Talk:Creationism/Archive 18

Archives
 4+ archives are excesive 10+ archives are worse  I merged the archives, I think material discussed loses relevancy when broken. I simply cut pasted material together. Page will load faster than user can read even on a 56k machine. This page was 200+kb large. Excesive is an under statement. Archived all entries till april. -- Cat chi? 10:55, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I hope no one had an Heart Attack. Thanks. -- Cat chi? 11:03, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 Archive 12  There seem to be a lot of discussions that have been adequately adressed. The topic on Salva could conceivably be moved there in a short while aswell, though I wouldn't mind it if this topic grew into a single archive that we could like to from the article on the creation-evolution controversy as an example of a typical discussion on the subject.

I moved Removal of two sections to creation-evolution controversy to the archive aswell, as a has been created which continues the discussion. - Ec5618 18:13, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

I have now moved the Salva/Aaaagh monologues to this archive aswell. I'm trying to keep this page from cluttering to a point where new editors are scared off because of the mess. -- Ec5618

Have moved to /Archive 12 -- Ec5618 23:45, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * Merging with 'Origins beliefs'
 * New critisism section
 * Copyright status of image?
 * Approaching Creationism

 Truthteller ranting  Archived Truthteller ranting, as suggested by JoeD (/Ranting) -- Ec5618 23:45, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

Libs Still Controlling Wiki I See?
I see all of the pro-evolution liberal/socialist gore nuts are still getting to say anything they want without any fear of ever having their POV squashed.

Wiki is pathetic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.145.184.6 (talk • contribs) 19:01, 5 April 2007


 * Please sign your posts using ~ so we can see who we're talking to. Thanks for your concern about the POV of this article. Please do point out specific instances and then we can work together to improve the article.


 * Please try not to make personal attacks against other editors. I know it's frustrating but it is possible to make improvements without needing to start a bunfight. A sincere desire to produce a quality NPOV article will be met positively and with cooperation. SheffieldSteel 19:07, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I actually thought that Wiki was controlled by right-wing nut jobs with a pro-Christrian agenda. But since this America, and we have free speech, I figured that me, along with a few of my commie friends would stand up to it, and slowly make this encyclopedia as neutral as possible.  The difference between you and me is that I have the guts to stand up for what I believe, but you choose to whine.  Wiki is getting better every day.  Orangemarlin 19:10, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

If you're complaining, I suggest you go to Conservapedia, where they all take a conservative stance. I would join them, but I have "miles to go before I sleep."  bibliomaniac 1  5  20:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, there's something that's going to be POV. Anyways, I'm not sure I understand your reference of "miles to go before I sleep."  I'm probably missing a funny pop reference here.  Orangemarlin 20:38, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Stopping by Woods on a Snowy Evening by Robert Frost.  bibliomaniac 1  5  04:24, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Vague and nebulous
'Many of those who hold strict creationist views reject any scientific explanations for natural phenomena that contradict their interpretation of scripture as to how the same phenomena occurred.' This is elementary, and I don't see why it needs to be in the article. Similarly, 'many of those who wear green are not wearing red,' but this is so obvious that nobody appends it to any articles. WolfieInu 10:57, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


 * That's a poor analogy. Wearing green and red are mutually exclusive. Science and religion are not necessarily so; it is only when people make specific "interpretations of scripture" (or try to apply science to inappropriate questions) that we perceive a conflict between the two. I think it's good that the article points out that the issue of scientific explanations for natural phenomena is one of those areas where this particular interpretation of scripture conflicts with the scientific consensus. SheffieldSteel 13:34, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, my criticism was a bit vague :) . All I meant is that the statement I quoted sounds as if it came off the top of the author's head, seeing as it doesn't even state a reference. It's as if the quote tries to be both definite (judging by the tone of the sentence) and generalising ('Many of those...') at the same time.
 * That's just my impression. I don't want to change the material, which is true (I guess it would be splitting hairs to change it to say '...naturalistic scientific explanations...'). WolfieInu 10:32, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I think you're right in that it could be better phrased. It cetainly begins with a weasel word. We could do something like this...
 * "Strict creationism involves an interpretation of scripture that contradicts the scientific explanations of various natural phenomena, and which therefore rejects those scientific theories."
 * I think this also runs into the second sentence better. But it's far from perfect. SheffieldSteel 13:42, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * We could go on endlessly refining this sentence, but that's already an improvement. How about, "Strict creationism involves an interpretation of scripture that contradicts naturalistic scientific explanations of various natural phenomena, and which therefore rejects mainstream scientific theories."? That would qualify the word 'scientific', which is probably necessary since creationists argue that creationism is also scientific, just not naturalistic. And the second occursnce of the word 'scientific' may be unnecessary, although of course we wouldn't want the sentence to become ambiguous... WolfieInu 06:33, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Your sentence looks like pandering to creationist perspectives. Emphasizing "naturalistic" is artificial because all science is naturalistic by definition. Qualifying "scientific" is weaseling away from the point that creationists are antagonistic towards science. --ScienceApologist 13:21, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Like I said, we could go on refining forever. Maybe we should implement your (SheffieldSteel's) suggestion and leave it at that, perhaps merely replacing the second occurrence of "scientific" with "mainstream" to make it sound less awkward. And if I may go off on a tangent, I wouldn't say that 'creationists are antagonistic towards [all of] science', since by definition creationism can only contradict current origins science, and not neutral territory such as chemistry, quantum mechanics, etc. WolfieInu 18:27, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd have to disagree with the "neutral territory" statement. All of science is intertwined.  Chemistry is a fundamental aspect of all of evolution, from the first DNA and proteins being formed 4 billion years ago to complex cellular metabolism.  Physics, of course, is a fundamental part of Chemistry, so it could go on and on.  Since science does not utilize qualitative judgments, then to state one part of science is "wrong" is to be antagonistic to all science.  Orangemarlin 20:19, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 * A statement that one part of science is wrong could only be a statement that all science is wrong if the thing being accused of being wrong is fundamental to science. While Chemistry, and by extension several other fields of science, are fundamental aspects of evolution, evolution is not a fundamental aspect of Chemistry, or most fundamental type fields of science. I know i'm kind of being random by jumping into this, but i've had this talk page on my watchlist for quite awhile, and I don't feel like sitting by while i'm being indirectly accused of being antagonistic to all science (As I am, of course, a Creationist) while awaiting to take an AP Chemistry exam next tuesday, and I certainly wouldn't waste even a moment of my time taking an AP course related to science if I, someone who operates on a creationist perspective, (YEC to boot!) was antagonistic to all science. Homestarmy 20:40, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Orangemarlin and Homestarmy? What have I done, I got the Big Names involved! :) Creationism can't be antagonistic to science, since nobody will deny that a lot of science was getting done long before the theory of evolution was formalised by Darwin and Wallace. A lot of science has happened since - the overwhelming majority of which has had totally no bearing on 'origins' science (for example, rocketry, electronics, telecommunications, etc.). Before we get into something bearing a striking similarity to a debate, could we at least edit the sentence I highlighted to what SheffieldSteel suggested? Otherwise the edit itself might fall totally by the wayside. PS. Good luck with the exam WolfieInu 20:54, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 * LOL. Big Name???  Oh that's priceless.  BTW, rocketry, electronics and telecommunications aren't science strictly speaking.  They are applied sciences, meaning they utilize the scientific theories and knowledge and "apply" them to making things (usually).  You can't use scientific method to build a rocket, but you use the vast wealth of knowledge to build the rocket and make sure it goes where it's supposed to go.  The problem with creationism (setting aside the religious aspects) is that it chooses to deny the scientific reasoning in several areas (evolution is not the only field of science that would set aside by a Creationist outlook), even though the exact same scientific method and quality of research in Evolution as it is in organic chemistry.  For example, the basis of all Biology is evolution, so it becomes antagonistic to medicine, ecology, etc. etc.  So Homestarmy should move on and not take that AP exam!!!!  Orangemarlin 01:35, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict with Homest below) Wolfie, you seem to be missing something. First, everyone should note that creationism in the most general meaning does not conflict with evolution or science necessarily. Now, the reason that certain forms of creationism are antagonistic to science is essentially that science progressed. For example, believing the world was some 5000 years old didn't contradict the known science in 1700. Later, it did. Modern creationism in many incarnations insists based on theology certain propositions that as far as modern science is concerned, are divorced from reality. It is these modern incarnations that antagnostic. JoshuaZ 02:17, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Choosing to deny the supposedly scientific reasoning in several areas of science that pertain to the evolutionary synthesis doesn't make a Creationist antagonistic to all science. Whether or not the same scientific method is used in all parts of science doesn't matter, what matters is what the result is, and in this instance, the resulting branch of evolutionary biology is the problem for Creationists such as myself. The field of biology most certainly existed before evolutionary theory was first proposed, and although it is certainly now the field most pertinant to the evolutionary synthesis today, there are still some parts of Biology which don't directly involve evolutionary theory. For instance, while the classification scheme of species is certainly relied on to build the phylogenetic trees of evolutionary models, if evolutionary theory didn't exist, the classification system of the different species wouldn't just vanish into obscurity, as it is used first to classify species for identification purposes, not used just so that there will be some cool sounding names to plug into phylogenetic charts. And while I did indeed "move on" from these Creationism and Evolution related articles quite some time ago to pursue fun times in other articles, i've kept this talk page on my watchlist for quite some time, and I do believe, Orange, that your attitude concerning what the article should propose Creationists believe presents an excellent invitation for a person such as myself to discuss things here once more. Some of the topics in our AP Chemistry exam that you may be familiar with include Gibbs free energy, Electrochemistry, Equilibrium, (The calculating and usage of the constant primarily, with Le Chatelier's principle thrown in too) Acid-base reactions, Redox reactions, VSEPR theory, introductory parts of Quantum Physics, (Just the most basic formulas and theories mostly) Periodicity, Thermochemistry, the relationships between Spontaneity, Entropy, Enthalpy, and Gibbs free energy, and i'm really quite interested in reading the material of creationists who reject the scientific principles behind any of these topics, as I for one never heard anything that even remotely related to evolution even once when learning any of these topics, and as far as I know, the only way they are incorporated into evolution related reaserch is through the use of these concepts when dealing with Organic molecules and chemical reactions within cells, and believe it or don't, but Chemistry doesn't really deal first and foremost with organic molecules and cellular reactions. You'd think Chemistry would mention those things in the intro if it did. Homestarmy 02:16, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * It seems some of the participants in this dicussion are missing the point. Saying that God created heaven, earth and everything that lives on it is a bit like pointing at the spattering of drops of paint on the floor of the Sistine Chapel, and saying: "Look, Michelangelo created this". It's better to look up.--Robert van der Hoff 06:57, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

 It's like I said, as soon as a debate gets going, the editing of the sentence is not going to get done. That's a shame, I kind of liked SheffieldSteel's suggestion. Concerning the scientific method.

I agree with Orangemarlin, the scientific method cannot be directly applied to anything. That was my point. What the scientific method assumes is that there are certain laws of the universe that can be applied anywhere, at any time. In other words, no Flying Spaghetti Monsters are changing the results before our very eyes. Creationists agree with and subscribe to the entire scientific method, without reservation. As such, applied science cannot be affected by creationism, or evolutionism either for that matter.

The difference lies in our assumptions about how the universe, to which this scientific method can be applied, came about. This cannot be determined by just looking at the evidence, since there is a nearly infinite amount of factors, far too much for the human brain to process and come up with an answer (whether or not this is 42 remains to be seen). The only way a model can be constructed is to assume certain things about the universe beforehand (this is commonly known as a bias). The predictions of the theory can then be tested against hard facts. If it doesn't measure up, out it goes. At this point in time, both the creationists and evolutionists have a lot going for them and, IMHO, a set of problems each. The conflict creationists have is not with science (as in the scientific method) but the bias it is currently being applied to (evolution is the starting assumption). That's why it is possible for genuine scientists to be creationists. They have the same education and use the same method, but have a different bias.

'[T]he basis of all Biology is evolution' - how, exactly? Does it change the metabolism of sugar, the working of enzymes, the 'unzipping' of DNA, Natural Selection, or anything else that is relevant to Biology? The creation/evolution issue is only making headlines because of the religious component. It hardly affects real-world biology at all.

As for JoshuaZ's objection, I stand corrected. I am referring specifically to YEC, not 'creationism' in the most general sense. This provides an additional reason to fix the sentence and to make things less ambiguous. WolfieInu 07:58, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Top to bottom nonsense I'm afraid. Firstly, that evolution has happened and continues to happen is a cornerstone of day-to-day biological research.  Whole areas of biology (e.g. phylogenetics) are founded entirely on this.  In other areas, assuming that the systems in front of you represent a locally optimal solution arrived at by random mutation and non-random survival is absolutely fundamental to progress.  Operationally, it may appear invisible for most of the time, but that's very far away from saying "It hardly affects real-world biology at all".
 * Secondly, YEC (or creationism, or whatever you're happy calling it) does not accept the scientific method. YEC "research" boils down to a fundamental inversion of the method.  Rather than build a model from limited data, collect more data to test said model, and then discount unsuccessful models, YEC starts with The Model, then carefully sifts the appropriate data, disregarding all of it that doesn't support The Model (of which, make no mistake, there is an abundance).  It is inconceivable that The Model be discounted.  Ask yourself, when was the last time that The Model was changed?  Despite radioisotopes, sedimentary records, ice sheets, dendrochronology, etc., YEC "scientists" cling to events like the Flood.  This is quite simply not science.
 * Regarding why "it is possible for genuine scientists to be creationists", look at said scientists' publication records. See if you can spot the YEC publications.  Yes, scientists individually have all sorts of ideas running around their heads, but unless they can support them using the scientific method, they'll never manage to publish them.  What's worse for YEC is that a lot of ultimately unsuccessful ideas are published because they're able to muster enough of a case to be exposed to the wider community.  YEC is unable to do even this.  Which, I'm sure you'll tell us, is all down to bias ...
 * Anyway, this screed isn't improving the article, so I'll stop. --Plumbago 08:59, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Your response is quite general, I must say, and poorly researched. The statement '...assuming that the systems in front of you represent a locally optimal solution arrived at by random mutation and non-random survival is absolutely fundamental...' is incendiary, not constructive. Here (and by your assertion that 'evolution... is a cornerstone of day-to-day biological research') you are describing Natural Selection, not evolution. As I said, creationists have no problem with Natural Selection. I can't go into detail here, seeing as we're supposed to be debating a single sentence - but we're all happily ignoring that statement in big red letters at the top of the page :)
 * 'YEC... does not accept the scientific method'. At the risk of causing an irreconcible 'is-not, is-too' situation, I will try to explain things from my side. It seems that in spite of my endeavours, you are still confusing a scientific field with the current scientific consensus, since according to your response, 'radioisotopes, sedimentary records, ice sheets, dendrology, etc.' refute creationism. However, these are fields, not debaters, so they can't refute anything. For example, Physics cannot refute perpetual motion - but physicists can, by utilising what is known of physics.
 * Yes, creationists depend on what you refer to as The Model, but as I explained (or tried to), evolutionists must also depend on a model of their own before evidence can be interpreted. Sherlock-Holmes-like model-less inductive reasoning ceases to function if there are too many factors (and hence too many possible explanations), because even if all factors could be considered, alternate explanations must arise. That is why everyone must start with a bias. The more evidence there is to support your view (and creationists and evolutionists often use the exact same piece of evidence to reach opposite conclusions), the more likely it is that your conclusions are true, but you can only evaluate evidence if you start with a model, which is continuously being refined. Yes, the YEC Model is continuously being refined, otherwise there would be no point in being a creationist scientist. All we would've had to say would have been, 'Oh, God did it. Just believe.' Nobody is that stupid. You are knocking down straw men, which is fun but achieves nothing.
 * You're right about the fact that 'ultimately unsuccessful ideas are published'. As soon as a model is 'able to muster enough of a case', it is 'exposed to the wider community'. This interesting phenomenon is called science. If there were no ultimately unsuccessful ideas, there would be no ideas at all.
 * BTW, could we get back to the sentence? Keep debating, just append your thoughts on the sentence. That way, what we're doing is legal. ;) WolfieInu 11:15, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Creationism does not necessarily mean that you have to reject the scientific method, not even YEC. There's nothing wrong with the hypothesis that the world is only 6000 years old, but was created to look billions of years old, except that it is untestable. It accepts that science shows that the world is billions of years old. Belief in a God is equally untestable, equally unscientific, but doesn't require you to reject the scientific method. On the other hand, large swaths of the population reject the scientific method...not just creationists, but also left wing intellectuals. Obviously using the Bible to argue against science is a rejection of the scientific method. "Creation science" as it currently exists is a rejection of the scientific method, because it does not use the scientific method to test its "hypotheses", it proposes hypotheses to conform the Bible. Regardless of what Wolfie says, bumper stickers which say things like "The Bible said it, I believe it, that settles it" do not represent a straw man - if you think otherwise, come down to the Bible Belt. The sentence is a fair representation of the situation. Guettarda 13:09, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Although i personally agree with Guettarda, I think it is possible that this is one of those cases where a definition is getting in the way of our addressing a complex NPOV issue. The issue is not whether we think science and creationism are mutually exclusive, because editors' views do not count.  The question is, do (1) scientists (2) creationists (3) sociologists of science and (4) sociologists of religion (minimally - there may be other important views I neglected) believe that science and creationism are mutually exclusive?  I would not automatically assume that any one group does.  Indeed, I suspect that within each group there may be more than the two obvious (yes, no) views.  The issue is, do we have verifiable sources we can draw on in order to provide a good account of these diverse views?  I don't know.  All the scientists I know would say they are mutually exclusive, but I have not read any verifiable studies.  And i have no idea what creationists thing (again, I am not asking editors who are creationists what they personally think, only if they know verifiable sources) and I have no idea what sociologists and other scholars of science and religion think but I bet it is more interesting than "yes" or "no." Slrubenstein   |  Talk 13:52, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) On reflection, there's a bit more to this issue than the current sentence allows (even after a bit of modification). Probably that why this debate kicked off: I think everyone in some way sees that the description, as it was, was unsatisfactory. Or maybe I'm just reading too much into it. Anyway, I'm now thinking that this change would suit the third paragraph...

When scientific research produces conclusions which contradict the creationist interpretation of scripture, the strict creationist approach is to reject that research's conclusions, its underlying scientific theories, or its methodology. The most notable cases are the impact of evolution on the development of living organisms, the idea of common descent, the geologic history of the Earth, the formation of the solar system, and the origin of the universe.
 * I'm sure it could be worded better, but it's not as easy as it looks to get a sentence that reads well and isn't misleading somehow. I do think this form sums up the issue of when and how creationism and science come into conflict. Also it avoids the weaselly many/most in the second sentence. What do people think? SheffieldSteel 14:24, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It reads well. Do we have sources to back it up?  One question: are there no creationists who change their minds?  I imagine there are at least some, the first question is whether they are of negligible number.  If there is a significant number of creationists who have changed their views, we need to allow for that. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 14:40, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It leaves me asking the question what a non-strict creationist approach is :/. If the reaserch in question directly contradicts creationist scriptural interpretations, (Which, by the way, isn't singular, YEC and OEC are quite different, and creationism with other religions becomes even more different.) I think it would be obvious that a creationist wouldn't accept the conclusions of the reaserch as true. Other than that, it seems fine, though ben's observation that some creationists may choose to just stop being creationists might be important. Homestarmy 14:41, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * There is an old atheist argument that is threaded through this discussion that relies on negative proof: In principle it is easier, so it is said, to convince an atheist that there is a God (by, say, having a booming voice identify Himself from heaven) than it is to convince a theist that there is no God (since all observable evidence can be interpreted away and God in the gaps is easily invoked). This is to say that the rejection by creationists of naturalistic science follows the old "walk by faith and not by sight" notion of a standard distrust of sensory data that contradicts "revealed" truth. There are instances where this kind of obfuscation has become so strident that Christians have themselves rejected creationism in order to avoid what they deem to be basic dishonesty and a reapportionment of reality. --ScienceApologist 14:53, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Great job with that sentence, SheffieldSteel. As far as I'm concerned we can implement it straight away.
 * Concerning that bumper sticker Guettarda tells us about... yes, unfortunately that is true. A lot of negative impressions have been created by the "more emotional" advocates of creationism - I don't live in the Bible Belt, so perhaps my perspective of creationism (the movement, not the science) is skewed away from its Southern populist elements. But this is fortunately not the way real creation scientists (and put that between quote marks if you like) go about things.
 * On the whole, everybody's done a great job of keeping this discussion academic and aboveboard. Thanks everyone, looking forward to your further input on the sentence(s). WolfieInu 16:10, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure, but I think a non-strict creationist approach is maybe one that might also consider interpreting scripture differently, as per the Catholic principle that "truth cannot contradict truth" - God does not present us with truths which are inconsistent, so if scientific observations and interpretation of scripture are at odds, then either the observations (or conclusions) or the interpretation may be wrong. As Homestarmy pointed out, there are multiple possible interpretations of scripture (but as to whether taking a different interpretation might make one no longer a creationist, I don't know much about that.) Anyway, as far as citations are concerned, I'm hoping that AiG and/or the DI can provide plenty of examples of challenging the various aspects of the "theory -> research -> data -> conclusion" process. SheffieldSteel 17:09, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

(un-dent) Made the change; off to look for references SheffieldSteel 17:52, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Refs are in. I am not offering them up as brilliant examples; rather, they are tokens of the approach generally taken by creationists when challenging scientific findings. Hope this is acceptable. SheffieldSteel 19:11, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'll go with that. Sorry I haven't been much help WolfieInu 20:27, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

What?
What the hell is this? " Creationism is separate from and should not be confused with the Christian tradition of "Creation Spirituality," which draws upon the theology of Matthew Fox. " Aside from not being factual (the Fox part) was there really a reason to make any distinction? &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; 22:10, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm interested by your tone. What motivated your use of, and I quote, '[w]hat the hell...'?
 * Yes, I remember reading this sentence, but I can't seem to find it right now. Did you remove it? WolfieInu 07:45, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure I follow...how is it not factual? (Credits Fox too heavily?) The distinction is valid (I rather doubt Fox is a creationist), though it's probably a little too minor a movement to deserve mention in this article. So yeah, I don't quite see what you are saying.  Guettarda 13:51, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

"Evidence is not a point of view" claim
I don't believe this box belongs as a Wikipedia's-point-of-view box, although it can be asserted as an editor's POV. Empiricism represents one point of view among others, such as idealism, phenomenalism, etc. A claim that creationism is a scientific truth can be refuted by scientists, but a preference for faith over empirical methods as the source of ones worldview cannot be refuted by scientists. There is a distinction between claims to being science and claims to truth. The idea that the only possible route to truth involves the scientific method is indeed a POV. Proofs depend on the assumptions one is willing to accept. Best, --Shirahadasha 17:18, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * '...a preference for faith over empirical methods as the source of ones worldview cannot be refuted by scientists.' While this is true, on what basis do you adhere to a worldview if it is divorced from (what is scientifically perceived to be) reality? We cannot deny that the only societies in which any considerable technological progress was made, made use of empirical methods (which we commonly refer to as 'science'). Of course there are numerous exceptions to this rule, but it does seem to indicate a general trend.
 * In general, creationists argue that, since Christian Europe gave rise to the empirical method, science should support every aspect of Christian teaching that touches directly upon scientific matters. Or, to put it more bluntly, 'Christianity is a science-friendly religion'. On this basis, they argue that Christianity, if divorced from science, becomes irrelevant. This is what YEC creationists and long-age creationists have in common; they differ only on how the problem of disparity between 'Biblical science' and 'secular science' should be approached.
 * Therefore, according to the creationist argument, a scientific challenge to the authority of the Bible should be met with a scientific response, if at all possible. So, as you say, '[t]he idea that the only possible route to truth involves the scientific method is indeed a POV.' However, it is the POV of creationists. Since the article is describing the creationist movement, its pro-empiricism is inherently required, and therefore NPOV. Sincerely, WolfieInu 17:18, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Recolonisation theory
What's this? It has just been added to the article as a whole new section - which reads like a lot of original research without much in the way of verifiable sources. Does it really exist? If so, shouldn't it have its own wikipedia article at Recolonisation theory, and shouldn't the section here primarily point to that article? I'm not going to write such an article, because I've not heard of "recolonisation theory" before I came across it here - and a google search reveals... well, not a lot, in fact! Anyone know anything about it? If it's notable enough for mention here, it's notable enough for its own article. Snalwibma 09:12, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I took it out. It's both nonsense and, as far as I can tell, non-notable. Also, the description given was full of unsourced commentary. And the only source given was a primary website.--Stephan Schulz 09:24, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I can't find any reliable sources discussing the matter either. It should also be removed from the table. JoshuaZ 20:44, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

It sounds a little like the catastrophicism that was popular int he Victorian period: You know, each geological age as a seprate creation? But really badly explained. Adam Cuerden talk 15:02, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Recolonisation theory is the basis on which most UK geologists who include creation in their world-view interpret the geological and palaeontological record. In the UK, therefore, most do not interpret the 'fossil record as a record of the destruction of the global flood recorded in Genesis'. It has, moreover, considerably more adherents than the 'omphalos hypothesis' that is deemed to warrant a mention in the article. Comments such as 'nonsense' and 'badly explained' reinforce what we all know, that emotion so often takes the place of reason in this area, and that at least some of the content of the creationism article - and omitted potential content - is determined by participants who are not as well acquainted with the subject as they should be.

