all science? So many science fields and so many studies support evolution it is difficult if not impossible to separate out evolution from its link with all science. GetAgrippa 03:07, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Creationists conveniently disdain to answer about 99% of the questions posed to them. Ever notice how they never answer a lot of what they are asked? They ignore that which is inconvenient, and focus on the same few issues over and over and over. Very few think for themselves. They just cut and paste crap out of creationist websites or old creationists books, that repeat the same dismissed arguments from 50 years ago or 100 years ago or 150 years ago. And expect to be called scientists. It is pathetic. I have asked, since the original Big Bang theory and calculations are due to Belgian priest Georges Lemaître, was he working for the devil? Now many fundamentalists hate Catholics with a passion, so they can dismiss this interesting piece of scientific history; I have had many tell me to my face that Catholics are atheists or Satanists and should be all arrested and put to death (along with the filthy Jews and just about everyone else of course). How can anyone with these sorts of views be expected to be treated seriously, as rational reasonable people?--Filll 16:11, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Do you all seriously want an answer, because i'm sensing alot of hostility to really any sort of response right now. Homestarmy 18:14, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I am curious. I personally am even open to the idea that God exists. I am not an atheist. I do take offense at constantly being called an atheist, or threatened with eternal damnation etc. I want to know what you think, or any other creationist.--Filll 18:21, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Answering "How can you attack evolution and not essentially attack all science?": Evolution is not science. No one has observed it. It is a faith position that began with a uniformitarian assumption which has since become the framework by which all the evidence must be made to fit into. (Note: By evolution, I mean the kind that increases complexity and functionality.) rossnixon 19:39, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


 * You can believe whatever you want to, but as far as Wikipedia goes consensus rules and we report mainstream consensus as mainstream consensus. You are not verifiable as to what constitutes or doesn't constitute science. Neither is any other creationist who contradicts the consensus of the community. --ScienceApologist 02:17, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Some comments:
 * How can you disagree with the US supreme court, and dozens of other US courts, and over 99.84% of almost 500,000 US professional earth scientists and biologists, and well over 100 scientific organizations worldwide representing hundreds of thousands of professional scientists?
 * Evolution has indeed been observed in the laboratory, and in the field and in the fossil record, over and over, as reported in hundreds of thousands of peer-reviewed publications.
 * Commercial companies use evolution to make money. If they did not, they would not make money.--Filll 19:50, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


 * In a way, ross has somewhat answered the question. Most creationist sites I know of certainly don't start with the perspective of "Science is an abomination!", but rather, that Evolution and evolutionary theory as a whole is not science, many of them using the wonderful word "pseudoscience" which does seem to come up often on these sorts of pages. Sciences certainly were generated by people as science itself was developed by mankind as a method to understanding the universe and how everything operates, God created the universe, and we created science to try and understand it. Microevolution, of course, is not considered to be evolution in the modern synthesis sort of sense, so many Creationists and creationist websites acknowladge it that way while still rejecting the rest of evolutionary theory. I think the original question overstates the divide between Creationism and science, despite that famous biologist who's name I can't remember proclaiming that nothing in biology makes sense except through evolution, whether something makes sense or not is entirely relative, since it depends on who's senses you're referring to. Somebody operating on the presupposition that God created the universe according to the Bible, like myself and I assume Ross, would of course think biology makes perfect sense without evolution. However, to someone who seeks to start from the very beginning so to speak and assume that Creationism cannot be proven, evolution might be the only thing that "makes sense" to them. Homestarmy 21:08, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Well in excess of 99% of all US biological and geological scientists (almost half a million people) have no problem with evolution as a science. ARE THESE PEOPLE ALL ATHEISTS AND/OR DEMONS AND/OR STUPID? The US Supreme court has ruled that evolution is a science, as have numerous judges in US courts. ARE THESE PEOPLE ALL ATHEISTS AND/OR DEMONS AND/OR STUPID? All the major encyclopedias and dictionaries define evolutin as a science.  ARE THESE PEOPLE ALL ATHEISTS AND/OR DEMONS AND/OR STUPID? Well over 100 internatioal science organizations representing hundreds of thousands of scientists at a minimum have issued statements stating that evolution is a science.  ARE THESE PEOPLE ALL ATHEISTS AND/OR DEMONS AND/OR STUPID? A statement that evolution is a science was signed by 72 US Nobel Prize winners (the biggest collection ever to sign anything).  ARE THESE PEOPLE ALL ATHEISTS AND/OR DEMONS AND/OR STUPID? I mean really. You have to be kidding when you expect me to believe that these are just a few morons here and there who just can't see the truth. It really is beyond belief that these people are not as credible as any theologian or ranting bible thumper with a degree from a diploma mill. How gullible do you think I am ?--Filll 22:40, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


