Talk:Creationism/Archive 19

NPOV
Excellent job on the NPOV folks. This article seems to strive to present material in a factual manner without making judgment calls as to what is correct, which is the proper role of an encyclopaedia. 70.16.1.207 14:47, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


 * A compliment? That's so rare on here, I might have to sit down and catch my breath.  I haven't done much editing to this article, but I think your comments are  breath of fresh air.Orangemarlin 19:11, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


 * No, but you spend a lot of time deleting posts in talk topics. For someone makes a mockery of Religion, God and all those who believe because of both faith and scientific evidence, you sure spend a lot of time on a topic that is repugnant to you.


 * This article is merely "ok", except for the obviously biased and disgustingly unfair critique section that the extremist left wing Editors will not allow in their precious "Evolution' article. Ymous 17:18, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The above post seems to be little more than a personal attack on Orangemarlin. I think it might be a good idea for Ymous to withdraw it. SheffieldSteel 17:50, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I can not agree that the Creationism article is NPOV. As a simple example, notice that the Structure does not match the Evolution article. It appears designed to emphasize the variation of views, sociology, and controversies rather than a fundamental description or comparison of evidences. In any real discussion of evolution, the same diversion from the initial claims is at least as possible. mamgeorge 17:18, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The point you are replying to is five months old
 * There is no evidence for creationism, that's the problem. Every single piece of evidence provided by creation 'scientists' has been refuted.  thus.  WLU 17:23, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The reason it does not follow the same structure as Evolution is because Evolution is Science, whilst Creationism is Pseudoscience. This means among other things that Evolution is fairly unitary and internally consistent (give or take some arguments around the edges), whilst Creationism is a cacophony of conflicting views. This makes some major structural differences necessary. HrafnTalkStalk 17:28, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

First, thank you for your terse and rational replies. I appreciate what talk origins attempts to do, and the particular details it makes available for this discussion. With that in mind, please consider the following thoughts.


 * It appears you have made your judgment. Historically, however, science continually changes. Could it not be said 'Every single piece of evidence provided by scientists has been refuted'? All evidence is refutable, because observations continually change. Of course Creationism has evidence. But the evidence alone does not make it true. The issue is whether it has a valid (or possibly useful) interpretation.


 * I do not write that to play a polemical game. Is it not fair then to question your conclusion? Perhaps now your particular objectivity? 5 years ago who would have doubted how many planets there were? Do we know now? The correct answer is: no, and until we can see every place a planet could be, we will only reduce the probability of our error. Todays observations will probably change within 50 years. Is it really your goal to merely perpetuate your judgment? This is not NPOV. It is clearly a POV with a direction towards a sociological goal. Is not this what you criticize as fundamentally flawed within Creationist arguments? Is science really only about the affirmation of conclusions?


 * Consider the implications or redefining our entire universe as a byproduct of dark matter/energy. This is much more than a paradigm shift. Every observation is fundamentally altered with this view. In another 50 years, what other paradigm shift may require reinterpreting our observable reality? Does teaching that a viewpoint which is fundamentally and continually in flux have any inherent rational challenges?


 * It is the insistence on not representing the arguments that exposes the POV. For those that consider the details of Creation outside observation, Creationism must be classified as unscientific. Would doing so preclude its reality, or its usefulness at questioning scientific results? This does not imply that such questioning would help the scientific process (not inherently bad, presuppositionally). But if discovery has no final object, and observations change continually, what is science really providing anyway? Can faith issues (in relative and fluctuating scientific conclusions) really be removed?


 * A modest proposal: a list of the top ten Creationist arguments with their reasoning. Links (not debates) at the end of each to show their weaknesses. Surely that would be more objective; surely that would provide more direct points to debate. And for those that must look cynically at Creationism, surely that would be the best focal point of evolutionary proofs.


 * mamgeorge 16:59, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Three points:
 * Science refutes theories, it rarely refutes evidence. For that matter even theories are more frequently refined than refuted.
 * I've yet to see a genuinely "useful" Creationist criticism of science. At best, Creationism occasionally distracts scientific attention from other avenues of research towards research that refutes its claims. It is however highly questionable whether this leads to an efficient allocation of research resources.
 * Your "modest proposal" would be a violation of WP:UNDUE.
 * HrafnTalkStalk 17:11, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Further:
 * Wikipedia reports what is current, not what could happen. If things change, so will wikipedia.
 * Wikipedia is not the place to prove the fallacy of creationism, so the discussion of all the flaws is precluded, unnecessary, and contrary to policy. In addition to Undue, WP:OR, WP:SYNTH and WP:NPOV would probably be violated.
 * We would need to pick out the top 10. If someone else discussed the top 10, we could post that.  For us to do so is OR, irrespective of our criteria.
 * I'm not really sure of the rest of your argument - what problem do you see with this particular article? Is there something missing?  Are there errors?  What do you think needs to change?  Please start your reply in a new section as this one is quite long.  WLU 17:19, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

This article has greatly improved in its NPOV-ness since I last viewed it, but it has a few points that come close to attacking creationism without supporting it whatsoever. Creationism's greatest support is that it has logical thought behind it, it trys to explain the worlds creation in a way that matches both fact and theology. it does NOT reject all evidence that seems to undermind previously held creation theories, it only questions the evidence. Nonetheless, good work people. Thisflame  05:26, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Contrast to Evolution
I recomend that a section be given to contrast creationism and evolution. For example the opening statments state that creationism presupposes there is a God. Evolution presupposes that there is not one.Fbc215 19:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The Pope seems to be okay with the idea of evolution. SheffieldSteel 19:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Straight from the horse's mouth: "Concerning biological evolution, the Church does not have an official position on whether various life forms developed over the course of time. However, it says that, if they did develop, then they did so under the impetus and guidance of God, and their ultimate creation must be ascribed to him." http://www.catholic.com/library/adam_eve_and_evolution.asp SheffieldSteel 19:42, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Hm? Maybe it should be stated that evolution makes no claims on anything supernatural. Evolution neither supposes or denies a god, anymore than heliocentrism supposes or denies a god. 74.14.122.167 (talk) 13:43, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

The Pope is not in charge or president of Christianity. The Pope is a religious leader of Catholics. There is also Protestantism. Also, 90% of the worlds population belives there is a higher power, that is God. Fbc215 23:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I do not cite the Pope as a spokesperson for all Christianity, but as an excellent example of a prominent and notable Christian, and the head of a prominent and notable Christian church. If evolution indeed presupposes, as you assert, that there is no God, why do you suppose that the Pope, and the Catholic Church, are so willing to consider it? Shouldn't the Church be invoking infallibility and condemning the very idea of evolution rather than using such tentative and thoughtful language as in the quote above? SheffieldSteel 23:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The supposed presupposition there is not a God is not, in fact, true. The only presupposition is that the world works in a logical, elucible manner. Adam Cuerden talk 03:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Adam is correct. Evolution makes no statement about the existence or nonexistence of God. What it does provide is a simple, straightforward explanation for the development of life on Earth, without the need to resort to miracles or supernatural explanations. — Knowledge Seeker দ 05:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * "Also, 90% of the worlds population believes there is a higher power, that is God." Please quote a reference for these ridiculous numbers. Firstly 90% of the worlds population will say anything the are told to (90% of "educated" Americans apparently believed in weapons of mass destruction)  secondly nobody has spoken to 90% of the worlds population and thirdly 90% of the worlds population may believe in some higher power because they are prevented from being  educated  that there is no higher power or god by people who have a vested interest in this superstitious imaginary friend nonsense continuing.  user :cdxp
 * '[S]uperstitious imaginary friend nonsense'? Hey hey, calm down. Nobody is challenging anybody's atheistic religion, this is just a discussion page. Please stay friendly. - WolfieInu


 * Can someone clarify? Does 'evolution' assert that only natural forces shaped living things and asserts that there was no 'intelligent entity' influencing the development of life in any way? 69.211.150.60 13:07, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * That is a slightly different question. The theory of evolution does indeed state that the observed fact of evolution is explained by physical mechanisms alone. As such, it does not require or assume the existence of a god, but this is not the same as saying that it requires or assumes that no god exists, which was the claim made above by Fbc215. If that were the case, all Christians, Jews, and Moslems would have a religous duty to view evolution as fundamentally opposed to their religion. Only a small minority of these groups have thought it necessary to take that position. SheffieldSteel 13:41, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Evolution is a only a theory backed up by circumstantial evidence, which in retrospect, it also applies with creationism. The only difference is that evolutionism is more plausible due to scientific observation of mutation and perhaps natural selection.  Religion and science does not have to be a stepping stone for debateable conflict.  Through history, science has only applied a new perspective of religion.  It could be possible that maybe the first single cell lifeforms were created, and through millions of years of natural selection, came humans.  Idealist101 23:48, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * No. There are two types of scientific theories. Some are by observation: Energy that goes into a spring or a battery or a flywheel, etc. seems to be completely released when the system returns to its original state. Nobody has ever observed energy appearing or disappearing. Therefore, we have a theory of conservation of energy. There is no underlying theory as to why, it's purely observational; these are usually referred to as laws. Other theories are, however, by deduction: We have models of aerodynamics which lead inexorably to the theory that if you have a flat surface of sufficient size which moves through the air at a certain angle, it will lift a certain weight off the ground. Thus, numerous people around the beginning of the last century came up with the same theory of powered flight, and it was just a matter of applying it. The theory is based on logical implications of fundamental physical laws; if somebody should build an airplane of correct design and it refuses to lift off the ground, then that will shake the laws of physics. Evloution is of this latter type. If you believe in heredity, and you believe in genetic variation, and you believe in organisms' competing for an ecological niche, then evolution is an inevitable logical consequence. It is not a matter of "plausibility", it is required by our current understanding of biology, and if it is not true, then we are seriously barking up the wrong tree. Gzuckier 14:52, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

There is a difference between presupposition of a diety and the willingness to not rule out a diety as an a priori assumption. Many creationists hold the view that, when considering the origin of life, naturalistic assumptions related to causality should be relaxed because the nature of the inquiry is forensic in nature.Gryff (talk) 16:35, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * That is fine. A creationist or religious leader can believe anything they personally want to. However, science does not include magic and witchcraft and supernatural etc. It is not that such things do not exist, however, they are not part of science. Moreover, there is little evidence if any that such things exist and has never been demonstrated. Religion can not require science to redefine itself, just as science does not dictate to religious believers what they should include in their doctrines. You are free to believe whatever you like, but you are not free to force it on others. Thanks.--Filll (talk) 18:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Can you point to any existing "forensic inquiry" where "naturalistic assumptions related to causality" have been similarly "relaxed" by mainstream science? No, I didn't think so. So this whole "forensic inquiry" line of 'argument' is a complete non sequitor. HrafnTalkStalk 18:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with Hrafn. In forensic science itself, do you see anyone walking away from materialism? Try to convince a court of how reasonable this is. Or a police detective.--Filll (talk) 18:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Look, Creationism relates to the origins of the universe; Evolution does not. You cannot contrast the two because they do not relate. 4-13-08 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.251.225.58 (talk) 21:31, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


 * In a certain sense you are correct. Biological evolution is a much more narrow set of ideas than creationism encompasses. Creationism also deals with the origin of the universe and the origin of life and the creation of planetary bodies and their characteristics and the creation of stars and many other features, all of which are outside the purview of evolution.--Filll (talk) 23:04, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Council of Europe - Resolution 1580
I'm not sure exactly what the effect of thisresolution is, discussed on 4 October 2007. Is it a non-binding resolution? Does it hold any legal weight on what can and can't be taught in public schools?

Some excerpts:
 * 2. For some people the Creation, as a matter of religious belief, gives a meaning to life. Nevertheless, the Parliamentary Assembly is worried about the possible ill-effects of the spread of creationist ideas within our education systems and about the consequences for our democracies. If we are not careful, creationism could become a threat to human rights which are a key concern of the Council of Europe.


 * 3. Creationism, born of the denial of the evolution of species through natural selection, was for a long time an almost exclusively American phenomenon. Today creationist ideas are tending to find their way into Europe and their spread is affecting quite a few Council of Europe member states.


 * 19. The Parliamentary Assembly therefore urges the member states, and especially their education authorities:


 * 19.1. to defend and promote scientific knowledge;


 * 19.2. strengthen the teaching of the foundations of science, its history, its epistemology and its methods alongside the teaching of objective scientific knowledge;


 * 19.3. to make science more comprehensible, more attractive and closer to the realities of the contemporary world;


 * 19.4. to firmly oppose the teaching of creationism as a scientific discipline on an equal footing with the theory of evolution and in general resist presentation of creationist ideas in any discipline other than religion;


 * 19.5. to promote the teaching of evolution as a fundamental scientific theory in the school curriculum.

-- &#xF8FF;MacAddct1984 14:55, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately not: the Council of Europe is pretty much a talking shop. This is not a binding statute.--194.81.254.57 10:39, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, it's desperately unfortunate that the council of Europe cannot suppress someone's right to expound their beliefs. 199.71.183.2 14:31, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

This is completely a red herring, in Europe and the US. This s not a free speech issue. Creationism is not science, so it should not be taught as science. It can be taught as something else like philosophy or religion quite easily.

And no one should be prevented from expounding their beliefs. However, there is a point at which the right to expound your beliefs crosses over into coercion of others. No one should be forced to accept the beliefs of others. Period. Live and let live.

If you want to just learn enough science to pass the tests in school, and not believe what is taught, then fine. People have been indoctrinated into religions they do not believe for centuries with no ill effects. You have other alternatives, like private school and religious schools of course where you might even be able to evade science completely if you choose..--Filll 14:43, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * It's a statement of position, and thus notable. It was mentioned in the last issue of Reports of the National Center for Science Education, actually, but I thought I'd wait on the vote before quoting it. Adam Cuerden talk 14:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * In America, the US couldn't say that, becuase of freedom of religion. This whole section is very offensive to me actually.