Catastrophism was more common in the pre-Victorian period than in the Victorian: by the 1830s the intellectual world was ripe for Lyellian uniformitarianism. Recolonisation theory does not in fact resemble Victorian catastrophism and expressly rejects the idea of a 'seprate creation' in each geological age (see Recolonisation in a nutshell). Regardless of its strengths and weaknesses, it is a radically new theory. Fastnet 19:41, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * No, that's actually a Victorian theory. Gould describes it in one of his books. Each geological age with its own fauna, then complete destruction, followed by the Garden of Eden and the current age? Victorian catastrophic seperate creations. It never really caught on, even at the time, and, indeed, Gould's description of it was probably the first modern account of it. It's kind of scary if creationists are reading Gould's description of failed forms of Creationism to mine ideas. Adam Cuerden talk 01:23, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * No, it is not a theory. Something that is massively inconsistent with easily observable facts (e.g. radioactive decay, the constancy of which can be measured through astronomical observations even for ages past) is not a theory, it's nonsense. Of course, we include a lot of nonsense here, but it has to be notable nonsense described in reliable sources. What we have is only an incomplete self-description on a nice, but self-published web site. --Stephan Schulz 20:14, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Notable nonsense. Oh, that's now one of my favorite statements ever on here.  Stephan, you made my day.  Orangemarlin 23:33, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Glad to be useful (or at least entertaining ;-). --Stephan Schulz 23:57, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I suppose I can appreciate the joke, if not the sentiment [:]P  Seriously, though, radioactive dating is not a good argument for long ages, since it must assume initial isotope concentrations to be almost 100% parent matter - an assumption which is only reasonable if naturalism is presumed to be true in the first place. BTW, I agree that we don't need to include Recolonisation 'theory' in the article, but perhaps we could start a small article and link to it from here, and then wait to see if it grows? I must admit it's a slightly obscure subject, though -- WolfieInu 19:15, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I suggest you read (and try to understand) Radiometric dating, Uranium-lead dating, and in particular Isochron dating. An extended technical discussion is here. In short, you are wrong about the initial isotope concentrations. Now, if we allow for supernatural intervention, Last Tuesdayism is as plausible as anything else. But the almighty IPU faking a world with an apparent age (or variants of this speculation) is philosophically rather unsatisifable, and certainly not science. --Stephan Schulz 19:47, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * You're probably right about my general understanding of radiometric dating: I was talking rubbish, and need to do some more research. Sorry about that, I stand corrected. -- WolfieInu 10:52, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

We should only include it in Wikipedia if we can find any notable content on it. Gould's article is simply an analysis of what he considered an old, dead theory that was nonetheless an interesting attempt by a woman scientist-theologian to combine science and religion on the cusp of Darwin's revolution. Can you show any evidence that it's notable or widely-held today? Adam Cuerden talk 20:14, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Who is this woman Gould mentions? This Early Modern Geology reference mentions Benoît de Maillet in 1748 proposing a series of epochs, later catastrophism proper beginning with Georges Cuvier, then adapted by William Buckland to support the Biblical flood, and the debate with Charles Lyell's uniformitarianism continuing to the 1850s with modified catastrophism the more favoured. History of the Collapse of "Flood Geology" and a Young Earth has more detail and supports the earlier demise of diluvialism. It has Darwin's tutor Adam Sedgwick recanting it in 1831 but still supporting the truth of the Biblical flood, Buckland also changing his mind, and "Scriptural Geology" proponents running into difficulties by 1837. Then resurfacing,.... dave souza, talk 23:39, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Not really, but surely if we create a small article about it, it will attract activity if there still is some activity. Even if only for the historical interest. -- WolfieInu 10:52, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Other religious creationist movements
There's no nice way to say this: This section is appalling. It consists of ridiculously short, context free subsections, one of which (Islamic creationism) is a single sentence that merely says it exists. Flying Spaghetti monsterism opens the section, this arguably demeans the other religions, as the description of it is in exactly the same neutral language as the Hinduism summary following, no attempt is made to make it clear that most of these creationist movements are tiny. Adam Cuerden talk 19:24, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


 * My next action after this reply is to remove the FSM. If it is to be included in the page at all, it should not be in the 'Other religious creationist movements' section.  Perhaps a pop culture or satire section.  (ETA - the FSM section was added very recently by an anon IP, and re-inserted after I initially removed it.  I don't believe it should remain on the page as a serious-appearing entry) WLU 19:58, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I also tried to address the other sub-sections, but all I could really do is re-name the main section and expand Islamic creationism every so slightly. I don't know enough about the other versions to do much else; I think part of the solution is to trim down the Judaic creationism section so it isn't so overbalanced - since all of the sub-sections have 'main's, there's no need for a lengthy discussion.  WLU 20:07, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * But even the longer ones aren't on-topic. The Hindu creationism subsection is instead a brief summary of Hinduism, followed by a statement that Hindu creationism exists. Adam Cuerden talk 21:41, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Agree, the article presumes an understanding of Genesis, but then gives backgound on Hinduism. Addhoc 22:57, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps a better solution would be to say There are several non-Christian versions of Creationism, including Hindu, Islam and Judaism (with their own wikilinks natch)? I don't have enough experience with articles this developed to know what the next step is!  WLU
 * That's a good idea. Given that the political context of (American Christian) Creationism is explicitly covered by the article, the inclusion of the creationism of other religions could be beyond scope. Perhaps we should start a disambiguation page, with something like "[Creationism: Christian (Political context / Types of Creationism / History), Other (Judaic / Islamic / etc.)]", if there's enough material. Any thoughts on this? WolfieInu 16:49, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The only issue I see is that when people think of creationism, it's usually in terms of the dominant form, which is US-style nutter creationism. However, it's not a bad thing to have general 'Christian/Hindu/Islam/Judaism Creationism', and a separate page for the political aspects (which is what gets most of the attention anyway).  I'd know better if I could see it, could you perhaps set it up in a sub-page so we could build a more specific structure?  WLU 19:56, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll try to get around to it on Friday, at the moment though I'm up to my neck in end-of-semester exams. - 'nutter creationism', eh? That's probably not quite the most conciliatory terminology you could have chosen ;) -- WolfieInu 20:19, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps he meant "nutter" in some obtusely complementary way? Many creationists use their "nut" when studying origins science. Good on you WLU - you nutter materialist! ;-) rossnixon 01:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I and most others have no problem with those of creationist beliefs UNTIL they verge over into intolerance and irrationality imposed on others. It is fine to believe in a literal interpretation of the bible AS LONG as you do not use it to abuse others or to insist that others reject their beliefs or rational evidence. Other than that, feel free to believe whatever you like! After all, there is no law against delusions, insanity, irrationality, etc.--Filll 02:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Dare I ask what started this? Homestarmy 02:39, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Wow, Filll, you're a tolerant individual. Really very enlightened of you ... no, not really. I suggest you visit SheffieldSteel's user page, you could learn a lesson or two there. All we're actually trying to do at the moment is clear up a little confusion over what the term 'creationism' conveys to different people - did you miss that big red paragraph at the very start of the page? I just couldn't resist a little dig at WLU because of that unacademic adjective ;) -- WolfieInu 06:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Saying "non-Christian versions of Creationism" gives the impression that ˙Hindu creationism is basically the same, but with different labels, which isn't the case. Also, given that Christian ideas are a heresy / development of Judaism, not sure that is the most appropriate wording. Addhoc 06:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: Homestarmy - I called creationists nutters. It's a personal opinion I would never attempt to put on the page. Further discussion is well off topic and I'm going to be dropping it.

My apologies, I'm not sure I understand Addhoc's comment. Is it because the Hindu equivalent uses a different term than 'Creationism'? The reaons it's suggested is because conservative Christian creationism is the dominant form, and other forms are less visible, but they do exist. Is there a way to acknowledge the dominance of CCC within the public arena? Should we bother? Is there a comparable set of wikipages that has dealt with a similar topic successfully and even-handedly? Right now I see a very strong possibility of an excessive emphasis on the US version of creationism, which is something I'd like to avoid. WLU 20:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, I'm suggesting a disambiguation page... please let me know what you think -- WolfieInu 06:55, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Statement added to article intro by Keepyouhonest
Why is this last paragraph in here? It should be on the discussion page. Check out the evolution page; it doesn't tout the "opposition" and all their opinions and what they do with evidences; nor does it discuss the fraudulent cases associated with evolution. Another intellectually honest article by wikipedia. ;o(
 * I've reverted this statement by User:Keepyouhonest which was obviously placed in the article rather than the talk page by error or misunderstanding. The answer is, the paragraph shows the areas in which strict creationists make claims, WP:NPOV requires that we make clear the majority science position as well as their claims. Check out the evolution page; it does mention these religious controversies in a proportionate way in accordance with policy. ... dave souza, talk 21:07, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I must agree, even as a creationist. It just so happens that what the world considers NPOV is not creationism. Don't worry, Keepyouhonest... "therefore be not conformed to this world"... ;) -- WolfieInu 06:46, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Disambiguation
...as I said during a previous discussion, perhaps we should provide a disambiguation page for this article? -- WolfieInu 15:25, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Creationism = Origin Beliefs?
The disambiguation note at the top of the article says: ""Creationism" can also refer to origin beliefs in general, or to an alternative of traducianism."

I would like to question this particular formulation. Do such things as the ancient Greek myths about creation of the universe qualify as 'creationism'? One problem is that Creation myths on Wikipedia have been diverted to Origin beliefs, presumably on the basis that 'myths' is a pejorative term. This, and the tone of the first paragraph, seem to imply that any kind of creation myth belongs to 'creationism'.

Can anyone come up with citations (other than this article) to prove that 'creationism' can equally be understood refer to Roman, Greek, Japanese, etc. myths and legends, even where the belief factor is essentially dead?

Bathrobe 07:49, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * You have a point, the only well-known variants of creationism are dependent on the so-called Abrahamic religions, not "origin beliefs in general". As far as I know. WolfieInu 14:51, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I suppose one could construct a nesting of all of these:
 * Origin beliefs
 * Natural origin
 * Extinct beliefs (= falsified scientific theories)
 * Extant beliefs (= as yet unfalsified scientific theories)
 * Supernatural origin
 * Extinct beliefs (= myths; in common parlance)
 * Extant beliefs (= creationism, in common parlance)
 * In this scheme, even evidence-based concepts (the big bang, evolution) are still "origin beliefs". But they posit no supernatural component, so can be easily separated from those which involve supernatural elements (which is far from saying that they are true; many natural origin beliefs have turned out to be incorrect).  However, those that contain supernatural elements are harder to divide up, and are only reasonably divisible on the basis of whether they're extant (some people believe them) or extinct (no one alive believes them, but people once did).  That doesn't move us along much, but it might inspire others more astute than I.  One immediate problem is that extant (and extinct, for that matter) supernatural beliefs vary in their parsimony with extant natural beliefs, which suggests another distinction, but ...  --Plumbago 15:23, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Eh, you seem to be equating concepts, hypotheses and theories with beliefs – it should be obvious that these are not faith positions. The real question is whether the term "creationism" is always associated with Abrahamic religions – looking at Eugenie Scott's spectrum, she seems to take it as meaning biblical and specifically Christian creationism, though of course she draws a spectrum with materialism as one extreme. Is there any source for usage referring to other religions? .. dave souza, talk 17:38, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll echo that. It may make sense to categorize them all as creationism, but without sources (and a source that portrays it as common practice to label them all as such) it seems like WP:OR.  WLU 17:54, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * A little investigation rapidly demonstrates that there are Hindu creationist movements which are similar in spirit if not in detail to the Abrahamic creationist movements. I would not be surprised if we could find creationist-type movements among the Jainists or the Sikhs or the Shintoists. In fact, most of the Shinto faith has long had a character that is not much different than creationism, with denial of all kinds of evidence and belief in a fair among of unscientific and irrational nonsense. Animist and other traditional religions also probably have some difficulty with modern scientific understanding, but since they are not in much position to do anything about it, the impact of creationist feelings has less influence. Hindus, Christians and Muslims and a few Jews are often in a position to cause friction with science over religious beliefs, and this gives rise to assorted "creationist"-like movements. There have been writers that used the term "creationism" to describe the various movements in Hinduism, in both India and the US, among other places. However, I am not so sure that the Moslems use the term "creationism" to describe their activities in this arena. It is just a term. What is similar is not the name for the beliefs and activities, but the nature of the interactions with science and the educational and political systems.--Filll 19:06, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I would agree that "What is similar is not the name for the beliefs and activities, but the nature of the interactions with science and the educational and political systems". To put Greek myths and legends on a par with the creationist movement as it is known today seems to stretch the meaning of creationism to ridiculous limits. Greek myths and legends are not in a state of conflict with the teaching of science in schools, and I think you would be hard put to find many (any?) people demanding that the Greek creations myths should displace the teaching of evolution in schools.


 * As for Indian and Muslim creationism, yes, it appears that they exist. But I have yet to hear of a Shinto creationism that tries to oust evolution and displace it with Izanagi and Izanami. The only people likely to do that are extreme Japanese nationalists, and I haven't heard any rumblings from that quarter yet. Have you?


 * Incidentally, as I've pointed out elsewhere, the note before the article originally read: This article deals only with the concept of creationism as found in the Abrahamic religions. Please refer to Origin beliefs for other stories of creation. Later this was changed to: This article is about the Abrahamic belief; creationism can also refer to origin beliefs in general. Then someone 'improved' this to: "Creationism" can also refer to origin beliefs in general. These creeping changes broadened the scope of the term "creationism" to any kind of origin belief, which actually sounds rather New Age.


 * Bathrobe 02:04, 9 June 2007 (UTC)


 * ...precisely, which is why I suggested a disambig page. I didn't know that the note at the top of the page had once read "This article deals only with the concept of creationism as found in the Abrahamic religions. Please refer to Origin beliefs for other stories of creation". Perhaps reinstating this original note would make my disambig page unnecessary.
 * Re Filll: "[creationism depends on] denial of all kinds of evidence and belief in a fair among[sic] of unscientific and irrational nonsense"... you are trying my patience with your unhelpful remarks. And yes, I'm aware of the fact that you're experienced (5 barnstars, wow!) and I'm a total n00b. But I feel I must say that we are trying to build a better encyclopedia. We are not here to evangelise each other. -- WolfieInu 10:03, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Let clarify things. I have no problem with anyone having their own personal beliefs. I have no problem with someone personally believing the literal account in Genesis or the Vedas or the Koran or any other religious text. I have a problem when in the secular public sphere, as in public school classrooms, or a secular encyclopedia like Wikipedia, people want to insist that others submit to them and their own personal religious beliefs. These are usually not based on science or evidence, but just a particular interpretation of a particular religious text. I am sorry, but I believe that this starts to verge on intolerance, and I must insist that we avoid it.--Filll 13:18, 9 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, in the modern sense of the word "tolerance", one is tolerated as long as one makes no claim to truth (i.e., "admit that what you believe is a load of nonsense, and then I'll leave you alone" ;)
 * Regardless, let's get back to this article. Perhaps (in the light of "Creationism"'s original disambig note, as mentioned by Bathrobe) my move for an entire disambig page is excessive, if we can get the "Origin Belief" article up to standard. Currently, however, "Origin Belief" is requesting a cleanup. I looked over it and it seems to have caught a heavy dose of POV. Perhaps we should go over and help? -- WolfieInu 14:51, 9 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree that Origin beliefs is in a bit of a mess. In fact, I've now tagged Creation within belief systems and Origin beliefs for a merger.


 * Perhaps I'm being a little biased here, but isn't the (Western) debate over creationism rather distorting the Wikipedia treatment of creation myths? The heated ideological struggle between Christian creationism and evolutionary theory seems to have completely overshadowed (pre-empted, if you like) the more general field of creation stories among mankind.


 * Bathrobe 02:01, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I would agree with you there. The 'big picture' of mankind's quest for knowledge of his own origins is getting an unbalanced press here on WP. However, creation myths in general aren't really in my field, so I don't think I should co-ordinate any changes to Origin beliefs. I'll try to help there though, if someone more involved with the article requests something.


 * As for merging the 2 articles: yes, this is a good move. Creation within belief systems has a much broader base, and comes many orders of magnitude closer to NPOV than Origin beliefs. I think we could scrap (or at least summarise) everything other than the Overview in Origin beliefs, and then integrate what remains with Creation within belief systems as an introduction. Though perhaps the resultant article should be called Origin beliefs, since it is more descriptive. -- WolfieInu 09:34, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * It's not my field either. Of course it would be possible to do a cut and paste job, as you say.


 * I checked the history of the article on Origin beliefs. The split-off of Creation within belief systems was done by a user called User:BlueValour on 26 November 2006. BlueValour's sole comment on the Talk Page is: "I simply do not see this title (Creation myths) as being NPOV - whatever the strict definition most readers will relate to myth as an untruth. I should like to retitle this section Creation stories which, though it still carries baggage, is somewhat more neutral. May I have views, please. BlueValour 05:33, 26 November 2006 (UTC)" The split was done without any warning or discussion among users.


 * This split is the reason for the scrappiness of the article, which is now nothing more than a rump of the previous article (although the original article itself was poorly integrated -- the split merely made this painfully obvious). Do we reintegrate the two articles? BlueValour's split appears to have at least been partly motivated by objection to the term 'creation myth'.


 * Rather than reintegrate the two articles (which was overly long to start with and was crying out to be split), it is possibly better to rewrite the Origin beliefs article to remove the current bias, and add a short summary on Creation stories that links to Creation within belief systems (the latter preferably renamed). What do you think?


 * Bathrobe 00:58, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Clarification of two points
Apologies if this has already been discussed, but two points in the Overview bothered me a bit.


 * 1. "Almost all churches teach that God created the cosmos." Almost all? are there any that don't?
 * 2. "Anglican and Catholic scholars now explicitly accept the theory of Evolution". I understand that this is official doctrine, but this sentence seems to suggest that *all* catholic and anglican scholars accept this doctrine... people like Behe and Schönborn, would argue I think. Perhaps it could be more explicitly stated: "Official doctrine of the Anglican and Catholic churches now explicitly accepts the theory of Evolution..." cornis 07:03, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Re: 1. Yes. There are some churches that don't. See Unitarian Universalism. A church that does not require a belief in God has a hard time teaching that God created the cosmos. However, many individual UUs do believe in a God-driven creation of some kind. It's up to the individual; there is no doctrine on that point. Studerby 07:39, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Ack... [slaps forehead].. I forgot about them, or the Society of Friends for that matter... cornis 07:58, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Unitarian Universalism no longer clearly self-identifies itself as Christian though, as that article points out, ("Unitarian Universalist congregations and fellowships tend to retain some Christian traditions such as Sunday worship that includes a sermon and singing of hymns, but do not necessarily identify themselves as Christians.") and since this part of the article seems to be talking about Christian beliefs, well, I think there's a bit of a problem with that. The Society of Friends article also only seems to indicate that some Quakers are atheist, not whether or not any Quaker churches as a matter of doctrine are actually atheistic, (and thusly non-creationist). Homestarmy 00:03, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I am afraid that this demonstrates a lot of confusion. What is your point?--Filll 00:20, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * My point is that "Almost all" isn't accurate when, as far as I can tell, there are not in fact confirmably Christian churches that do not believe Creationism is true one way or another. However, i'll be happy to try and explain it better, if you can tell me what I said that was typed confusingly. Homestarmy 01:55, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Aren't there some weird denominations that say Satan made the universe, and so on? The ones where it's gotten a bit mixed in with other religions? Adam Cuerden talk 00:10, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The only things that come to mind for me are Gnostics of various degrees, since from what I understand, it can be polytheistic to an extent, and I think some Gnostic groups believe that the Universe was actually created by an evil god of sorts. But the Gnosticism article seems a bit of a muddle, it is in a category for Ancient Roman Christianity and Anti-Christianity, and besides all that, I don't even know if Gnostic groups even had churches per se. Also, the wording in question seems to be in the present tense here, I don't know of any surviving Gnostic groups that claim to be Christian these days anyway. Homestarmy 01:55, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I think there's some South American and Latin American mixed religions too. Adam Cuerden talk 13:58, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about point 1, but I think the proposed edit to point 2 is a good idea. I've gone and edited it, any objections? -- WolfieInu 09:50, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You need to provide some seriously verifiable sources. I don't think it's true.  Orangemarlin 12:42, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Now that you mention it, I'm not so sure about the Anglicans. I know I saw in a Time recently that the Catholic Church officially accepts evolution ... but please don't ask me to delve through those stacks of Times lying around in my study ... -- WolfieInu 19:04, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * You can find the Catholic church's position [here]. As for the Quakers, they are a very difficult group to pin down, but in general it's safer to say that they accept, rather than reject, evolution, if only because they are likely to be pragmatic rather than dogmatic on most theological issues. SheffieldSteel 19:14, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Here's [something] illustrating my point about Quakers:- "When Quakers were writing for fellow Quakers, the older evangelicals tended to be suspicious of evolution, while many younger Quakers adopted it enthusiastically as part of their engagement with modernism. However, by the time of the Manchester Conference (1895) — which marks the eclipse of evangelicalism and the rise of modernism — a doctrine of progressive revelation became aligned with evolutionary ideas. Turning to Quaker naturalists, while some encompassed evolution as an essential theory for any practising botanist or zoologist, others considered that natural selection needed to be supplemented by some other process, especially in accounting for the development of mind. Despite this diversity, Quakers were generally supportive of Darwin’s theory and were critical of those Christians who rejected the theory on religious grounds." Hope this helps! SheffieldSteel 19:30, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Once again, the zealous SheffieldSteel comes to the rescue. Thank you :)
 * OK, how about "Official Catholic doctrine allows individual Catholics to accept or reject evolution" ... but that doesn't lead into the rest of the sentence so well. -- WolfieInu 08:00, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Clarification of the clarification
Most Christian churches in the US have no objection to evolution and do not subscribe to creationism:

United Methodist Church, National Baptist Convention, USA, Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, Presbyterian Church (USA), National Baptist Convention of America, African Methodist Episcopal Church, the Roman Catholic Church, the Episcopal Church, and others.

The members of these churches constitute over 78% of the Christians in the US. In the past, this number has been as high as 90%.

The churches that reject evolution in the US constitute a tiny minority. These include churches like Assemblies of God, the Evangelical Presbyterian Church, the Free Methodist Church, the Jehovah's Witnesses, Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod, Pentecostal Churches, Seventh-day Adventist Churches, Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod, Christian Reformed Church, and the Pentecostal Oneness churches.

As for statements that God created the cosmos, these are NOT part of evolution.