 * In order, 1. a. no b. no c. depends on what definition of stupid, its highly relative and ambiguous, are you talking in general or just concerning evolution, and what is stupid anyway? By the way, evolution isn't a science, evolution is a process. The study of said processes are sciences. 2. a. no b. no c. same response as 1c. 3. a. doubtful b. highly unlikely c. same as 1c and 2c. 4. I could ask the same to you, did you think i'd honestly give the responses you're looking for? Surely if I did, I wouldn't be here on Wikipedia, but would be ranting on some street corner about how the proleatriate evolutionist masses are trying to brainwash us with GPS satellites or something, you're not describing fundamentalists, you're describing some fictional Christian conspiracy theorists. I know there are some people who say that one or two of those groups are some of those things, but nobody who says all of those groups are all of those things. Homestarmy 04:18, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * You need to get out more. You might not be a fundamentalist at all. Sorry. Let's take a look at some of the things I have heard from fundamentalists:
 * proslavery and white supremacists
 * pro religious war against Muslims, but also Catholics and Jews
 * declaration that Catholics are not Christians, and Lutherand and Methodists and Presbyterians etc etc
 * damning people left right and center to hell that they disagree with
 * wanting to blow up birth control clinics
 * wanting to make condoms illegal
 * pro death penalty
 * wanting to have an exchange of nuclear weapons ASAP to force the second coming
 * pro pollution, wanting to despoil the earth and use the resources as fast as possible to force the second coming, saying they are ordered to use all the resources and pollute as much as possible by God
 * telling me that no one is allowed to question them because everything they say is the word of God; questioning them proves one is working for the devil
 * a rally a year or so ago with tens of thousands of fundamentalists leaders calling for the recall and dismissal of all 50,000 US judges (or whatever the number was) so that the right judges could be installed
 * claims that the separation of Church and state should be repealed so that all filthy catholics and jews can be forced to convert to real Christians or be put to death
 * claims that all Homosexuals should be summarily executed, with no trials
 * claims that all science is evil and the work of the devil

I am not kidding about this stuff. I am very serious. I have seen many of these things multiple times, or heard them in press conferences or in documentaries. I wish I was making it up, but I am not. TO me, THIS is what fundamentalism is. And why i think it is very dangerous. I dont care if someone wants to believe that the bible is literal. I object VERY strenuously to that being used to force the beliefs on others or as a platform to hate your fellow man. To me, that is just wrong and sick.--05:53, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * While I am aware the KKK's mission statement thing sounds like the most fundamentalist thing in the universe almost, words aren't the only thing that matters, that's why Jesus went on so long about hypocrites in the world, because they said one thing and did another. When I first saw the KKK's mission statement or whatever it is, I can truthfully say if I didn't know who it was from beforehand, I would of had no idea it was the KKK's, nor would I of suspected it.


 * I think that religion is often used to justify crazy beliefs and practices. Like Jihad. Like female circumcision. Like honor killings. Like lynchings. Like assorted wars, and riots, and murders and torturing. Like forced conversions. This does not mean that the religion is necessarily bad, but the application of it, and the demand of unthinking unquestioning acceptance can create an atmosphere perfect to let these kinds of things flourish.--Filll 14:19, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Any religion can be created at any time to teach anything, but I do not seek to defend them all or religion in general, just Christianity. Applications of course can and have been bad no matter what religion is in question or whether said applications have been faulty or not, but let me ask you this, where is the demand in Christianity to never think or ask questions about anything? Not the demand from people, the demand from Christianity itself. And I don't just mean some assertions of truth that you most likely feel are unprovable, I mean everything that can possibly be questioned about anything. Homestarmy 04:42, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, many abolitionists were Christian fundamentalists too, sure, they might of been outnumbered, but if you read alot of literature about the deep south from a fictional perspective and whatnot, you get the picture real quick that most pro-slavery pastors down there were compleate and total hypocrites, since that's the model stereotype most often used in that sort of literature.


 * Hypocrisy is very common, everywhere. But it is a bit much to take from some group that is proclaiming themselves to be better than everyone else, and forgetting much of their own theology they supposedly profess. There is a lot of stuff in the bible that can be interpreted any way one likes (the koran too). So if you want to find hatefilled messages there and a justification for hate, it is there.--Filll 14:19, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * But you do seem to agree it cannot logically be interpreted the way the fundamentalists you refer to are doing it, since you see it as hypocracy as well? Homestarmy 04:42, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Nextly, ok, sometimes people get a bit too exited and stop being fundamentalists because they let their emotions control them instead of their brains, and i'm quite aware that this has happened to major figures in history, (Cough On the Jews and their Lies cough) but just because religions go through bad periods with leaders doesn't mean the actual teachings of the religion itself supports said leaders and everything they say. Listening to what people say alone to determine what a religion is doesn't get the full picture, you've got to read and understand whatever they claim to believe in or teach from if applicable, whether it be the Bible, the Qu'ran, the Vedas I think its called, I think Buddhism has some work of its own, whatever Scientology thing Hubbard liked best, and so on and so forth. People are not capable of being monolithically identical in beliefs when you start creating a crowd of a certain mass which all claim to believe a certain religion, ideology, or whatever, but books don't change nearly as much. I don't know what people you refer to who somehow got it into their heads that they are Jesus Christ returning to earth, since Jesus is the one appointed to be the judge in the final judgement, but I can assure you, there's quite a bit of difference between saying somebody is going to hell, and saying somebody is going to hell because you say they will personally and that's the end of it. The former is quite risky and most likely judgemental and therefore sinful, the latter is just plain heresy.