No one should be forced to accept the beliefs of others. I agree. Abiogenesis shouldn't be taught either. It's just a belief, no evidence exists for this "soup" that "existed." Just my thoughts. RJRocket53 (talk) 03:07, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually it is a hypothesis, and should be taught as such. Unlike evolution there is considerable debate within the scientific community about the accuracy of abiogenesis, though there is evidence that the 'soup' existed it is not conclusive that life originated in it.--AlexCatlin (talk) 11:18, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes it is a theory, I know. But reading a textbook, I found nothing that said it was a theory. It said, this happened... then this, with no mention of it being just a theory. I have no problem with teaching it, as long as it is taught how it is, not dis-honestly. RJRocket53 (talk) 23:38, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * That's just it--it isn't a theory. It's a hypothesis.  There's a significant difference, and part of the problem stems from people misunderstanding the respective terms.  It's confusion and imprecise use of language of this sort that leads to the "just a theory" argument.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.186.174.14 (talk) 23:56, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Presupposition
I removed a statement that "existence of a deity was presupposed". Patently if someone believes that they have deduced the existence of a deity (which many people believe) and that from that they deduce that Creationism is true, then they are not "presupposing" existence of a deity, and more than Evolution is "presupposing" the age of the Earth. There was a reference, but to a general book with no page number given and hence impossible to track down. 199.71.183.2 14:36, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

"religious belief...created by a deity". Does anyone want to explain why the world "religious" is needed here? It's an obvious tautology. 199.71.183.2 15:00, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * It might be slightly superfluous but I do not think it is bad English.--Filll 15:09, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * If it is superfluous, why should we not remove it? Fewer words are always better then many, if the extra words add nothing. 199.71.183.2 16:07, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * religious belief is not a tautology? a tautology is an unnecessary (and usually unintentional) repetition of meaning, utilising different words, i.e. saying the same thing twice.

"religion" and "belief" do not have the same meaning? Teapotgeorge 16:16, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

"Belief is the psychological state in which an individual is convinced of the truth of a proposition." this is a defintion. A person can believe that water will boil at 100 C because they have evidence that it will. Also a person can believe there is a G_d because they intuit it. Not a tautology. A religious belief is different than a belief in a logical inference. Imbrella 16:32, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * "religious belief" is not a tautology, but "religious belief in a deity" is a tautology. That's what I was talking about. 199.71.183.2 17:29, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The word "religious" precedes "belief" because it's a very good way of characterising Creationism at the very beginning of the article. To an extent, it's included for historical reasons (various POV pushers tried to insert the word "irrational" and even "false" in that place, when really only "religious" can be argued to be accurate and neutral). I wouldn't oppose removing the last clause, since it is so common for things to be "presupposed to exist". Sheffield Steel talkstalk 17:43, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not, strictly speaking, tautological. I can believe in a deity as an abstract concept revered by some without believing that this deity has any tangible existence. --Stephan Schulz 17:53, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I think it would be very hard to imagine a case where "belief that the universe was created by a deity" was not religious. 199.71.183.2 18:02, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Tell that to the Intelligent Design cre(a)ti(o)nists. (RJRocket changed to keep you from offending someone by calling them a cretinist) Odd nature 18:28, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * "religious belief in a deity" is not a tautology, as there exist religions (e.g. the more primal forms of Buddhism and Taoism) that do not believe in a deity. HrafnTalkStalk 17:43, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I find it ironic that Imbrella would compare belief in a diety to logic. Firstly, whether or not you believe in, or presuppose, the existence of something does not make it true or false. That being said, the existence of a deity can easily be proved by the Law of Cause and Effect: "every effect must have an antecedent cause". Now you may say "what caused a deity into being?" Well, a higher deity, as held by many religions as an intelligent designer, is not n effect; it is a cause. 4-16-08 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.40.236.1 (talk) 14:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Recent edits regarding YEC being discredited
[FIRST TWO COMMENTS COPIED FROM USER TALK:DIEGO]

Actually, as per WP:WEASEL, I disagree. I reverted again 'cause I didn't realize there was a discussion, but I won't revert again until this is resolved. Though the existence of criticism should obviously be mentioned, it really doesn't belong in the lead, even if cited. Gscshoyru 22:29, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Gscshoyru, I'm a little confused. Your recent reversion of my edit doesn't seem to have anything to do with the discussion above. Does it? The above comments were in reference to a phrase that redundantly mentioned "religious" and "deity" in the same sentence. Your edit, on the other hand, seemed to involve a statement asserting that young earth creationism had been largely discredited. It was [citation needed] tagged, then promptly deleted. I agree that the wording could be clearer to avoid weasel words, but again, does anyone actually contest that statement (from a scientific perspective, not a theological perspective)? Is there really anyone who could say with a straight face "the majority of scientists actually think that young earth creationism is a valid interpretation of the evidence" or "modern cosmological and biological theories, which are supported by an overwhelming majority of scientists, are totally compatible with young earth creationism"? No. Because modern scientific theories have discredited young earth creationism as a valid explanation for the evidence. Belief in YEC requires faith. I don't think mentioning that it is overwhelmingly discredited by scientific evidence is overly critical to put in the lead, as long as it is clear who or what has discredited it as a viable evidence-based theory. Creationists often seem to reject science outright and turn to faith as the sole rationale for their beliefs, so how is the view of the majority of scientists overly critical? If creationists are right about science, then scientific criticisms of creationism would actually be silly and meaningless. YEC, as a theory explaining the origins of the cosmos and life on earth, is in direct conflict with the evidence (and the people who study that evidence). That may or may not be important to some people. How about presenting both sides in a factual way that does not give undue weight to any single opinion and let readers decide for themselves? Isn't that what NPOV is all about? Either way, I think we can move this discussion to the article talk page, since it involves the article. Thanks. — DIEGO  talk 00:22, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I removed truth fish logo because is innapropriate.


Ironically, this is actually an accurate sentiment from the perspective of those supporting evolution as it suggests evolution can be digested by truth, while Creationism cannot be. Any person with a sold grasp logic would immediately see the implication, yet those who use these bumper stickers are completely oblivious to the fact that they are implicitly pointing out the irrelevence of their "theory". Annoyed with fanboys 19:06, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I reverted the removal. It's a creationist response to the 'evolutionist' response to the Jesus fish.


 * Logic is a hallmark of original research, which is barred from inclusion on wikipedia
 * Your rational appears to be mostly opinion, which is POV, and wikipedia should not include POV edits.
 * WLU 19:09, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * are you really arguing that no one on wikipedia is allowed to use logic? That surely can't be what you're trying to say. User:Jonwilliamsl(talk|contribs) 14:09, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * It should be included. Period. RJRocket53 (talk) 03:12, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Capitalisation of "Biblical"
All proper adjectives in the English language are capitalized. For example, we write "Quranic" and not quranic, "Vedic" and not vedic, "Australian" and not australian, so why must "Biblical" be a special exception? It makes no sense at all. If you check the history of the usage of the word, you will see that "Biblical" has always been more common than "biblical" according to the OED, notwithstanding what a few recent style guides like Chicago may attempt to impose. Til Eulenspiegel 14:19, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, Wikipedia generally follows "recent" (i.e., first published in 1906)style guides like Chicago (see the Bible article for examples). Also, the OED is not a style guide, it is a dictionary. Whether or not you agree with the rationale, its important to be consistent, hence the lowercase b on biblical and capital B on Bible. I noticed your spelling of "capitalisation" on the heading, and I'm wondering if this is yet another British vs. American spelling difference. Either way, don't go randomly changing from one to the other. Thanks — DIEGO  talk 14:24, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia has no such specific policy to write "biblical" while at the same time writign "Vedic" "Talmudic" and "Koranic", etc. If you can, please show me this policy.  This is a grave injustice that needs to be dealt with, and it is perhaps indicative of the special vehemence certain POV scholars and academics hold  for the Bible alone, as opposed to the Koran, Talmud and Veda, to supposedly make "biblical" the only proper adjective in the entire language NOT to be capitalised. Til Eulenspiegel 14:29, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia has a guideline to maintain consistency within an article or related group of articles (WP:STYLE). The word biblical is simply not capitalized in the vast majority of printed sources published within the last 50 years. That counts for something. This is not a "Wikipedia-specific" issue, it is a matter of common usage. Like I said, you may not agree with the rationale, but that doesn't mean it is appropriate to go around adding a capital B to biblical. A quick Google search will reveal millions of examples of biblical (small b). These are not all errors, that is just the way it is spelled. I don't know why Vedic is capitalized but biblical is not. I'm neither a linguist nor a high school English teacher. But it doesn't really matter why, it only matters what is. Do you spell "quixotic" with a capital Q? Just curious. There are plenty of proper adjectives that are not capitalized. Where is the "grave injustice" here? This is just spelling. Capital letters are not an indication of inherent respect. Not capitalizing biblical is not disrespectful to the content of the Bible, it is simply a convention of language. Also, if you really believe this is a grave injustice, take up the issue with the style manuals, the Associated Press and the millions of people who write 'biblical. I repeat this is not a "Wikipedia" issue. The article simply follows actual English usage. — DIEGO  talk 14:37, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


 * This is prejudice and will obviously have to be dealt with to establish a specific, fair site-wide policy. I would also dispute that the uses of "biblical" as opposed to "Biblical" are or ever have been in the majority.  Siding with style guides that single out just one proper adjective is not neutral, and unfair.  BTW, "Quixotic" is capitalised when it is used as a proper adjective, that is, to refer to the accompanying proper noun, eg. "in Quixotic literature" perhaps.  But it is not capitalised when used as a common adjective, to describe an abstract quality. Til Eulenspiegel 14:43, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Where is the prejudice? Whether I call something Biblical or biblical, the content of the statement does not change. Whether I refer to a man as Black or black, the content doesn't change. Please provide evidence that capital B is more prevalent today (not over the course of history -- that's not how style and usage decisions are made). Which current style guides (not dictionaries, which do not prescribe usage)recommend a capital B? Where are the examples of Biblical being used on Wikipedia (not in the first word of a sentence, obviously). I don't honestly understand why this is a problem, and I especially do not understand how you can find "prejudice" and "grave injustice" in a simple style issue. Please try to take the emotionality out and look at the facts. And by "facts" (see today's FA, Truthiness), I mean "how is the world actually spelled in the majority of recent publications?" If this were really a "grave injustice", why are you the first person to take issue with it so strenuously? Where is the Christian lobby demanding a capital B on biblical? I imagine they have more important things to feel insulted about. Thanks. — DIEGO  talk 14:56, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


 * It is obvious prejudice to single out one book from all the books of the world and give it special treatment in this way, while continuing to write "Vedic", "Talmudic", etc. This is now being taken up at WP:BIBLE. Til Eulenspiegel 15:01, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

[THIS DISCUSSION HAS MOVED TO Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bible]

Oriental Orthodox position on Creationism
Does anyone seriously doubt that the Oriental Orthodox Churches are a huge group (predominantly found in the Middle East) who unambiguously teach that God created the Earth around 6000 years ago? I wanted to correct the fiction that "47% of Americans", or USA Protestants, or whoever, are the only group in the world to take this position. But I have run into some roadblocks in correcting this article that I have a hard time understanding. There are very likely other groups or sections just as large in the Muslim and Jewish worlds who also take this view, so let us attempt to look past our own noses and take accurate note of what various other people around the world believe, instead of focusing exclusively on Americans and pretend that others either do not count or do not exist. Til Eulenspiegel 18:09, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


 * All you have to do is include a reference to a WP:RS stating that YEC is part of church doctrine for all OO churches. The only reason I challenged this is because the OOC is a group of diverse churches rather than a single governing body. Therefore, making a statement that applies to all, yet goes beyond the widely acknowledged shared characteristics among these groups could easily be questioned. Not to mention, I have several Armenian Orthodox friends who don't seem to think that their church teaches young earth creationism as a matter of doctrine. Of course they could be wrong, which is why I requested that you support your statement with an inline reference in the article in question (Creationism). Thanks. — DIEGO  talk 18:25, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Fair enough, I am not sure about the Armenians and will look that up, but my sources can at least verify that the Coptic, Ethiopian, and Eritrean Churches all agree on this. Til Eulenspiegel 18:28, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I am quite interested in this and would put it in other articles if we could track down better references. I am interested in exactly what denominations subscribe to biblical literalism, biblical inerrancy, biblical infallibility and subscribe to various forms of creationism (see ) and what the actual personal claimed beliefs of those members of those denominations are ). It should be noted that there are large groups of African Christians and even some groups within the Catholic Church (see ) that are creationist or even YEC in nature.--Filll 19:06, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I have found one Armenian Church website sthagop.com/Looys.pdf that seems to confirm what Diego said about their not being necessarily literalist YEC, while at the same time, affirming their strong belief that only God created creation (they allow that it may not have been literally around 6000 years ago, but possibly far longer ago, in accordance with Evolution theory.) So, it appears that they do not share the definite, staunch YEC position of the Coptic Church and daughter churches in Ethiopia / Eritrea. I still have not researched the Syrian and Indian branches of the OOC yet. Til Eulenspiegel 20:28, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

It strikes me that it might be useful for us to compile all this information into a daughter article with a few citations. I do not know if there is room for it in this article, but I think if we could document the positions of a few major faiths in christianity and perhaps in Islam and Judaism on this, possibly with a reference or two to the Hindu creationists and maybe some others, then it might be a useful article. What do you think?--Filll 20:46, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


 * My views aside, I found this article by bouncing around, as many do, following somehow Til Eulenspiegel's 3rr problem nad discussion thereof. I note that he does appear to have satisfied some aspects of citation as relates to the OOC. Cna another editos work with him to include the cited information he did acquire for the article? That or gather a set to build into a section back here, then add? Either way, I think his information adds valid, on topic, information to the article. ThuranX 20:58, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Filll that this information is both fascinating and complicated enough to warrant an article of its own. As he indicated, church doctrine does not always match the beliefs of individual adherents, which adds an interesting wrinkle to any attempts to pigeonhole certain faiths into certain beliefs, given the wide spectrum of Bible interpretations as well as the spectrum of beliefs often lumped together under "creationism".

Til Eulenspiegel, I'm sorry if I left you with the impression that I objected to the inclusion of OOC information in the article. I had no problem with you adding the statement, I just wanted you to include a reference because the statement didn't match my understanding of the OOC as a whole (particularly the Armenian Orthodox Church). I think any well-sourced information that can put creationism into a more global perspective is helpful to the article. I appreciate your effort to find sources and clarify the statement. Thanks — DIEGO  talk 23:57, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Holders of view
Want to note that the view is widely held within Haredi Judaism. See for example. Best, --Shirahadasha 20:20, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

"biblical" or "Biblical"?
Biblical or biblical? Should Wikipedia adopt a style guideline favoring one over the other when used as an adjective referring to the Bible (e.g., Biblical scholar, biblical exegesis, Biblical foundation, biblical support, etc.)?

Please comment on the RFC at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bible. Thanks — DIEGO  talk 18:22, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Any proper noun that is used as an adjective would be capitalized, according to grammar. RJRocket53 (talk) 02:52, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Suggested changes:
Removed to User talk:Dontletmedown.