Also, it is very common for fundamentalists and creationists to just resort to claiming that anyone that disagrees with them is not Christian.--Filll 14:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I actually debated (OK, let's say "argued with" :) a theistic evolutionist the other day, and when eventually neither of us was willing to back down after about one and a half hours, he accused me of accusing him that he wasn't Christian. Nowhere during the course of our discussion had I given any indication that I'd thought this was true... on the contrary, many of my Christian friends are evolutionists, and we agree to disagree. I haven't actually heard this accusation from a creationist yet, just from evolutionists trying to, IMO, smear the opposition. Far from being "very common," it is almost unheard of. -- WolfieInu 08:09, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Then you might need a wider set of experiences to become acquainted with this tactic.--Filll 17:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * There is a nice South African word that is the only possible answer to that statement: "eish". -- WolfieInu 10:12, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Accepting evolution or not objecting to evolution isn't the same as rejecting Creationism Filll, come on now, this isn't the Young Earth Creationism article. Isn't there some saying out there that Evolution is agnostic on the existance of a creator or something? That first reference even says that many biology teachers in a survey agreed with both Creationism and evolution, I really don't understand how this supports the idea that the churches of these biologists do not subscribe to creationism, it most definently does not support the idea that none of those churches believe Creationism in some form or another to be true. The last paragraph doesn't seem to have really anything to do with Creationism, and since this section is supposed to be an overview of Creationism, going on about who rejects evolution really seems terribly off-topic. Homestarmy 16:31, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * This all depends on what you define as evolution and creationism. I think there is NO problem with belief in a creator/deity simultaneously with evolution, as demonstrated over and over (see theistic evolution for example, although I am sure you know this). However, what MOST people define as creationism (which, as you point out, is really a family of competing religious beliefs) is incompatible with a lot of the current understanding of the universe and reality from different sciences, including evolutionary biology. So it is true that as most people understand creationism, most of the large Christian churches in the US reject creationism, although if you stand on your head and change the definitions, you can argue the opposite.--Filll 16:39, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, I think this all depends on how this Wikipedia article on Creationism defines Creationism, that is why we're here after all, and this article is not confined to traditional orthodox Christian creationist beliefs. What I, and most likely many other fundamentalist/conservative/even slightly orthodox Christians define as creationism, may not be compatible with the positions of the churches you list, but that doesn't matter here, because this article on Creationism isn't about the fundamentalist/conservative/even slightly orthodox Christian opinion on what Creationism is, it is about Creationism in general, and if any of those churches believe that "humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe were created in their entirety by a supernatural deity or deities (typically God), whose existence is presupposed.", then they are creationist churches, whether or not their theology on the issue actually is sound or not. (Which I highly doubt, based on your reference) Homestarmy 16:56, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Of course there are many types of creationist (Young Earth, Old Earth, Adamite, etc etc). But creationists in general usually reject the scientific method, and introduce the supernatural as an explanation for natural events. Most creationists reject some or all aspects of the Modern Synthesis or NeoDarwinian Evolutionary theory. Many Christian creationists accept biblical literalism or biblical inerrancy, at least for some aspects of the biblical text. Islamic creationists do the same for the koran. Hindu creationists or their counterparts in Hinduism do the same for some of the vedic texts. Jewish creationists do the same for the Torah. If an individual accepts the dominant scientific explanations of the universe and life and its origins, then even if they believe in God or a Creator, then they would not be referred to as a creationist in general. In fact, many fundamentalists might dismiss them and call them atheists, or Satanists, or threaten them and curse them, in a most "unChristian" fashion, but one that is quite typical in my experience, and those of others. Often, fundamentalists will accept people who believe in theistic evolution when it suits their uses to inflate certain statistics or to make a case, but then reject them in other circumstances. Just typical and annoying and it does not reflect well on them.--Filll 18:38, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


 * While it would be interesting to debate this issue, I think this is getting very far away from the point that according to this Wikipedia article's definition of Creationism, (Which explicitly mentions that Theistic Evolution can count) none of the churches you've named fail to qualify under this Wikipedia article's definition of what Creationism is or can be, at least as far as I see. You may think that my attempts to argue that the groups you name are actually Creationists is merely an act on my part to artifically inflate statistics, as your comment seems to suggest, but when the Wikipedia article definition of Creationism fits these groups irregardless of my motivations or yours, it really doesn't matter one way or another, I still don't see the case for "Almost all" churches believing in Creationism as opposed to saying that Christian churches believe in Creationism. Besides, being a Creationist doesn't make someone a Christian on its own, why would I want to reject these church's Creationist beliefs as non-creationist just because their theology on the issue (and likely many other issues) is likely ridiculously out of touch with the Bible? I'm starting to get the impression that you'd much rather me argue with you about fundamentalist Christianity rather than discuss whether or not all Christian churches are Creationist or not. Homestarmy 19:55, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I do not care what Wikipedia defines creationism as. It is not a primary authority. We can change it if it is wrong. By that definition, OrangeMarlin and myself and half or more of all scientists are creationists. Do you think this is a reasonable definition? Do you think I am a creationist? Do you think OrangeMarlin is a creationist? It is so ludicrous as to be laughable. You have seen our edits over the months. Do you HONESTLY believe OrangeMarlin and I are creationists? Definitely being a creationist does not make one Christian since there are Muslim and Hindu and Jewish creationists. And please try to leave out discussions of whether any given church or other is out of touch with the bible or not. The reason there are tens of thousands of different Christian sects is that they disagree with each other about the bible (and possibly other issues as well). And of course each one of these sects believes that their sect is correct and all others are wrong. I have no interest in addressing this and it is inappropriate here. But anyone who wades into this is swimming in molasses and opening up a terrible can of worms.--Filll 20:28, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I do care, because if the definition this article gives (Which is referenced in the intro, I even took care of that myself partly awhile ago) contradicts what we write in other places of the article, then this article will not be as helpful a resource to readers. If you, Orangemarlin, and half or more of all scientists believe, as far as this article is concerned, that "humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe were created in their entirety by a supernatural deity or deities (typically God), whose existence is presupposed." in some form or another, then congradulations, welcome to the Creationist team. Your jerseys should arrive in the mail within the next three business days. Intermurial debates start next week, looks like its YEC vs. OEC, Hindu Creationism vs. Islamic Creationism, and Evolutionary Creationism vs. Neo-Creationism in the first round, looks like you'll have to fend off some tough accusations of "Dogmatically atheistic" religiosity, better start developing a good game plan by game time.... Homestarmy 20:40, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh yea, and due to schedualing conflicts with Jewish Holidays, and the fact that most of the Intelligent Design team is also in the OEC team or Neo-Creationism team, Jewish Creationism and Intelligent Design will have their match a little after the first round. Homestarmy 20:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

If one includes pantheist and panentheistic definitions of God, then most atheists are on the creationist team too, including Richard Dawkins probably. So if one makes the definition broad enough, one can get every single human to be defined as a creationist. This is not particularly helpful, however. I went to http://www.onelook.com and looked up both creationist and creationism and I see there are about 50+ definitions or so. Some of these definitions are very similar, so there are maybe a good 10 definitions which are distinguishable. Perhaps a separate article on Definitions of creationism is called for to explore this issue, and different types of creationist and creationism. --Filll 20:52, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I didn't make up this definition of Creationism, "Hayward, James L." did, and even though it replaces the references I once found on what Creationism is, it sounds pretty close to what it said when I helped reference it months ago. But if there's no supernatural deity involved in your beliefs or Richard Dawkins beliefs, (Or an actual act of Creation at all, if I understand this right, certain branches of Hinduism believe all of reality to be an illusion, and hence, not really created.) it sure doesn't sound like they can be creationists, and those deposits on your team jerseys aren't refundable. Homestarmy 20:57, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Well it depends on how one defines a deity and supernatural.--Filll 21:02, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd say every Christian church more or less defines a deity and supernatural in similar ways, (Even by the extraordinarily broad definition Wikipedia often has of what a Christian church is) so once again, I really don't see why the "Almost all" is justified when talking about whether or not Christians churches are Creationist or not. Homestarmy 21:05, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm I think you have pointed out that we have some definition problems in our articles.--Filll 21:09, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


 * There certainly is some confusion over classification when some as-of-yet undetermined churches supposedly reject Creationism. Homestarmy 21:13, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Theistic evolution maybe should not be part of creationism, although it is on the "creationism spectrum." And naturalistic views of the Creator such as pantheism which is verging on atheism probably should not be part of creationism either, but by some definitions pantheists and other atheists would be creationists as well. Another source of confusion arises because some meanings of creationism define only where the soul comes from, so that instead of coming from the parents, the soul is created by God. So Roman Catholicism is creationist by that definition of creationism, and maybe by some others as well, but not by the most common definitions. I could go on and on through each definition in any of 30 or so dictionaries, and we could define creationism to include no more than 1 or 2% of the US population, all the way up to 95% or more of the US population. Do we need to explore this further? --Filll 21:47, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, I think we do need to get the definition(s) straight. Scott's continuum has evolutionary creationism and theistic evolution very nearly the same, and by their own definition the RC church is creationist in holding that souls are directly created, at the same time as holding to theistic evolution (with a few exceptions such as Behe). However, post 1965 the term creationism has been widely used to refer to creation science. Thus,
 * "Creationists view evolution as a source of society's ills, and the writings of Morris and Clark are typical expressions of that view.... Creationists have adopted the view of Fundamentalists generally that there are only two positions with respect to the origins of the earth and life: belief in the inerrancy of the Genesis story of creation and of a worldwide flood as fact, or a belief in what they call evolution.... The creationist organizations consider the introduction of creation science into the public schools part of their ministry."
 * Though the emphasis on the spectrum is useful to avoid that "two position" fallacy, this common definition should be made clear.. .. dave souza, talk 22:15, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Why would talkorigins be a more reliable reference than what's in the introduction and discussed throughout the article already? (I'm not being sarcastic here, I wasn't around when the latest reference and definition was put in, I merely found some references months ago for a similar definition that was in the intro) Homestarmy 22:29, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I am not claiming talkorigins is a great reference on this issue. I am alsoo not claiming that the National Center for Science Education necessarily should have the final say in how we define creationism. But Homestarmy has clearly highlighted a difficulty we have ignored in the multiple conflicting and overlapping definitions of "creationism". Just as evolution and evolutionism have had a number of meanings over the years, so it appears that creationism has had and still retains a plethora of contradictory meanings. And now, here we are writing a semi-authorative text, and we have some confusion here. I personally would like to define creationism to include: This is just a starter, but clearly enables one to draw a clear distinction between atheists and creationists, or between creationists and the vast majority of scientists, or between creation scientists and scientists, or between Catholic doctrine and Pentecostal doctrine, for example.--Filll 22:41, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * insistence on supernatural, miraculous intervention at one or more stages during the development of the species.
 * insistence that the supernatural agent did not choose to use the laws of nature in the creation of the species or many other features of the world or the universe
 * rejection of standard accepted scientific explanations and scientific data on many issues
 * tendency to insist on inerrancy and literalism of various segments of religious texts
 * Homestarmy, that's not TalkOrigins defining anything: it's the definition used in the Decision by U.S. District Court Judge William R. Overton in January 1982. So the usage was clearly in circulation then, and the term continues to have a dual definition – theoretically it applies to anyone believing in Creation, in general practice it refers to the fundamentalist rejection of evolution and any other science perceived as contradicting a literal interpretation of biblical texts. Whether they make that explicit or, as in Thaxton and ID, they hide it behind claims that the Creator is unknowable and outside science. ... dave souza, talk 22:57, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, my mistake then. Why not have this article just not have one definition, but discuss all of them? And even then, with the way the sentence that started this reads, that still leaves the question as to which churches supposedly do not teach that "God created the cosmos". Homestarmy 23:26, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Well we could discuss them all, but we do not really have the space for it in this article. That is why I suggest an article on Definitions of creationism..--Filll 01:53, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Good idea. That's what I was trying to achieve with a disambig page, but a Definitions of creationism article could be a more succinct way to do it. -- WolfieInu 09:48, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Since Wikipedia is not a dictionary, a "definitions of" articles are generally considered inappropriate and are routinely deleted (e.g. definitions of evolution article was deleted a few years back). If you want to write such a thing, consider going over to Wikitionary. --ScienceApologist 13:43, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


 * As I understand, the proposed article would not define creationism the way a dictionary defines a term, but would try to clarify what the word "creationism" could mean in different contexts, as a sort of disambig page, but without having to adhere to standard disambig page structure. -- WolfieInu 22:04, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

My understanding is that Definitions of evolution was a very inadequate article. The present evolutionism article basically describes in detail a variety of definitions of the term.--Filll 15:29, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

ID and public schools
Well, I don't want to violate WP:3RR, so I'll just post here. By the morning, User:Homestarmy will either have to violate 3RR or I'm wrong. Anyways, the Kitzmiller decision clearly stated that schools can't teach ID. Once a court decides, it becomes de facto, unless another court overturns it, which will not happen. But I'm bored with these reversions. I expect that the sentence will be gone by the time I wake up Saturday morning. Orangemarlin 07:33, 16 June 2007 (UTC)


 * BTW Homestarmy, the decision was based on constitutional law. Your reversion of what is essentially a constitutional fact belies your POV on the issue.  Religious dogma, in whatever form, and by whatever disingenuous method utilized by religious types, is prohibited by the Establishment Clause of the first Amendment of the United States Constitution.   You know that piece of paper that sits in Washington DC?  And findings by court to have the force of law.  You know better than this, even though it didn't appear in your AP Chemistry exams.  Now I'm really exhausted.  Orangemarlin 07:38, 16 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm leaning in your direction, but why give some proud-to-be fundamentalist another reason to cry about the atheist cabal on Wikipedia? The sentence is clear enough as it is now. I know that "courts have found" is a bit redundant (because they're the only ones in charge of finding something like that) but don't think its untrue or POV. Malc82 07:41, 16 June 2007 (UTC)


 * A view from outside the USA: without "courts have found" it looks like an empty assertion of a POV. With "courts have found" it is clearly a statement of the legal position. Therefore much better with "courts have found". Snalwibma 08:05, 16 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Courts have found is a POV. In fact, you cannot teach ID in public schools as a result of that decision (unless of course, you want to fund a another losing trial).  It requires no other descriptive other than you cannot teach it.  Oh well.  Not a big deal.  Orangemarlin 08:32, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

A minor point (refering to an edit summary) when something is "de facto law" we do not say "de facto" we say "de jure." Slrubenstein  |  Talk 15:05, 16 June 2007 (UTC)


 * My latin is very bad, neither being Catholic, nor really focusing on those pieces of latin I needed in med school. I actually have a link to a site that has "legal latin."  I should have gone there!  I hope that I did not destroy your faith in me to be a decent editor.  :)  Orangemarlin 16:07, 16 June 2007 (UTC)


 * When I get reverted by two different people, I think i'm capable of taking the hint that I shouldn't keep on going, do I look like a User:Jason Gastrich sock to you? The decision was based on the opinions and interpretations of the Middle District of Pennsylvania court, these judges have no more ability to state once and for all what is constitutional fact and what isn't than any other judges who could have different opinions, including the Supreme Court, since future Supreme Courts can and have overruled the findings of previous courts on many occasions. "Constitutional facts" have a rather nasty little habit of being hard to pin down when decades of court decisions constantly override previous decisions, don't you think?
 * Though I admit, had I looked slightly closer to the reference in question, I probably would of been able to bring a much stronger argument to the table. This Kitzmiller decision was decided by the Pennsylvania Middle District appealate court. It has the force of law alright....in the Middle District of Pennsylvania. In the rest of the U.S, this court is compleatly powerless to stop any school district from teaching ID. Of course, if a school outside the Pennsylvania Middle District deciding to teach ID, the ACLU or someone would probably use the Kitzmiller decision as precedent to get a speedier decision, but that decision would have to come from a compleatly different court for it to have any affect at all outside the Pennsylvania Middle District. "Courts have found" was even me giving you a little bit of leeway, I assume by now courts besides this one district have probably given decisions against ID before, if I had really wanted to be ornery about attribution here, I could have even just written "John E. Jones III., a Pennsylvania District Court judge, found that....", and that wouldn't be a POV statement at all, but an absolute fact based on the one reference given. In fact, you can teach ID anywhere in the United States where a court has not made some binding decision against it, and as far as this Kitzmiller ref tells me, that is anywhere in the U.S. where the Pennsylvania Middle District court has no jurisdiction. As far as I can tell from the reference given, the statement currently in the article is an outright lie; Teaching of Intelligent Design in public schools does not once and for all violate the Establishment Clause of the constitution all through the country, but only in the Middle District of Pennsylvania, everywhere else, the question of whether it is or isn't a violation has yet to be decided.
 * And I can do without the slyly vieled accusations of hypocrasy Malc. Homestarmy 17:45, 16 June 2007 (UTC)


 * First of all, I'll never accuse you of being a sockpuppet of anything but maybe yourself :) I appreciate your candor and the fact that you took AP Chemistry!  I agree with you that technically it has the force of law only in the Middle District of Pennsylvania.  But it's not going to be appealed, and no school district anywhere is going to waste millions of dollars given this decision.  I guess that's why I used de facto, because it is now going to be followed period.  But with regards to the constitution, I doubt you'll be able to find anywhere that a court has found for the teaching of any religious matter.  When they have, it has been overturned at the appellate or supreme court levels.  Moreover, the case in Pennsylvania really didn't come down to whether religion could be taught in school (which won't happen), it came down to whether ID was a religion or not.  Jones said it was.  I don't think there are any further cases that will test that, since the evidence was quite clear.  So technically you're right.  But practically, ID won't be taught in a public school.  Courts has found, however, sounds weasel wordy to me.Orangemarlin 18:04, 16 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The decision doesn't need to be appealed or even fought anywhere outside the Middle District of Pennsylvania, my point is that this court has no power outside its district, and so any other school outside this district (That isn't already under some other court orders not to teach ID) is free to teach ID, assuming the district and parents allow it and all that stuff. Why should this decision be followed, legally speaking, anywhere that the Kitzmiller decision has no authority?
 * I really don't understand why "courts have found" is very weaselly, Killer's explanation in his revert really seems to be stretching in my opinion, "some have found" is a far cry from "courts have found", "some have found" tells the reader nothing about "some", while "courts have found" identifies who the subjects are, and attributes the opinion to at least the one verifiable source and the other sources which I presume exist which sided against ID. A weasel worded statement, however, would have to "seemingly support statements without attributing opinions to verifiable sources". However, if being specific is a must, I think something like "In the United States, the District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania found in the ruling of Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District that Intelligent Design may not be taught as an alternative to Evolution in public schools. The District judge in the case, John E. Jones III, stated in his ruling that intelligent design was not science, that teaching Intelligent Design in public schools was a violation of the United States Constitutions Establishment Clause, and that Intelligent Design "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents." would work fine. Homestarmy 18:47, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The hypocrisy assumption wasn't specifically to you (and it wasn't "slyly veiled"), POV-accusations come on a weekly basis for these articles, your's is actually one of those that deserve discussion. The proud-to-be fundamentalist of course referred to your user page. Malc82 22:36, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * (ri)There are many things you do not understand. First is how the US court system works.  Jones is a judge in the US Court system.  His ruling was not appealed.  It stands as the current precedent based on previous SCOTUS rulings. End of story.  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  21:07, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


 * End of unreferenced story, which compleatly fails to actually cite which SCOTUS decisions agree that Intelligent Design is a violation of the 1st amendment in the entire United States and that it may not be taught in any public school in the entire United States as an alternative to evolution? Homestarmy 21:24, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


 * As long as this court is the highest level that has ever judged on this matter, it's ruling is the current state of the law. SCOTUS can't decide on everything, they could only overrule. As long as they don't, the lower court's judgement stands as the current law. Malc82 22:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Throughout the entire United States, or in the Pennsylvania Middle District? Homestarmy 23:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * READ THE RULING -- It clearly states the legal precedence, clearly citing appropriate SCOTUS rulings. This really isn't that hard, but I'm also not doing your research for you. If you read the decision, the light will go on.   &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  20:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The beginning makes it look like this court took the lemon test and Supreme Court precedents concerning school prayer and access to schools for Christian groups, (and things like that) and applied the lemon test and endorsement test to the question of whether or not teaching Intelligent Design in this district could be legal. So far, all I get from this is that in the Pennsylvania Middle District, the District Court used supreme court precedents for cases dealing with Christian involvement in schools in various ways to make a compleatly new ruling about Intelligent Design, which will apply only in the Pennsylvania Middle District. The Supreme Court and other courts mentioned in this decision may have applied tests similar to the ones used in the Kitzmiller decision, but I see not a single court case cited in this ruling that also dealt not only with the issue of teaching Intelligent Design in public schools, but with the issue of whether or not it can be legally taught anywhere in the United States.
 * The rationale of this decision clearly was based on other court's tests alright, but I see nothing at all in any cited rulings that deals specifically with intelligent design. Unless there is a SCOTUS case that makes it illegal for any public school in the entire United States to specifically teach Intelligent Design, I really don't see how the mere existance of the tests Jones used translates into Intelligent Design being outlawed nation-wide, or why a court in a separate district who has a different opinion on the issue could not take the same tests and interpret them in favor of intelligent design, thusly making it legal in at least one district for any school inside the district to teach intelligent design. The closest case I saw cited in this decision was when the Supreme Court in 1987 outlawyed teaching creation science, but just because Jones then went on to conclude that Intelligent Design is basically the same thing as creation science doesn't mean that the previous Supreme Court decision itself now applies to Intelligent Design, and once again, I still don't see what decisions are supposedly on the books outlawying Intelligent Design specifically nation-wide, or why someone won't cite them. Homestarmy 22:12, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Just as well you're not giving legal advice, then, Homestarmy. .. dave souza, talk 22:29, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Then perhaps you could explain how the decision of the Pennsylvania Middle District court has outlawed the teaching of Intelligent Design as an alternative to evolution nation-wide? I don't need a five page essay or the entire U.S. court system explained to me, a simple explanation would do. Homestarmy 22:50, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Since you operate under English law rather than Scots law I'll be cautious, but my reading is that it's not the decision that has outlawed teaching of ID, but the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution. The findings are that ID clearly contravenes that, and so is outlawed. Try it in another court anywhere in the US and the first thing they'll look at is the Kitzmiller findings. For some strange reason even ID enthusiasts seem reluctant to try, these days. .... dave souza, talk 23:09, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The ruling only has an immediate legal standing in the Middle District of Pennsylvania. But the precedent and the strength of the ruling is such that school districts will be reluctant to teach ID, because the cost of defending and probably losing a ruling will be prohibitive.  If I'm using the latin right, de jure, it only is legally binding in the jurisdiction of the Middle District of PA.  However, de facto, the ruling is so strong that it has the effect of prohibiting the teaching of ID everywhere.  Homestarmy, I guess you could convince some school district in the states to fight it, but I doubt it.  Here in California (which has more Creationists than I thought possible), a small school district withdrew ID from its curriculum immediately after the ruling, because its lawyers stated that the district would probably lose the impending lawsuit, but would be on the hook for several million dollars if it did lose.  This happens all the time in the US legal system.  Remember, there is no hope that a school district could teach Creationism, because it clearly violates the Establishment Clause.  BUT, this case didn't rule on that, it ruled that ID was essentially religious in nature.  The court found that it was, and now that case established precedent everywhere. Orangemarlin 05:50, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * To clarify, as it's a lower court it's not a Binding precedent, but it is a strong Persuasive precedent throughout the U.S. and was set out in detail for that reason. Similarly, McLean v. Arkansas gives detail of what science is, and how "creation science" isn't science. That case had considerable effect on later court decisions, but was not binding nationally: that needed the Supremes at Edwards v. Aguillard. ... dave souza, talk 09:09, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Precedent is a powerful thing. This is part of the reason the DI did not want this fight. Unfortunately, their own strategy of aggressively publicizing their stance and campaigning frantically for ID eventually created this situation where a schoolboard changed their curriculum.-- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Filll (talk • contribs) 13:03, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Conclusion. For anyone who reads this discussion, note that it was done in a WP:CIVIL manner, between highly opinionated people, and we arrived at somewhat of a consensus. Jim62sch, you know I love you, but READ THE RULING wasn't quite fair. Homestarmy made a valid point, which is the ruling really only is binding in the Middle District of Pennsylvania, but carries substantial weight as precedent elsewhere. Personally, I don't think any school district would be stupid enough to spend that kind of money to fight it, so it becomes, de facto, the law of the land. By the way, I made a change to the section so that it reflected what I believed is how it works, but Dammit Jim, I'm a doctor, not a Constitutional Lawyer. (I have been waiting years to actually say that to someone named Jim.)   LOL.Orangemarlin 16:13, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I hope your medical tricorder is all charged up, Bones. Too bad you're in the wrong 'universe' - bacta tanks make life so much easier :) -- WolfieInu 11:20, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I want to see the sick bay...
 * OM, READ THE RULING was actually quite fair in that Jones outlines the legal precedents that drove his decision. Absent these precedents it sounds like he just made it up as he went along, which is clearly not the case.  Additionally, absent an appeal or another lawsuit, his decision has the de jure force of law in the US.  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  19:13, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Creatianism
The OED has nothing on this term, and we cannot use a Wiki to source a Wiki as Wikis do not meet WP:RS
 * "The OED on Creationism:
 * A system or theory of creation: spec.   a. The theory that God immediately creates a soul for every human being born (opposed to traducianism);    b. The theory which attributes the origin of matter, the different species of animals and plants, etc., to ‘special creation’ (opposed to evolutionism).
 * 1847 BUCH tr. Hagenbach's Hist. Doctr. II. 1 The theory designated Creationism..was now more precisely defined. 1872 LIDDON Elem. Relig. iii. 102 The other and more generally received doctrine is known as Creationism. Each soul is an immediate work of the Creator. 1880 GRAY Nat. Sc. & Relig. 89 The true issue as regards design is not between Darwinism and direct Creationism.