 * I agree, but these are the kinds of people that I have encountered (several times mind you). It sort of puts a bad taste in one's mouth, you know? I knew one lady who thought she was Jesus come back to earth, with the express mission from God to prophesize based on footwear. I called her the Great Shoe Prophetess. She would go and look at people's shoes and tell them their future. I have known several other people who proclaimed themselves to be uniquely speaking for God and then went on a ranting raving curse-filled tirade about how they hated everyone and no one was allowed to disagree since they were speaking for God personally. And on and on. Can you see how this might be cause for some discomfort?--Filll 14:19, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't know where exactly you live and don't plan to ask, but living around false messiah's which don't even sound like their even trying to be remotely convincing would be pretty creepy to me....However, I would be interested in knowing the response these people would give if you asked them which "God" they personally speak for, it sounds like from the atmosphere of the, quite frankly, crazy sounding people you live near, there would be more to their answer than may meet the eye. Homestarmy 04:42, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


 * (I'm making a convienent line break here)
 * The people who blow up abortion clinics do not exactly have mainstream support among fundamentalist circles, and I challenge you to find a single modern statement of full-fledged support for abortion clinic bombers from, say the Southern Baptist convention. Not mere members, oh no, Southern Baptists have no singular defining creed, I mean a whole statement of the convention as a whole. That's when i'll be worried about me getting the call that I need to go blow up a clinic for Jesus.


 * But some sects believe this. And are proud of it.--Filll 14:19, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * That is a mistake. Just like many mistakes throughout history people have made in the name of Christianity, the groups you describe merely continue a long legacy of people whom apparently earn the label of "heretic". That word is not, as it is often protrayed in the media and in movies, just a word that all Christians throw around whenever we want to make someone sound bad, it has a very powerful meaning which although is easy to misuse, nonetheless can validly be used in many situations, all it takes is a little bit of thought before using it, which it sounds like the people you have met don't typically give. Homestarmy 04:42, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

The condom debate is quite a bit more complicated than I suspect what you're reducing it down too, the goal is to not use condoms so people won't feel free to be as adulterous as they want, not to make sure everyone is as adulterous as they want and being killed by STD's while doing it.


 * I know why they are taking this position. I just think it is nuts to want to force your beliefs on everyone around you, and unwelcome. And creates a bad image. Whatever happened to live and let live? What about the mote in the eye story? The cast the first stone story? The glass houses story?--Filll 14:19, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I suspect most of the more prominent advocates are taking a historical approach, since historically, the more sexually promiscuous a society was, the more hostile it was overall to Christianity if it was nearby. I mean think about it, Ancient Rome was that way, rural Fundamentalism Islam is still that way as I hear it, (though news is difficult to obtain about those areas except sporadically) the pattern just seems to keep appearing. A bad image for these sorts of advocates nowadays means nothing compared to societies which actually were let alone. Advocating abstinance instead of condoms has nothing to do with casting the first stone, the entire point is so that nobody will need to be blamed in the first place because they won't do anything wrong. Homestarmy 04:42, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I cannot speak on the death penalty, as I am opposed to it, though that's quite another story for quite another day I think. On nukes, I think you oversimplify the motivations by apocalyptic Kingdom Now type preachers, the point isn't that we want to die now, but that we will die pretty close to now, we just might want to try to be on the sort-of-winning side of that in the end.


 * It might be explainable. It does not make it any less terrifying and dangerous. And crazy and stupid. Makes me sick--Filll 14:19, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * In my experience, the way many Kingdom Now type preachers preach is....inconsistant. I have not seen a pattern with all their beliefs, as many of them often seem to like concentrating on different types of supposed threats or changing the threats from time to time, while John Hagee for instance is big on Iran right now, Jack Van Impe is still big on the European Union, sometimes the warnings bear consideration, sometimes they are a bit of a stretch. I think it is more of a case-by-case thing than many other sorts of popular kind of topics to preach about these days. Homestarmy 04:42, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Next, I have no idea where you're getting the pollution thing from, not caring specifically about the environment like an environmentalist would doesn't mean we are specifically on a mission to spoil the world as quickly and messily as possible.


 * I guess you never ran into dominion theology? I think Secretary Watt was a dominion theologist if I am not mistaken.--Filll 14:19, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I know of the term, but wanting to be in control of the Earth does not automatically mean Christians will pillage and exploit it until it is a trash heap, it simply means our emphasis will be on our own survival and benefit instead of the planets. So, of course, when the planet can't take it anymore, one would hope Dominionists would decide to advocate steps to stop global warming or something. However, I am not very big on dominionism myself at the moment.... Homestarmy 04:42, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

On not allowing questions, i'd like to borrow my idea for an experiment below, if you would, please find one of these fundamentalists you speak of and repeat the process I outlined below by asking them why God did not kill Job immedietly the moment he first started asking God questions? I mean, surely if questioning people is satanic than questioning God is infinitly so more, so why would God of given time for Job to fill a book of the Bible with questions, instead of just killing him on the spot the moment he opened his mouth?