ScienceApologist 01:09, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Off-topic trolling removed again to User talk:Partgreen, a confirmed sockpuppet of User:Raspor (see Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Raspor). — DIEGO  talk 16:20, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Rejection of evolution
It's not clear what "rejection of evolution" means. Are we talking only about the Young Earth Creationists who say all forms of life are 10,000 years old? Or do we also include Old Earth Creationists who believe in some aspects of evolution like the gradual appearance of forms of life over hundreds of millions of years (as in progressive creationism)?

Clearly in America 15% accept evolution completely, while 40 to 45% reject it completely. But what about the middle group? Do people who say things like "Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process" *accept* or *reject* evolution?

Is acceptance or rejection an either/or thing? Or do American adults pick and choose which parts of the various viewpoints they accept or reject? --Uncle Ed 01:16, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes I agree. To say 'creationists reject evolution' is not an accurate statement. For instance does and old-earth creationist reject theists-evolution. It is too much of a blanket statement. It is a continuum and grey scale. Massachew 14:49, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Young Earth creationists reject descent with modification (which currently redirects to "Evolution") and natural selection, right? If so, this should be made clear in the article.


 * Perhaps it is not clear whether "descent with modification" is PART of evolution or is IDENTICAL with evolution. I think evolution has various aspects, which need to identified as distinct yet related elements. The various creationists differ in which of the elements or aspects they accept or reject. --Uncle Ed 15:08, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

This has been argued ad infinitum on these pages. And it is clear in the text and the cited references. Different creationists believe different things. And all creationists, except for maybe those classed as subscribing to "theistic evolution", reject one part or another of the standard current scientific view. And therefore creationists are classified roughly into different categories, in the cited references and in the text here.

Why is this so hard for people to understand? Do people just resist reading and understanding the text? This is not rocket science; different creationists believe different things. But all of them reject some part of evolution, except maybe for the largest group, those who subscribe to theistic evolution. --Filll 15:27, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

"while Old Earth creationism accepts geological findings but rejects evolution." We are trying to make articles accurate and easily understood by new people. This sentence seems to indicate that OECs reject all aspect of evolutionary theory which they do not.

'while Old Earth creationism accepts an earth of billions of years of age but do not accept all of the tenets of evolutionary theory.' Massachew 15:55, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Filll,


 * It's probably hard to understand because various writers have interpreted the percentages of Americans who "reject evolution" differently. If "evolution" means that new forms of life appeared gradually and that God had nothing to do with it, then Old Earth and Young Earth creationists both reject it (37% + 43% = 80%). That leaves 15% supporting evolution and 5% undecided.


 * But if the viewpoint of theistic evolution means the belief that "evolution and creationism are compatible", then it would appear that evolution can mean simply that new forms of life appeared gradually. This second usage leaves the question of God's intervention as an open question.


 * When you referred to the largest group, did you mean "godless evolutionists" (no disrespect intended :-) + "progressive creationists" (15% + 37% = 52%)? If so, then I'd have to agree with you, because 52% is larger than 43% (Young Earth creationists). --Uncle Ed 15:58, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

All Creationists (excepting Theistic evolution‎ists, who are not, generally, considered to be creationists) reject some/all central tenets of the Theory of Evolution (and the scientific facts of evolution underlying it). Young Earth creationists do so openly and unequivocally, Old Earth creationists and Intelligent design advocates often obfuscate and equivocate their disagreement. HrafnTalkStalk 16:09, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't believe that's accurate, if a Theistic evolutionist believes that some higher power created the universe, that makes them a creationist in a broad sense, irregardless of whether or not they are considered mainstream. Plus, it makes no sense at all, why would believing that the universe was created by something/someone automatically make it impossible to believe in the theory of evolution? Homestarmy 16:17, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Believe whatever you like -- it's what you can substantiate that matters. Ronald Numbers doesn't include Theistic Evolutionists in his The Creationists (arguably the most authoritative history of the Creationist movement), I would suspect that none but the most ardent of atheists would call Kenneth R. Miller (who is listed in the Kenneth Miller disambiguation as "U.S. biologist known for his opposition to creationism") one. Likewise I've yet to see any creationist group that accepts TEs as "one of us". "believes that some higher power created the universe" is not a useful definition of "Creationist". And please don't use "irregardless" -- it is not a word, it's a meaningless double negative. HrafnTalkStalk 16:27, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

-- Progressive creationism Progressive creationism thus rejects evolution. HrafnTalkStalk 16:19, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


 * First of all, the word "generally" there means there are exceptions, thusly making the "all" in your statement suspect. Second of all, quoting the Wikipedia article definition alone isn't very helpful, since Wikipedia isn't supposed to reference itself. Besides, why does a Theistic evolutionist have to believe that God directly intervenes in the process of evolution? If someone believes that existance was created by some higher power, they are a creationist, period. Though, with the lead of this article focusing mostly on the United States and mainstream Protestant opinion, I can understand how a reader might miss that. Homestarmy 16:25, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


 * No -- "Progressive creationism ... posits that the new "kinds" of plants and animals that have appeared successively over the planet's history represent instances of God directly intervening to create those new types by means outside the realm of science." This is explicit rejection of evolution. A Theistic evolutionist does not "believe that God directly intervenes in the process of evolution" -- at least not in any way that is detectable or distinguishable from randomness. If you cannot cite a WP:RS that "if someone believes that existance was created by some higher power, they are a creationist", then your opinion is inadmissible WP:OR, period. HrafnTalkStalk 16:40, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Many colors in the spectrum of thought
I wonder if we are paying enough attention to the details that distinguish the various creationist viewpoints. I've started reading this outline for a college course, and it seems to provide more detail than the article.

The chart in "Types of Christian creationism" is a good start, but does anyone else think our article should provide more detail? --Uncle Ed 17:12, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

It appears to be problematical on a few points, e.g.:
 * "Evolutionism: An attempt to draw philosophical and theological conclusions from macroevolution, e.g. that there is no Creator and no purpose to human existence." appears to be a heavily idiosyncratic definition
 * "Some arguments rightly point out the weaknesses in macroevolution..." would appear to be groundless
 * It appears to lump all forms of Old Earth creationism as "Progressive creationism" -- which is I suspect highly idiosyncratic

Overall however, there does appear to be some useful information here. I would have no problem using it where it does not contradict a more authoritative source (e.g. Numbers, or some other expert on Creationism). HrafnTalkStalk 17:43, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I would not mind using it as a reference, but it is not a peer-reviewed publication. The division we currently have is taken from several peer-reviewed publications. The danger is that we will make things confusing by including too much detail. This might be better left for a footnote.--Filll 18:07, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Creationism is Fundamentally a Philosophical Issue... Not Necesarily a Religious One
The Philosophy of Creationism extends all the way back to Plato in his dialog the Timaeus where he says:

"Now everything that becomes or is created must of necessity be created by some cause, for without a cause nothing can be created...was the world, I say, always in existence and without beginning? or created, and had it a beginning? Created, I reply, being visible and tangible and having a body, and therefore sensible; and all sensible things are apprehended by opinion and sense and are in a process of creation and created. Now that which is created must, as we affirm, of necessity be created by a cause. But the father and maker of all this universe is past finding out; and even if we found him, to tell of him to all men would be impossible." Quoted from this web page: http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/timaeus.html

To be from a NPOV we need to look at Creationism in the historical context where it has throughout time been discussed in a philosophical framework as apposed to our narrow minded American: Science vs. "Religion" framework. I say it is first and foremost a philosophical belief as apposed to a religious one because the existence of a creator can be determined using Plato's reasoning apart from culturally imposed religious views. Plato was a Philosopher not a theologian. Creationism is a philosophical belief from which many people draw religious implications.

Many scientists throughout history, including Galileo and Newton, worked under a creationist philosophy or rather a belief in a creator. This book looks at the philosophy of creationism and how it coexists with science http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=6lyoiNuypCUC&oi=fnd&pg=PR9&dq=philosophy+God+creation&ots=hrvQWDf5Tj&sig=JwbjdY8V4dvA5JjtMx0M4PlEh0k

Unfortunately, I don't have time right now to find many other sources discussing the philosophy of Creationism but I will try to find time later.Kwbagwel 09:06, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

You have failed to: HrafnTalkStalk 11:00, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * establish that Plato's views constitute a school of thought widely described as the "Philosophy of Creationism"
 * demonstrate how any of this is relevant to the modern meaning of the word
 * demonstrate any relevance of Galileo's or Newton's views when they (1) lived before the Theory of Evolution was postulated and (2) made no significant contribution to Biology
 * demonstrate why we should take the word of Nancy R. Pearcey & Charles B. Thaxton -- two Creationist cranks from the Let's Lie About Science Institute -- about absolutely anything


 * Logical Law of Cause and Effect: every effect must have an antecedent cause.

Logic: the science and art of reason. 4-25-08 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.195.196.19 (talk) 02:32, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

How interesting...
The "Creationism" page has an "Evolution" section - links to talk.origins, evowiki, Dawkins and other notorious opponents of creationism, along with a nice "anti-creationism link directory" (sic) - in its links section. The "Evolutionism" page, other other hand, has virtually zero creationism-related links. Quite revealing, to say the least... - Zed, 17 November 2007


 * Not really. It's not "revealing", it's inevitable, per WP:UNDUE: "Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views." HrafnTalkStalk 14:05, 17 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, revealing of a blatant violation of the stated wikipedia standard on minority views (and the tiny minority - 13% in the U.S - is not the creationists) Note the use of "scientists" or the "scientific community" without every specifying which scientists (political scientists? computer scientists?) or community in what locale (city, country, continent ...)  Z1perlster (talk) 19:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Do you want to qualify that statement further? In a 2004 Gallup poll, 45% of respondents chose "God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so,". Not a tiny minority, even if the rest of the english speaking world is added. rossnixon 01:19, 18 November 2007 (UTC)


 * We are talking evolution, so it is clearly the scientific community that is the relevant population. Given the proportion of Americans who believe (or at least answer polls) that the sun revolves around the Earth, can't find Florida on a map, etc, their views are hardly a reliable yardstick. HrafnTalkStalk 03:37, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * appeal to authority Z1perlster (talk) 18:56, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Right... that poll inlcuded all people from other countries, and all age groups (a five year old wouldn't do so good at finding Florida or astronomy).

Given the number of Wikipedians that believe that is a reliable statistic, they aren't a reliable yardstick either... by your logic, not mine. RJRocket53 (talk) 03:00, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Furthermore, a tiny majority of the English speaking world believes in Creationism (just sticking with the fact that this is an English encyclopedia). Oh yeah, Americans believe in Alien abductions too.   Orange Marlin  Talk•Contributions 08:31, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh yeah, Americans believe in Alien abductions too. Right... I'm American so I have to believe in alien abductions... And actually, many people do believe in it, not a tiny minority. 2 BILLION people are Christian, and a majority believe in creation, a tiny minority theistic evo. Plus, only 18% of people in the world are athiest. (Not that only athiests believe in evolution.) It's not a tiny minority. RJRocket53 (talk) 02:59, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * There are numerous reliable sources discussing the problems with creationism from a scientific perspective. There are none discussing problems with evolution from a creationist perspective because creationism is not a scientific critique.  Creationism is not discussed in peer-reviewd journals (the essence of a RS) except for philosophical/historical ones which are not eligible for inclusion regarding scientific and evidence-based issues.  Creationism is a theological issue, not a scientific one, but by purporting to be scientific, it opens itself to criticisms and rebuttal from scientists.  Evolution, one the other hand, does not portray itself as a theological issue, therefore there's no reason for theology or theologians to get involved.  WLU (talk) 16:07, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Rewording the WP:Undue policy then... how does this sound? "Views that are held by a tiny minority of the "experts" in a subject should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views." rossnixon 01:04, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Feel free to attempt to get WP:UNDUE changed. In the mean time, we'll continue to apply it in the most reasonable manner, as specified above. HrafnTalkStalk 02:46, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

The post on 18 November states that there are no reliable sources discussing the problems with evolution from a creationist perspective. Two questions: If a PhD in a scientific discipline submits a paper to a peer-reviewed publication, is it possible that there is a bias in selection of articles (i.e. is peer review independent of bias)? Second, would it be acceptable to cite references to portions of peer-reviewed articles as being a valid scientific critique? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gryff (talk • contribs) 17:00, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Please see WP:REDFLAG, bullet four, and all the reviews of Behe's books. Though there is doubtless some reflexive rejection of creationism by many scientists, the lack of convincing evidence is the much more crippling problem.  Creationism's hypotheses get attention from scientists, who generally demonstrate the evidence for the scientific mainstream view and lack of evidence for the creationist alternative.  Johnson's argument that scientists reject the creationist viewpoint out of hand due to paradigmatic concerns is as indefensible as his attempts to deal with the evidence for evolution.  WP:V states that we report what is extant, not unsourceable percieved problems with how peer-reviewing takes place.  Sources count more than assertions, so if you have a source, present it.  WLU (talk) 17:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * This thread died about three weeks ago, so posting opinions is a bit silly (in my opinion). WLU (talk) 19:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * "Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views."

Christians 33.32% (of which Roman Catholics 16.99%, Protestants 5.78%, Orthodox 3.53%, Anglicans 1.25%), Muslims 21.01%, Hindus 13.26%, Buddhists 5.84%, Sikhs 0.35%, Jews 0.23%, Baha'is 0.12%, other religions 11.78%, non-religious 11.77%, atheists 2.32% (2007 est.) [] 33.32% Christians 6.65 billion people live on Earth. []

6.65 billion*33.32% = 2,215,780,000 people are Christians 6.65 billion*21.01% = 1,397,165,000 people are Muslims 6.65 billion*.23% = 15,295,000 people are Jews Total: 3,628,240,000 Realistically, about half believe in creation. That equals: 1,814,120,000 A tiny minority? RJRocket53 (talk) 23:51, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm glad somebody stuck those statisctics up there. Christians aren't the only people on Earth that believe in Creationism.  And the existing Creationists are certainly NOT a minority.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.195.196.19 (talk) 17:12, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Being Christian, or Jewish, or Moslem, does not means you accept Creationism. I've met Orthodox Jewish rabbis that accept both the scientific fact/theory of evolution, along with Genesis. The funny thing, is even among my more religious Christian and Jewish friends, most (not all) have no problem accepting both the Biblical view of Creation and evolution (clearly not a scientific survey, and I don't mean to suggest my experience is meaningful, just anecdotal). And, not one accepts the Church-calculated age of the Earth. If you believe in Creationism, you need to accept the Bible literally, and then you should accept the calculated age of the Earth, n'est ce pas?