Also, this, from Str1977 is nonsense: "(created article for those denying the term)". &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; 10:20, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reasoned debate, Jim. It appears however that the term exists (see the AFD debate), no matter whether an article on the concept is placed under "Creationism (soul)" or "Creatianism". Str1977 (smile back) 08:38, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Though as I understand the topic, it has absolutely no relation to creationism in the sense used on this page. WLU 13:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Neutral Point of View
... I'm not sure this article has one. While I don't agree with Creationism one iota, surely NPoV requires that both eventualities be accepted as equally likely, at least in this article? In reality, the view expressed is decidedly Evolutonist (especially in the intro), and so for the sake of article quality I'd argue that this be remedied. Disclaimer - I am definitely an evolutionist, I just think that this isn't NPoV. The fact that it's my PoV expressed is neither here nor there. --poorsodtalk 11:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * No, actually, it doesn't have to present them as equally valid, because they're not. That's the NPoV, see undue weight, equal validity and Pseudoscience. Oh and "...I don't agree with creationism..but..", sounds alot like, "...well I'm not racist, but..." —Preceding unsigned comment added by ConfuciusOrnis (talk • contribs) 12:05, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm in agreement with ConfuciousOrnis here. There are numerous articles on Wikipedia that are controversial.  If you present both sides as being essentially equal, then there is a disservice done to the reader.  I believe that verifiability from well-written, peer-reviewed, and published sources far outweighs a few pieces of speculation.  However, this article is about a religious doctrine--to be NPOV, this article should thoroughly describe the doctrine, but place a few pieces of SPOV (that would be the scientific POV) to state what the "other side" thinks.  Go to the Evolution article for a thorough and NPOV explanation of the science.  Orangemarlin 16:20, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

"Oh and “...I don't agree with creationism, but..', sounds a lot like, '...well I'm not racist, but...”.

What do you mean by a comparison of the "I'm not racist, but..." analogy to the users comments? The user wished to assert their concerns over POV as a Evolutionist while having a regard for the views of Creationists in the belief that this might make his own standpoint seem less weighted, which is frankly more than a lot of ‘editors’ seem to be doing with pages like this. The “I'm not racist, but...” phrase is typically invoked when the person making the statement follows it up with an invariably racist comment, not at all similar to what poorsod was attempting to do. So no, it’s not comparable with his comments at all. I really think you should apologise to be quite honest. I also am not a creationist… but I agree more with ‘Poorsod’ than I would you, I’m convinced there is still a fair amount of subtle weaseling from both parties at the end of certain paragraphs that I suspect would obviously not be tolerated if they were identified as coming from a particularly creationist standpoint. Isn’t it sloppy to have un-sourced statements at the end of the overview for instance as well as a statement with either critical or positive standpoints at the end of sections? Even if these statements were sourced I don’t think weighted comment should be placed at the end of sections, it’s too leading either way. Rather like childishly having the final words in a playground argument. 195.92.168.165 04:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Give me a break. It is hard to put much credence in poorly written tirade from an anon. What exactly are you protesting? That ConfuciusOrnis drew a particularly apt comparison and made a great analogy? I have been on these pages long enough to be able to smell a creationist, and that turn of phrase definitely is a red flag, particularly when dealing with such a feeble excuse for an alternative scientific theory as creationism. If these articles were not diligently policed, they would soon degenerate into religious polemics and creationist tracts full of the most outrageous statements, completely unsuitable for an encyclopedia. Given the visibility of Wikipedia, this would be a very undesirable situation. We do not have enough editors interested in real science working on these articles to even keep up with the creationist nonsense that has accumulated here on WP (for example, see evolutionism which is an embarassment for an encyclopedia). Another dead giveaway that "poorsod" and probably this anon as well are biblical literalists who are anti-science is the use of the term "evolutionist". ONLY creationists and Christian fundamentalists use that kind of language. You are quite welcome to contribute to some creationist wiki, if this is your inclination. We have quite enough of such things here already, but thanks anyway for your efforts. --Filll 10:31, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Filll, if you can smell creationists, that probably means you've been online for so long, nanobots have travelled through your internet tubes and set up a wireless connection between your olfactory nerves and nanobots hiding in or near other people's computers, and that's generally a strong sign you might be suffering from Wikipediholicism, not a sign of faithfully policing articles from our vast right-wing conspiracy against all you evilutionists. Just a thought. Homestarmy 19:42, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah you are right. I am probably diseased and/or addicted. I notice I rank at about position 1000 among all editors, measured by edit count, including editors that have been here quite a bit longer. However, my sense of "smell" for creationists (my fundie-dar, or creationist-dar, as it were) was already well developed before I came to WP, since I have been involved in these debates for longer than you have been alive Homestarmy, and possibly longer than your parents have been alive. What is hilarious, particularly if you look at the history of creationism, is that although science has changed considerably over the last 100 or 150 years, creationists use almost the identical arguments that were used by creationists decades and decades ago, and a lot of the same terminology. Interesting, huh? --Filll 19:53, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Responded on your talk page, I think my big old rant of a reply sort of tipped this off the deep end of off-topic. Homestarmy 20:54, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

It's great that you think you can ‘smell’ creationists Filll, it means you probably shovel as much as you 'edit' according to your judgment. It's wonderful to know such balanced editors are so highly regarded on Wikipedia. I couldn’t give a toss about posturing creationists nuts, what bothers me more are attempts by self important non-professional wiki editors with equally outrageous and manipulative intentions, you do curious internet browsers no service whatsoever. Reading pages like this simply offends me when I feel attempts at manipulation according to a clearly biased agenda. I am glad your wiki ranking gives you comfort because it scares the hell out of me. You’re just one of the reasons I refuse to join this site because Wikipedia is clearly a doomed project under the ushering of individuals such as yourself. Perhaps you should scrutinize you own motives just as equally as those Creationists you clearly have such bias against. Have a nice ‘break’. 195.92.168.165 16:49, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * DNFTT. A quick survey of this anon demonstrates that it is a high school student who is probably just having a juvenile tantrum. Maybe a nice block is in order.--Filll 16:57, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Why do you block everyone who criticizes you? Do you really think you are that unassailable? --Fradulent Ideas 23:29, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I criticized him humorously, and i'm not blocked :/. Homestarmy 16:16, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Fradulent Ideas, I think you missed the point. The post by the anon was clearly an ad hom, has the appearance of trolling, and offers nothing to the discussion.  And Homestarmy is correct: while I very rarely agree with his positions on many subjects, I also know that he's an editor who can make his point without rancor and is really just seeking to share information.  Even when he is critical, he's nice about it and attacks the point (ad rem rather than the person (ad hom).  I hope this clears it up.  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  20:27, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Pseudoscience
Imho this article does belong into the cat pseudoscience because it lists all the pseudoscience of creationists (like 4.1 Young Earth creationism 4.1.1 Modern geocentrism 4.1.2 Omphalos hypothesis 4.1.3 Creation science 4.2 Old Earth creationism 4.2.1 Gap creationism 4.2.2 Day-age creationism 4.2.3 Progressive creationism 4.3 Theistic evolution 4.4 Neo-Creationism 4.4.1 Intelligent design ) greetings. --hroest 00:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


 * No. As the article defines it creatiomism "refers to the concept that all humanity, life, the Earth, or the universe as a whole was created by a deity" This is not pseudoscience since it is not a scientific claim. Once one starts making claims that what you are doing is somehow scientific, such as with Intelligent Design, or most forms of Young Earth Creationism then it becomes pseudoscience. JoshuaZ 01:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


 * yes but the article mentions e.g. Young Earth Creationism, Intelligend Design etc which are pseudoscince... that's what I mean. --hroest 11:57, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


 * That's a pretty broad criterion for inclusion. The evolution article mentions creationism too. Should it go in the pseudoscience category? Tsumetai 12:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Perhaps a good compromise would be for each of the subjects listed by hroest to be put in the pseudoscience category, but not this article, because Creationism is ultimately a religous position rather than a (pseudo)scientific one. SheffieldSteel 00:25, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Although it pains me to agree with the Creationist crowd, this article is a description of faith, not a claim of science, so it could hardly be considered a pseudoscience. However, Creation science, which describes the science behind creationism, is definitely pseudoscience.  So hroest, you might want to take your arguments to other articles, but those have already been identified.  Anyways, I agree with RossNixon's revert.  Still don't agree with his belief in this myth, but I do agree with his editing.  Orangemarlin 06:19, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


 * This is coming up once again, and I had forgotten that there was a consensus herein. JoshuaZ and I have got to be the two of the most vigilant anti-pseudoscience editors on Wikipedia, and we agree that this is not pseudo science.  I even made a revert to add the tag, because this article has crept a lot since early-March and includes some pseudoscientific claims.  Now, I reverted to remove the tags, but this is a close vote in my brain.  The "science" in this article has to be removed, or I will side over with the pseudoscience tag.  Orangemarlin 06:15, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Only thing is, it's a little hard to separate the religion and pseudoscience, since this article seems to be a broad overview of creationism in it's various forms, both purely religious, and anti-evolution. If the consensus is that creationism isn't pseudoscience per se, then perhaps it shouldn't be parented to cat:pseudoscience, with only subjects like ID, baraminology, flood geology, etc, made sub cats of pseudoscience. ornis 06:28, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay, I'm biased, but if we've been doing fine without pseudoscience tags up until now, then what is the sudden emergency? Ornis is right, it's pretty hard to seperate the religion from the 'pseudoscience'. As long as the article claims to be an overview, the proposed hairsplitting is unnecessary, IMHO. As it is the article does not claim that creationism is a science, which is enough NPOV to go a long way. To slap 'pseudoscience' on the article is superfluous.
 * Besides, the concept of 'pseudoscience' includes subjects like astrology, alchemy, witch-doctoring, etc., and not alternate views on origins as far as I know, except if anti-evolutionism is labelled pseudoscientific by definition - and how far can we expect science to progress under such conditions? If anti-creationism had been forbidden in 19th Century England, everybody would be creationists today, which I think is great but would have stifled scientific inquiry (and could have prevented the development of modern creationism!).
 * In other words, I don't think that creationism belongs under 'pseudoscience' anyway. But that's probably just because I'm a creationist :) -- WolfieInu 11:13, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Eh, anti-creationism was forbidden in 19th Century England, on pain of imprisonment for heresy and was prosecuted severely by the authorities who thought it as treasonable as other outrageous ideas like republicanism and giving the vote to anyone but the landed aristocracy. One odd effect was that writers on evolution were punished by losing copyright, which made pirating the books easier and increased their distribution. Of course, repression eased with began to ease after the Reform Act in the 1830s, and though the author of Vestiges of Creation took elaborate care to remain anonymous, the public controversy over that Lamarkian book was less severe than feared, and paved the way for a relatively muted and welcoming reception for The Origin of Species at a time when the clergy were much more concerned about the higher criticism controversy. Anyway, on-topic, categories are just ways for readers to find articles, and don't label the contents of articles. However, I've favoured leaving "creationism" out of the pseudoscience category, while keeping explicit examples like creation science and ID in. ... dave souza, talk 13:45, 25 June 2007 (UTC) tweak 23:14, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Several answers. To Ornis, yes, I agree, although I contend that any vestige of "science" needs to be extracted from this article.  This article must stick with religious dogma, that is that some being created this place yada yada yada.  Any "proof" will make this article pseudoscience, since there is no proof.  To Wolfielnu, yes I agree too.  However, any science that tries to prove Creationism is no different than alchemy, astrology, etc., and is therefore, by definition, pseudoscience.  To Souza, yes.  This discussion is making me ill, because I know that Creationism is in fact anti-science.  But as long as it stays out of the article, them I think it remains neutral.  So, Homestarmy and RossNixon, please try to keep the pseudoscience out of here, and keep it a religious article.  There are only so many times that I can support you on these issues, or they're going to toss me out of the secret Darwinist Society meetings.  Orangemarlin 15:03, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The reason I made my revert was because I had thought there was already a consensus on this issue, created no less by people such as yourself. I normally only interact with this article when I see something of interest appear on my watchlist concerning it, which does seem to be happening more and more often lately. Homestarmy 15:29, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Homestarmy, yeah I agree we had a consensus. But when I reread the article, I thought it had changed, which it had. I've deleted a lot of the pseudoscience stuff, and I happen to agree wholeheartedly with you. Now when are you going to report that AP Chemistry score? Orangemarlin 17:35, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * If the scores really come in July, don't you think June 25th is a bit early for that? Homestarmy 18:39, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Homestarmy, I missed something -- I'm guessing you were in an AP Chem class? Maybe you'll beat my AP Chem score, I had a 96, but that was a while ago, and I've forgotten some of what I learned.
 * OM, if we do the article from an entirely religious perspective, we might as well just post Gen 1 & 2 ... how dull. &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  18:55, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I think that the scores go from a 1-5 scale, and has been that way since I was a snot nosed kid. And I'll bet I was a snot nosed kid before you were born there Jim.  As for the article, let the POV forks get the exciting stuff.  Let's keep Creationism like the Noah's Ark article--talk religion, but we'll stand up to the attempt to throw in science.  Orangemarlin 19:05, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Not on a percentage basis they don't -- unless we're talking about different things. Which is possible.  But since I missed the reference to the AP test, I assumed you were refering to a final exam.  Obviously, that's not the case.  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  20:03, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * As far as I know, all they tell you is the number you got 1 to 5, not the percentages. The test these days is curved so much though, that the way our chem teacher tells us, getting around a 60 percent counts as a five, and getting all the multiple choice right and no points on the free response at all gets you a three, so the curve is pretty big. Homestarmy 20:34, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Our young Creationist padawan is correct. For Jim, the AP Exam is a standardized test managed by the College Board.  Theoretically, it's a test given to prove that you have taken and passed a college-level course, while in High School.  Back in my day, prior to the existence of computers, I took 6 or 7 AP courses.  It got me out of my first year of college.  Orangemarlin 23:20, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, OK, sorry guys, I was thinking just the final in the AP course. Thanks for explaining.  I never did take the tests to get credit for the AP courses, but then I also took two years off before I went to college, and I was pretty undirected so I wasn't sure what I was going to do anyway.  Anyway, hope you get a good score Homestarmy.  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  10:07, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

OM, this article really should start by showing how there are various ideas of what "creationism" means, including the soul version (Aretha Franklin?) and the general term, but with an emphasis on the usage popularized in the Fundamentalist-Modernist Controversy of the 1920s (in "an upsurge of fundamentalist religious fervor" to cite Edwards) as meaning opposition to evolution as part of the fundies' argument against higher criticism and liberal Christianity – at heart this is a theological dispute rather than religion vs. science as it's often misrepresented... dave souza, talk 23:09, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually Dave, this is a great idea. Creationism really isn't a science vs. religion competition, it IS a religion vs. religion controversy.  But this is a huge rewrite.  Orangemarlin 23:20, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I like the idea of presenting this as a religion vs. religion controversy. The way in which the creationists like to position this "debate" is completely dishonest (although I do not even think it is a debate, really; there is no controversy, at least in science). Science is NOT anti-religion and I have no idea how anyone could think that, since science really does not deal with the same questions that religion does. Creationists want to claim that all Christians believe what they believe, or some huge fraction of the American/world's population disbelieves evolution, but the data do not support this claim. They just like to rant and rave and lie and cheat to rally people to their side, and, I suspect, to raise money.--Filll 21:32, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Science did actually take away their last seemingly strong argument, and it also keeps marginalizing the kind of deities fundamentalists believe in, leaving them with less and less space where to tuck their magic-man in. What you probably mean is that it doesn't conflict with watered down moderatism. –Fatalis 08:30, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Money makes the world go round. (OK, it's really the effect of a molten core and gravity, and stuff like that, but...)  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  21:57, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

There is a conflict thesis which is accepted by many. The curent atheist thinkers like Richard Dawkins are fairly adamant that science directly contradicts religion. Wikipedia articles must acknowledge this perspective. --Creationism is pseudoscience 18:54, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, that's a username that didn't last long. The ID crew share that adamant thought, though they have a different solution in mind. The question is whether that's relevant to this specific article. .. dave souza, talk 19:09, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe that it is relevant to this article since creationists are in direct conflict with science, as Dawkins and others point out. --Creationism=Pseudoscience 22:49, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


 * And your point is? Perhaps this post was not meant for this section? Or maybe not meant for this talk page?--Filll 19:27, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I think the point was that that user was indef blocked within about half an hour of having registered. ornis 20:21, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah. I think that this account was just created by a creationist to troll and irritate others with meaningless posts.--Filll 20:42, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


 * You'd think he would of made at least one post trolling against y'all then, so far, I see only evidence that he's an anti-creationist troll, not a creationist troll. Homestarmy 22:54, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Think on it a bit Homestarmy. If one covers Dawkins' minority viewpoint, it strengthens the argument that science, and in particular evolution, are against religion.  It's a perfect setup.  Alas, it failed.   &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  23:03, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Do you have any evidence that Dawkins is in the minority? --Religion hates science 23:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


 * He is unusually persistant though, why doesn't he just stay an anon, then he wouldn't keep getting blocked for violating username policy.... Homestarmy 23:16, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


 * He sure wants to be blocked badly, and maybe get a nice IP block as well.--Filll 23:18, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I want to discuss including Dawkins work in this since he is the most visible critic of creationism as of right now. --Fradulent Ideas 23:28, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, at last you've found a less offensive username, and an admirable self-description it seems to be. Do please present your ideas for improving this article on this talk page so that they can be properly considered for undue weight. ... dave souza, talk 23:34, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


 * (ri)Ah, the cat's out of the bag...cue the dogs... &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  01:43, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Scientific critique
Since the scientific critique section was so short, I included a Dawkins quote to expand the section a bit. --Fradulent Ideas 23:34, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Can someone explain to me why this was removed from the article? --Fradulent Ideas 12:36, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * As it said in the summary, because of WP:NPOV. –Fatalis 13:07, 30 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Aren't you forgetting WP:BITE? Shouldn't you try to route this obviously well-intentioned editor's efforts to some place (perhaps another article) where the contributions would be appreciated? Just a thought. Silly rabbit 14:43, 30 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Why isn't it neutral to mention Dakwins' opinion on the matter? --Fradulent Ideas 16:02, 30 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Since this is clearly a section about scientific critique of creationism, I think that Richard Dawkins belongs in this section. He's the most vocal scientific opponent of creationist pseudoscience, after all. --Fradulent Ideas 16:04, 30 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Is it okay for me to reinclude this statement? --Fradulent Ideas 11:08, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure. That particular bit is about YECs, not creationism in general (which could include theistic evolution, for example), and the whole article is more editorial than scientific. –Fatalis 12:25, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The article is editorial because it is a critique. The section in question is about critique. --Fradulent Ideas 13:25, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

(ri) "..mind shrinking nonsense.." is amusing, but it isn't really a scientific critique. In any case I think the idea is to largly confine this article to the theology of creationism, and leave the science and pseudoscience, to the appropriate sub-articles. ornis 12:47, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It isn't for us to decide what is a "scientific critique" and what isn't. Dawkins is a scientist and when he criticizes creationism he is providing a critique. There seems to be no reason to exclude his criticism. --Fradulent Ideas 13:25, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * It depends -- was he writing as a scientist or as an atheist? Admittedly, either way Dawkins had a point, however what he writes for popular consumption is not necessarily a scientific critique.  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  21:30, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay, maybe it doesn't fit in that section. Surely we can find a place for it in the article though since he is talking about creationism and he's probably the most famous living critic of the subject. --Fradulent Ideas 00:39, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Definition of creationism
The Merriam-Webster's dictionary does not define creationism as we do. The article uses, supposedly, a definition provided by Hayward. I am not at liberty to get Hayward's book at this time so can someone tell me why Hayward's definition is more verifiable than the typical definition provided by Merriam-Webster? --Fradulent Ideas 12:42, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not a matter of verifiability, it's a matter of completeness and currency. The dicdef you mention is virtually identical to the version in the 1935 Webster's unabridged diction, in other words, it's just a tad out of date.  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  20:41, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * While creationists have tried to reinvent themselves, they have been famously unsuccessful. Intelligent design was supposed to remove the stigma, but the latest court decision and elections have reintroduced it in the public eye. I do not see many people who support evolution calling themselves "creationists" even though this article seems to indicate that this is what they do. I think the article is promoting a fringe conception of what creationism is: the popular conception is that it is the ideas that opposed evolution. --Fradulent Ideas 13:23, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The popular conception is not always the right one, and certainly isn't the only one that a respectable encyclopedia should cover. Homestarmy 17:35, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It's a bit difficult to determine how a pseudo-subject such as "creationism" can have a "right" conception. There is no reliable authority that determines what is and isn't creationism. I think we have to go with public judgement on this count. --Fradulent Ideas 18:02, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, there are a great many reliable authorities that qualify under WP:RS that have an opinion on what Creationism is, especially various dictionaries or other encyclopedias, and so far, it doesn't look like there's so many widely varying definitions that some would need to be excluded for notabilities sake. I don't see many evolution supporters calling themselves creationist myself, but i'm sure if I found a theistic evolutionist, they would probably agree more or less that "humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe [was] created in [its] entirety by a deity or deities". Why does there need to be one single reliable authority which is the only body authorized to make a singular, non-inclusive definition on what Creationism is? So far, it looks like there's plenty of room in the lead to include any more notable definitions on what Creationism is, removal of the U.S. centric material if necessary could provide plenty of space. Homestarmy 18:24, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * So you want to provide multiple definitions? Or a really long one?  What do you have in mind?  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  21:34, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Me? Oh no, I think the given definitions are fine, several months ago I found some references that more or less (mostly less) said what's already there, though the wording, detail, and references have changed since then. I was just saying to Fraudulent that there doesn't have to be a single reliable authority on the subject in order to write the article. The lead is, as I think people have already pointed out, oddly U.S. centric, but I don't know how to fix that any more than other people do probably. Homestarmy 22:50, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Can you share those references with us? --Fradulent Ideas 00:37, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The ones I got were just from googling, I assume somebody must of considered the books that are being used now as more reliable than what I put there. Homestarmy 01:50, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that Numbers' resource is great, but I'm not sure about Hayward's. --Fradulent Ideas 13:45, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

How the term is "most often" used
I think the section about how the term is most often used is correct, but should there be a citation for it? Maybe a survey or a citation search? --Fradulent Ideas 12:47, 30 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I think that any standard dictionary definition would be sufficient. For instance, the Merriam-Webster discussed above. Adam Cuerden talk 13:01, 30 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Does a dictionary really determine how something is "most often" used? --Fradulent Ideas 16:06, 30 June 2007 (UTC)


 * If you want to be careful about it, why not do a serious study. Start with onelook.com and look up creationism and then follow it up with other definitions from other sources. You will find a variety of current and past definitions. You might even be inspired to put together an article on the definitions of creationism.--Filll 16:23, 30 June 2007 (UTC)