 * There are plenty of inconsistencies in fundamentalist stories and beliefs. They are definitely picking and choosing what they profess.--Filll 14:19, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Have you tried to demonstrate this to them before? What kind of responses did they give? Homestarmy 04:42, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

This rally you speak of does intrigue me however, I don't suppose you know who's hosting it? Whether I agree with it or not in the end i'm curious as to why they think every single judge is against us.


 * No it was broadcast for several hours on CSPAN however. Amazing. Lots of Republican leaders from Congress showed up to pledge support and agree. Incredible. Not much different than listening to the President of Venezuela or Iran.--Filll 14:19, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * (Another convienent line break.)
 * Ok, even I haven't heard hide nor hair of wanting to take down separation of church and state type precedent specifically to convert Jews and Catholics, where are you hearing this stuff? Why do they claim they need to take it down to do that for one, and what is their excuse for being apparently entirely political and not at all evangelical about it?


 * I suspect to make it easier to convert them, or create an obligatory state religion so they could force people to be fundamentalist Christians. Sort of a reprise of the Inquisition, which we all know went so well.--Filll 14:19, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, considering what a stellar failure that was the first time, you'd think these people wouldn't be trying it again. Homestarmy 04:42, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

The executing all Homosexuals sounds once again like Westboro, who don't represent really the mainstream of anything but themselves, and that sounds far more Islamofacist than Westboroian anyway, i'm not an all-world-religions apologist here, just Christian.


 * Westboro are not the only ones, by far. My goodness.--Filll 14:19, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Not everyone lives wherever your unique location is, or meets the people you meet. I suppose it might be partly my own fault for being on the internet so much instead of real life more, but I would think if there were really as many of these organizations as you propose with such a widespread following and influence, the entire southeastern part of the U.S. would be reduced to anarchy by now. Homestarmy 04:42, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I also don't know many fundamentalists in recent times who think that every single scientific anything is specifically evil. I wonder, do they wear clothes? Next time you see someone saying what you've heard, ask them how they can wear the clothes of evil, since all clothes manufacture nowadays required scientific advances in, well, manufacturing.


 * Which is exactly the same argument I make. And they get all angry. But I do not care. They are hypocrites, Pharisees.--Filll 14:19, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * That sounds bad....I wonder, since you seem to be so in touch with what makes a Christian a hypocrite and what doesn't, what would you propose as beliefs that a Christian should truthfully have? Homestarmy 04:42, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Now, finally, the end. I suppose your definition of Christian Fundamentalist does not, in fact, include me at all, quite the contrary, it appears by your standards that despite me being a creationist, I am quite the liberal morally relative "questioning" theologically flexible Christian that would make the Unitarian Universalist organization very proud. (Of course, I would be quite disturbed if they were proud of me in reality) It also doesn't include pretty much every single Fundamentalist or any Fundamentalist organization I know of either. I use the definition of fundamentalist set down in precedent by the Fundamentalist movement of American history and by common sense analysis of whether something does or does not agree with the Bible, but I don't think that by you trying to change the definition of the word, that actual Fundamentalists will all turn into Unitarian Universalists one day.


 * I am not trying to change the meaning of the word. These people I have encountered are all self professed fundamentalists and creationists of various stripes. And these beliefs are all those I have heard fundamentalists profess. To me, they are not even Christian, although many fundamentalists want to use the word "Christian" to exclude others, like Catholics and Presbyterians etc. --Filll 14:23, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, you don't have to let them get away with using a title they have no historical basis of claiming. Homestarmy 04:42, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Simply put, trying to ascribe to all people who say they are fundamentalists characteristics which clearly do not fit the bill historically isn't going to make them change their beliefs, but rather see your beliefs about what they believe as a very in-depth, well thought out strawman. Homestarmy 06:35, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

This is all basically off-topic, but we may find some analysis that will fit in the article, so here I go with my description of creationism. The basic feature of creationists is that they are anti-intellectual and intentionally under-educated with regards to the subjects they criticize. The conflict of religion vs. science as it manifests itself in the creation-evolution controversy is really a matter of a continuation of faith vs. reason conflict or, more broadly, tradition vs. innovation. Creationists are reactionaries fighting against new ideas and innovation, following in the footsteps of luddites, the anti-Galilean Catholic Church, and generally those who seek to maintain connections to supplanted worldviews. This is why creationists find themselves in the arms of conservative politics. It is also why they can't function within the normal places in academe. They are subservient to their own worldviews and adopt a rhetoric of openness only as a dishonest guise. --ScienceApologist 21:43, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I hope you understand when I say I dearly hope your analysis doesn't end up in the article. Homestarmy 21:45, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


 * It might not be able to go in this article, but this would be great material for another article at least.--Filll 22:40, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Please can we stop the tired old nonsense about "conflict between science and religion". Not one single person who has seriously studied the subject believes that Galilleo or Darwin were "science vs religion" or the "warfare" model. This is in the same league as the idea that "in the middle ages they thought the earth was flat".  The vast majority of "creationists" (ie those who believe in creation) fully accept the findings of science but do not believe that these contradict the truths of religion. It suits extremists on both sides to pretend it is not so. Also not even the most scientifically illiterate creationist scholar is as ignorant of science as Richard Dawkins is of theology. Of course it would be much better if people studied science and theology before making pronouncements on the relationship between them, and almost everybody who has done so recognises that there are no contradictions between them.  Let's have a grown-up discussion here please. NBeale 21:58, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