 * What I am trying to say, is these surveys are incomplete. You might see 45% that say they believe G-d created man, and you also might find 95% that think evolution is correct too (I have no idea what that number would be), as long as it is not presented as a biased either/or survey.Sposer (talk) 01:12, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * "Realistically, about half belief in creation." You are original research and I claim my £5. Don't worry if you don't get the reference. I could metaphorically throw a stone in this page and hit a couple of Jews, an atheist, and a Quaker who happen to not believe in Creationism, and that's just the ones I know of. Not to mention that The Catholic church officially does not require belief in creationism from its members (I believe the ref is still on the article page for that one). Also, was Sposer said.  S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 03:14, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Just to clarify: We cannot improve the article by making changes based on original research. We should be using this Talk page only for discussing improvements to the article. Apologies for any distractions. S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 14:18, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * What do you, or Wikipedia for that matter, define as original research? I looked up those stats myself and there is a link to the CIA World Fact Book on the post.  I would really like to know what everyone defines original research as because it seems like whenever a creationist brings up any kind of number it gets refuted as "original research" or "unreliable".  What's the deal?  5-10-08  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.195.196.19 (talk) 01:11, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Read the policy WP:OR and WP:NOR to start with. That should get you started. It takes a while to understand it really however. To start with, the only thing you can put in articles is stuff with very good sources. And the CIA factbook is a good source.--Filll (talk) 02:07, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Original Research?
I see many claims about the pseudo-scientific nature of this article, but none have sources.
 * [That Creationism is pseudoscientific has been thoroughly established both in court cases and by the scientific & philosophy of science communities. You can find the more prominent of the former listed in Creation-evolution controversy. HrafnTalkStalk 01:39, 22 November 2007 (UTC)]

Strictly speaking, day-age creationism is not so much a creationist theory as a hermeneutic option which may be combined with theories such as progressive creationism. No source
 * [Per WP:NPOVFAQ, references can be found on the cited main article Day-Age Creationism, which this section summarises (in an unhelpfully jargon-ridden manner, unfortunately). HrafnTalkStalk 01:39, 22 November 2007 (UTC)]

This view of natural history runs counter to current scientific understanding, is unsupported by peer-reviewed articles in respected scientific journals, and is considered pseudoscience. No source.
 * [See above <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 01:39, 22 November 2007 (UTC)]

Neo-Creationists intentionally distance themselves from other forms of creationism, preferring to be known as wholly separate from creationism as a philosophy. Its goal is to restate creationism in terms more likely to be well received by the public, education policy makers and the scientific community. It aims to re-frame the debate over the origins of life in non-religious terms and without appeals to scripture, and to bring the debate before the public. No source, unverifiable, and prejudiced.
 * [Per WP:NPOVFAQ, references can be found on the cited main article Neo-creationism, which this section summarises. The claim is most certainly verifiable -- as its basis can be found in a direct quote from Phillip E. Johnson (the 'father' of the neo-creationist Intelligent design movement) in his article. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 01:39, 22 November 2007 (UTC)]

Should we add original research?

God in the Bible, and his Baconian method introduced the empirical approach which became central to modern science.[26] Natural theology developed the study of nature with the expectation of finding evidence supporting Christianity, and numerous attempts were made to reconcile new knowledge with Noah's Flood.[27] It says numerous attempts were made, but not if they succeeded. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.115.130.174 (talk) 00:35, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * [Most probably not, or the movement wouldn't have died out. Read Natural theology to find out. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 01:39, 22 November 2007 (UTC)]

I'm the one who posted the Original Research
I know I can read those and find the answers.

But, I am posting that so people reading the encyclopedia will have all the sources without having to look in different articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.115.130.174 (talk • contribs) 19:16, 1 December 2007


 * We sign our posts. And we do not make claims that we cannot back up with sources. Learn how Wikipedia works next time.--Filll 20:24, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Why is signing Filll any better than signing with an IP address? As for sources, I notice that even the bible is admitted as a source, so anything goes! Mike0001 13:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Firstly, you are free to sign with an i.p. address and no-one said otherwise. The first comment was not signed with anything, so it had a tag added afterwards. Secondly, the Bible can be used as a cite of claims that the Bible makes, but it cannot be used as a scientific or historical resource as it's accuracy is fairly dubious on such matters. Refer to WP:Cite for more comprehensive guidelines. Jefffire 13:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I can back that up with sources, and that time I just didn't log in.

76.115.130.174 02:24, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Sound good. Make sure the sources are reliable and authoritative. Jefffire 13:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Creationism is a scientific theory
I incorrectly was told to stop vandalizing this page when I was simply correcting the erroneous view that Creationism is merely a religious belief. To say that Creationism is completely religious is to ignore the truth and is not remaining neutral. Creationism has many scientific facts and theories. For example the Institute for Creation Research http://www.icr.org/ is actively researching and proposing new scientific theory based on Creationism. So Creationism is a scientific theory as much as Darwin’s theory of evolution is a scientific theory. They both require self evident axioms and both use deductive reasoning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.163.247.1 (talk) 22:56, 8 December 2007


 * ICR is hardly a reliable source. And Creationism relies upon faith, cannot be falsified, and hardly satisfies any aspects of science.  This has been discussed about 400 times. Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 06:00, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The articles that deal with the "scientific" aspects as you describe them are flood geology and creation science (and a couple more I think).--Filll (talk) 06:01, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * 1. Why is ICR an unreliable source? Because it researches Creation? That's hardly a reason. That's just prejudice and bias.


 * The ICR is an unreliable source because it assumes its conclusions as tenets of faith, as well as a long track record of sloppy scholarship. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 03:26, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The ICR has never had their research published in a mainstream scientific journal, so labelling something as extensively tested and documented as evolution as equivalent to research from the ICR is as WP:UNDUE as it gets. --AlexCatlin (talk) 23:00, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with 216.163.247.1, this article isn't nuetral. RJRocket53 (talk) 02:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


 * ICR is a reliable source for some things, like its employees and location. But it is not a reliable source for science. And the article strives to abide by WP:NPOV, WP:WEIGHT, WP:FRINGE, and WP:UNDUE.--Filll (talk) 03:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

"Creation science" is falsifiable; it makes falsifiable predictions about things like the origin of the Grand Canyon. And, of course, these predictions have been falsified. Creationism, on the other hand, is a theological concept...and it's the reason why the "creation scientists" hang on to their beliefs, despite the fact that their predictions have been falsified. 72.200.212.123 (talk) 06:12, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Falsifiability is not the only important criteria to consider when looking at the demarcation problem, that is, when trying to decide what is and what is not science. For example, consider the Daubert standard which does not include falsifiability in the "checklist".

Also, there are multiple reasons why creation science and creationism are not science, not all of which have to do with falsifiability, although they both fail the falsifiability test. Obviously, the theory of evolution has changed repeatedly over the last 2 centuries, as it has had to be modified to fit the new data. This is the hallmark of falsifiability and absolutely required for science. Creationism has not really changed at all in 2 centuries; this is why it is not science. It does not change to fit the new data that come in.

Probably the largest problem with creationism and creation science is that they require the introduction of magic as an explanation for physical phenomena. This completely violates the central tenets of science, and this requirement would be pure poison to science. The Muslim world did this about 1000 years ago when Al Ghazali published The Incoherence of the Philosophers and went from being the most advanced scientific and technological society on earth to one of the most backward. This is the future that creationists are trying to push on the modern world.--Filll (talk) 16:43, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Magic? How is that in creationism?

RJRocket53 (talk) 05:24, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Well it is all a game of semantics. Magic, Supernatural, Miraculous, Ethereal, Immaterial, Numinous, Preternatural, Mystical, Transcendent, Spiritual, Mana, Karmic, Orgonic, Auric, etc. Are these the same? Related? Different? The basic idea is that in creationism something nonphysical has to happen, and the laws of nature have to be broken. I do not care what you call it. And I notice that creationists etc do not always call it the same thing.--Filll (talk) 06:57, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * People do not understand, but this is probably the biggest problem science has with creationism. Once you say that no longer is one allowed to consider or look for physical or natural causes for things, science is dead and ceases to function. And at that point, empty your jails and let all your criminals go free; you will never be allowed to convict anyone ever again, since a foolproof defense is always available. The evidence does not exist, since a miracle or some magic happened to create it.--Filll (talk) 07:00, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Filll, the '"magic" was only in the first 6 days. Everything after that can be subject to scientific investigation. The one difficulty is that this is historical/non-observational science, so is influenced by the investigator's a priori assumptions. rossnixon 00:06, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the magic only continues for the first 6 24 hour days for some creationists. For other creationists, it continues much later and even operates presently. For example, I have read Kent Hovind claiming there is no such thing as electromagnetism, or gravity, or the strong or the weak force; Jesus is personally holding you on the earth, and personally holding the atoms together... Reminds me of that saying, either everything is a miracle, or nothing is.--Filll (talk) 00:18, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * "Magic" for the first 6 days only? Nope, that doesn't explain Noah's Flood.  Nor does it explain how all the geological evidence for Noah's Flood mysteriously disappeared, nor does it explain the equally mysterious appearance of archaeological evidence for the various ancient civilizations who were apparently unaffected by the Flood.  And as creationists have a habit of describing rock strata as "Flood deposits": it does not explain how the fossils in those "Flood deposits" became magically sorted into the evolutionary "Tree of Life" sequence of common descent (along with fossils of dessication cracks, footprints of land animals, and so forth). --Robert Stevens (talk) 11:17, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * ...lack of marsupial carcasses radiating out from the mountains of Ararat to Australia, where all the water from the flood came from, how early farmers actually hooked dinosaurs up to their plows (were they docile enough for reins, or was some sort of harness used?), why God stopped with all the miracles and whatnot, why He deliberately arranged the world and universe to look exactly as if solely natural forces were at work in the creation of the world and evolution of life, why He created so many plantets but only one with life on it, the overarching question of why He's either actively deceptive or just stubborn in his refusal to provide proof of His existence, what's the deal with the devil and eternal damnation, why He restricted his appearance to one group of Semites in the Fertile Crescent rather than showing up at the doorsteps of all nations the world over, why He didn't make those nations resistant to the plagues brought by Bible-carrying Europeans during their vicious, un-Christian conquest and elimination of the other races... I think I've slid into soapboxing. Creationism is not science, and when it does interact with science, it's to shoehorn evidence onto a pre-published theory badly translated from Hebrew via Greek.  WLU (talk) 14:53, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Your questions are all answerable, but this is not the place. Creationists believe that all information (including science) was designed. Evolutionists (majority of non-creationists) believe it came from nothing. Why is this not called faith? Science proves that nothing can exist from nothing and that a divine act had to have taken place. If, in an evolutionist's mind, creation can not be proven and evolution can not be disproved how can he/she assume that creationists think the same? Creationists enjoy seminars where creation is explained through science. Far less faith is needed to believing that all things were created by a designer rather than coming from nowhere. How can a creationist explain creation if people that disbelieve creation keep altering sections? Someone that disbelieves creation can not give input to this article. That would be like creationists making alterations to origin articles like Evolution, Big Bang and others as they see fit. The issue is not about looking for neutral ground, its about explaining a topic that is disbelieved by a few uncomfortable people. -Mosesandi 12:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mosesandi (talk • contribs)

<span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 12:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) No. It is Creationists who believe that "it came from nothing" -- creatio ex nihilo ("creation out of nothing"). In any case this has nothing to do with evolution, as evolution is about how things change, not where they come from (whether ex nihilo, from the invisible pink unicorn, a cosmic sneeze, or the Big bang). Your rants about "evolutionists" are thus non sequitors.
 * 2) How can a drunk-the-koolaid true believer of the debunked, debased and dishonest delusion that is Creationism give WP:DUE weight to the majority scientific view that Creationism is without merit, and supported solely by cherry-picked misrepresentations of the scientific evidence which, when taken as a whole and in context, supports nothing of the sort? It is about "explaining a topic" that, although notable, is without the slightest shred of scientific merit.
 * The "magic" if you want to call it that, would continue. And it does. I have witnessed people healed instantly. Terminal Illnesses leaving. Doctor have seen it too. Now, that is original research, so it wouldn't matter, but, it shows that there is something that causes it. You if a coin was tossed 100 times and landed on heads each time, your first assumption would be that someone caused it to do that. They might of made it double sided. They might have learned to control what it lands on. You wouldn't believe it did that randomly without evidence. Where is the evidence of something causing miracles? Kent Hovind is a christian scientist (the religion, not a scientist) right? To me, Christian Science is a cult, not Christianity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RJRocket53 (talk • contribs) 20:34, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Y'all are violating the instructions at the top of this talk page. Can I remind you all of the statement above that "If you wish to discuss or debate the validity of creationism please do so at talk.origins or Debatepedia." Much of this discussion has become quite disjointed from the requirement that "This 'Discussion' page is only for discussion on how to improve the Wikipedia article". Tb (talk) 20:42, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Creationism is as falsifiable as Darwin’s theory of evolution
[ Uncited & non-specific WP:SOAPbox rant deleted.] <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 06:54, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Types of Christian creationism
Isn't the table under the 'Types of Christian creationism' a little inconsistant if you look at the intelligent design movement? Like 'earth >10000 years, scientific age, scientific age' and suddenly it becomes 'divine interventor' with the ID... 62.41.69.18 (talk) 08:45, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Not really -- ID has a conscious 'big tent' approach of not saying anything to contradict any claim from other creationists on age of earth/universe/etc, or make it obviously creationist, so avoids saying anything about who/what/when/etc. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 09:42, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Pretty much, ID is about what created the world, not when, so saying when wouldn't really help them. RJRocket53 (talk) 23:32, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Pharyngula link
Concerning the link which I fixed that previously went to the wrong page, but which another has since removed because the article is posted on a blog, could I suggest that someone with a website post the article on a non-blog webpage of its own. Then it can be linked to. It is a good quality article from a reliable source. 63.196.193.29 (talk) 17:05, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Not even sure what this is.--Filll (talk) 19:09, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

irreducible complexity
In the graph that contrasts YEC, OEC, IDC, etc there is a mention of "irreducible complexity":


 * "Divine intervention at some point in the past, as evidenced by irreducible complexity"

This begs the question - What evidence exists for irreducible complexity? There is no evidence. Any informed person knows irreducible complexity is a bogus concept rooted in pseudoscience (or ignorance, take your pick) and that there is no evidence for it. Correct me if I'm wrong but irreducible complexity is nothing more than a figment of Behe's imagination and somewhat of a cornerstone in the IDC movement. However, without an explanation in the article of what irreducible complexity actually is the reader might mistakenly assume irreducible complexity is a valid scientific concept/argument. I think it's important that some details are given. I'll let the experts on irreducible complexity weigh in on the subject and make any changes that might benefit the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.233.178.253 (talk) 17:39, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * You are misreading the table. Of course irreducible complexity has never been demonstrated, and even if it was, it does not mean this is evidence of divine intervention. However, the table text does not imply this.--Filll (talk) 17:58, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I beg to differ, my reading skills are actually pretty good. I made a change to the article concerning this, have you had a chance to look it over?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.233.178.253 (talk) 18:00, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

It is ok, but I think I will wait to discuss it with others and see what the consensus is.--Filll (talk) 18:04, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Sounds fair, I'm all for consensus. And let's assume my reading skills are in fact impared.  it would stand to reason I am not the only Wiki reader who is challenged in this area.  That is even more reason to clearly indicate what irreducible complexity actually is (a term the IDCers use, not one that legit science uses).  I'm completely satisfied with the change I made.  It let's the reader know irreducible complexity is a concept the IDCers believe in and does not suggest it's a valid concept.  Not sure if this makes sense but again, I think my edit lets the reader know irreducible complexity is an IDC concept.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.233.178.253 (talk) 18:09, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * If you want to put that, include sources. Plus, this is a table about beliefs, not science. Otherwise, go ahead. But, in it's defense, irreducible complexity doesn't just apply to creationism, it applies to other things too. (Like engineering). RJRocket53 (talk) 19:20, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion to address POV in first paragraph
I'm new to this article (and to Wikipedia), but it seems to me that the very first paragraph of this article introduces a strong POV on creationism.