 * It seems to me that the general definition of creationism (belief that God created the universe) is the least useful for writing an encyclopedia article. The most useful starting point is the American Heritage Dictionary's definition which is probably a good place to begin because of the curious visibility of American fundamentalism in this area. AHD says "NOUN: Belief in the literal interpretation of the account of the creation of the universe and of all living things related in the Bible." I think that since most of the resources written about creationism is about such a belief, this is where we should start. Literalism is an important part of creationism. --Fradulent Ideas 11:13, 1 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Although creationism demands a literal interpretation of Genesis, this is a long way from being literalist with respect to the entire Bible. For example, few if any creationists would want you to read Daniel or the Book of Revelation literally, except if someone thinks that literal seven-headed dragons are meant to be scientific truth, in which case there is no hope for him :) . -- WolfieInu 13:25, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * That's your opinion, but it cannot be included in the article because we are writing about the general ideas and not one person's opinion. The fact is that many creationists proudly proclaim their view that the bible is completely 100% scientifically accurate. --Fradulent Ideas 18:04, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * ...yes, when it touches on science. However, when it does not intend to touch on science (but what it says can be mistaken for a scientific statement, e.g. the term "sunset" could imply a flat earth if taken literally), then it should not be taken literally. In other words, context-sensitive literalism. I know this is hair-splitting, but leaving the word "literalist" unqualified could imply that creationists believe that the earth has four corners, or that there are only four wind directions, or that the earth is stationary... you get the picture :) -- WolfieInu 18:27, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * There are no ways for us to verify what verses creationists think "touch on science" and what verses creationists think "should not be taken literally". There are too many verses and too many creationists. We have to make a general statement here and the general statement that can be most easily verified is the one that creationists believe that the bible is scientifically accurate. Some may even argue that Daniel and Revelation are scientifically accurate. Some may even argue that the Earth is the center of the solar system. Just because you have figured out some elaborate way to distinguish between the science in the bible and the place where context-sensitivity applies does not make your opinions verifiable. --Fradulent Ideas 19:23, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Am giving this consideration, as in my opinion the broad definition comes first, and includes the multiple more-or-less literal/allegorical interpretations of the Biblical account that have been around since the first century, then in the 1920s the term begins to be primarily associated with Fundamentalists who accept old earth creation, and even animal evolution, but reject the moral implications of human evolution and successfully demand that no evolution be taught in US schools. Around this time purely literal Flood geology originates, but is confined to 7th day adventists, then that's revived in 1961 and around 1965 "scientific creationism" becomes the widely recognised idea of what it means, hence the American Heritage Dictionary's definition. The encarta article Creationism, Contributed By: Ronald L. Numbers and William Coleman gives a very useful overview. ... dave souza, talk 16:37, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I've rethought the second paragraph to cover these points, and have inserted it while commenting out the original second para. The first paragraph needs to be revised, preferably on the basis of these definitions discussed above, not least as "Biblical creationism is the belief in literal interpretations of the book of Genesis." links via a redirect to Creation according to Genesis which discusses both literal and allegorical viewpoints. .. dave souza, talk 18:41, 1 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Nota bene: a good dictionary lists definitions in chronological order, from oldest to newest, but it does not concern itself with popularity. &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  20:44, 1 July 2007 (UTC)


 * But we're not writing a dictionary, we're writing an encyclopedia. What does a good encyclopedia do? --Fradulent Ideas 13:26, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Since my comment has been displaced by inter-posting it's a bit out of place. The comment refered to "Does a dictionary really determine how something is "most often" used?"  The answer is clearly, no.
 * A good encyclopedia should provide a good definition of a term as needed. Personally, I think the current def is OK.  On the other hand, Homes has other ideas, I'm hoping he'll offer something that we can consider that builds on the current def if needed.  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  21:40, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay, if a dictionary doesn't provide such a determination, then Adam's suggestion won't work for a citation. Are there any other thoughts on how to determine what is the "most often" used? --Fradulent Ideas 00:35, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Can't we just scratch the "most often" qualifier entirely? Not to be defeatist, but how could one know how the term is "most often" used without doing original research? Or perhaps we could just leave it referenceless. I don't think it's that critical. -- WolfieInu 18:27, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I think that the sentence doesn't add anything to the article and should be removed. --Fradulent Ideas 19:23, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * What about "has been used" instead of "most often been used"? --Fradulent Ideas 19:30, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Nah. "Generally" might fit.  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  21:55, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

An undiscussed undoing
An editor undid my edits: with the summary: "undid earlier change to more neutral and coherent version." I think there is a number of problems with the current version:


 * 1) The current version says that "in the secular sense" creationism is a "political doctrine". This statement is not cited and worse, I do not think it is true. There is no "creationism" political action committee, there is no creationist "litmus test". Creationism is primarily a religious, not political, belief. It is only because religion has become politicized that creationism has political implications. The version I wrote explains this better (and makes the context clear since the United States is basically the only place where creationism is a political issue: everywhere else it is a cultural/religious phenomenon)
 * 2) The current version does not link to Creation and evolution in public education which is obviously the place where creationism is most politicized.
 * 3) The current version has a sentence that reads: "The meaning of the term "creationism" depends upon the context wherein it is used, as it refers to a particular origin belief within a particular political culture." This sentence is not strictly related to potlicial context even as it makes a vague gesture towards such. The first clause is completely superfluous: the meaning of all words is dependent on the context "wherein it is used". The second clause is equally meaningless simply saying that the context is particular. This isn't good writing at all.
 * 4) The current version wastes an entire paragraph saying "creationism is hard to define". That is not really about the political context at all. The second paragraph should be the lead which is why, in my writing, I switched their order.

In sum, I think that my version is actually more coherent than the current version.

As for neutrality, I do not see any evidence that my version is somehow lacking over the current version. I encourage the editor who made this undo to explain precisely what they meant in this section of the talk page.

--Fradulent Ideas 13:39, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * To be fair, my objection was more to do with your changes lack of coherence, than its neutrality. To address your points one at a time...
 * It is only because religion has become politicized that creationism has political implications No, it's because creationists have used largely political means to push their agenda that it has political implications. In fact the source you provided supports this.
 * ..does not link to Creation and evolution in public education.. Quite right, I hadn't meant to undo that.
 * .."The meaning of the term "creationism" depends upon the context wherein it is used.. Good writing or not, it's true. "Creationism" means something quite different to a hindu nationalist, than it would to a US christian fundamentalist. This is dependant on their political and cultural context. And the old order was better, it defined the common feature of disparate forms of creationism, then gave the best known example.
 * The current version wastes an entire paragraph saying "creationism is hard to define" Really? Does it? Seems to me it says that creationism in a political sense, is a movement to promote ones religious dogma of origins above other explanations, particularly scientific ones, and acknowledges that since those dogmas differ from person to person, group to group, it can be rather difficult to pin down.


 * Anyway, I would suggest in future, that you propose changes here first, and let other editors discuss them, since this is contentious issue. ornis 14:27, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks ornis, you do a lot to keep WP NPOV. -- WolfieInu 14:36, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Comments such as this are really unhelpful as they do little more than say "I agree" without offering substantive criticism. Please read talk page guidelines and keep your comments on point. --Fradulent Ideas 15:37, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, are you a member of the talk page police, our own little wiki thought- and speach-crimes einsatzgruppen? Knock off the high-dudgeon (or is that trunceon?) crap, if you want to be taken seriously.   &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  22:08, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * This is also not appropriate for a talk page. See WP:TALK. If you have a problem with me, comment on my user talk. And also, remember WP:NPA and WP:CIVILITY. --Fradulent Ideas 00:40, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * ...so now I'm not allowed to agree with someone about something? Confusing. -- WolfieInu 18:30, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Herr FI hätte gesprochen. Obviously he likes things "just-so"...not that I care.  You are free to agree whenever you wish.   &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  22:13, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * That was sarcasm. Herr FI hat neulich WP policy gelesen, und denkt jetzt, dass die Welt ihm etwas verschuldet (zb. dass WP jetzt ihm gehören soll) ;) -- WolfieInu 23:32, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Ja, Sie hat recht. Sollten wir ihm helfen? Er muß wenig sich entspannen, ja? &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  19:16, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that ornis has really understood my critique and in fact has made points in favor of my version:


 * 1) creationists have used largely political means to push their agenda that it has political implications. In fact the source you provided supports this. While it is correct that creationists have used political means to push their agenda, this does not respond to my point that creationism is not a political doctrine. That creationism gets promoted politically does not make it a political doctrine. The current wording is false!
 * 2) I hadn't meant to undo that. Please be more careful with your edits in the future.
 * 3) Good writing or not, it's true. "Creationism" means something quite different to a hindu nationalist, than it would to a US christian fundamentalist. This is irrelevant to the point was making. The fact is that what creationism "means" is not a political issue. This point (made well) does not belong in this section.
 * 4) Seems to me it says that creationism in a political sense, is a movement to promote ones religious dogma of origins above other explanations, particularly scientific ones, and acknowledges that since those dogmas differ from person to person, group to group, it can be rather difficult to pin down. An interesting interpretation, but as I demonstrated with my first point that's problematic in two ways: 1. creationism isn't a political movement and 2. the fact that the dogmas differ from person-to-person is a feature of dogma and political thought. It's like saying "people think differently from person to person". That's not very encyclopedic.

In short, I think that the reasons given for the undo and the subsequent defense made is very poor. I think that we need to writing-workshop this section because right now it says almost nothing encyclopedic.

--Fradulent Ideas 15:36, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * When did this doggerel become a verb, "writing-workshop"?
 * BTW, creationism has become a de facto political doctrine: the appropriation of creationism for political ends is well-known, well-funded, quite the vote-getter in the US, and a driver of various decisions taken in the several states and in the Federal government. I'm not too clear on what planet you live, but these are simple facts here on Earth. Maybe you should read-workshop a little.   &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  22:19, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Your opinion is noted, but unless we have a reference that states that creationism is a de facto political doctrine, we cannot simply state it. I think that this is a novel interpretation and bordering on violation of WP:NOR. Also, your response to me violates the spirit of WP:NPA and WP:CIVILITY. It wasn't necessary for you to say "I'm not too clear on what planet you live." Please apologize. --Fradulent Ideas 00:30, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Your opinion has been noted. &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  22:14, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, to clarify. Fradulent Ideas, I agree that creationism is not a political doctrine. However, the tone your edits used was not very neutral. If I have to choose between a debatable fact and an NPOV tone, I'd go for the debatable fact. Then I'd see about getting the factual error(?) resolved. If a section is in a POV tone, it's too easy for another edit to accidentally remove facts while removing a POV. And then you may have to argue a revert to get your facts back, while struggling against people who don't like your POV. Confusion results, and you may as well forget about getting your facts back on the page.
 * PS. Just some friendly advice. I know some comments other people make can sting, but sometimes it's best to ignore them rather than call in the "WP policy" artillery straight away. If personal attacks continue, then invoking WP policy is called for. However, by initially responding in a friendly tone you can often successfully defuse the situation. -- WolfieInu 18:47, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Which place was the tone of my edit not neutral? --Fradulent Ideas 19:25, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Here:
 * "In a political context, creationists advocate for the validity and superiority of their particular religiously-based origin belief over those of other belief systems, including those in particular espoused through secular or scientific rationale. They are opposed by many individuals and organizations who consistently point out that the alternatives to scientific reasoning offered by creationists are opposed by the consensus of the scientific community." There is no doubt which side you're on, is there? -- WolfieInu 22:40, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * And what side would that be? --Fradulent Ideas 01:12, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * WolfieInu speaks wisely. Reaching for the "WP policy" artillery right off the bat is simply going to cast you as someone difficult to work with, as that tactic is one generally used by trolls.  You also need to learn to be less dismissive -- your's is not the only opinion here, and you do not own the talk page.   &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  22:19, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

 Well, there are many factions of anti-creationism, but I'm sure you slot in there somewhere... my point being that your edit is (for the most part) factually correct, but POV. Just slightly, but detectably so. It's good work, and nobody can avoid being influenced by their POV. I just picked it up because my POV is diametrically opposed to yours ;) -- WolfieInu 08:14, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Explain. Where is the evidence for POV? --Fradulent Ideas 16:48, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, Wolfie, please explain. If a POV was apparent to you then surely we just need to reword it a bit.  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  19:20, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

There has been little to no response to my proposals on this section. I'm going to reinstate the edits trying to take into consideration the criticisms listed here. --Fradulent Ideas 14:30, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * No response? I notice at least a couple of other editors have given substantial attention to your suggestions. How did you decide this constitutes no response? Do you want to have 10 or 20 other editors writing 10s of kilobytes to address your objections? What on earth? Be careful here. You are creating a certain image and reputation.--Filll 17:15, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Sentence about rulings

 * Creation science was ruled unacceptable for teaching in public school science classes in the ruling for the court case Edwards versus Aguillard, after which creationists invented the concept of intelligent design that was recently ruled unacceptable for teaching in public school science classes in the Dover Panda Trial ruling. That's some pretty substandard english right there. Again, I suggest you discuss these edits you want to make first. ornis 16:13, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Other than being a bit long, what is substandard about it? --Fradulent Ideas 16:23, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I split the sentences up into two shorter sentences if that helps. I also think it is disingenuous and mean for you to revert without discussing which you have done twice by my count. You seem to think that it's okay for you to revert without discussion while criticizing me for making edits without discussion. That seems very hypocritical. Isn't there a Wikipedia policy against hypocrisy and being mean? --Fradulent Ideas 16:31, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh please, I reverted you for making contentious and poorly written edits without discussing them. That sentence above for instance, can you really not see how ugly it is? and what exactly does it add over the original version: After legal judgements that teaching this in public schools contravened constitutional separation of Church and State, it was stripped of biblical references and called creation science, then when this was ruled unacceptable, presented as intelligent design.? If anything your version obfuscates the relationship of creationism, creation science and intelligent design. ornis 17:46, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * David Souza has recently cleaned up the new addition. Though longer, it does seem to have advantages over the earlier version, at least on a cursory examination.  Silly rabbit 17:49, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Here it is for discussion: "After legal judgements that teaching this in public schools contravened constitutional separation of Church and State, it was stripped of biblical references and called creation science. When the court case Edwards versus Aguillard ruled that creation science similarly contravened the constitution, all references to "creation" in a draft school textbook were changed to refer to intelligent design, which was subsequently claimed to be a new scientific theory. The Kitzmiller v. Dover ruling concluded that intelligent design is not science, and contravenes the constitutional restriction on teaching religion in public school science classes."

If an earlier version is preferred or improvements can be made, that will be welcome. .. dave souza, talk 17:58, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, that is better. ornis 17:58, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for listening, Dave. I made a few new tweaks to add McLean v. Arkansas. I'm curious, though, maybe this historical explanation is best left for the political controversy section? It may be too specific according to WP:LEAD. --Fradulent Ideas 18:01, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * It should really be Daniel v. Waters that stopped creationism being taught, McLean v. Arkansas ruled creation science unconstitutional in the relevant district but was ignored nationwide. The court cases are central to the renaming of creationism, it's complex but this very simplified account is focussed on the name changes. I was trying to minimise the detail in the lead to focus on the naming, but as is evident a bit more information makes the statement a much clearer summary of the article. ... dave souza, talk 19:01, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the correction, Dave. I do think that the court cases are central, but is it possible to summarize this excellent prose and then put it in lower section? --Fradulent Ideas 00:32, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Hard to see how. What do you have in mind? -- WolfieInu 08:51, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * A summary statement that creationism has been ruled inappropriate for teaching in public schools. --Fradulent Ideas 16:49, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Mainstream churches and timeframes
While it is true that most mainstream churches allow for the timeframes given by science, most do not go as far as to make it a dogmatic acceptance. Many mainstream churches are somewhat accomodating of those people who would believe in a literal interpretation when it gets right down to it. For example, while the Catholic Church has made strong statements in support of science, they also have not said it is an error to support Ussher's chronology and therefore there are plenty of Catholic creationists in the right-wing of the church fighting against the timeframes as other creationists do. Mainstream churches tend not to attack creationism directly: they instead tend to attack the ideas that only literal interpretations can be correct.

The claim was insinuated in the article that creationists timeframes are directly opposed to the theology of mainstream churches. I think that science is accepted by mainstream churches in a more nuanced apologetic fashion than that.

--Fradulent Ideas 13:54, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * While churches might be accommodating to a wide range of beliefs, many churches have issued statements condemning creationism and biblical literalism. There are many examples. See level of support for evolution of clergy letter project.--Filll 14:08, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Individual clergy members that make statements do not equate to the statements of the entire church organization. We could include comments that there are mainstream clergy-members which dispute creationism, but stating that the mainstream churches themselves do is slightly misleading. --Fradulent Ideas 16:10, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Is this a reading comprehension problem? Take a look at this for example.--Filll 17:12, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I think this illustrates perfectly the mainstream denomination's "agnosticism" towards evolution vs. creationism. Let's look carefully at the statements of the churches:


 * Neither evolution over an immensity of time nor the work done in a six-day week are articles of the creeds. EPISCOPAL BISHOP OF ATLANTA, PASTORAL LETTER.
 * Resolved, the House of Bishops concurring, That this 67th General Convention affirm its belief in the glorious ability of God to create in any manner.... THE GENERAL CONVENTION OF THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH.
 * To preserve their own integrity both science and religion need to remain in a healthful tension of respect toward one another and to engage in a searching debate which no more permits theologians to pose as scientists than it permits scientists to pose as theologians. THE LUTHERAN WORLD FEDERATION
 * 3. That the General Assembly urge congregations to encourage and assist teachers and administrators in becoming sensitive to the religious perspectives of all persons in the schools, without sacrificing their professional commitments and standards regarding the teaching of science and teaching about religion. UNITED PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH IN THE U.S.A. (1983)


 * These all indicate that the churches make delicate accomodations of the creationist impulses of those in their particular communion. To be sure, I'm certain that these mainstream churches have not excommunicated heretics for preaching creationism or creation science, despite their stated disdain and lack of approbation for the subject.


 * 17:36, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I am certain no church would throw someone out for being a creationist. However, some might throw someone out for supporting evolution or even science. But so what? What is your point?--Filll 17:52, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * My point is that to say that the mainstream churches dispute creationism (even in its most fundamentalist form) needs to be carefully couched: most mainstream churches tolerate a certain level of creationism and their disapproval is related to how much they disapprove of fundamentalism. --Fradulent Ideas 19:06, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok I agree. Fundamentalism usually ends up being intolerant or worse. We need to define creationism in the way that most dictionaries and encyclopediae do, not in the way that Homestarmy or some others might want to define it. That way we can discuss it and write an article. If we do not have creationism defined narrowly, an article cannot be written.--Filll 23:49, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Filll, the way that clergy letter project seems to be spinning it, i'm having a hard time seeing anything there that explicitly rejects any possibility of God creating the universe, just plenty of vauge doublespeak about "religious truth" and "scientific truth", and it only seems to explicitly accept evolution, which of course, has little in and of itself to do with the creation of the universe. Homestarmy 17:22, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Homestarmy, you are confused. When creationists start ranting and raving, they claim that if you do not believe what they believe, you are not Christian and/or you are an atheist and/or you do not believe God created the universe, etc. This is just pure nonsense and propaganda out of creationists. You are just listening to pure lies and ludicrous claims from religious leaders and a few atheists with an agenda, and inferring all kinds of false ideas. Somehow I think someone has to make a very complete and elaborate work on definitions of creationism. I do not think this is even appropriate for WP because it would be hundreds of pages long to address all the confusion that has been generated, and how often the definitions have fractured and changed over the centuries, and how different the definition is among the 30,0000+ types of Christian and the 75+ types of Muslim etc.--Filll 17:52, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Err? All I said was that letter doesn't explicitly reject the idea that God created the universe. By not providing any background on what "religious truth" even means, it doesn't seem to me that the letter is attempting to argue that religious truth is basically just fairy tales or something. Your comment mentioning the letter, on the other hand, seemed to indicate that you thought it was a condemnation of Creationism, and I simply don't see that. Homestarmy 18:07, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Exactly as I said before. According to that definition of creationism, *I* am a creationist and so is Orangemarlin and about 90% of the population of the USA and 50% of all scientists in the US. However, that is not a useful definition and not the one that is most commonly used. By that definition, probably half or more of the people working at the National Center for Science Education are creationists. So it is a nonsense definition.--Filll 18:59, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

 Filll, please stop your ranting and raving. I know creationism upsets you. Well, evolutionism upsets me. Yet I do not rant and rave, even though evolutionism gets forced down my throat (in an intolerant manner, I might add) perpetually, both in academic and everyday situations (even in advertising, for goodness' sake!). Creationists (e.g. Hovind) can rant and rave, and evolutionists (e.g. Dawkins) can rant and rave. That doesn't address the truth or falsehood of their positions. We can't disprove an idea by (rightly!) highlighting the attitudes of its extremist proponents. PS. 30,000 different types of (by implication, mutually incompatible) Christian? Reference? -- WolfieInu 19:10, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * How am I ranting and raving? Creationism does not upset me, but I do object to teaching nonscience as science in science classes. Creationism is religion and I have no problem with teaching it in religion class or philosophy class or history class or public affairs class or debate class in public schools. In private schools you can teach anything you want in any class you want. Public schools paid for with public money are a different story. By the way, you might note that evolutionism is not a term that is viewed favorably and does not really mean very much in science. How do you define evolutionism anyway? What is it? And how has it been forced down your throat? And how is it in an intolerant manner? And if it is done in advertising, then you are free not to buy that product to express your wishes. The support for evolution is determined by the evidence, which is why all the courts back it as a science, not creationism. And the reason why 99.9% of the biologists subscribe to evolution, not creationism. And of course there is a huge amount of overlap between Christian sects. One person who has tried to count them is David A. Barrett. Take a look at  for instance.--Filll 23:49, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Very good :). A few reasons why you came across as ranting: you describe creationists as "ranting and raving", uncharitable, mongers of "pure nonsense and propaganda", advocates of "pure lies and ludicrous claims", and highly factioned (despite the fact that most/all major creationist organisations are non-denominational).
 * My claim that evolution has been forced down my throat is in jest, mainly because evolutionary theory (okay, yes, not "evolutionism") is propagandized everywhere, even in totally irrelevant contexts. The point I was making is that evolutionists repeatedly complain how creationists "intolerantly" try to "force their beliefs on others", yet have no problem doing the same thing themselves.
 * As for 99.9% of scientists believing in evolution... for most of history, 99.9% of scientists agreed that the universe was geocentric, but that didn't make it true. Just because a particular scientific theory (such as evolutionary theory) is more recent than its competitors doesn't mean it is an improvement - remember Tycho? -- WolfieInu 08:31, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Then what is the one most commonly used, and why is it more useful than stating what the most notable definitions are instead of just one definition? Homestarmy 19:05, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Science allows for god in the gaps creationism, which is the variety that Filll, Orangemarlin, 90% of the population, and 50% of all scientists in the US including Ken Miller are. However, I don't think that most people would consider creationism to allow for god in the gaps. --Fradulent Ideas 19:09, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Science tells us HOW things might have been done, not WHO did them. This is much easier than people are making it.--Filll 19:59, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, so science has gaps. Filling them with a god is, by definition, using a god in the gaps. I agree that this is the major way that people justify their continued belief in religious dogma, but most creationists take issue with this (for example, Answers in Genesis, ICR, Phil Johnson, etc.) --Fradulent Ideas 20:09, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * This is exactly the reason that creationists are at war with theistic evolution and each other and with atheists and other groups. They insist on a certain interpretation and worldview and set of beliefs.--Filll 20:15, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I dunno Filll, the mere idea that everything was created by a deity of some sort sure sounds like there's plenty of room to fit in many different interpretations, perhaps even multiple religions and philosophies. I question whether or not there's only one kind of Creationism as you seem to suggest, in fact, it looks to me like there are many different ways that people choose to believe that God created everything. Of course, they aren't all accurate needless to say.... Homestarmy 20:32, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Of course there are. That is what I have always maintained. However, the creationists that this article is about, the creationists in Number's books, the creationists that oppose science and evolution, the creationists that have lost court case after court case on this issue, are different than what you are suggesting. Most people have a very special thing in mind when they talk about creationist, and it is not as you suggest, but far more specific. And if we did not adopt a specific meaning in these articles, we could not write a meaningful article about this movement at all.--Filll 21:03, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree 100%, Filll. I think that this is the direction the article needs to take. --Fradulent Ideas 22:00, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * AFAIK, an article named simply "creationism" needs to acknowledge the broader usage of the term. If the intention is to talk only about the more strict sense (as described by Filll), than we may create a new page about "strict creationism" or a similar unambiguous term. --Leinad ∴ [[Image:BRAlogo1.png|18px]] -diz aí, chapa. 23:37, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Wait, hang on. Would this "re-direction" of the article entail deleting any material? For slightly different reasons, I raised (or concurred with) a similar view a while back: the article covers too much divergent material. Most people have American "fundamentalist" Creationism in mind when they say "creationism", so all this other material could confuse/frustrate them. Why not a disambig page? Poor martytred me, all that effort and nobody even took the trouble to comment. (sniff) -- WolfieInu 23:44, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * By the way, and I've said this a million times, evolutionist is not a word to describe scientists. It's pejorative and completely incorrect.  I do not believe in evolution.  I do have an evolutionary dogma.  Evolution requires no faith on my part.  It is simply a scientific fact, no different than gravity, light, or hemoglobin carrying oxygen from the lungs to the muscles.  As all of those concepts, it is backed up by literally millions of articles published by very smart people in peer-reviewed magazines.  So when you use the word evolutionist it has no meaning to me.  Actually I read blah blah instead.  You are merely trying to equate your unscientific belief in a higher being to my science.  I refuse to participate.  This article is about Creationism which is a strictly religious belief.  One more thing about the geocentric theory.  That was religion interfering with science.  Once scientists (let's say Galileo) stated otherwise, the church went ballistic.  In the history of human beings (which started about 200,000 years ago) in lieu of knowledge, they created myth, legend and lies.  We now have the ability to see everything from distant stars to microscopic viruses.  I don't need myth, legend and lies to allow me to understand the natural world.  To me, your beliefs would send us back to the dark ages, where people lived 30 years and died of horrifying diseases (because all medicine needs evolution), where the churches kept knowledge from people, and where lies were utilized to control them.  It was your church that created geocentricism, not science.  Orangemarlin 08:42, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * All right! All right already! Evolutionary dogma, paradigm, tenets, whatever you're happy calling it.
 * Now this: the only reason you say that "religion" was invented on the spot by people too stupid to rely on the scientific method, is because of your view of history... based on evolutionary theory? Can you spot the circularity here?
 * And something else: If Christianity is anti-science, how do you explain that the only societies in which true science (incl. the scientific method) arose were Christian? Excepting Japan, the areas with the most readily available high technology (which implies advanced theoretical science) correspond exactly to nations that were historically Christian.
 * And another thing: I didn't even mention the word "evolutionist" in my edit! Why the chip on your shoulder all of a sudden?
 * BTW: Galileo is a bad example. He was arguing against the scientific establishment of the day, not the Church primarily. The Bible has no position on geocentrism. It says that the Earth is "central to creation" since it is most important, not because everything rotates around it. For example, if you say that "the motherboard is central to a computer," that doesn't mean that you believe a computer is constantly orbiting about its motherboard. The Church of the time had deliberately reinterpreted certain poetic texts to bring them "in line" with contemporary science (kind of like long-age creationists today, only in reverse). When Galileo challenged current science, the scientists of the day called the Pope's attention to him and tried to have him refuted on religious grounds, since they could make no dent in his science. Quite ironic, actually. -- WolfieInu 09:14, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Galileo case is very complex: it was not purely an instance of conflict between science and religion, since personal and political factors also weighed heavily in it. More importantly, though, Galileo is not really representative of the overall relationship between science and Christianity - contemporary historians of science make it clear that historical instances of conflict are the exceptions rather than the rule in this context. --Leinad ∴ [[Image:BRAlogo1.png|18px]] -diz aí. 14:38, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, much of Orangemarlin's apparent view regarding the medieval period is quite common among the public, but quite inaccurate according to contemporary historians. Misconceptions such as: "the rise of Christianity have killed of ancient science", and "the medieval Christian church suppressed the growth of science", "the medieval Christians though that the world was flat", "the Church prohibited autopsies and dissections during the Middle Ages", are all reported by Ronald Numbers as examples of widely popular myths that still pass as historical truth, even though they are not supported by historical research. --Leinad ∴ [[Image:BRAlogo1.png|18px]] -diz aí. 15:34, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