 * It is a bit ridiculous to claim that Richard Dawkins doesn't know theology. I mean, at the very least his books reference theology whereas "scientifically illiterate creationist scholars" have a hard time even making a basic reference to scientific evidence. The thing that creationists like yourself don't like about him is that he spits the medicine that creationists (even of the most mild sort) force on the rest back in their face. Yes, Dawkins is being inflammatory when he points out that religion is a backwards belief based on superstition and willful ignorance, but this is really just responding in kind to those theologians who think that they have something to say about the scientific method or the "natural universe". The vast majority of creationists don't take the time to learn about a subject before they make their pronouncements and then get angry when a skeptic debunks their cherished ideas with handwaving arguments. --ScienceApologist 01:14, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Although I think Dawkins goes a bit far, he is far milder than many creationists I have met. And I agree in with ScienceApologist about this. I have seen incredibly bad behavior on the part of creationists, viscious cruel threats and hatred, and almost always lying and cheating and hypocrisy and complete ignorance.--Filll 01:19, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Well then filll, I guess we'll have to change your mind about those mean old un-mild creationists, eh? :D Homestarmy 04:22, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * It's not a slur on Dawkins to say that he is ignorant of theology. He says himself that the only part of theology that he has studied is the part about proofs of the existence of God (which he finds utterly wanting) and that he thinks the rest of theology is "vacuuous". You can be able to quote the Bible without having studied theology at all. I'm also not sure that it helps much to argue from "some/many creationists are ignorant and behave badly" to "creationism must be wrong". The same argument would apply to almost any idea, certainly atheism.  In Wikipedia we should surely engage with the best representatives of ideas, not the worst.  Remember that, at least outside the US, the overwhelming majority of creationists are not "strict" creationists and have no problem with science at all. NBeale 08:23, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that some fundamentalist extremists want to push their restricted agenda. However, these are the same nuts who believe that Jews are evil and should be killed and Catholics are not Christians. But nevertheless, they are here on Wikipedia pushing their tired old agenda. I have heard Dawkins speak and he knows his bible quite well, frankly, so that is a needless slur. And I do not deny theistic evolution; far from it. The Discovery Institute and others have made statements about how they hate Theistic Evolution and how people who believe that are following Satan and are not Christians. This makes me sick and I am very wary of those dangerous fundamentalist extremists that throw their weight around and spew anti-intellectual nonsense. --Filll 22:40, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't have time right now to give a big comment, but i've heard Dawkins too, and there's a big difference between knowing what the Bible says and what it really means. Homestarmy 23:02, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Trying to claim that Dawkins has read without understanding is basically a varaint of the No true Scotsman fallacy. The "meaning" of a collection of words is conferred by the social construct of a language. Anyone who can understand language can understand the language's meaning. --ScienceApologist 02:14, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * So then, everyone who can understand the language the Bible is written in knows what the language means, except those mean old Christian fundamentalists? You know, the kind who always say that Dawkins is taking so and so verse out of context..... Homestarmy 04:13, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I have heard Christian fundamentalists tell me what the bible means and it makes me sick; hate your neighbor, hate everyone who is different, God is a GOd of hate who hates everyone and it is all about cursing and hatred and threats and violence and war and death. So I say, if that is the God you want to worship, a God of hatred, Go ahead. But do not shove that nonsense on everyone else and throw tantrums when no one else wants to hear your viscious evil hatred.--Filll 23:10, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd be interested in knowing who these "fundamentalists" are, even the Westboro folks seem too preocuppied with Homosexuality to teach all that. Most fundamentalist groups I know about who are actually fundamentalists learn about groups like what you're describing pretty quick so we can denounce their obvious lack of comphrehension, I mean, they end up in the news alot of times. Homestarmy 04:13, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The Westboro folks do hate Jews and Catholics. They protested here at the Holocaust memorial. What do you think "Landover baptist" is so funny? Take a look if you dont know it already. There are a very large number of crazy fundamentalists of various stripes. I think that what they are doing is unChristian, and in fact is AntiChristian. It is loathesome and unAmerican many times, and has nothing to do with loving your neighbor or your enemy. It is a doctrine of hatred and elitism and exclusion many times. It behaves like the Pharisees, and ignores the parables about the "mote in the eye" and the talents.--Filll 05:42, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Uh, Filll, Landover baptist is a parody site. I've read some of it myself, some well-constructed strawmans they've got there, I did find their article on "Evangelism in World of Warcraft" to be rather funny though, dueling to make people convert, it would never work....Anyway, Westboro may hate Jews and Catholics, but the world is not made up of Jews, Catholics, and members of the Westboro church. The hatred you describe is hatred for everyone and everything pretty much. Homestarmy 05:52, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes of course it is a parody site. Why do you think i told you to look at it, if you hadnt already? Westboro is a bit extreme, but they are unfortunately not alone. Yes of course there is hatred for everyone. That is the danger of extremist groups. What do you think I have been ranting about? --Filll 05:58, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Hold on a minute, if you think what their doing is anti-Christian but is still the definition of Fundamentalists, what fundamentals are Westboro reaching back to anyway? And what does that make people who actually do try to be as non-un-Christian as possible? Homestarmy 06:40, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