 * "'Creationism is a religious belief that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe were created in their original form by a deity or deities (often the Abrahamic God of Judaism, Christianity and Islam), whose existence is presupposed.[1] In relation to the creation-evolution controversy the term creationism (or strict creationism) is commonly used to refer to religiously-motivated rejection of evolution.'"

Thoughts:


 * 1. Creationism merely implies, first and foremost that the universe did not come about by mere random happenstance, that it was somehow created, or that some form of creative force-which-we-don't-know-what-it-is-yet was involved. Many non-religious scientists, for example quantum physists like John Wheeler and Louis Crane have advanced views that argue for some form of non-random chance involved on purely scientific grounds, and this form of "creationism" is not then a "religious belief".


 * 2. Only a subset of creationism advocates assert that "humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe were created in their original form"


 * 3. There is a significant body of research and opinion that does not rely on a "presupposed" existence of a creator, but rather arrives at the idea of some creative force or as yet undiscovered natural law acting in the role of progenitor, based on scientific analysis that concludes "spontaneous emergence" of the universe in the absence of such a force is mathematically improbable in the extreme. The famous mathematician Blaise Pascal is among many scientists who arrived at the idea of a creator after many years of scientific pursuit.

So, if there is agreement here, I'd like to address this by suggesting that the article begin with:

"Creationism refers to any of a number of belief systems which hold that the universe came into existence by some process other than purely random chance. Some creationist viewpoints expressed by religeons hold that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe were created in their original form by a deity or deities (often the Abrahamic God of Judaism, Christianity and Islam), whose existence is presupposed.[1]"

I'll wait for some feedback before making the change.

riverguy42 (talk) 00:33, 31 December 2007 (UTC)


 * As it says at the top of the page: "Creationism" can also refer to creation myths in general, or to a concept about the origin of the soul.
 * This article mostly deals with the creationism of the Abrahamic religions, not with the Chinese creation myths, for example. -- Ec5618 01:28, 31 December 2007 (UTC)


 * "Creationism" as it is generally conceived by the academic community (e.g. in Ronald Numbers' The Creationists) is a rejection of scientific explanations of the origins of humanity/the diversity of life/the universe (and most particularly and frequently evolution) in favour of incompatible religious ones. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 02:34, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Proposed Day-Age addition
Wndl42, who for reasons I cannot fathom chooses to sign themselves himself riverguy42, has repeatedly attempted to introduce this paragraph into the Day-Age section:


 * Repeatedly???? I made ONE edit to expand "Day-age", and I described why, as the "Day-age" section was under-represented in comparison to other "creationist" viewpoints. My edit attempted to (a) summarize/paraphrase the broader viewpoint found at Day-age creationism, and (b) introduce an additional aspect not yet incorporated there. You reverted the entire edit as "unsourced". I then restored my edit with added sources (as I thought appropriate) to solve your issue with "unsourced", and then I visited your talk page and politely asked for clarification and help if you had further issues. Instead of working with me, you reverted the entire edit again, and now launch into this diatribe against me. riverguy42 (talk) 04:19, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Re-peatedly. Your entire edit was unsourced. Your "added sources" were grossly inadequate, so I reverted again. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 05:14, 31 December 2007 (UTC)


 * My signature is different from my user name. This is commonplace on WP. How is your inability to fathom this germain to the discussion other than as some way of discrediting me or accusing me (as "themselves") of some kind of subterfuge. All you have to do is "click" to get to my page and talk to me. riverguy42 (talk) 04:19, 31 December 2007 (UTC)


 * It was necessary to explain who the heck I was talking about. Most users use a different signature when their preferred nick is taken -- I rather doubt if that applied to "riverguy42". There is nothing illegitimate about it, but it does tend to confuse, hence my explaining your identity in detail. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 05:14, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I have reverted it for the following reasons:


 * Much of it appears to be WP:OR, particularly the first few sentences.


 * Appearances can be deceiving. Paraphrasing (as I did) may LOOK like WP:OR, but it's not.riverguy42 (talk) 04:19, 31 December 2007 (UTC)


 * It gives every appearance of going well beyond mere "paraphrasing" into synthesis. See specific point below.


 * I would also point out that the DAC POV in Day-Age Creationism is almost entirely uncited (with the majority of cites being for YEC views), this makes it a rather problematic source even if your edit were a mere paraphrase. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 05:22, 31 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The statement that "Day age creationism theories also take support from a unusually literal reading of the first chapter of Genesis" would appear to be erroneous. Their interpretation is less literal, though arguably literal in a more idiosyncratic way than YECs, as they only take the ordinal value of the days literally, not the cardinal value.


 * Erroneous? It's a summary of the ideas at Day-age creationism. So, replace my "unusually literal" with your idiosyncratic and we'd be in agreement? I think my characterization is less pejorative and more neutral POV, but I'm open to suggestions, as I requested on your talk page.riverguy42 (talk) 04:19, 31 December 2007 (UTC)


 * No it is not a "summary" -- Day-age creationism does not call the position anything like "unusually literal". It mentions "literal" in only once: "an effort to reconcile the literal Genesis account of Creation with modern scientific theories". That it is in any way "unusually" so is merely your WP:OR interpretation. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 05:14, 31 December 2007 (UTC)


 * www.christiananswers.net is a clearing house for YEC apologetics, making it a partisan, unscholarly and thus unreliable source.


 * I think that the source I cited represents the POV of Day-age that this under-represented section was lacking. If you want a better source, why don't you talk to me, or tag my source, instead of repeatedly blanking?riverguy42 (talk) 04:19, 31 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The organisations underlying Christian Answers are explicitly Creation science/Flood geology YECs. They do not represent "the POV of Day-age", they are opposed to it. I would suggest you attempt to learn who the main advocates of this viewpoint are before you attempt to source statements about it (even disregarding issues relating to WP:PSTS). <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 05:14, 31 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The two 'citations' were performed via easter-egged pipes of URLs, rather than more conventional methods, making it unclear as to what points they were covering, as well as being bad style.


 * Yep, I'm new here. I have seen this style used (and recommended) elsewhere on Wikipedia, but now I see that my presentation of sources was non-intuitive according WP guidelines on sytle. That's no reason to blank my entire edit.riverguy42 (talk) 04:19, 31 December 2007 (UTC)


 * No, I was merely mentioning this in passing -- the first two reasons were the reasons why I deleted it. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 05:14, 31 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Finally, it appears to present the YEC/Christian Answers POV as fact, in violation of WP:NPOV.


 * How, exactly, did I present "as fact"? I presented a summary of the "Day age" POV and argument and clearly presented it as such, interspersed with "according to" and "line of reasoning" etc. Generally, a collaborative editor would edit the presentation to help reduce percieved NPOV issues, rather than blanking, right?riverguy42 (talk) 04:19, 31 December 2007 (UTC)


 * E.g. "Pointing out that God creates the physical universe through..." instead of "Day-Age advocates state that God creates the physical universe through..."

<span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 03:21, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Hrafn, I still don't see as you've made a good case for blanking my edit...riverguy42 (talk) 04:19, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I reverted an edit that was in violation of WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:RS & WP:NPOV. I don't think I really need more reason than that. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 05:14, 31 December 2007 (UTC)


 * No, you don't Hrafn, if the edit was legit the editor had a chance to add sources. &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  20:58, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Summary: Hrafn - you make a number of good (or at least reasonable) points and I agree that my edit can be improved in some of the areas you detailed. I don't think the problems with my edit were so great that a simple "tag and talk" would not have sufficed. I am quite frankly surprised that this edit causes you so much heartburn, I did not think that what I added amounted to an exceptional claim, but perhaps these DAC viewpoints are new and surprising to you and perhaps to others. In the interest of consensus and conservation of effort, I will concede that my edit introduced an exceptional claim (though I remain unconvinced), I will now focus on treating the topic and sourcing it as if it were an exceptional claim. On the other hand, the points you make are made in a manner that is quite unnecessarily disruptive. The vast majority of my addition was sourced appropriately, yet you continue to repeat "entirely unsourced" ad nauseum. All of my edit is quite verifyable, and please remember that the "threshold for inclusion" according to WP:V is that additions be verifyABLE, not verified (unless exceptional). riverguy42 (talk) 20:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

riverguy42: "tag and talk" is an appropriate mechanism for dealing with pre-existing content, where the original author may not even be around to defend/provide sources for it. Where new content is introduced a more stringent view is taken: that it should be well-sourced before it is allowed in. This view in necessary to prevent un-/poorly-sourced content from accumulating. If the proposed content is sufficiently lengthy/complex/time-consuming to source, then create a sandbox in your userspace in which to develop it (we'll create one for you if you don't know how). This view is particularly relevant when given that you appear (above) to be confusing the YEC & DAC POVs. The "vast majority of [your] addition" was not "sourced appropriately" -- your only sources were to a website taking the opposing YEC viewpoint and to the Day-Age Creationism‎ article, which is entirely uncited for the DAC viewpoint (as well as bearing questionable resemblance to your addition).

Please stop making large-scale alterations/deletions from the talkpage -- it makes it dificult to hold a coherent conversation with you and is disruptive editing. If you wish to withdraw a comment then strike it instead. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 22:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Riverguy, as much as I appreciate your enthusiasm, I would like to see if we can get you set up to contribute in a more productive way. What you should try is to start the addition to the article or a new article in a sandbox. Avoid inline citations as those you used; use footnotes instead. Try to learn what a reliable source is, and aim for reliable sources only. We will be glad to help you since the more people helping the better. --68.55.55.177 (talk) 22:24, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Two further points on reliable sources: <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 23:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Wikipedia articles are not of themselves reliable sources. However WP:NPOVFAQ may apply in some instances.
 * 2) As a pre-emptive response to one of your self-reverted comments, Leet is only a reliable source for matters of English literature (her area of expertise) and as a primary source for her own idiosyncratic interpretations of the kabalah.

Creation Research Society
I've got an editor on this article claiming that: Further input might be useful. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 03:11, 12 January 2008 (UTC) [Two points of clarification: (1) he was claiming that OECs=evos was a YEC view, but that it was okay to make statements that implicitly assumed this viewpoint; (2) I was seeking "further input" in that article (as opposed to here) to get some form of wider consensus there, rather than just two editors violently disagreeing and edit-warring. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 18:36, 12 January 2008 (UTC) ]
 * 1) Ronald Numbers' The Creationists is "extrememe[sic] POV"
 * 2) that OECs are "evolutionists"


 * I did respond there as you requested of course, but then I was told to back off and so I withdrew my response. I guess it is really ill-advised these days to respond to such attacks.--Filll (talk) 04:23, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Assuming extreme POV is POV held by a small minority, the favorable reviews listed in the article by sources such as Science, NCSE and the Financial times show this to be untrue. I dont see why you would have to be a YEC to be able to document the history of creationism.--AlexCatlin (talk)

We have several scholarly references that show there are a good half dozen or more major branches of creationism. OEC is one of them. Less major branches include those who believe that there were two separate creations (corresponding to the two creation accounts in the bible) or those who believe in a race men before adam (preAdamites) and so on. Maybe those less prominent branches should get at least mentioned here. But I do not think it is reasonable to restrict creationism to YEC under any circumstances.--Filll (talk) 18:16, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Another common creationist stream is that humans were not subject to evolution, but all other life forms are and were.--Filll (talk) 18:17, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Any comments or suggestions about including these more obscure variants of creationism, if only in a sentence each?--Filll (talk) 19:45, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Hrafn - if it's still restricted to you and the other editor, you could go for a third opinion.
 * Filll - I'd say add and link if there's a wikipage for the other beliefs, if not, I'd lump them into a single sentence saying 'various beliefs about creationism depending on interpretation of specific sections of the bible' or some such. Perhaps an easy example also, but the page is already huge and if it's not notable enough for it's own wikipage, why add to an already long version?  WLU (talk) 19:55, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

There was a stub on 'Adamism', but it was recently deleted (by a prod-delete I seem to remember, so it shouldn't be too difficult to resurrect, if anybody's interested). There are at least a couple of (stub) articles on historic Adamist organisations around: World Christian Fundamentals Association, Anti-Evolution League of America. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 04:06, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I think Adamite still exists but they are not creationists. The preAdamites are arguably creationists. I think Harry Rimmer or maybe another creationist I read about in some of Numbers publications believed in two separate creations. I do not know if there is a special name for them. I also read in Numbers that William Jennings Bryan believed in evolution for all species but humans, and I have occasionally read of other groups that subscribe to the same thing (at one time some Catholics did I think, maybe??).--Filll (talk) 04:16, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Richard Dawkins Foundation EL
This external link seems to be to a page that is more about providing information on, and advertising the activities of, this foundation than in providing any information about Evolution or Creationism. Dawkins may be a major figure in Evolution, but that doesn't mean that every site connected with him will be relevant. Please look at the site rather than simply Dawkins' name. I think this link should go. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 16:34, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Note that I reverted this change in order to gain consensus. I have no opinion myself.  BLACK KITE  18:10, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm with Hrafn on this one - the EL section is already overloaded. WLU (talk) 17:11, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

CreationWiki
Seems to have been uncreated. Is there a new site? Jackiespeel (talk) 18:49, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I noticed that. I see that one or two other creationist sites might be hosting it eventually, but for now it seems to be down. I was going to ask around at EvoWiki etc and see what I could find out, but I have not yet. Maybe Conservapedia has a line on what happened to them? I do not know if it is related, but our article about them was speedy deleted some months ago and I never caught it and now it is gone. These deletionists just get to be annoying sometimes.--Filll (talk) 19:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Well you know, when you can't refute something the next best thing is to delete it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.195.196.19 (talk) 17:15, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Creationism and Oxford study of religious belief
As creationism makes the assumption that (a) there is a creator and (b) that creation is an active and not a passive process, and the Oxford study is to be into religious belief, and I guess (a) and (b) are religious beliefs, I think it follows that the study is relevant to creationism, which is a religious belief? Are there any non-religious believers in creationism? Mike0001 (talk) 09:48, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Creationism is a specific type of religious belief, and there is no evidence that the Oxford study covers this specific type of religious belief. Until you can find such (WP:RS) evidence, it isn't relevant. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 09:56, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

The vast majority of anti-evolutionists are creationists of one stripe or another. There are a very few anti-evolutionists that are not creationists, but they are so few that they are not really notable yet, or recognized much. One person who talks about a sort of nonreligious anti-evolutionism is David Sloan Wilson, but he is mainly talking about applications of evolution to behavior, not really biological common descent, etc. Also some of the intelligent design supporters purport to be agnostics or atheists, so are not really creationists in the traditional mold if this is true. One might argue that some of the panspermia people are anti-evolutionists but not really creationists, but that is a pretty weak argument since I think most panspermia advocates favor evolution but believe that the initial steps for life took place in space or were brought to Earth by extraterrestrial beings to seed it with life, and abiogenesis is not part of evolution.--Filll (talk) 17:37, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Scientific critique
I think the piece needs changing here to erase the statement that science cannot evaluate propositions from religious sources as this is incorrect.