 Quite right, Leinad, and one particularly relevant case is Charles Darwin who is commonly misrepresented as some kind of dogmatic atheist plotting from the outset to undermine Christianity, when as Moore points out he was qualified as a clergyman and was following the example of his clergyman friends in becoming a naturalist then working within the ideas of natural theology – thus The Origin of Species is natural theology, though by then his faith had waned to deism, later becoming a troubled agnosticism. Also, while it was opposed by Church of England conservative evangelicals, it was welcomed by liberals in that church and by some other denominations... dave souza, talk 16:06, 4 July 2007 (UTC) tweak - Moore notes Darwin still believed in God at time of writing the Origin .. dave souza, talk 16:11, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

BTW
Could we remove or archive the "References" section? It's no logner relevant. -- WolfieInu 15:08, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The reference entries are auto-generated by some references in the preceding text. They will automatically vanish once that text is archived. I would remove the section only when it is empty, otherwise we have dangling references. --Stephan Schulz 15:32, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Roger, roger. -- WolfieInu 18:15, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Creationism Definition Proposal
How about a separate article, linked to this one, on the different definitions of the word "creationism" and its history? I found about 20 different definitions from different encyclopediae and dictionaries that we can use to start with.--Filll 02:13, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * It is semi interesting and has changed over the years. Different religions define it in different ways. Some dictionaries do not include OEC as creationism and only focus on YEC. Some define creation science to be the same as creationism, and some define scientific creationism to be just an earlier version of creation science. The Catholic definition is very elaborate. Some are broad and some are narrow. --Filll 02:35, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Put "Creationism" into the search at www.mahalo.com. I was shocked at the heading this was redirected to, but after a bit of thought... I decided yes this is the super-category of Creationism, Creation science, Theistic evolution etc. What do you think? rossnixon 02:02, 5 July 2007 (UTC
 * It's the "big tent". A term so vague as to incorporate Raelians and all, given a new more specific meaning by the ID movement. There's a long discussion about the point in the talk:Intelligent design archives somewhere. Nice search – fun to see the "Intelligent Design Supporters" list topped by Answers in Genesis, as well as including "Blog: Sneak Peak at the Creation Museum" and "YouTube Video: How God Designed the Banana For Human Consumption". Oddly, "Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster " comes under Evolution Proponents and not under Intelligent Design Satire. ... dave souza, talk 06:19, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Also from the list, Spiked Male Genitals Spur Beetle Evolution. Creationism?? .. dave souza, talk 10:30, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

there is wiki about evolution writen from the POV of science, are there wikis on creation writen from the POV of each religion?
this would allow each party their own platform and theoretically remove the need for arguments. i admit that while science is one cohesive view, the religious views have probably split into 100s of different views. but hey, wiki's got 2million articles and growing. let them bikker among themselves.Wikiskimmer 05:42, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Platforms? There are no arguments.  Creationism is an essentially religious conversation, one with many forms--only when it tries to enter science does it get problematic.  Evolution is science.  Only when nonscientific religious dogma is used is there an argument there.  NPOV requires a balanced approach to any article. Orangemarlin 07:32, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * correct. then where is the religious wiki on creation?  the creationism wiki is not written by creationists it seems, it looks to have been written by USWikiskimmer 08:36, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

You might try origin belief and creation within belief systems. --FOo 08:20, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * no no no, these are all written from an anthropological/scientific point of view. we don't want religious fundamentalists to come screw with our evolution wiki, yet we've WE have written a creationism wiki FOR THEM.  where are the wikis where creationists have written their own account.  Evolution IS POV, science POV.  where are the wikis from RELIGIOUS, FUNDAMENTALIST POV?Wikiskimmer 08:36, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Good ideas, but this project shouldn't be considered a series of independent rants...except for the talk sections, of course. Orangemarlin 08:30, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * rants? there seems to always be trouble of fundamentalists screwing with the evo page but i couldn't find THEIR OWN page.  seems out of balance.Wikiskimmer 08:36, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Once we start a debate on WP, we can forget trying to build an encyclopedia. NPOV should be enough to keep anti-creationist comments out. The article already references creationist sites, so anyone who is interested enough can go and read up on creationism from a creationist POV.
 * In other words - nobody is stopping creationists from contributing. If the creationism article ends up with a POV, then it just means the evolutionist contributors are blind to their own POV. I don't think they are, they're doing a good job IMO. -- WolfieInu 08:41, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * If you are interested in argumentation where everyone gets to present their side, you may want to take a look at Wikiinfo. JoshuaZ 13:30, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

where are the wikis from RELIGIOUS, FUNDAMENTALIST POV?

You might want to try Conservapedia - that's a wiki encyclopaedia written from a fundamentalist POV. Guettarda 13:58, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Or you could try here . &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  18:30, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Well if you want more wikis on this general topic:
 * CreationWiki
 * Research ID Wiki
 * Evolution Wiki
 * Iron Chariots
 * Conservapedia--Filll 02:28, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Covering range of meanings in the lead
The opening paragraph was a guddle anyway, and in my opinion it should cover all the meanings of creationism while making it clear that in terms of modern arguments it basically means anti-evolution. So, I've boldly changed it to the following: "Creationism is the belief that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe were created in their entirety by a deity or deities (typically God), whose existence is presupposed.[1] The term can be used to refer to specific doctrines within this broad range of beliefs, for example in theology Creationism refers to the doctrine that God directly creates a soul for each body, as against traducianism or pre-existence of the soul. In relation to the creation-evolution controversy the term creationism (or strict creationism) is commonly used to refer to rejection of evolution. The wide spectrum of such beliefs includes young Earth creationism holding a very literal interpretation of Genesis, while old Earth creationism accepts geological findings but rejects evolution. The term theistic evolution has been coined to refer to beliefs in creation which are compatible with scientific findings on evolution and the age of the Earth."

There are no additional citations as yet: if required, the dictionary references discussed above could be cited, and the "spectrum" section would cite The Creation/Evolution Continuum by Eugenie Scott. The article already covers all these various meanings save only Creationism (soul) which is covered in its own article. .. dave souza, talk 08:54, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Good. Boldness is what we need :) -- WolfieInu 09:34, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * How heavily cited do you want this to be? --Filll 12:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * In my opinion, adding to the existing cite 1, Theological Outlines by Francis J. Hall: Ch. XIV. Q. 84. Traducianism and Creationism covers that point well, and The Creation/Evolution Continuum as above covers the rest. By the way, her opening comment "Many -- if not most -- Americans think of the creation and evolution controversy as a dichotomy with "creationists" on one side, and "evolutionists" on the other. This assumption all too often leads to the unfortunate conclusion that because creationists are believers in God, that evolutionists must be atheists. The true situation is much more complicated." pretty much covers the question about which usage is most common. .. dave souza, talk 13:50, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * WP:BOLD inspired me to remove this statement:


 * The term can be used to refer to specific doctrines within this broad range of beliefs, for example in theology Creationism refers to the doctrine that God directly creates a soul for each body, as against traducianism or pre-existence of the soul.


 * I contend that this is about a subject that is different from the article and so doesn't belong in the WP:LEAD. We already WP:DISAMBIG before the lead begins.


 * --Fradulent Ideas 19:45, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes! Good move. One less wild-card factor to worry about. -- WolfieInu 10:53, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Some changes
I did a few things:


 * I enacted the change regarding "most often" to "general". This was discussed above.
 * I summarized the history of creationist legal battles for the lead and moved the detailed discussion to the appropriate section.
 * I created a new subsection regarding early theology and creationist connections.

Please discuss whatever problems you have with these edits in this section.

Fradulent Ideas 18:21, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The new sections and moving the legal outline to the intro to the history seemed to me to work pretty well, minor glitch being that the early theology should be a subsection of history and not a new section. The intro seemed rather confused about the 1920s, so I've briefly clarified that. .. dave souza, talk 21:22, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your help. I changed the wording slightly as I felt the discussion was too halting. There is still some issue as to how to describe the turnaround that happened from the 1920s to the 1960s, but we are at a much better place now, I think. --Fradulent Ideas 16:37, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

There is an archived discussion of this template at Templates_for_deletion/Log/Not_deleted/May_2005. There was no consensus for deletion. Joe D (t) 10:09, 17 May 2005 (UTC)


 * So there should be no tag at all indicating it is proposed for deletion? - T&#949;x  &#964;  ur&#949;  16:45, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
 * So there should be a tag for deletion on a template that was once but is no longer on TFD? - Hm. SV|t 20:11, 18 May 2005 (UTC) PS - resored vertical version redirected by Joshuaschroeder. SV
 * Ok. I'm only asking the question because the tag still existed but Joe D's comment said the vote was over. Glad to see it's resolved. -  T&#949;x  &#964;  ur&#949;  20:14, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

I removed the edit button at the bottom to tighten the template.--ghost 30 June 2005 14:47 (UTC)

redundancy
heya -- good edits generally ... but the contents of the "pseudoscience" subsection are redundant -- they're on the template twice. i'm just deleting the redundancy ... Ungtss 20:10, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

also ... regarding flat earth ... on what basis are we describing it as a form of creationism? it seems to me it's a "related concept." to believe the earth is flat is not a form of creationism like the others -- the others relate specifically to how and when the earth was created, while flat-earthism speaks only to the shape of the earth. so if "flat earthism" is a form of creationism, then "roundearthism" is too ... and THAT'S certainly not a form of creationism. beyond that, the article title itself is "flat earth society," not "flat earth creationism," and the word "creationism" does not appear in the text. what do you think? Ungtss 20:21, 24 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree...and am deleting it.


 * Since it is a related concept, we've included it under "related concepts".

Regarding the image of Adam and Eve, I believe they should not have naval, as they were "created" and not born from womb. The image should be cleaned.

Length
You don't need to include every word that can be associated with creationism, never mind the suptopics for these. The nav bar is not supposed to be longer than the articles. Bensaccount 8 July 2005 00:49 (UTC)


 * Bensaccount explained his edits Ungtss; they weren't "destructive", its called editing... and in this case culling. - RoyBoy 800 8 July 2005 18:25 (UTC)


 * that's not an explanation, it's a bald and erroneous assertion by a repeatedly proven vandal that no one has the courage to rfc.  the template allows the reader to quickly, easily and conveniently access creationism articles.  it is not longer than the article, as bensaccount claimed.  on the contrary, it is shorter than every single article there is.  deleting the bulk of the links serves absolutely no purpose except allowing bensaccount to giggle to himself.  it plainly and simply a destructive edit.  culling?  no.  poaching.  Ungtss 8 July 2005 21:07 (UTC)


 * Yes, culling; because the template is long Ungtss. One of the longest I've seen; and there is no expectation or need for it be comprehensive on the subject. - RoyBoy 800 9 July 2005 04:49 (UTC)

My explanation, which Ungtss must have missed, is that subtopics of distantly related associations don't belong in a nav bar. Ungtss has posted the above link about a dozen times so far, while omitting the following:. This is an attempt to mislead, no doubt motivated by spite. Ungtss, as usual, offers nothing of value. Bensaccount 8 July 2005 23:26 (UTC)


 * The explanation comes to late, firstly. This rather large edit should have been discussed on the Talk page. Its what Talk pages are for. Secondly, I agree with Uggtss' assesment. The template allows the reader to quickly, easily and conveniently access articles refering to creationism. There is no reason to change it. -- Ec5618 July 9, 2005 01:33 (UTC)


 * Yes there is. - RoyBoy 800 9 July 2005 04:49 (UTC)


 * the stated reasons are "shortness" and "prevent distantly related topics." both of these fall far short of the arguments for "access," "clarity," and "convenience."  the claim that it is longer than all other templates is false.  have a look at Islam.  your ultimate argument is that "there is no need for it to be comprehensive."  What?  you'd prefer mediocrity?  Isn't "comprehensive" better than "half-ass?"  Ungtss 02:44, 13 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I didn't claim its longer than all other templates. And I prefer brevity over comprehensive; I would consider it half-ass if those sub-articles aren't linked from the main articles listed. - RoyBoy 800 04:10, 13 July 2005 (UTC)


 * so which would you like removed, insofar as they aren't linked to the topic? Perhaps we should start with Flat Earth Society and geocentrism, which have absolutely nothing to do with creationism, and leave things like Creation biology and flood geology, which are, for all intents and purposes, core to contemporary creationism, but which bensaccount removed.  what criterion would you like to apply here for determining which links are in and which are out, as opposed to sheer culling?  Ungtss 20:39, 13 July 2005 (UTC)


 * What you've said so far sounds like a good start; Baraminology, Vapor canopy, Created kinds are sub-articles that aren't necessary. While I understand the Vapor canopy is a key creation concept; if its one of the key concepts in Flood geology; then IMO its already been pointed to and the reader won't have trouble finding it. (but upon looking at the articles, the vapor canopy is not a key creation concept, and hence should not be cited in the template) And I'd clarify that although I felt a culling was necessary; Bensaccount did go overboard, but from now on if I need a template assassin I know who to call. - RoyBoy 800 02:01, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

yes, i think vapor canopy and baraminology could go too. here's what i propose we remove:
 * Gap Creationism (part of old earth creationism, already on template)
 * Day-Age Creationism (same as above)
 * Progressive creationism (same as above)
 * Irreducible complexity (part of intelligent design)
 * Specified complexity (same)
 * Intelligent design movement (same)
 * intelligent designer (same)
 * Scientific creationism (should be given its proper name, creation science)
 * Created kinds (part of creation biology)
 * Baraminology (same)
 * Vapor canopy (part of flood geology)
 * Teach the Controversy (part of controversy)
 * The Wedge Strategy (part of controvery)
 * Santorum Amendment (part of controversy)
 * Omphalos hypothesis (part of history)
 * Modern geocentrism (not creationism)
 * Flat Earth society (not creationism)

what do you think? Ungtss 04:07, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

. Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Creationism2"


 * I concur; although I'd like to see Teach the controversy stay given its recent prominence; and I suspect it will be a strategy that will be front and center for some time to come. - RoyBoy 800 04:18, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

People dont need to see every page that is remotely related to creationism on the side of their article. It simply does not help anyone, and it clutters the page. Another problem is the image. Images do not belong on nav bars. Another problem is the headings. It is POV to say that CS is the basis for creationism, since creationism came first. What makes you think that anyone would find this list of word associations to be convenient? Bensaccount 03:50, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
 * you're telling me that you don't think it's any use to have a template linking to creation biology and flood geology. cute.  Ungtss 20:40, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Pseudoscience
I removed it from the template because I'm confident this is not the place for statements; and I'm assuming pseudoscience will remain in the article(s) listed. - RoyBoy 800 01:00, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Sorry for trouble
It appears I've deleted the "Creationism2" template. This was not my purpose but it happened due to my clumsy computer skills. What I tried was to remove the box from "Flat Eath Society" article. A message I sent to the Flat Earth discussion is below (with some typos corrected).
 * Don't worry about it. It was easily fixed. --Ian Pitchford 12:02, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

---

Sorry if I caused unwanted trouble with the "Creationism2" template. My purpose was to remove the box from the Flat Earth article -- not to delete the template itself. Sorry if the latter happened.

Now, because it seems I don't have the computer skills myself, I strongly suggest someone to remove the box if I didn't succeed in the proper way.

The reason for this is quite clear. Although Flat Earthers mostly are creationists, the opposite is not the case. As mentioned in the article itself, the view of flat Earth is somewhat a ridicule. I'm not willing to speculate why the box had been placed on such a notable and important place, but nevertheless it gives the impression that creationism and even intelligent design are among jokes comparable to flat Earth.

I'm well aware that many naturalists and evolutionists personally think that way, but on my opinion no neutral view supports this. Firstly, the number of supporters of creationism anf flad Earth differ with a factor of four powers of ten, or so. Secondly, and more importantly, the supposed flat Earth is something that is contrary to everyday observations that almost anyone can make.

For prehistoric events, most often there are more or less some indirect clues, often to different directions, but the direct observation is beyond human perspective. Although some models combine better with the indirect evidence, no-one has to play fool and think contrary of what is seen today.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Flat_Earth_Society"

Part of a series
This template is used by articles outside of the ones mentioned in the template. I'm note sure what common procedure is, but shouldn't the template contain links to all articles? Or shouldn't there be a project page in which all relevant pages are linked? Should we not put a link to in the template to help people find all creationism related articles? I understand the template needn't be comprehensive, but shouldn't something tie the creationism articles together?

Should we perhaps link to ? -- Ec5618 18:15, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Flying Spaghetti Monsterism
...was removed from the template. Why? &mdash; ciphergoth 18:08, 15 February 2006 (UTC)


 * As a parody of ID it is too narrow to warrant inclusion on a general creationism template.

Teleological argument
While certainly many creationists revel in this idea, it is not part-and-parcel to creationism as a subject. In general, creationism derives from creation (theology) not from any sort of philosophical concern over proofs of the existence of god. Teleological argument may be appropriate for the Intelligent Design template, but creationism as a bigger tent doesn't necessarily ground itself in William Paley or his watchmaker. --ScienceApologist 15:49, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Changes
I've made some appearance changes to match it to Template:Intelligent Design and Template:Evolution3, which it shared some pages with. Notably, I upped the width so it plays nicely with being combined into one box. Adam Cuerden talk 05:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I also rearranged the links a bit so it is more practically ordered. I was wondering if there was a way to integrate umbrella term distinction into the template. Intelligent design includes all forms of creationism excluding theistic evolution; Old-earth creationism includes gap creationism, day-age creationism, and progressive creationism. This distinction should be noted in the template somehow. Pbarnes 16:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Proposal: Intelligent Design Not Creationism
I'm relatively new here, and am not entirely up to speed on all the proper nomenclature in these talk pages, but I'm hoping to bring up a matter which I hope will help improve the quality of the article through a matter of clarification. Before I continue, let me say a couple things about what I'm not advocating. My purpose here is not to argue that ID succeeds as a theory, or that it deserves a hearing in public schools. None of my remarks below are intended to give any defense of ID or evolutionary theory, but to seek to maintain some important distinctions, lest we allow cultural momentum to distort the substance of what Intelligent Design is.

I've read some of the works by leading thinkers on both polar ends of the spectrum on this issue. It's not uncommon to see talented and prominent professionals speak with confidence about their persuasions on metaphysical/spiritual matters while also expounding on details that pertain to their actual field of scientific study. Many of these professionals think it appropriate to publish popular books and articles allowing their limited areas of specialty to support their broader philosophical views (and presumably allow philosophical precommitments to regulate what we do in--or even call--science). While this is standard fare in popular works, I suggest the quality of their professional work would suffer if this was done regularly in professional scientific literature. We might rightly infer that in such cases, the introduction of religious or areligious references are out-of-place, since they do nothing to enhance our understanding of the actual topic one is supposed to be addressing. We might likewise do well to separate the two categories when devoting articles to the one and excluding the other.

For the purpose of this writing, I'm going to assume now that Creationism is indeed an offshoot of theology. Even if there were some data that might incidentally be in corroboration with what Creationists agree with, what is unique to Creationism is three-fold: First, it purports to give an account of where matter itself came from (hence, the term  Creation); secondly, its dependence on a sacred text to provide the parameters which define the enterprise throughout its pursuit from conception to outcome; finally, all forms of creationism identifies a deity of some kind as the creator.

So the perennial question we might ask is what, precisely, warrants associating Intelligent Design with Creationism? Well, as I survey culturally iconic figures that make this association, I notice we have a judge, the ACLU, bloggers, social critics, activist organizations, and even some antithetical scientific thinkers weigh in on the matter.

But to my knowledge, none of the leading thinkers in the Intelligent Design movement identify ID as a form of Creationism, as construed above. This is neither done explicitly, or by implication--whereby the strict aims of what ID is intended to address are substantially indistinguishable with that of Creationism. While Creationism deals directly with the question of ultimate origin, Intelligent Design limits its scope to examining the characteristics of pre-existent matter -- to say nothing of how matter itself came into being in the first place. Intelligent Design examines certain already existing components of nature and asks whether particular phenomena in natural systems display features not adequately explained by the current naturalistic paradigm, but instead bear a level of specified complexity normally attributed to objects we know to have an intelligent cause. And unlike creationism, ID relies on no sacred text to govern how any outcome must look like, or what the origin of the designer must be.

While ID proponents do write regularly in popular literature about the relationships and implications their ideas have on their religious worldviews, I see no substantial difference between them and the professional thinkers who regularly do so on behalf of their irreligious viewpoints. But we do not find it acceptable to link articles to atheism from Wikipedia's Evolutionary Biology pages, and for good reason: they would only serve to obfuscate the actual issues at hand rather than enhancing it. I think it would be entirely appropriate and acceptable to quote leading thinkers from the skeptical side to show that some do, in fact, make that association, but in the absence of any good reason to discount the distinctions I've presented above, may I suggest that ID be removed from the "Creationism" category?