The point of going to a parody site is that it reflects back a certain element of truth. Many have suggested that Fred Phelps of Westboro is actually trying to make Christians look as stupid as possible to discredit them. I wonder if many fundamentalists are not unwittingly doing the same thing. I agree, a lot of it is not what I would call Christian.--Filll 14:23, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

'''Just a friendly reminder; This is not usenet. It is a page where improvements to the article are discussed.''' Are we ready to wind-up this OT discussion yet? rossnixon 08:53, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Why the supernatural can not be part of science
Including the supernatural in science will destroy science. Suppose you have some math homework to do. You know the answer from the back of the book. You need 20 steps to get to the answer. You can only get the first 3 steps. Then you write "The remaining 17 steps are a miracle and I dont need to do them so there". And then you complain when the teacher gives you a bad grade for not doing your homework. Understand?


 * Suppose I bother to do the other 17 steps so I can go watch more of the Trinity Broadcasting Network without getting the what-for from my parents, would this destroy science too? Homestarmy 04:09, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

If you do the 17 steps and they are correct, there is no problem. If you do the 17 steps and get them wrong, you need to study harder. Or maybe math isnt your thing. If you want to jump to the end and skip all the hard steps (which is what introducing the supernatural into science does), then that is cheating essentially. Sorry.--Filll 04:21, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't call using the Bible as the basis for my beliefs about the origin of the universe to be skipping ahead, I mean I have to at least read it first before I trust it, its more like taking a different road. Maybe its a much shorter road, but it is nonetheless a road. Of course, if as you say I shouldn't skip any of the "hard steps", do tell me the scientific and mainstream non-pseudoscientific perspective on what started the universe. Ah, that's right, asking what was before the universe is like asking what is north of the north pole, guess its not a question in the scientific realm I suppose.... Homestarmy 04:24, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * If you have the answers to all questions already, there is no reason to do any science. None whatsoever. No more research. No more cures for diseases. No more technologies. It is all pointless and stupid. So fire all the professors. Empty all the corporate research labs. Fire all the government scientists. No need for defense research. No need for bullet proof vests. Let the soldiers pray to stop the bullets. They are filthy atheists if they need a bullet proof vest. Arent they real men? The dirty dogs. What are they? Not real Christians? No new weapon systems. No need to even aim. The Iraqis dont aim their weapons. They dont even look. They just pray. It is all if Allah willing the bullets will hit someone. No need to aim. After all, that shows real faith. If you have to aim, you are a dirty filthy atheist and should be court martialed and put to death, right?


 * And just because science is an ongoing process and not all answers are known yet, does not mean it is not worth continuing. You want to stop and go back to the Dark Ages, which is the last time that religion ruled every aspect of life? Be my guest but leave me out.--Filll 04:32, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Who said I have all the answers to all questions, As a Christian creationist, I merely believe I have the answer to but a few questions, namely the question of how the Universe got started and some ground rules about how it was set up. I dont think that alone cures diseases very well, and apparently, neither does anyone listed here: 1.


 * I might point out that previous extremist religious groups would have declared all doctors and nurses evil atheists and maybe even wanted to condemn them and curse them for blasphemy. And such groups still exist now. My point is that religious extremists believe all kinds of crazy horses***, and typically they disagree with each other about what they believe and they end up hating each other and wanting to kill each other, and anyone else they decide is a bad person (like jews or catholics or presbyterians or lutherans or homosexuals or liberals or muslims or hindus or buddhists etc ). It is a bit hard to take any religious fundamentalist very seriouslsy after a while. They aall are pretty disgusting hypocrites in my book (remember our good friend Haggard for a recent example. I can still remember his smug self-congratulatory proud smirk on his face talking about how wonderful and perfect and righteous he was and how awful those terrible nonbelievers/gays/other faiths etc are. Give me a break. All the same, all the same, Just different flavors of crazy.)--Filll 05:04, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * From which religion? It is a bit hard for me to take Islamic Fundamentalists at their word for example, especially nowadays, lately they've been threatening some pretty big attacks on very specific timelines, yet there's nothing. No attacks before the end of Ramadan, no Christmas presents Osama Style, no nothing. But I don't think its very fair to take every single fundamentalist type person from every single different religion and treat them as if they aren't serious simply because they believe strongly in what their taught. Homestarmy 06:56, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Well some of the spinoffs of the Millerite movement like the Christian Scientists were anti-medicine, and still are. I think they should be treated as serious in the sense that they want to kill me, or want to destroy science, or take actions that will destroy science. But I am more inclined to treat them as dangerous ranting raving drooling psychotics than as rational people. They have gone out of their way to create a certain image for themselves, in my mind.--Filll 14:35, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, without technology, how are we supposed to have televangelists? Christian forums? E-mail coordination? This is useful stuff for anybody, Christian or not.