The entry portion currently assumes science classifies propositions in relation to their proposers and where the proposers are religious faith sources science somehow is blocked from action. This is manifestly incorrect as science does not exclude evaluating proposals from religious faith, or indeed any, source.

There is no inherent difference in the scientific treatment of proposals from any source including religious faith or those who propose supernatural activity.

In dealing with proposals from religious faith origins one tends to deal with the existence or otherwise of some phenomena that is being proposed, perhaps an angel or a demon or a goul or whatever. This is very basic stuff often and to purport the existence of something it is incumbent on the proposers to provide objective evidence to support their proposition. Until such evidence is supplied science cannot validate the existence of the item and the proposition then fails by default. The usually disappointed proposers sometimes fall back on the argument that science has not disproved said existence but this is a false avenue as it must rest with the proposers to show their proposal is valid before they can then act as if it is valid.

So, in this way science does indeed both address, and usually dismiss, proposals from many sources that claim the existence of all manner of possibly interesting items from basilisks to demons and souls to pink elephants.

Where however science cannot evaluate is in questions related to the properties of objects that have yet to be proven to exist, for example, science could not enter the debate about how many angels might fit on a pin head until it is first shown that angels exist (we have already shown that pins exist!).

In conclusion then I think the piece needs changing to correct the impression that science cannot deal with propositions put forward by religious groups or propositions that include supernatural intervention in natural events as all these are in fact equally evaluable by the scientific method. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.243.79.189 (talk) 20:21, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for contribution. I cannot quite understand you. Give me an example of one sentence you would propose changing, and how you would like to change it.--Filll (talk) 20:34, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I think 89.243.79.189 is saying that some creationist claims can be evaluated by science, and some can't. IMO, that's correct. The notion of (a) God as a prime mover acting by some unspecified method is not testable, but several of the spcific claims made by different creationists are. These are e.g. the idea that you can measure the age of the earth by mineral content in sea water, erosion of the Niagara falls or sediment layer thickness. Almost all claims beginning with "there is/are no..." can alse be evaluated by science, and have indeed often been evaluated and disproven. Suggestion: After the first sentence add "Some creationist claims can be tested by science, and when tested have been proven wrong. These include....".Sjö (talk) 12:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Well there is a certain truth to that in theory, but it does not work in practice. The claims of creationists have been proven wrong for many decades, and they do not abandon them. Why, if they are making testable falsifiable predictions? After all, that is what science does. And when the predictions are shown to be wrong, the premises leading to them are abandoned.

All that happens with Creationists though is they come up with more and more contrived explanations to not abandon their initial assumptions. And many state they will never abandon their initial assumptions. And they always have a trump card, because no matter what, an all powerful God can make the earth look old when it isn't, or can put evidence there when the event did not happen. Clearly, when dealing with this, science cannot really test anything, because we are dealing with things outside of science.--Filll (talk) 13:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Sure creationist DO abandom claims that are proved wrong. Examples: The depth of dust on the moon. The Paluxy River tracks. And when will evolutionists abandon their initial assumptions? (Evolutionary theory is extremely accomodating to difficulties). rossnixon 01:14, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Like what assumption? That there is a natural explanation for natural events? That is the main assumption. If someone demonstrated that one had to discard natural explanations, then I am sure they would be discarded. But for the last few centuries, this assumption has stood us in good stead.--Filll (talk) 01:53, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

In answer to rossnixon's question, scientists will abandon their science-wide underlying methodology when several centuries of experience cease to show this methodology to be productive. Science produces demonstrable and useful results. Creationism only produces apologetics for a specific and sectarian worldview. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 02:06, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Can I remind you all of the statement above that "If you wish to discuss or debate the validity of creationism please do so at talk.origins or Debatepedia." Much of this discussion has become quite disjointed from the requirement that "This 'Discussion' page is only for discussion on how to improve the Wikipedia article." Tb (talk) 03:32, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Answer to Fill 13:03, 12 March 2008: Well the same can be said about many issues, especially when it comes to health or paranormal claims. Goal post-moving and denial are common among the supporters of "alternative" views, just as among creationists. This doesn't change the fact that science can evaluate alternative medicine and supposed paranormal abilities, it's just that those outside the scientific community don't always accept the conclusions. Sjö (talk) 11:21, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I have a question. If Creationism can and has been proven false by science then why did Isaac Newton and his compatriots believe in it and why even did the inventor of the Scientific Method Francis Bacon hold to this supposed false and unscientific belief?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.195.196.19 (talk) 17:18, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Because Newton died in 1727 -- long before most of the discoveries of modern geology and biology, that proved it to be false, were made. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 17:43, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Please explain how geology and biology prove creationism false. Geology and Biology are the studies of life and the Earth.  They operate on an observational basis.  You are using the present as a key to the past, which is logically false (Assuming the Antecedent).  You cannot use modern biology and geology to study the how the universe came into being since they focus on things already existant or that have ceased to exist.  5-12-08  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.195.196.19 (talk) 22:36, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Various aspects of biology (such as DNA analysis) demonstrate common descent, and hence disprove Biblical creationism. Geology demonstrates the lack of a worldwide "Flood deposit" from Noah's Flood, and demonstrates that the Earth is many millions (actually, several billion) years old.  And paleontology demonstrates both a great age and the common descent of species, via the fossil record (all those embarrassing "transitional fossils" that shouldn't exist if Biblical creationism were true).  In scientific terms, Creationism is a thoroughly falsified hypothesis: which is why scientists abandoned it a couple of centuries ago (in modern times, the wealth of evidence that contradicts it has merely made creationism ever more untenable). --Robert Stevens (talk) 22:51, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Firstly, could you be a bit more specific because I haven't heard of any kind of transitional forms being discovered in recent years (I've actually read about a decrease in supposed ones), and DNA analysis doesn't really help out at all with "common descent" due to the individual proteins of each organism and their mismatches, and the geological column and carbon dating are hardly accurate in a truly definite sense.  Secondly, even if you find the remains of a creature that is a "transitional form", logically speaking, all you have done is proven the existence of that particular creature, not where from or how it came to be.  And, even if you somehow prove self-actuated evolution to be a possibility, there is no way to prove that that is what happened to creatures of old.  In a concrete scientific sense, you can only speculate and theorize about how these ancient creatures came into being.  If you bring logic into the equation, all you do is tear apart your own theory, which is why (I think) you seem to have avoided what I said earlier.  5-12-08  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.195.196.19 (talk) 03:56, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Can I remind you all again of the statement above that "If you wish to discuss or debate the validity of creationism please do so at talk.origins or Debatepedia." Much of this discussion has become quite disjointed from the requirement that "This 'Discussion' page is only for discussion on how to improve the Wikipedia article." This is not talk.origins; it is not appropriate to use this talk page as the place to discuss evolution. Tb (talk) 04:01, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Just a note, Talk.origins isn't neutral. For anyone who doesn't know.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.195.196.19 (talk) 01:57, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Protection
Because of the quite high rate of IP vandalism of this page, I have requested it be semi-protected. Tb (talk) 04:37, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Creationism on Other Pages
Everyone will have to excuse me. I'm new to WP, and am still where to go for the proper information. I have a problem with the Expelled page. It seems to me that there is a big debate about creationism going on there. I feel that anything concerning the validity of creationism should be redirected to this page, and keep Expelled as a strict movie review page. If anyone can give me information how to implement such changes, please let me know. Infonation101 (talk) 20:21, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The page Expelled:_No_Intelligence_Allowed is not intended to be a movie review. It's an encyclopedia article about a movie.  Yes, it may contain information from reviewers, but it may contain other content as well.  Since the movie is related to creationism, there may be some overlap.  But you're right about one thing- no page on Wikipedia is the right place for a big debate about creationism.  Talk pages are for discussing the article rather than the subject of the article.  Friday (talk) 21:33, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Understood about the overlap. It looks like you have gone over the page, and does it seem to you there is a debate going on in the main page? Infonation101 (talk) 21:56, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah. Infonation101, you don't seem to have grasped various aspects of WP:NPOV and WP:NPOV/FAQ, both of which are policies. In particular, please note NPOV: Pseudoscience – "any mention should be proportionate and represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view; and, moreover, to explain how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories." A film promoting pseudoscience has to be described in that context. .. dave souza, talk 22:35, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but you have misread my post. The dispute I have posted here is that what is going on in Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed is not up to par with the research that has been done on this page.  I see that there should be overlap, but macro-evolution is being portrayed as unconditionally accepted by the scientific community when it's not.  Given they say 90% of scientists believe in macro-evolution, that is not 100%.  I'd prefer terms like "widely accepted" in place of "unequivocally accepted". Infonation101 (talk) 23:09, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Macro-evolution is unconditionally accepted by the scientific community. Alternative views are distinctly fringe in the scientific community. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:26, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Whatever. You keep your standpoint, but please site me a third-party published source that leads you to this. Infonation101 (talk) 23:34, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * See . Some excerpts: "In its modern form, [the theory of evolution] remains the only explanation for the diversity of life on this planet that is acceptable to the scientific community" - Academy of Science of the Royal Society of Canada; " the evidences in favor of the evolution of man are sufficient to convince every scientist of note in the world" - American Association for the Advancement of Science (and that was 1923); "The theory of evolution is the only scientifically defensible explanation for the origin of life and development of species" - American Institute of Biological Sciences. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 01:02, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Infonation101, you have not grasped WP:NPOV/FAQ. Regardless, your concern isn't relevant here, since it has nothing to do with Creationism. Tb (talk) 00:05, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I was walking down the street last week and saw a dog evollve into a cat if thats not marco-evolution then what is??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.17.182.155 (talk) 02:06, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Misleading
The article now starts: "Creationism is a religious belief that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe were created in their original form by a deity". This is true only for some creationists (strict creationists). Later, the article discusses and references progressive creationism and theistic evolution which allow for life forms to have changed over time and some degree of common ancenstry. Likewise the Oveview sectcion states "The term creationism is generally used to describe the belief that creation occurred literally as described in the Book of Genesis". Again, this is only for strict creationists. These sections need to be corrected to clarify that creationism is a belief in a Creator whether by direct intervention or by general guidance and direction. All creationism is not strict creationism. Rlsheehan (talk) 18:18, 2 April 2008 (UTC) Sheffield Steel talkstalk 20:37, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Because the first sentence includes the phrase "created in their original form" it does not preclude theistic evolution or progressive creationism. There would only be a problem if the phrase was "created in their current form".
 * 2) The overview sentence contains the word "generally" and therefore does not attempt to exclude any belief or speak for all creationists.
 * Progressive creationism and theistic evolution allow for creation to have continued and keep continuing - not just limiting creation to a single creative act. Rlsheehan (talk) 20:19, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Material based on unreliable sources
This sentence from the introduction should be removed: "When scientific research produces conclusions which contradict a creationist interpretation of scripture, the strict creationist approach is either to reject the conclusions of the research, its underlying scientific theories, or its methodology." The sources are promotional of creationism, hence not Reliable per WP:RS and WP:V. Claims from questionable sources which are contentious or self-serving may not be referenced in wikipedia per WP:SELFPUB. 80.108.244.154 (talk) 19:14, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The sources are not cited as evidence of the claims made by the sources, but only as evidence that creationists make such claims. The sentence in question is a key part of the explanation of why creationism is not legitimate science.  Tb (talk) 20:17, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


 * See also Talk:Young Earth creationism where this has been repeated explained to presumably the same WP:SELFPUB-obsessed IP editor. silly rabbit  (  talk  ) 21:25, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Also, editors please note that this IP is from an open Tor proxy.  silly rabbit  (  talk  ) 21:42, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

98.195.196.19: article is biased
I'd like to put into question the neutrality of this article. It seems completely biased against itself and like an essay you'd see on talk.origins. 5-14-08 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.195.196.19 (talk) 13:16, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Read WP:UNDUE. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 13:57, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Don't tell me you're going to go through the whole minority thing again. 5-14-08  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.195.196.19 (talk) 22:43, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Read WP:UNDUE again. Creationism has no WP:RSs supporting its case, therefore the coverage of it cannot help but be negative. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 02:33, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