Respectfully, Daniel.-- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.204.42.135 (talk • contribs) 19:03, 21 July 2007

There are several reasons to regard intelligent design as creationism: It does not matter what public face intelligent design supporters want to present to the world. Their own propaganda, communications to their base, arguments etc betray their true beliefs and agendas. It is like Muslims claiming that Osama bin Laden is not a terrorist and never took credit for any terrorist attacks, ever and no muslim ever was involved in a suicide bombing. It does not matter what they claim; what is the evidence? So the Discovery Institute can claim anything it likes; we are not here to be a shill for them but to state the facts as we are able to determine and verify them. If you want more detail, just see the article intelligent design.--Filll 20:01, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * an important federal case ruling stated that it was
 * a wide sweep of prominent academics, particularly those in the relevant fields such as biology, classify it as creationism
 * intelligent design uses the same textbooks as creationism
 * intelligent design uses the identical attacks on evolution that creationists do
 * almost all the leading proponents of intelligent design have been found, on the record, stating beliefs almost identical to creationists


 * There are of course other sources, but for a carefully reasoned argument see s:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District/2:Context. Note that "The sole argument Defendants made to distinguish creationism from ID was their assertion that the term “creationism” applies only to arguments based on the Book of Genesis, a young earth, and a catastrophic Noaich flood; however, substantial evidence established that this is only one form of creationism", By this argument creation science as presented by Dean H. Kenyon wouldn't be creationism either, and like it the only reason for denying ID is creationism is an attempt to get it into US schools after Edwards. .. dave souza, talk 20:11, 21 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Although some ID proponents are not "creationists", they are in a minority. It's just kind of hard to believe that there was an atheist-friendly Creator.
 * I'm not sure why you (viz Filll) attribute malice to the relabelling of creationism as ID. The intention, as I understand, is to let non-Christian anti-evolution-ists into the fold. Jewish creationists, for example, would not enjoy NT references. -- WolfieInu 19:45, 22 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Well no, enlarging the creationist tent may have been a side benefit, but it was not the main purpose of ID. The main reason for the labelling (and the reason incidentally some of us see it as rather sinister) was to sidestep the issue of constitutional separation of church and state, and make it easier to sneak into public school science classes. ornis ( t )</b> 20:17, 22 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, ... I won't pretend to understand that mysterious planet called America. :) -- WolfieInu 20:29, 22 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The emergence of intelligent design is essentially a legal strategem to sidestep some court decisions.--Filll 15:46, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Hello, is there any actual evidence to back up any of these arguments? Also, is anyone actually suggesting an edit here? I feel the discussion would be more productive with such a suggestion. Docleaf 01:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

An editor was objecting to categorizing intelligent design as creationism. And several of us were explaining why this was appropriate. And I believe that having been educated, the editor decided not to push this agenda.--Filll 01:41, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Ah, thanks for filling me in. Docleaf 03:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Evolution and creationism, Can they go hand in hand???
The belief that the sum of all life in the world, the fact that the universe exits is be attributed to random chance in which nothing became something that formed the big bang is ludicrous. The idea that a "higher entity" created everything we see around us is also escapism and such beliefs hold us back. The proof that all living things change is irrefutable. The tectonic plates of the earths crust move and over very long times a certain land mass that was, say, in the equator is now at the south pole. The creatures that live in Antarctica would have had an ancestry that traced back to that time when the land mass was in the equator. Creatures that live in the equator often have less fur compared to others that inhabit artic regions. More fur means less loss of heat form the body and less fur equates to more loss. Black and white humans also show this trait. Black humans naturally inhabit places in which there is lots of sun light and the darker skin gives them some protection against ultraviolet light. Whites have lighter skin because they naturally inhabit darker regions like England. Sun light produces a vitamin in the human body which is required to produce healthy bones but too much light leads to cancer and skin damage. Darker skin stops more skin damage than lighter but inhibits this vitamin production. So maybe god created us according to the environment in which we inhabited. But then take into account all the fossilized relics that have been discovered that have genetic links to us and other creatures but are slightly different from them. You are forced to realize that animals under go change in order to live in a certain environment. Those who don't realize this are ignorant or zealots of their faith. (Zealots are ignorant)

What I believe is that God created the light, the earth, carbon, helium, oxygen, hydrogen, lithium, and all the elements that make up our universe, and a code, similar to computer binary that was subject to change. More often than not that change is damaging. The organism with that change would die and the error would be paged. But every so often the change would be beneficial to that organism and it would thrive better than the others and pass it on to the next generation. And Gods hand guided this change to form modern man and through this process man gained knowledge and understanding of a world subject to change.

God, in any religion, defies logic as we know it. The fact that came down to earth him self (Christ) in order to better understand the existence he created is mind boggling in its own right. Such an entity is wise beyond us and beyond our comprehension. While I’ll admit belief in the existence of an omnipotent entity is counter productive, some things in the universe are beyond random chance. . Pathogen1 14:15, 28 July 2007 (UTC) 28/07/2007


 * That's called Theistic evolution. Do you have any suggestions to improve the article or did you just come to preach? <b style="font-family:courier; color:#737CA1;">ornis</b> <b style="color:#C11B17; font-size:smaller;">( t )</b> 14:20, 28 July 2007 (UTC)


 * So i can't talk about a similar topic and how, in my opinion, its better? i thought that was the whole point of a discussion page. Pathogen1 15:18, 28 July 2007 (UTC)


 * You thought wrong. There is a notice right at the very top of the page, and had you bothered to read it, you would know this already. "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Creationism article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject." <b style="font-family:courier; color:#737CA1;">ornis</b> <b style="color:#C11B17; font-size:smaller;">( t )</b> 15:23, 28 July 2007 (UTC)


 * so what, are you some kind of conformist police? if the editors care they tell me or block me from adding stuff. Pathogen1 15:31, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm an editor, and I'm telling you, either suggest an improvement to the article or stop wasting time. <b style="font-family:courier; color:#737CA1;">ornis</b> <b style="color:#C11B17; font-size:smaller;">( t )</b> 15:37, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Pathogen. Like Ornis has pointed out what you are talking about is called "Theistic Evolution" which many Christians (and people of other faiths) accept as a merger of theism and science.  Your first post appears to be a statement of faith, but does not add in any way to the article on Creationism.  The function of this page (Talk or Discussion section) is to bring up possible major changes in the article or how to make the article in question (Creationism) more accurate.  I hope you can contribute to the encyclopedia, this or any other article, in a positive way.
 * How would you change this article? Do you consider yourself more versed in Young Earth, Old Earth or any other type of Creationism?  RiverBissonnette 15:45, 28 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I have been watching this circus with some dismay. Please just include material here that has to do with improving the article. WP is not for debating.--Filll 15:54, 28 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Pathogen, I'll ask nicely once. If you want to comment on your beliefs, take it to your talk page.  If you want to help this article, then suggest away.  All of us have read too many rantings from various editors on these pages.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 15:56, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * look guys that was my first post on this website and the fact that ive already got a good telling to more than earns me bragging rights. i do agree that this posting dosent add to this particular articial but i do beleve that is is relevent. plus if i was to contribute to and articals they would be extreamly biased. i mean for a start im a socialist. how ever in future postings i will attempt to stay in the restraints of this medium —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pathogen1 (talk • contribs) 16:03, 28 July 2007


 * Comrade Pathogen, your attitude is begging for a "Captain Disinfectant" (like OM here) to chase you off WP. It's good to hear that you plan on following the rules from now on ... but if you keep this up ... well, let's just say now's the chance to write your own eulogy. -- WolfieInu 17:04, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll take what you said as humor. I hope it was.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 21:04, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, I see what you mean. Sorry, I'll add a :) in future. -- WolfieInu 15:56, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Answers by Numbers
Regarding the, ahem, argument about what "creationism" means, Antievolutionists and Creationists gives a brief and informative answer. "When the Origin of Species went on sale late in 1859, the term "creationist" commonly designated a person who believed in the special origination of a soul for each human fetus, as opposed to a traducianist, who believed that the souls of children were inherited from their parents. Although Darwin (in private) and his allies occasionally referred to their opponents as "creationists," for about seventy-five years after the publication of his book such adversaries were more typically called "advocates of creation" or, increasingly, "anti-evolutionists.".... It was not until 1929 that... the Seventh-day Adventist biologist Harold W. Clark, explicitly packaged Price’s new catastrophism as "creationism." In a brief self-published book titled Back to Creationism Clark urged readers to quit simply opposing evolution and to adopt the new "science of creationism," by which he meant Price’s flood geology. For decades to come various Christian groups, from flood geologists to theistic evolutionists, squabbled over which camp most deserved to use the creationist label. However, by the 1980s the flood geologists/scientific creationists had clearly co-opted the term for their distinctive interpretation of earth history" Looks like a good source for an update to the article, and other articles by him on that site are also useful....... dave souza, talk 17:32, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Creationism is the false belief that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe were created in their entirety by a deity or deities
Any objections to said alternate opening line, given the overwhelming evidence, it can hardly be considered npov as it is in fact scientific fact, and a statement that creationism is in fact, wrong, is no more incorrect than a statement that any fictitious tale isn't true (i.e. harry potter, lord of the rings). Philc 20:18, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, we all know that. But it is a religious doctrine (dogma, whatever), and as such, the neutral point of view requires the article to factually state the religious position.  If the article tries to state that the wealth of scientific research and knowledge agrees with a Creation story, well then we have to revert that.  So, my suggestion is that you don't make a big point about your statement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Orangemarlin (talk • contribs)


 * Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ ". But Wikipedia articles on history and religion also draw from modern archaeological, historical, and scientific sources." Also I'd have to disagree that there is any real science, credited by the scientific community that would support a creationist theory. Philc  21:12, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Use of the word "false" cannot be justified. See WP:NPOV. Your suggested change would assert something which is not a fact. Sheffield Steel talkersstalkers 20:47, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Well that's where I'd have to contest. As it is a geological, biological, and astronomical fact that the world was not formed in the way argued by creationists. Philc  21:12, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Even so, your change will never stick. In any case the point is made far more effectively, by presenting the creationist position in an unbiased tone, then showing with evidence, where it falls down and why. All that aside, if you're concerned about religious junk science, then polystrate fossil, flood geology, baraminology etc could all use attention. <b style="font-family:courier; color:#737CA1;">ornis</b> <b style="color:#C11B17; font-size:smaller;">( t )</b> 22:31, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * While Wikipedia articles dealing with religion do draw from scientific sources occasionally, they do not draw only from scientific sources and are not only written with scientific sources in mind, and even if they were, what scientific reasearch has been done disproving the idea that God created the universe? I'd sure like to see it, I could use a good laugh.... Homestarmy 22:44, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Really, let's not discuss this here. Assuming good faith, the editor posed a statement, it was quickly handled.  Time to move on.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 22:50, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I just logged on and the timestamps seemed fresh, I assumed the discussion was still current. Homestarmy 22:53, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I hardly consider my question as dealt with, all that has happened is that two of you have stated you disagree with it, I questioned why, you provided some weak responses which I attempted to debunk, and you appear to have left it there. An entity outside the universe interfering with its creation violates some basic laws in physics, whereas if he is within the universe, he could not have created it. It's not so much about directly disproving the theory, but that showing that it cannot acquiesce with our current scientific understanding. In which case it is truly illogical to argue that it is true. I bitterly dispute your use of the ad ignorantiam argument, that you can claim what you like it true until the scientific community can give proof to the contrary, I'd ask you to consider a more accepted form of discussion, instead of one based n logical fallacy. Whilst I am assuming good faith, I have no intention of accusing anyone of any misdeeds, I do believe the article doesn't really represent the current understanding that we have of the universe and its nature, and so should be changed to do so. Philc  10:23, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I forgot where I read that, but the best definition of NPOV I've seen is not being able to guess what side the editors are taking by reading the article. It means that articles should be factual, not editorial, e.g., you can't just claim that invisible pink unicorns don't exist unless you can provide a reliable secondary source that could be used to verify it. Reinistalk 10:55, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I think the satirical value of the Invisible Pink Unicorn has completed gone over your head. It was concocted in mockery of situations just like this, as something outlandish and obviously utter rubbish, and applied an argument often used to defend religious texts to it, as a way of showing how pathetic that argument is. But clearly this article is written with a deliberate blind eye turned to the scientific community, on reading it you could immediately eliminate the possibility of it being written from sciences point of view, so it fails your NPOV test. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Philc 0780 (talk • contribs) 14:05, August 1, 2007


 * Russell himself was an agnostic atheist, and so are all the celebrity atheists I know of that are living today. It is my conviction that belief in the supernatural is unjustified too, but I wouldn't commit the fallacy of saying that science disproves any deities, ghosts or fairies under the garden. As Weinberg said, "Science does not make it impossible to believe in God, but it does make it possible to not believe in God." It means that science, dealing only with the observable, can't possibly offer positive proof against something that is defined as being beyond empirical study. Reinistalk 11:27, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not contesting the existence of god, just the factual accuracy of the creation story. Philc  15:54, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * If you're going to tuck the word "false" into such a broad statement as the opening, the existence of God will be exactly what you'll be questioning. Reinistalk 16:23, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * No it's not, I'm just contesting that any metaphysical entities, possibly gods, whether they exist or not, had no hand in the creation of earth or anything in the post-big-bang universe. You can concede that there is space for gods within the scientific model, without conceding creationism, that is not a paradoxical argument, it is perfectly legitimate. It is the point of view of many Christians that I know who do not take genesis literally. Philc  18:13, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Use of the word "false" cannot be justified (part 2). See WP:V. Your suggested change would assert something which is not attributable to a reliable source. Sheffield Steel talkersstalkers 13:05, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The scientific community is a perfectly reliable source. Philc  15:54, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Then you should be able to provide a link to a source within the scientific community that says that creationism is false. Again, see WP:V. Sheffield Steel talkersstalkers 16:55, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I did, I cited the claim with a link to a page from the National Academy of Sciences on evidence of evolution that disproves creationism, it was still removed as NPOV despite being cited from an extremely reputable source. Philc  18:09, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with ornis. If you want to contribute, take a look at some of our other articles which are in dire shape. This minor change will not fly, and will waste a huge amount of time in a huge fight. Meanwhile, we have dozens if not hundreds of other articles on this general topic that are in sad shape, or badly biased (usually towards creationist views). So have at it! --Filll 13:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * any problems with that edit to Creation biology? Philc  16:18, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Grammatically horrible, no glaring pov problems... dave souza, talk 17:44, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I find that obtuse, considering in your grammar edit, you left my grammar as it was, bar the replacement of exponent with proponent. Philc  18:04, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * To quote the first paragraph of flood geology "creationist presentations of what they believe is evidence are routinely dismissed out-of-hand ... flood geology is considered pseudoscience." So from this perspective those (or at least some of those) articles do have a balance which shows that they are crap. This article however does not have the same balance, it is far more in favour of the religious doctrine. Something which needs to be attended to, and required fixing, just like all those other articles, so why shouldn't I begin here? Philc  15:59, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Creationism isn't pseudoscience if it makes no claim to be science – this article deals with all the varieties of creationism. Please read WP:NPOV and WP:NPOV/FAQ with care and comply fully with all policies when making your edits. .. dave souza, talk 17:05, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * If it makes no claim to be science, then it cant justify itself, and it should attain no higher status than fiction, if it makes no attempt to justify itself, it should be considered no more factually accurate than for example Lord of the Rings. Philc  18:04, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The word "belief" serves to adequately frame the epistemological status of creationism, whereas the word "false" asserts that something unprovable has been disproved. Sheffield Steel talkersstalkers 18:31, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * That is a fair point, I can respect that. How about illogical, or ignorant belief then? Philc  19:26, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * A belief, by definition, is beyond logic, "illogical" doesn't apply here. As far as "ignorant", that is qualifying millions, if not billions of religious believers as ignorant. That is demagoguery.--Ramdrake 19:32, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Beliefs don't have to be beyond logic, I can believe, due to the overwhelming evidence, that men did in fact go to the moon in '69, that is a logical rationalisation as well. Also regarding calling millions of religious followers ignorant, you are resorting to an ad populum argument, a common fallacy. Just because a belief is upheld by millions of people doesn't add to, or detract from, the credibility of the belief. So number of followers of a belief should not be considered when describing it. Philc  21:35, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I would guess that the only adjective that will get consensus to go before "belief" would be "religious". Sheffield Steel talkersstalkers 19:37, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * And wouldn't that be the most appropriate?--Ramdrake 19:39, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Most probably. Philc  21:35, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, well, what's next? "Heliocentrism is the informed belief that Earth orbits the Sun." Or perhaps, "Hollow Earth is the absurd idea that the Earth is hollow." This is why we have WP:NPOV, and not WP:TRUTH, as a core policy. :) Reinistalk 22:32, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll just preemptively add that I completely agree that creationism is flatly contradicted by science and logic, but that doesn't mean you can't write a neutral encyclopedia article on it. Reinistalk 22:45, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, I'm not trying to start some sort of tense argument here. Its just that the scientific community doesn't seem adequately represented in this article compared to the religious doctrine. Philc  22:55, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Well to an extent that's deliberate. The idea is that this article should be about creationism as a religious notion, leaving the science and pseudoscience, for more appropriate daughter articles. <b style="font-family:courier; color:#737CA1;">ornis</b> <b style="color:#C11B17; font-size:smaller;">( t )</b> 23:50, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Well its wrong, as whether or not creationism tries to justify itself with its pseudoscience, it still makes outlandish contradictions to science as it is understood, therefore to give a balanced view, the scientific view should be allowed to defend itself within the article to prevent it becoming religious bias. Philc  00:11, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Wrong that you may consider creationism to be, you can't add 'false' to the lead, and in any case, the worst you could say is that certain versions of creationism are unsupported by science (which it already does). You can't prove a negative, and God could be smart enough to create everything in seven six days, including a whole bunch of false evidence for evolution. Also, notice the opposition you are getting - other editors, dedicated editors don't think you should do so. Even were you working from policy, there's enough to accept leaving the current version as is. Finally, the article is about a religious concept, so of course it's going to be 'biased' (more accurately, non-condemming) towards the religious interpretation. Post-finally, your talk page says you've retired - you may want to update if you're back to long-term editing. WLU 17:24, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


 * What is most remarkable to me is that this proposal has united editors across the board - creationist, atheist, agnostic scientist or whatever - in opposition to it. I think it is an almost textbook example of POV-pushing, and I think that probably sums up the consensus of the editors here. Sheffield Steel talkersstalkers 17:43, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It's six days, actually. Reinistalk
 * United editors across the board? Are you 5 guys the full extent required to make a consensus decision? Maybe you should think about the motivation, the only people who would reply to my post are those who do have a vendetta, almost by definition anyone who replies is going to disagree with me, as that's the only people I asked to reply. Its not POV pushing its not my POV that creationism is wrong, it's scientific fact, just because it can't be proved that god didn't do it, is NOT evidence that he did. So I'd like you to AGF and stop making accusations that I'm only trying to push through my own opinions. ΦΙΛ Κ  12:56, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * f you don't believe us, you may want to open an RfC (request for comment) on the subjecgt, but I suspect you'll get the same result as here. It is one thing to say that creationism is scientifically wrong. Calling it a "false belief" (or an "ignorant belief") is insulting to those who practice religion. Demonstrating it is scientifically wrong is one thing and it's fair game; belittling the fait of others is demangoguery.--Ramdrake 13:08, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I wasn't questioning what you were saying, just the cocky arrogance with which you said it. Belittling me as some misinformed editor who is hell-bent on being counter-productive to the project, well sorry for trying to help. No wonder this project has gone to the dogs if this is hoe people are treated when they suggest change. Sorry but it is an ignorant belief, compare christians to trekkies, both obsessed with moulding their lives around something that is nothing more than fiction, that is much more my own opinion so I wouldn't ask you to include that in the article, but it is how I feel. ΦΙΛ Κ  13:45, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * "Are you 5 guys the full extent required to make a consensus decision? " - as five regular contributors united in their opposition to your suggestion, yes, we are. You may be very well informed about evolution and creationism, but you really should read up on WP:NPOV and make your comments based on policy rather than logic.  Policy rules wikipedia, not logic.  Your POV on Christians and Star Trek will never be placed on a mainspace wikipedia page because of WP:NPOV, so it's in your interest to read the policy.  It'll save us, and yourself, a lot of typing and time.  Plus it reduces the risk of you being labelled a troll.  Also notice that there's not a single editor who agrees with you - presumably were there one, they would voice their opinion.  Also note that wikipedia is not a battleground.  Save us all the time, read the policies then come back with your suggestions. WLU 13:50, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

the only people who would reply to my post are those who do have a vendetta (ri)The more I read this statement from Philc_0780, that harder I find it to believe that he is contributing to this discussion in good faith. The strong implication is that the original post was meant as a deliberate troll. The alternative interpretation, per WP:AGF, is that the editor genuinely believes that Creationism is false (although he has cited no scientific evidence that falsifies it) and also believes that any reasonable editor would agree. In this case, I concur with WLU and would suggest that in addition to WP:NPOV Philc undertakes a study of WP:V. Sheffield Steel talkersstalkers 14:17, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Non-creationists rushing to defend the creationism article from anti-creationist commentary ... don't you just love WP? :) -- WolfieInu 15:54, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Creationism is obviously false, and you want me to cite that? Isn't it obvious what I'm going to trawl up, why do I need to bother. And I do feel that anyone that has correctly considered the evidence, its reliability, its source, and its motivation, would agree. I'm not trying to troll this discussion, but I do feel bitter towards the way you have treated me, and it all floods back why I left the project. I have read NPOV I have read it many times, I fully understand wikipedia, I started here well over 2 years ago, and your telling me wiki-policy? Please stop treating me like a fool. I know what I am saying, I know why I am saying it, and you, you turn a blind eye to it, and simply berate me, and dismiss me as some sort of an idiot, all I receive is a barrage of what, in the best faith could be interpreted as laconic humour, but more likely some sort of scathing retort. Thank you very much for your time, but next time, spend it wiser. ΦΙΛ Κ  19:58, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * If creationism is so "obviously false", why are both believers and non-believers in creationism disagreeing with your suggestion that it should be described as such? If a reliable source exists that proves creationism false, why has no editor of this page seen it before? If you indeed "fully understand wikipedia" then why are you so intent on pursuing a textbook violation of wikipedia's core policies, WP:NPOV and WP:V? Sheffield Steel talkersstalkers 20:28, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Because these people havent considered all the evidence, such an act would take far more time than people are willing to devote. I didnt say a reliable source existed hat would instill a disbeleif of said tale, that you would have to consider all of the sapects of all of the evidence, not one magic source. (1) Its not my bloody point of view, its science. (2) I did bloody verify! With the Citation from NAS. ARGH. Stop making accusations, or your repeated breaches of WP:AGF will lead me to demolish WP:CIVIL. ΦΙΛ Κ  20:38, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I read that article, and did not see any disproof of creationism. Remember that creationism is a broad spectrum of beliefs including, at its extremes, the ideas that God directly caused the Big Bang and that he created the universe last Tuesday - both of which views are completely compatible with the evidence discussed in the NAS article you cited. Therefore claiming that it says "creationism is false" constitutes synthesis.
 * Creationism, as a religious belief, is not falsifiable by scientific investigation (indeed, this is one of the reasons why, when it is used as the basis of certain assertions about the physical world, such may be labelled "pseudoscience"). I can think of only two possible events that would answer the question of whether Creationism is true or false: judgment day, and scientists solving the equation of the universe and using it to disprove the existence of God. Probably at least one of those is never going to happen. Sheffield Steel talkersstalkers 20:58, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Please read and the linked source. The belief isn't falsified by science, it's simply outside science. Where the conflict arises is when "creationism" is redefined to demand that science should support the interpretation of empirical evidence as providing "proof" of that belief, as was essentially done by the YECs. The intelligent design question is essentially whether religious dogmatism can redefine science to support supernatural explanations, rather than these explanations being beyond the essentially secular scientific method as accepted by most believers in Creation. Please also read WP:NPOV and WP:NPOV/FAQ with care and detailed attention, and accept the requirement of WP:TALK that this page is for improving the article and not for getting on a soapbox. Unless there are early signs of positive efforts to propose improvements which comply with policies, this off-topic ramble will have to be deleted or archived. .. dave souza, talk 21:17, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Note that AiG and CMI (Creation Ministries International), according to their own documentation, are not trying to prove the Bible with science but to base science on the Bible (and as far as the "historical" sciences are concerned, this will lead to a redefinition of the limits of extrapolating current trends backwards in time). Therefore creationism (and ultimately, any other concept of origins) is not falsifiable, because the past cannot be observed. So much for my POV.
 * Regardless, we can all agree that adding "creationism is false" to the article is a POV, because many sources exist that say otherwise, leaving aside for the moment the question of whether these sources are reliable. Since WP can only summarise existing sources as opposed to supporting a POV (even if it is the POV of mainstream science), the article as it stands is already NPOV.
 * Interesting to note that our antagonist (for want of a better word) has discernibly adhered to many of the WP:ABF "how to win an argument" guidelines, up to and including a fake retirement. I'm seriously considering the possibility that this is a joke, no offence intended. -- WolfieInu 10:48, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * If it is it's not especially funny. <b style="font-family:courier; color:#737CA1;">ornis</b> <b style="color:#C11B17; font-size:smaller;">( t )</b> 11:33, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