 * I dont think anyone really things about this. To them it just is, and they never think about where it comes from.--Filll 05:04, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, I think about it, and I got Fundamentalist on both quizfarm tests about worldviews relating to religion or Christianity :D. I know of no televangelists who hate technology anyway.... Homestarmy 06:56, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Funny you should mention war being unecessary, if I read the Old Testament right, war happened quite alot, with the people on God's side being combatants, perhaps you're thinking of another creationist religion?


 * You are missing the point. Maybe on purpose. Most of the fundamentalists I have met are frantic to have a death penalty, no appeals, and no trials if they could get away with it. Just summary executions. And they are frantic to go to war with the Muslim fundamentalists. Who also would love a war. Great...except for the rest of us. I used to think religions were about love and peace until I met fundamentalists, who taught me their religions were about hatred. Of just about everyone but themselves.--Filll 05:04, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't know where you live, but it sounds like a horrible place, and it doesn't sound like the Bible Belt either, i've been up into those mountains many times, and haven't heard hide nor hair of anything as preposterous as what you say Christians proclaim. You know, don't you think its possible that since your definition of Fundamentalist doesn't seem to be dependent on the various founding works of the religion in question, that there's a possibility your Fundamentalists might not be so Fundamentalists at all in the end?. Homestarmy 06:56, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I live in the US. Perhaps you just are blind to it. It is all around you I am sure. I do not know if they are fundamentalists or not in someone's definition. To me, they are not Christian, or what I was taught Christianity was. To me, they are nuts.--Filll 14:35, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Dirty dogs is also more Islamic of an insult than Christian.


 * I would be more explicit like I have heard many fundamenatlists, but I dont want to curse here.--Filll 05:04, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm sort of curious where you picked up your theology, I wasn't aware that every single Jew in Biblical times who took up a sword is actually burning in hell right now despite God's covenant and promise, your theology is quite unique.


 * Most "good" fundamentalists that I know of have very little nice to say about Jews. A lot of them claim that the fundamentalists are the Isaelites (replacement theology I think it is called; Mormons sometimes do this too I think), and that the Jews are usurpers.--Filll 14:35, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Maybe you havent really met many real, roll in the dirt, thrashing around having a tantrum, playing with poisonous snakes, screaming and cursing talking about how you hate catholics and jews and niggers type fundamentalists. Well you might need an education then.--Filll 05:04, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * No, I haven't. But while my education may be deficient in some ways, don't just pass up my suggestion to ask those "fundamentalists" about Matthew 5:44..... 06:56, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

And, of course, by unique, I mean compleatly wrong, come on man, if you honestly think I believe what you claim I should to be a Christian fundamentalist, do you think i'd be here of all places?


 * Lots of Hypocrites out there. And lots of people who just do not think about what is around them and the consequences of their beliefs.--Filll 05:04, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * How about me then, do I not get to be a fundamentalist because i'm not as hypocritical as the people you've been describing? And if not, what am I? Homestarmy 07:02, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I do not know, but you might not be a fundamentalist to many of them. To many of them, they might declare you not to be a Christian. You might be called an atheist even. You might have them spit in your face and curse you for being a nonbeliever. Who knows? It might be entertaining to watch however. Many different sects disagree with each other over who is in the "right" sect and has the "right" beliefs. --Filll 14:39, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Surely i'd have some church to burn down somewhere, I mean, they use electricity, that's technology! And no, actually, sciece really isn't supposed to find the answer to the question in my previous comment, why do you think Hawking even said that asking the question about what was before the universe is like asking what's north of the north pole anyway?


 * There are all kinds of thoughts and speculation about cosmology, but it is a teeny tiny field to be honest. And not that interesting. Who really cares, to be honest? --Filll 05:04, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, as long as it isn't pseudoscience, I presume it can be used to illustrate limitations to what science should address. Homestarmy 07:02, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

And remember, in the dark ages, it was only Catholicism specifically which ruled Europe. I would hardly call Catholic doctine to be more or less equivalent to every faith on earth. Homestarmy 04:47, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Again you miss the point. Look at the taliban for a more recent example.--Filll 05:04, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The taliban's dark age is not equivalent to Europe's dark age at all, the Catholic church did not send people to roam the countryside murdering anyone who tried to educate women in anything for one thing. Homestarmy 07:02, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Just Muslims, Jews and Protestants.--Filll 14:35, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Lets take another example. My boss asks me to make a new electronic filter. It is very hard to make it work. I cannot figure out how to do it. So I just throw a bunch of loose electronic parts in a metal box, seal it and shake it. Then I declare to everyone "A miracle will happen to make this work". And when it doesnt, what then? Did God forsake the engineer? What about a drug company, that claims that they do not need to do drug testing because God will protect the sick taking the drug? They can save money that way too and plus they are very special and Godly, much better than that evil atheist company that actually does drug testing. Filthy whores that they are, disgusting atheist pigs, let them burn in hell, we hate them all, those dirty blasphemers!! How dare they do drug tests instead of trusting in the lord !! See how much sense your supernatural reasoning makes? --Filll 04:26, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * 1. I get fired i'd think. 2. Either that, or He is not just a help desk we can call whenever we want for any request. "Lord, i'd really like a root bear right now". Yea, I don't think that's quite how it works, call me a raging liberal theologian if you think that's not fundamnetalist enough for me to deserve the title, but I just don't see the Biblical support for that idea. 3. They wouldn't be my drug company I hope. On the w.... word, it never ceases to amaze me how almost every single time I hear anyone on the internet use that word in the derogatory sense, they always use it in a general sense even when it can only apply to females.