 * It doesn't matter if creationists do get credible sources because none of yall will believe it. 5-15-08  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.195.196.19 (talk) 15:35, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Lacking such WP:RSs, the topic is WP:CRYSTAL speculation. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 15:54, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * If reliable sources say God created the universe, we'll report that. That's what we do. Was there anything else that needed discussion?  S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 15:56, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Van Andel Creation Research Center, Center for Scientific Creation, Crying Rocks Ministry, Institute for Creation Research,Creation Resource Foundation, South Bay Creation Science Association, The Biblical and American Archaeologist, Creation Science association of Ventura County, 4th Day Alliance, Fish Don't Walk, S8int.com, Biology Versus Evolution, Censored Science-Evidence of Creation, Creation Science Evangelism, Creation Education Resources Inc., Creation Worldview ministries, Common Sense Science, Creation Science Defense, Foundations of Genesis in Idaho, Midwest Creation Fellowship, Creation Concepts, David D'Armond, Creation Evidence Expo, Master's International School of Divinity, Creation Consulting Services, Creation Resource Library, Creation Social Sciences and Humanitarian Quarterly, Answers in Genesis, Origins Resource Association, Mr. Stephen Caesar, Truth and Science Ministries, Evidence of Creation.com, TCCSA, SMAC, Creation Science Seminars, Creation Science Assiciation for Mid America, Missouri association for Creation, Tri-County Association for Creation, Creation Instruction Association, CRSEF, The Ark Foundation of Dayton, Arkon Fossils and Science Center, OVCEA, Association for Biblical Astronomy, Creation Truth Foundation, X-Evolutionists.com, Creation Compass, Northwest Creation Conference, Design Science Association, Creation Engineering Concepts, Thomas F. Heinze, Institute for Scientific and Biblical Research, Bible Science Lectures, Creation Science Fellowship Inc., Associates for Biblical Research, Sioux Falls Creation Fellowship, Creation Research, ESA, EF Inc., Project Creation, Mt. blanco Publishing Co., Creation Evidence Meuseum, Greater Houston Creation Association, Texans for better Science Education, San Antonio Bible Based Science Association, the True Origin archive, Origin Science Association, CAPS, Mt. St. Helens Creation Info Center, Bible and Science Ministries, Kanawha Creation Science Group, Lutheran Science Institute, Creation Education Association, Creation Science Society of Milwaukee Inc., Creation Research Australia, Creation Ministries International, World Wide Flood, CreaBel(Belgium), Sociedade Creasionista Brasileira (Brazil), Sociedade Origim e Destino (Brazil), Associocao Brasileira de Pesquisa da Criacao (Brazil), Creation Science Association of Alberta, Creation Discovery Project, Answers in Genesis Canada, Assoc. de Science Creationniste du Quebec, Creation Science Manitoba, Creation Research Canada, Creation Science of Saskatchewan Inc., CSABC, Big Valley Creation Science Meuseum, Mensa-International Creation Science SIG, Assoc. au Commencment (France), Lebendige Vorwelt (Germany), SG Wort und Wissen (Germany), Creation Research and Apologetics Society of India, Creation Science Science Association of India, Centro Studi Creazionismo (Italy), Answers in Genesis Japan, KACR (Korea), CREAVIT (Creando Vision Total) (Mexico), Cientificos Creacionictas Internacional (Mexico), Degeneratie of Evolutie? (Netherlands), Drdino.nl (Netherlands), Schepping of Evolutie? (Netherlands), Answers in Genesis (New Zealand), Creation Research (New Zealand), Polish Creation Society, Tudomanyos Kreazionismus (Romania), ARCTUR Geological Research Lab (Russia), Society For Creation Science (Russia), Seonska Truba (Serbia), Sedin-Servicio Evangelico Coordinadora Creacionista (Spain), Centre Biblique European (Switzerland), Christian Center for Science and Apologetics (Ukraine), Creation Science Movement (UK), Biblical Creation Society (UK), Answers in Genesis UK, Edinburgh Creation Group, Creation Resource Trust, Creation Research UK.

Need Any More? No wait, let me guess, they are not reliable? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.195.196.19 (talk) 18:27, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Correct. Please read Reliable sources for more information about this. S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 18:38, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * How many of those did you look up? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.195.196.19 (talk) 18:52, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * None. You? S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 18:57, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * All of these appear to be Creationist Christian apologetics organisations. Have you any evidence that any of them would be considered a reliable source for scientific information? If so, you're welcome to take it to WP:RS/N. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 19:05, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The IP address apparently wants us to add the text "God created the universe" to the article, but has yet to provide a source. Wikipedia policy is quite clear on this: The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 19:12, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * First Steel, as a matter of fact I have and I study Creation Science myself. Secondly, the policy you brought up states that minority and fringe sources should be kept out of the general discussion.  However, the CIA World Fact Book, which is a reliable source, says that over half of the Earth's population belongs to a creationist religion.  Which means all of those organisations and groups I listed are fully valid in an arguement.  The numbers also demonstrate that Creation Science is NOT a minority view, and therefore is a valid view held by many people and scientists around the globe, and it is also fully debateable scietifically.

Second, Hrafn. Are you even aware that Logic, the science and art of reason, is an acceptable art that applies to evrything that deals with real-life fact? Despite popular belief, logic is NOT common sense and logic is not relative to how each person feels. There are a number of rules and laws that every science must correspond to lest they be false. If you would like an example, here is one that everyone can appreciate: the Logical Law of Cause and Effect. It's Definition is "Every effect must have an antecedent cause". Now before you say it, nothing caused God because God is not an effect. Now as for online citations, I will get back to you in a short while. Oh, and I am not telling anybody to put "God created the universe" in the article. I am merely validating creation science as an acceptable, debateable worldview. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.195.196.19 (talk) 19:22, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Please review the Talk Page guidelines. This page is for discussing improvements to the article, not for general debate - not even for debate about the article topic. It does not matter who believes in creationism. The inclusion criterion for Wikipedia is Verifiability, not truth. If you have sourced material you wish to add, provide a source. Otherwise, I don't see how this discussion could be productive. S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 19:28, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Criticism of polling techniques?
In the section on 'Prevalence - The western world outside the United States', a poll is criticised as follows:


 * "The poll had the effect of reinforcing a culture war false dichotomy on the subject in an attempt by the news organization to demonstrate the extent of the controversy. As the poll lacked nuanced survey techniques and equivocated on origin definitions as well as forced participants to make choices as though there were only three options, its results do not necessarily indicate the views of the general public concerning mainstream science or religious alternatives."

This is the only poll that is attacked in this way - other polls referred to throughout the article (numerous examples) are accepted without comment. The poll was conducted by Ipsos MORI for the BBC (two reasonably reputable organisations), and seems to be broadly the same as other polls mentioned in the article, posing a multiple choice question to members of the public. I can't see why it's been singled out for criticism. Does anyone mind if I remove the criticism (the alternative would seem to be to investigate and critique all the other polls mentioned in the article in order to be fair!) Girth Summit (talk) 19:11, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Go ahead. Otherwise it's not neutral. --Pwnage8 (talk) 20:49, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The core problem isn't its lack of neutrality, it's the fact that it's pure WP:OR commentary on poll. As such, NPOV or POV, it has no place in the article. I'm removing it. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 04:45, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Pastafarianism
Why was this section removed?

As far as I am aware it is a non-christian instance of creationism.

Let's not discriminate here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.229.161.188 (talk) 10:48, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Pastafarianism isn't creationist, it's cryptoanticreationist. Of course if you can find an RS stating that it is in fact pseudocryptoanticreationist, we will consider it. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 11:46, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, are you insulting my beliefs? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.229.161.188 (talk) 13:53, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * It's a joke religion and doesn't pretend to be anything other than a joke religion. That's an important point, you seem to have overlooked. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:57, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't see why this can't be mentioned in the article as long as it's identified as an example coming from a parody religion. --Draco 2k (talk) 13:56, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * WP:UNDUE would appear to apply -- unless you can find a reliable secondary source that lists Pastafarianism as a prominent and non-parody articulation of creationist views. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 14:43, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * It *IS* a parody, and a very prominent one at that. I'm sure it deserves a mention as it's more than relevant to the article's subject, even though it can't be given too much emphasis. --Draco 2k (talk) 15:28, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree. It has gained significant notoriety as both a parody and a commentary on Creationism and the push to force it into the public school curriculum. --FilmFan69 (talk) 15:51, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Misrepresentation
Article said:
 * Another example is that of Liberal theology, which assumes that Genesis is a poetic work, and that just as human understanding of God increases gradually over time, so does the understanding of God's creation

"Poetic work"? (Sniff!) Liberal theology provides the hermeneutics pattern: many interpretations provide a hint of the underlying truth. And then the high criticism: "who said that when?" What they thought and did, their feelings and thinking, is to be the normative basis for reinterpretation to our age. Liberal theology claims nothing at all, since it is not a theology, it's a "mind-set", that may be used in other contexts, combined with other "mind-sets", according to the common-sense of the individual. I'll fix this mis-representation: "some Liberal theologists might have said"...  Said: Rursus   ☻   07:01, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Now the ultimate truth (irony) for everyone: "listen to the astronomers and cosmologists!".  Said: Rursus   ☻   07:16, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I can understand your point, but the new wording isn't particularly clear, and thus not particularly helpful. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 08:30, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * In the context of responses to Darwin's publication of his theory in 1859, this isn't "another example" but rather the theological developments from the late 18th century onwards which were published and discussed before 1859, and led to a huge controversy in 1860 with the publication of Essays and Reviews overshadowing the minor kerfuffle about On the Origin. Suggest rephrasing on the lines of "These ideas were preceded by the development of Liberal theology which applied higher criticism treating scripture as historical documents rather than inerrant revelation, and saw the creation story in terms of symbolism in beliefs of the time of authoring Genesis, the cultural environment, and comparison to non-Jewish "cosmologies" of that age." The links are included in the history section. . . dave souza, talk 09:26, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

In their original form
I may be misunderstanding something here, but saying (Creationists believe) "life, the Earth and the Universe were created in their original form by a deity" seems to be tautologous. By definition their "original form" is the form they were created in (if they were created at all). Do we mean something else? Is this a misprint? DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:31, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I believe this outlines creation "as it was back then" as opposed to creation "as it is now" (I.e. God didn't create modern civilisation, but rather Adam and Eve, etc.). If you think it needs rewording, please, be bold and make any necessary edits or post your drafts here for discussion if needed. --Draco 2k (talk) 17:55, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Two proposals:


 * 1) Simply remove the words "in their original form";
 * 2) Replace those words with "out of nothing", so it reads "were created out of nothing by a deity"
 * DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:37, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Might be a good idea. Though it seems that the first would be removing potential clarification and the second proposal pinches a nerve as being not particularly encyclopaedic... Sounds good.


 * Is there really any other way to say, "In their original form"? --Draco 2k (talk) 17:32, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure that "in their original form" adds anything (things can't be created in any form other than their original one - that's what original means). I still have a suspicion that someone meant something else, but I don't know what. "out of nothing" is A semi-theological term (usually rendered ex nihilo, and commonly used in creation discussions) aiming to distinguish this kind of creation from the kind where a 'creator' takes pre-existing matter and forms it. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:45, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * How about just "Originally created by a deity"? It's still a bit tautological at first glance, but it actually excludes "Before God there was..." scenarios. "Out of nothing" point might also be a good thing to mention. --Draco 2k (talk) 17:54, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Theistic evolution vs Evolutionary creationism
"Evolutionary creationism" is a very rarely used term (I only got 29 hits on Google Books). One of the more reliable of these explicitly distinguishes it from Theistic evolution (and places even EC in the 'Evolution' camp of 'Evolution versus Creationism'). I have therefore placed this distinction in the article. I would also question whether we have a reliable source placing TE within Creationism. I suspect that it was placed there simply on the strength of the "Creationism" in EC and conflation of the two terms. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 17:19, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Frankly, if it gets that little amount of hits, it's probably not worth mentioning in the first place. Other than that, the terms sound interchangeable even on the lexical level - though I'm not an expert in the area. --Draco 2k (talk) 17:34, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I put it in (i) for completeness (ii) because the article previously equated TE & EC (and its easier to get the difference to 'stick' as a cited addition, rather than as a simple deletion) & (iii) because it helps crystalise the question of whether TE itself belongs in this article. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 17:59, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * You cite the only difference between TE and EC as being "theologically more conservative in that it views God as being more active in evolution than do most Theistic Evolutionists". This sounds an awful lot like a personal opinion rather than rigid classification and, coupled with source given, I assume it is. Thus, it should be attributed as such.


 * The opinion is contained in the cited source, which cites it to personal conversations with Denis Lamoureux. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 18:17, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think Theistic Evolution should be removed from the article - it's not notable enough on it's own, but there's still quite a few sources mentioning it. The bit about EC, however, could probably be removed under this premise. --Draco 2k (talk) 18:09, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Many sources mention TE. Can you find any explicitly stating that it is a form of "Creationism"? <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 18:17, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I assume it was a bit of OR, placing it under the label of "Creationism" since it's a belief that God did X and Y. I can't comment on the exact notability, but the term gets a decent amount of mentions in reliable sources and in google tests, so it doesn't seem right to remove it altogether. --Draco 2k (talk) 18:24, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Notability is irrelevant to this issue. Metaphysical naturalism likewise "gets a decent amount of mentions in reliable sources and in google tests", but it is not included in this article because it is not Creationism. Unless you can find a RS stating that TE is Creationism, it likewise does not belong in this article (but retains its own article, as well as mention in Creation-evolution controversy‎). <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 18:33, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Good point. However, it is not totally irrelevant as it still describes a belief in the form of Creation - through evolution. --Draco 2k (talk) 18:38, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Recent edit.
A recent edit by Hfran added the following section:


 * Evolutionary Creationism


 * Despite the "creationism" in its name, evolutionary creationism is a type of evolution. It states that the Creator God uses evolution to bring about his plan. It is hardly distinguishable from Theistic Evolution a scientific viewpoint, but theologically more conservative in that it views God as being more active in evolution than do most Theistic Evolutionists. (ref)

I reverted the edit, though I could be a bit hasty about it. Main points being:


 * What rationale is there to say that Evolutionary creationism is different from Theistic evolution? (I can't verify the source right now)


 * Is it actually notable? Google test returns only 7,000 hits.


 * There is no such thing as a "Type of Evolution".


 * Creationism is not science.

Could the original author clarify/reword this before making any hard edits? --Draco 2k (talk) 17:23, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * My fault I'm afraid. Hrafn has been trying to expound his definition of "Creationism" at Answers in Genesis, insisting that Creationism doesn't include anyone who believes that evolution occurs (whether or not they believe the Universe was created). I recommended him to come here to look at the more widely used definition of creationism, and it seems he took that as a challenge to edit the article to conform to his views. I concur with the reversion. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:26, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for clarifying the situation. --Draco 2k (talk) 17:29, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you ever so much for assuming good faith Clayworth. The views contained in the edit were in fact not 'mine' but rather those of Eugenie Scott, who has written extensively on the subject of evolution and creationism. Instead of altering them to remove satements made in that source and add statements not in that source, I would suggest that you (i) read the source (it's available on Google Books) & (ii) if you disagree with it, come up with multiple/more-reliable sources for your contrary view. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 17:55, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm sure Scott's views would make a nice addition to the article, but they should be attributed as such and be notable enough to guarantee mention.