books to consider
I would like to recommend to editors working on this article two books, not just to ass to the further reading list but as resources for editors to this article. Both are books by Philip Kitcher: Living With Darwin: Evolution, Design and the Future of Faith and Abusing Science: the Case Against Creationism. One was reviewed, and the other discussed, in an essay by H. Allen Orr in the most recent issue of The New York Review of Books.  Orr is an evolutionary geneticist in the Biology Department of the University of Rochester; he has published in Science and Nature as well as other top peer-reviewed journals in evolutionary biology, so his credentials as a scientist are impeccable - and he argues that both of these books, while specifically polemics against creationism and ID, are also superb and accessible inroductions to the philosophy of science and evolutionary theory. Kitcher is himself the subjct of a Wikipedia article; he is a professor of philosophy (of science) who holds the Dewey Chair at Columbia University, and who has published on both creationism and sociobiology and has also published in a host of peer-reviewed journals. I have to say, I am especially impressed when a pracicing scientist heaps praise on a philosopher of science. Orr emphasizes that in addressing creationists Kitcher is really trying to lay out as clearly as possible the essence of scientific thought and the history of the development of evolutionary theory, as well as the history of creationist thought (including but not limited to ID). I do not have these books, but if any editors here has access to them they might provide us with helpful ideas not just of themes we might want to develop, but of ideas about how better to express certain ideas. I just read the review this week, and it really is an outstanding review, which is why I bring it up now. I would think that even advocates of creationism would want to consult these books - if they are interested in developing arguments to support creationism; a good argument for creationism would be strengthened if it could respond to the argumnts in these books. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 15:47, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Part of a title above is "Abusing Science", making me doubt that the arguments presented are likely to be objective. When will people understand that "Science" can't say what happened thousands or millions of years ago! Only pseudoscience underpinned with a particular world-view makes claims about what happened (this apply to all sides in the debate). rossnixon 02:54, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Yawn. "Objective" - don't make me laugh ross.  Your pooh-poohing of both this book and historical/geological science is simply an attempt to put objective evidence on the same level as particular written works.  Then you can turn around and claim that both views are equally valid.  It won't wash here.  Time and time again, creationists have blotted their copybooks by either taking science out of context (that is, abusing it) or by constructing their own untested or untestable allegories out of scientific language (abusing the scientific method).  Kitcher's efforts to documenting these efforts objectively provides useful sources that we can cite here at Wikipedia.  If you'd like to object to their inclusion here, please do so on less disingenuous grounds.  Claiming that vast swathes of science that you don't approve of are simply pseudoscience is not enough.  Cheers, --Plumbago 06:57, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, science (no capital S or quote-marks necessary, by the way) does tell us "what happened thousands or millions of years ago", and quite reliably too. It just cracks me up when you guys try to explain anything. Reinistalk 07:44, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed, astronomers at least, can see thousands of millions of years into the past. <b style="font-family:courier; color:#737CA1;">ornis</b> <b style="color:#C11B17; font-size:smaller;">( t )</b> 08:07, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

With respect, we don't need to respoind to rossnixon's comment at all. Don't let him trick you into a meaningless tangential discussion about science. It does not matter whether the books are objective (inceed, our NPOV policy doesn't care about objectivity at all: it demands that different points of view be included, NPOV and by extension Wikipedia is agnostic about truth and objectivity and these questions should never enter into a discussion about how to improve an article) - rossnixon's point is based either on a well-intentioned misunderstanding of Wikipedia and its policies, or is just a red-herring meant to disrupt work on imporving the article. All that matters is that they are two books, both writen by a scholar with impeccable credentials, each published by a highly reputable academic press, bith well-reviewed by other scholars. Objectivity is irrelevant What is important is that this article include verifiable views from reliable sources. These books meet those criteria. Rossnixon's ignorance about science is not the issue (we will never succeed in teaching him what science is); the only thing that matters when discussing how to improve an article is his ignoraance of Wikipedia policies. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 11:53, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I was just making a point based on my broad knowledge of science and pseudoscience. There is no Wikipedia policy issue at all, unless you mean "talk pages are for discussing improvements to the article". Every editor breaks this rule. rossnixon 02:05, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * "... in addressing creationists Kitcher is really trying to lay out as clearly as possible the essence of scientific thought and the history of the development of evolutionary theory, as well as the history of creationist thought ...". Well, not to jump to unreasonable conclusions here, but that sounds vaguely like condescension. I think that is partly what irked Rossnixon. I know it doesn't sit too well with me.
 * Living With Darwin: Evolution, Design and the Future of Faith (subtext, "faith has become irrelevant to science - get used to it") and Abusing Science: the Case Against Creationism (subtext, "those evil fundies are perverting science for their own ends") - that's some highly incendiary titles right there. Though I admit neither side of the creation/evolution fence is completely innocent in that regard :)
 * Looks as if these books represent just one more installment in the academic flame war between creationists and evolutionists, with little to no actual science involved. Quite likely I'm misjudging Kitcher, but that's how it sounds to me. Perhaps a Wikipedian who finds the time should get these books and give us a summary. If they contain novel material, the article would definitely benefit, but if they're just another wave of extraWikipedian POV-pushing, I'm not interested. -- WolfieInu 21:32, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

New section
Thoughts on the new section? The main is a redlink.

Biblical Reality teaches that there are no “creation accounts” in Genesis, and that “Moses Didn’t Write About Creation”. What is actually being said is “Moses wrote about Restoration”. Before the advent of “Biblical Reality”, no faction of creationism could explain both the “first day” of Moses and the “Fourth Day”, all being 24-hr days, without either denying literal interpretation or “redefining” the scriptures.

WLU 01:04, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Sounds like WP:OR pending further information. rossnixon 02:48, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Looks to me like someone is trying to sell their latest book. Sheffield Steel talkersstalkers 02:54, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Main was also recently speedy deleted. WLU 06:23, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I have just removed a similar section from Old Earth creationism by the same author, citing "non-notable, original research, self-promotion". --Robert Stevens 11:53, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Interesting quote, though. Maybe I need context, but it doesn't make sense to me. A danger sign is the rather interesting use of capital letters (the seemingly arbitrary distinction between "first day" and "Fourth Day", for instance). It sounds like this "Biblical Reality" group(?) is a highly isolationist faction that has gone off on a tangent (sort of like certain evolutionists refusing to work with other evolutionists because they have another way to make the hominid family tree fit together). A very counterproductive attitude, and one not guaranteed to make you many friends. I suppose it's no surprise that "Biblical Reality" is almost completely unknown, and probably too minor to warrant inclusion in the article. -- WolfieInu 21:05, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Maybe it's an alternative reality to theistic realism – a Creationist multiverse! . . .dave souza, talk 21:59, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

It is a tribute to the ingenuity of the human imagination. You take a book that has 4 separate creation accounts, 2 of which are in Genesis and different and you get interpretations like: and so on. People are amazing...--Filll 22:46, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * One creation and no contradictions
 * Two creations and humans before Adam
 * Two creations with billions of years in between
 * One creation account that is allegorical
 * No creation accounts
 * One creation account proved by the Big Bang Theory and evidence
 * One creation account that is threatened by the Big Bang Theory and evidence
 * One creation account that is threatened by evolution
 * One creation account that is a synthesis of previous creation accounts of ancient civilizations


 * Wait - 4 creation accounts? I count 2. Please explain.
 * Also I think that in your bulleted list, items 2, 3, and 4 refer to one thing and items 1, 7 (minus the "and evidence"), and 8 refer to another. But yes, you're right - people can imagine the darndest things. I think Star Trek, SETI and the Pioneer messages provide enough evidence of that... --  Wolfie  Inu  12:27, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I was shocked to read about the 4 accounts in a book in the library. I might take it out again and then include it in the article. The other 2 accounts are not in Genesis.--Filll 17:53, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Introduction
We currently start with Creationism is the belief that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe were created in their entirety by a deity or deities (typically God), whose existence is presupposed. But is creationism really that (rather general) belief, or is it only the movement that promotes this view in opposition to other alternatives? Could we e.g. move to ''Creationism is the expressed belief that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe were created in their entirety by a presupposed deity or deities (typically God). The term is in particular used to denote the movement that promotes this world view over naturalistic explanations of origins''? --Stephan Schulz 07:39, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't know, I think the second and third paragraphs cover that pretty well. The definition is purposefully broad to encompass notions like deistic creation and theistic evolution, neither of which are particularly political or opposed to philosophical methodological naturalism. <b style="font-family:courier; color:#737CA1;">ornis</b> <b style="color:#C11B17; font-size:smaller;">( t )</b> 08:07, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The term has the broader meaning which includes TE, and this article has to explain that at the outset. As stated in the Ron Numbers reference I mentioned in the talk earlier, it was co-opted around 1929 to refer to anti-evolution fundamentalism, so has both meanings now. By the way, theistic evolution is opposed to philosophical naturalism but in favour of methodological naturalism as is essential to modern science. ID proponents claim the two are essentially the same, calling both materialism, and want to impose supernaturalism on science. .. dave souza, talk 08:27, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


 * My mistake. Speaking of which, both philosophical and methodological naturalism, redirect to the same page, by the looks of it, as a result of an edit war between scienceapologist and ed poor. <b style="font-family:courier; color:#737CA1;">ornis</b> <b style="color:#C11B17; font-size:smaller;">( t )</b> 08:36, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Had me worried there! Methodological naturalism redirects to Naturalism (philosophy), which covers both types but focusses on the methodological kind, and philosophical naturalism is a separate article for the atheistic kind. That was the outcome of some, eh, lively discussion a while back, and avoids the common confusion of the two by certain creationists... dave souza, talk 20:38, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I have a few fairly religious Christian friends and relatives who still shudder at the thought of being called "Creationsts". I don't know if the term is still used with such a broad meaning as we imply in the first sentence. --Stephan Schulz 20:12, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * This came up a while ago, when some editors favoured the title evolutionary creationism for their own position rather than theistic evolution, as the two positions are almost the same with just a few exceptional cases. It may be a national thing, in the same way that "evolutionist" was commonplace twenty years ago and seems to still be fairly innocuous in the UK, but has become politically charged in the US. .. dave souza, talk 20:38, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

The problem with this entire field, is that certain terms have acquired certain meanings and connotations, depending on time and location. So there is a huge confusion in the US about what the term "Christian" actually refers to, some of this done on purpose. To some, Catholics are not Christians, and Mormons are not Christians, Methodists are not Christians, Quakers are not Christians, etc. The only people that can call themselves Christians (to some) are those who subscribe to biblical literalism and even deny things like the golden rule (i.e., "love your neighbor as yourself"). The more you talk to people, the more you discover that many groups have their own very narrow definitions and want to claim certain terms for themselves, or apply certain terms to other groups. A similar thing is going on with the term "creationist" in the US at the moment, which is more likely to mean someone who believes that the bible is literally true, that the earth/universe is 6000 years old, that the earth/universe was made in 6 literal 24 hour days, that evolution and/or science is equivalent to atheism, communism, fascism, Nazism, racism, devil worship etc. So some terms acquire negative or positive connotations which they did not have before, in a process called pejoration or a euphemism treadmill (or a dysphemism treadmill). Under these circumstances, some might be uncomfortable about being called a creationist, or an evolutionist or a Christian etc.--Filll 20:52, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Eh, this is not a problem with "this entire field," but a problem in any language per se. Terms evolve over time and under stress into something completely different; "offend" has changed meaning between the KJV Bible and the 21st Century, as has the word "gay" more recently.
 * BTW: "[Creationists believe] that evolution and/or science is equivalent to atheism, communism, fascism, Nazism, racism, devil worship etc."? I know of no creationist group which claims this. [At most creationists claim that the acceptance of evolutionary theory (not science) leads logically to social degeneration.] References? --  Wolfie  Inu  08:10, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Languages evolve? Heresy! Everyone knows they've stayed the same since the tower of babel, or are there "created kinds" of languages too? ;) As for references, well hhere's one there are others, the wedge document is pretty telling, as is most of AiG's propaganda.<b style="font-family:courier; color:#737CA1;">ornis</b> <b style="color:#C11B17; font-size:smaller;">( t )</b> 08:26, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, languages evolve. Evolution works if there is an input of information, which can only happen if (an) intelligent being(s) is/are involved (in this case, mankind). And according to AiG, there are "created kinds" of languages, basically every "supergroup" of languages representing an original Babel language. But ... I was purposely angling for that reaction, I guess :)
 * That quote you linked to is by evolutionist Dr William B. Provine, and I was aware of it. My point, however, was that no creationist group (that I know of at least) takes the position that evolution directly "creates" the social evils listed by Filll. AiG, for example, maintains that Christians can be evolutionists (take Doctor Livingstone for instance), but they would have to be inconsistent in applying exegesis, thereby creating an internal conflict within the Bible.
 * But ja, sorry for letting the conversation drift like this. It's gone almost completely off topic ... except if we're establishing what constitutes US "fundamentalist" creationism ;)  Wolfie  Inu  16:48, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Doctor Livingstone I presume? Remarkably advanced for someone who was out of touch in Africa at the time the Origin was published, and died 14 years later after prolonged illness. Guid for the kirk. Anyway, there is of course an input of information all the time, as organisms interact with their environment including other organisms. And "fundamentalist" does of course mean the opposition to higher criticism. ... dave souza, talk 23:09, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Well we clearly know what side of the fence you are on, given that you use the term "evolutionist" which is currently only characteristic of creationists and their ilk (speaking of language with negative connotations...). And this is not the place to debate evolution or creationism themselves, but of course many ordered structures are just created by the laws of nature, and we have literally millions of examples. You are free to call the laws of nature an input of information if you like. Even of action by an intelligent being. Others are free to characterize it in a different way, and they do. However, you are not free to impose by force your views on others. Are we understood? As for some text supporting my claims above (with some references), consider:

However, this is probalby a pointless exercise, since I am sure your mind is made up. And I am certain that if you were the least bit honest with yourself or objective, you would know what I said was correct.--Filll 17:02, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * As I said, "...creationists claim that the acceptance of evolutionary theory (not science) leads logically to social degeneration." In other words, evolution is not "equivalent to" these social evils, but leads directly to them if the ethical implications of evolutionary theory are carried to their logical conclusion. In your quote above, Ken Ham says: "I'm not saying that evolution is the cause of abortion or school violence. What I'm saying is that the more a culture abandons God's word as the absolute authority, and the more a culture accepts an evolutionary philosophy, then the way people think, and their attitudes, will also change." Perhaps I misunderstood your intention, and this is what you've been saying all along. If so I apologise.
 * Be that as it may, no creationist has problems with science, merely with this particular branch of it.
 * Two things confuse me: 1) you seem to be implying that I'm trying to hide my creationist views? I thought creationism was inherent in all my talk page contributions to date. 2) Also, in what way am I forcing my views on others? I'm just throwing some ideas around that will either change or enhance the current stance of the article. If I can make a case against you, then good! The article gets improved. If you can make a case against me, then good! The article gets improved. We're not debating the validity of creationism (except as a side issue - guilty, Your Honour :) but the nature of creationism, which is what the article is about. Either way a defendable argument on the talk page can lead to edits which will contribute to the overall NPOV. Isn't that what we're here for?
 * PS. Your response seems to carry with it a slightly offended air. If I've said something that you have interpreted as insulting, then please tell me and I'll try not to repeat it. --  Wolfie  Inu  18:27, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

We are supposed to discuss the article itself, not the subject of the article. And if you want to avoid offense, I would be very cautious about use of the words "evolutionist" or "evolutionary". In some contexts and in some places, they can give offense, for a variety of reasons. I am completely confused about your arguments. Some say evolution leads to all these ills. Some say it is equivalent. It hardly matters, to be honest, in my opinion. You are free to split hairs, however you like. Creationists do not agree with each other on these matters, in my experience. All such claims basically amount to the same thing; that "evolution is a bad bad thing and an evil monster that we have to drive away with pitchforks and torches". And one way to do it is to identify it or associate it in one way or another with a huge range of other social and political ills. And what some creationists call "evolution" encompasses a huge amount of material in science like: and so on and so forth. So depending on the type of creationist a person is, they can end up rejecting a huge fraction of science in a frantic attempt to preserve biblical literalism, subscribed to by only a teeny tiny narrow minority of Christians and Jews, and questioned even by Thomas Aquinas and many others since then. And maybe you are not "forcing" your opinions on anyone. I do not know. All I know is that there is an immense movement in the United States to take tax money collected by force from people of all faiths and no faith, and then distribute it to creationists to teach narrow religious views of a tiny group of religious sects to children of all backgrounds and all faiths. And this is inappropriate, in my view and the view of the courts. And so therefore, when I state my views, I often will state my position on these issues. That is, you are free to believe what you want, and so am I. And I will not force you to believe what I believe. And you will not force me to believe what you believe. And in addition, in secular institutions, we will use and promote the use of our best secular knowledge. We will not promote religious agendas, since I do not live under the Taliban, and I do not think you do either. Clear?--Filll 19:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * the entire basis of biology and immunology and paleontology
 * most of geology (and lots of the rest of the earth sciences)
 * most of nuclear physics
 * huge amounts of astronomy and astrophysics
 * all of cosmology
 * big pieces of chemistry and biochemistry
 * all of dendochronology
 * racemization
 * thermodynamics
 * geomagnetism
 * molecular biology
 * plate tectonics


 * Hm, Doctor Livingstone. Now that you mention it, that story sounds suspicious. Maybe I'll have to recheck my sources.
 * <to Filll> This isn't "hairsplitting". Let me say it once and for all: creationists do not believe that "evolution = [list of social evils]", but that the application of the implications of evolution (e.g. "kill off the opposition for a better future") will lead to some sort of social evil. There is a distinction, and that was what we were talking about (or at least I was responding to your posts with that assumption).
 * And again, the elephant-hurling "creationists reject science" bit. Have you ever actually read creationists' positions in creationist journals (e.g. CMI's Journal of Creation)? No "pitchforks and torches", I can assure you. And might I add that I resent your deliberately confrontational tone. It's obvious that something in your life has severely prejudiced you against creationists, and I'm sorry about that, but I had nothing to do with it.
 * If I have to avoid the words "evolutionist" and "evolutionary," what do I replace them with? If you checked my user page you'd see that I'm not American. I'm not versed in the finer points of the American insult, so if these terms have acquired negative meanings in the US, I don't have those mysterious connotations in mind when I use them. Please provide me with replacements for the offending terms if this is important to you.
 * I don't "live under the Taliban" either, and I can't see what that has to do with anything. Now what were you saying about "identifying or associating [the opposition] in one way or another with ... social and political ills"?
 * As you so rightly point out, this no longer has anything to do with the article. If you like we can either stop now, or move the discussion elsewhere and try to resolve the issue. (No, I mean it - "resolve the issue", not "continue the argument".)   --  Wolfie  Inu  08:57, 17 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I will move this discussion to User:Filll/Creationism Discussion

Catholic position
I updated the Catholic position. The original source was somewhat in conflict with the actual views expressed by the Church. I included a fork to evolution and the catholic church for a better discussion of the issue. (Runwiththewind 14:48, 15 August 2007 (UTC))
 * Your reading of the sources seems to have confused religious teaching and scientific teaching, so I've clarified the summary to reflect what the sources actually say. ... dave souza, talk 21:30, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I restructured your edit so that the religious teachings preceed the information about schooling. I also reworded the statement on the Catechism to show that it indirectly implies evolution. (Runwiththewind 22:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC))
 * Not very informative, so I've shown more exactly what the source says. .. dave souza, talk 07:07, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

First and lead-in sentence about the the belief that it is from tradition
I edited that this main and basic belief which leads into the article, is not something restricted to creationists, but that they belong in a broader group of people with this very ancient traditionalist worldview that life is created. And this is a broad general basic very traditional outlook on life on which the movement in whole is based on. I am not saying the movement in itself is traditional, indeed they themselves deny this. All i am saying is that the general point of their belief system is based on tradition, which some of their leading figures claim is strict and pure science--יודל 18:37, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * There needs to be a more coherent argument for the changes you were proposing, which in my opinion were not an improvement. How can you have non-religious belief in a deity? Perhaps you're confining your definition to the modern US co-option of the term by anti-evolutionists, but this article has to cover the broader view. The reference to "some of their leading figures claim is strict and pure  science" needs to be explained – whose leading figures? If it's the ID crew, their "strict and pure  science" is, by their own definition, different from the science used by the scientific community and defined by law in relation to separation of church and state. ... dave souza, talk 19:37, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * sorry please lets keep it to the basic point that this think is not new it is an old and ancient beleave, and the beleife that the world was created is not limited to any group. is that better?--יודל 20:00, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * According to WP:RS, the creationists aren't a reliable source on themselves, and the lead you are editing has been stable for a long time, so please back down and reread what was said. Reinistalk 19:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * nobody tries to bring here any sources you are twisting words of reasoning. forget those words. fact is this belief is nothing new it may be evolved by some secular scientists but it is an old ancient belief, do u challenge this fact?--יודל 20:00, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

To assert a "fact", you must comply fully with WP:A, WP:RS and WP:NPOV, and explain yourself coherently in English. Revealed truth and partisan primary sources won't do. .. dave souza, talk 20:07, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * all i am asking is, does somebody think that this can be challenged as fact? and please note that on thinks that will never be or could never be challenged there is no need for sources.--יודל 20:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but it has been challenged already the first time it was reverted. Reinistalk 20:33, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * A revert by simply saying vandalism or bad edit is not a challenge, when u write in that instant that u r not familiar in the subject nor do u understand the edit, and to make it the top of the creaming to declare on your user page that you have some issue with creatinitss, all this makes it not a challenge but rather a prank of wasting time of other users. Again i am asking you do u challenge or do u really believe somebody could ever challenge this premise that believing in a creator is a very old and traditional belief?--יודל 20:41, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I am challenging it on the grounds that it is redundant, and that the prose you added was bad, and that you have no sources for the claims that creationism isn't always religious. I also never said that I didn't understand your edits, but that your English was poor and writings barely coherent. Reinistalk 21:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * i Except your challenge that it is redundant thanks for clarifying. i will fix the language.--יודל 21:12, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

-User:Yidisheryid, please ensure that you "fix the language" in talk pages and don't try making unsourced edits to articles. I've challenged your premise above, and will continue to do so until you VERIFY clearly what you're claiming, at which point we'll then have to consider the arguments presented for WP:NPOV generally, and undue weight in particular.. . .. dave souza, talk 21:20, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Please tell me what have you challenged. i have fixed what an other user has challenged. now what exactly are u challenging. and i will erase. in my mind i have add nothing that can be challenged if yes please tel me what it is? thanks--יודל 21:23, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * All of it. Adding the qualifier "traditional" doesn't substantially aid the readers understanding, and makes the definition far too specific. <b style="font-family:courier; color:#737CA1;">ornis</b> <b style="color:#C11B17; font-size:smaller;">( t )</b> 21:48, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * ok i gather the wording is too probelmatic. i will now brainstorm a definition that wont include all of them as being traditionalists, but still aid to the readers understanding that this view isn't something wacky and lunatic like the anti-religious crusaders try day and night to paintbrush them. I beg somebody to help me in clarify this point. I appreciate your point.--יודל 21:54, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Right, in my opinion the edits you've been making didn't achieve your aim, so the best idea will be to clarify your concerns here, and put suggestions on this talk page. In a broad sense we've to include those who are religiously creationist without having problems with findings of modern science, including evolution. We also have to point to the various positions opposing aspects of science, and note the now common use of the term to refer specifically to anti-evolution ideas. Look forward to seeing your comments here, and will think about it in the morning. .. dave souza, talk 22:14, 22 August 2007 (UTC)