 * You never heard of the whore of babylon? People out whoring? Males mainly. Male whores? --Filll 05:10, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't recall any context in the Whore of Babylon parts of revelations to support the idea that this w.... in particular is male. I maintain that despite how common culture misuses this word as a catch-all insult, its simply not being used correctly most of the time. The correct word for a male "w...." starts with a B, it used to be quite a commonly used and relatively non-vulgar term to describe certain aspects of dog breeding operations if i'm not mistaken actually. Homestarmy 05:32, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Because, you know, the w.... word only applies to females, I know some people like to throw it around however they please, but to me, using it like that more in the lazy category than the vulgar one. Also, the pig reference is far more of an Islamic insult than Christian.


 * As I said before, I do not want to curse. So I use pig as a pleasant deprecatory phrase. --Filll 05:10, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * While I disagree that it is entirely pleasant, I guess that's something anyway.... Homestarmy 05:32, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Hatred for enemies is also quite un-fundamentalist,


 * I have to introduce you to more people. I had no problems with fundamentalists until I had them spitting in my face and cursing me over and over and screaming at me and threatening me and telling me how groups X Y Z W U V etc are all evil and ^$@#$%^ and should be killed. Not very Christian as far as I am concerned. A religion of hate.--Filll 05:10, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Aw, I guess MLK was a heretic then, a shame, I rather liked the guy. I'd like to, with your permissiion, try a little experiment. The next time you meet one of these fundamentalists, don't even try to argue with them. Just walk up real close to them and say "Matthew 5:44". You don't have to read it yourself if you don't want to and I can't force you, but if I was a betting man, i'd wager these so-called fundamentalists may give a reaction you haven't seen before. I'd be quite interested in knowing what it is, I've found that people say the darndest things when they get caught hook line and sinker in hypocracy....Oh, ask them to read it aloud too if they have a Bible with them, (I wouldn't be surprised if they didn't from the sound of it) that might make them humiliate their own teachings in front of everyone else listening too, that'd be pretty great, don't you think? Homestarmy 05:32, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

blasphemy has a far more specific definition than the Catholic church has often historically used it for


 * I might have misused it. I wasnt careful--Filll 05:10, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

, (Besides, i'm non-denominational) and I wasn't aware somebody else with my exact username has been making hidden postings attesting to the reasoning you describe me holding in such a way that I can't detect them, can't see their contributions, and have never had anyone come to my talk page by mistake thinking their talking to this invisible Homestarmy you refer to.Homestarmy 04:38, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Science requires verifiability
The supernatural can be reasonably well defined as that which is beyond our knowledge and ability to reason about. (As our article Supernatural puts it, the supernatural is "beyond verifiable measurement.") It is not merely unknown, but unknowable by definition: this being why "it's the will of God" would be sufficient (if we believe it) to explain any unexplainable event.

But science depends on verifiable measurement. Both the experimental sciences and the observational sciences depend on it. Even physics cannot be done purely from the armchair; it must be done with reference to experiment and observation. And scientific results are confirmed or falsified by reference to further verifiable measurement.

The inaccessibility to science of the supernatural is not a matter of bias or bigotry. It isn't that scientists don't want to deal with the supernatural. It's that the techniques we call "science" require their study matter to have certain attributes that the supernatural is defined as lacking.

Asking for science to deal with the supernatural isn't like asking who's the richest guy in a commune of monks who have taken vows of poverty -- where there's a well-defined answer ("None of them!") but it's not the one you want. It's like asking how heavy the prime numbers are, or if truth is more green than beauty: asking the question reveals a misunderstanding of what the terms refer to.

This is not to say, of course, that science can't deal with claims that are naturalistic but based on a belief in the supernatural. For instance, if some religionists believe that prayer supernaturally makes a person have fewer colds, then the verifiable part of this claim -- Do people who pray have fewer colds? -- can be studied scientifically, even if the supernatural part cannot.

Likewise, if creationists claim that the Earth was created by God a few thousand years ago, and that humans and dinosaurs walked the Earth together ... science cannot test the supernatural part of this claim, but the verifiable part can be (and has been) scientifically studied. --FOo 05:58, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

criticism of creationism
I have reordered the section (without any other change) because I think the criticism of a belief system from within its own ranks takes precedence over any outside criticism. Also, within that, the Archbishop of Canterbury has precedence over George Murphy (no slight intended to Murphy). Trishm 06:06, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Other faiths
There are antievolution people from other faiths. What about the Hindus? The Muslims? Why are we not mentioning them?--Filll 15:18, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * You mean Hinduism and Creationism? Wolf ODonnell 15:18, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * After that, I went and made Hinduism and Creationism so I know a lot more about it now. There is a creationist movement in Hinduism, but it is of a very different character. There is a much more serious creationist movement in Islam, however. US Creationists wish they could have the success of the Muslim creationists. We have a short description and links, and that is probably reasonable at this time. --Filll 15:53, 17 January 2007 (UTC)