 * Weasel words or factually false data should not be in the article at all though. --Draco 2k (talk) 18:03, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Eugenie Scott is a published author and expert on the Creation-evolution controversy‎. As such she is a WP:RS (without the need for attribution) for definitions of viewpoints -- particularly when no WP:RS contradicting her definition has been presented. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 18:21, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Just because a person is considered a reliable source does not mean their views are presented as fact, especially if there are differering views within whatever community exists. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:41, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * It does on simple definitional matters if that source is not contested. You have not presented any WP:RSs demonstrating "differering views". <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 19:27, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Whether they're contested or not is irrelevant. Personal opinions should not be cited as facts. Just attribute it properly if you really need to. --Draco 2k (talk) 19:30, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Scott's The Creation/Evolution Continuum uses this as a separate category on the continuum of views, "Despite its name, evolutionary creationism is actually a type of evolution. Here, God the Creator uses evolution to bring about the universe according to his plan. From a scientific point of view, evolutionary creationism is hardly distinguishable from Theistic evolution, which follows it on the continuum. The differences between EC and Theistic evolution lie not in science, but in theology, with EC being held by more conservative (evangelical) Christians (D. Lamoreaux, p.c)." Denis Lamoureux has a web page setting out his idea that "Evolutionary creation claims the Father, Son and Holy Spirit created the universe and life through an evolutionary process. This position fully embraces both the religious beliefs of conservative Christianity and the scientific theories of cosmological, geological and biological evolution. It contends that God ordains and sustains the laws of nature, including the mechanisms of evolution. More specifically, evolution is 'teleological,' and features plan, purpose and promise......" There's also a weird Jewish claim to the term, that was in the article at one time but it's questionable if it's notable, and there also seems to be more recent use of the term by some Christian group, though their interpretation is less clear. .. dave souza, talk 22:25, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Theistic Evolution, Evolutionary Creation, Evolutionary Creationism and Creationism

 * 1) Scott's source on this, Denis Lamoureux, states in Evolutionary Creation that 'Evolutionary Creation' (not 'Evolutionary Creationism') is equivalent to TE, but states that the latter term is "unacceptable to evolutionary creationists", despite its widespread use by self-identifying 'theistic evolutionists' (including the Catholic Church). This difference of opinion on labelling and the "order of priority" of the terms it implies, would appear to support Scott's claim of a slight theological difference between the two.
 * 2) 'Evolutionary Creation' appears to be a far more frequently used term (611 Google Book hits compared with 29 for 'Evolutionary Creationism'), only slightly behind 'Theistic Evolution' (675 hits).
 * 3) We currently appear to have no justification (other than the mistaken "-ism" in 'Evolutionary Creationism') for placing either TE or EC within the realm of 'Creationism'.

I would therefore like to suggest the following: <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 04:46, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) That 'Evolutionary Creationism' be replaced (both here and in Theistic evolution by 'Evolutionary Creation', as this would clearly appear to be the more common and correct usage.
 * 2) That we use either Scott's distinction between the two, or Lamoureux's 'they're the same but EC's don't want to be called TE, though TE's are quite happy with the term', to contrast the two terms. To my mind, they're merely two ways of describing the same theological hair-splitting -- so I really don't care which one we use, but would strongly suggest that one or other is needed. Either way, I would suggest that this is done without attribution, as requiring such for experts on points of definition and classification is highly WP:POINT.
 * 3) That lacking a WP:RS for placing either TE or EC within Creationism, neither should be placed in 'Types of Christian creationism' (though they may be included in the article as contrasting viewpoint to Creationism).

Incidentally, The Oxford Handbook of Religion and Science (p192) distinguishes between Evolutionary Creationism & TE -- having them give different answers on the question of a historic Adam (EC yes, TE no). <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 07:49, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm sure (1) is a good point to mention, and (2) is might be more than a good idea. However, if Scott and Lamoureux are really the only people even mentioning this thing, it'd be wise to attribute the sources properly instead of implying consensus. And if their definition conflicts with Oxford's one... It's a bad thing altogether.


 * As for for (3), as I've already mentioned, it's not necessarily a form of Creationism by definition - might be a good distinction to mention - but it's certainly relevant to Creationism. One could also move terms away from this article and into respective Stubs, but a mention of the terms would still be nice to leave in. --Draco 2k (talk) 11:03, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The continuum set out by Scott has been generally adopted, and the other sources concur on it being essentially a theological difference while both EC and TE agree on the science. No problems with changing from evolutionary creationism to evolutionary creation, since that's the self-description and seems more common. As Numbers says, cooption of the term to mean anti-evolution has become common and indeed predominant since the 1980s, so it's a good idea to make it clear that these positions are not anti-evolution by separating them in some way – this could be clarified in the opening statement under #'Types of Christian creationism' and the table modified to separate out the last section. The #'Theistic evolution' section could become a section on its own rather than a subsection of #'Types of Christian creationism'. . dave souza, talk 11:56, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I support all of the above. Let me see if I can edit the article up a bit according to this. --Draco 2k (talk) 12:07, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah... It's somewhat hard to move out a whole section from under Christian Creationism if it still refers to Christian God. I'll add a mention of that to the opening for the time being. --Draco 2k (talk) 12:10, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I re-arranged a few words here and there, but it doesn't seem to accomplish much for now. --Draco 2k (talk) 12:21, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

For info, quite an interesting review of Lamoureaux's ideas from an Evangelical viewpoint at An Evangelical Palaeontology student reviews Lamoureux’s Evolutionary Creation. . . dave souza, talk 03:43, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The impression that I get from reading this & Lamoureux is that TE & EC don't differ much (and possibly not at all) in their end-point (acceptance of the science of evolutionary biology and of the scientific consensus on Earth's history), but rather in how they get there. EC's journey appears to be far more agonised, probably due to the principle (still dominant in more conservative branches of Protestantism) of sola scriptura (which led Martin Luther himself to reject Heliocentricity). The TE viewpoint seems to be more casual, taking the compatibility on faith, rather than having analyse and harmonise each Biblical passage. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 04:37, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Definition in the lead
I note that the 'theological' definition of creationism in the lead (which has been the cause of considerable argument at Talk:Answers in Genesis) is sourced to James Hayward, a biology professor. While not claiming that he is an unreliable source, I would think that an expert on science and religion or religious studies might provide a more authoritative, clearer and/or more well-developed definition. The 'working definition' is sourced to Ronald L. Numbers, which seems more appropriate. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 08:11, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Well... We have the main definition, and public definition per Creation/Evolution controversy (from Numbers) so far. It doesn't seem fair to cite public perception of the term as it's inside definition.


 * I have a hunch we're not going to find a definition of Creationism agreed upon by Creationists themselves (which would also seem to exclude outside experts from forming one). Well, I didn't, anyway. --Draco 2k (talk) 11:14, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

<span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 11:45, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Your 'main definition' is my 'theological definition', in that it is defining a "religious belief". I am suggesting that a "religious belief" would be more authoritatively defined by an expert in religious studies, 'science and religion', or some related field, than by a biologist (who expertise with respect to creationism would be more in terms of how creationism conflicts with the scientific evidence from Biology).
 * I have no idea where your ideas of "cit[ing] public perception of the term as it's inside definition" or "a definition of Creationism agreed upon by Creationists themselves" come into this.


 * I don't have a definition. I have (and had) nothing to do with this article at all other than watching over it from time to time and trying to help. I would appreciate it if we could discuss this as grown-ups instead of flipping out because X reverted Y's edits Z times.


 * I meant that what you term the "main definition" was what I termed the "theological definition". <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 12:15, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * If you can find any such experts, please, go ahead. As it stands, Jayward's definition would remain the most valid and logically encompassing to the rest of definitions given.


 * Numbers cites the definition of Creationism as it is applied to public perception, and thus popular interpretation, of the term (I think). Thus, I am led to believe it guarantees a mention.


 * Numbers does no such thing. He describes how the self-identification of the advocates of this view changed from referring to themselves as 'antievolutionists' (cf the Evolution Protest Movement) to 'creationists' in the mid 20th Century. By "commonly" he is not referring to "by the public" but "by themselves". <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 12:15, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * To maintain NPOV, we should either cite both sides' definitions (Scientists/Creationists) or an outside expert's one. So far the main definition comes from a biologist (and secondary from a third-party expert), which is slightly off course - and all I'm saying is that the definition coming from Creationists themselves might be a hard to obtain.


 * And I'm saying that a scientist would be an expert on why creationists are wrong, not on what defines a creationist. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 12:15, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Anything else? --Draco 2k (talk) 12:04, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Glad we cleared that up. Please excuse my poor wording.


 * Well, do you have a definition? --Draco 2k (talk) 12:26, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Creationism's Trojan Horse (p283) contains the following description (as opposed to a formal definition) of Creationism:

I think the problem with the current 'main definition' is that it blurs the second point, by making it unclear if it's definition of 'Creationism' accepts or rejects the possibility of the evolution of the universe and/or life. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 12:06, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Ron Numbers is a suitable authority, as a historian specialising in creationism, and the cited page makes it clear that it's meant various things at different times, as well as being contested as to which particular belief it includes. Thus different creationists will give different definitions, and we require expert opinion rather than trying to collect self-definitions by creationists. Creationism's Trojan Horse focusses on the anti-evolution meaning, it would be good to find other expert opinions about the uses that include compatibility with evolution. .. dave souza, talk 12:15, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Numbers makes it very clear that 'antievolutionism' and 'creationism' (as it is now known) are the same phenomenon. He also makes it clear that the term "Creationism" started to be used by this movement 80 years ago. What the term originally meant 150 years ago is, I would suggest, largely irrelevant and of only historical interest -- and thus (at best) deserves only a footnote. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 12:38, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * What a mess. If we cite all or at least some of these definitions in the article, what happens to sections that don't comply with one or more of them, or continuity or... Maybe create a new section dealing with "History of definition" or something? Place the common denominator in the intro, then elaborate on it later on. --Draco 2k (talk) 12:29, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Proposed definition
This definition would appear to be consonant with both Numbers' and Forrest's descriptions of Creationism. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 12:53, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Sounds good. But is the historical trivia really necessary?


 * Would this work? It's a bit of mish-mash (WP:OR?), but throwing out Hayward's definition sounds like a bad idea altogether. --Draco 2k (talk) 13:10, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

<span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 14:08, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The last sentence duplicates the first, except for the introduction of the phrase "strict creationism" which, although cited to him in the current version, is not contained in Numbers' piece. It also raises the question of 'what the heck is non-strict creationism?' I think the term merely muddies the waters.
 * I don't really see any point in attempting to tie up specifics of who the supernatural deity might be in what is meant to be a general definition. I think most readers will realise that "supernatural creation" most probably means 'God did it' in most contexts, but this still allows the definition to remain general to other forms of creationism (e.g. Hindu creationism). Mention of the 'Abrahamic God' can reasonably wait until later, explanatory rather than definitional paragraphs.
 * Does anybody have a copy of what Hayward actually said? Given how loose the Numbers paraphrase was, I have no assurance that the definition is an accurate representation of what Hayward wrote. In any case, Numbers & Forrest more than trump Hayward as authoritative sources on Creationism. Additionally, this whole argument started off because this definition cited to Hayward allows contradictory interpretations.


 * Good points. With all that, it's should look like this...


 * Sound good? This would actually mirror most of the available definitions, including Hayward's.


 * And no, I don't have a copy. Google books doesn't seem to either. --Draco 2k (talk) 14:37, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Two questions: My point is that both additions are merely extraneous and unnecessary elaborations of the core definition. A definition should be as concise as possible, without losing information. Unnecessary elaboration tends to lead to unintentional ambiguity (as happened with the Hayward-cited definition). Can you point to any conceivable candidate for inclusion in the set 'Creationism' that would be intentionally included/excluded differently under my proposal versus your latest one? <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 15:31, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Can you conceive of a supernatural agency capable of creating "the universe and life" that wouldn't be sufficiently powerful to be considered to be "deity or deities"?
 * Can you point to any deity whose existence has been inferred from the evidence without its existence previously being "presupposed"?


 * Plenty. Maybe it was some sort of accident at the magic soup factory? Maybe the agent blew itself up in the process? Maybe it was killed later on (like in some ancient creation stories). Who knows.


 * No. That's why it's important to outline - Creationism doesn't attempt to explain why deity is there (or anything for that matter), it just says it is. It's a good summary.


 * Other than that, if you can think of a way to shorten it - please do.


 * Our first and last revisions are basically the same, save for "by a deity or deities, whose existence is presupposed" bit - which sounds unnecessary, but helps outline an important point or two as previously stated. The trivia about first usage of the term could go in History section. --Draco 2k (talk) 15:53, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Don't forget that the term was used in this meaning by Darwin and others in private, and there seem to have been other terms for the position in the nineteenth century. It's also confusing to use the term evolution for cosmological development, though stellar evolution is used as a term, it has little or no connection to biological evolution. Suggest – "Creationism, also known as antievolutionism, is the religiously motivated rejection of the scientific consensus on the development of the universe and the evolution of life, in favour of a presupposition of supernatural creation. The term in its modern usage was introduced by...." .. dave souza, talk 16:33, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Good point. Also, how about "...presupposition of supernatural creation by an intelligent agent..." or something (can we even say "deity"?). Supernatural creation as a term doesn't necessary require a designer/creator, so it might be a good idea to clarify what is what. --Draco 2k (talk) 16:47, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm happy with Dave's version. I don't see how 'supernatural creation by unintelligent means' (assuming somebody thought up the 'Church of the Sacred Pratfall' or similar to make an issue of it) would be any less 'Creationism' than 'supernatural creation by the ultimate brainiac'. It's extraneous and is not contained in any of the sources that are currently available to consult (which also happen to be the more authoritative). Shall we also specify that the 'intelligent supernatural agency' doesn't eat hotdogs on Friday? <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 17:14, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * As I said, supernatural creation does not require a designer/creator by it's definition. Creationism, however, does. --Draco 2k (talk) 17:55, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * We are attempting to come up with a definition of Creationism on the basis of how the experts describe it (i.e. the definition is the product of this discussion, not an input into it). Can you quote an expert stating that creationism requires an explicit designer/creator not merely supernatural creation (which may or may not in itself be interpreted to implicate a creator)? <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 18:48, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Eugenie Scott describes it as a "supernatural force" in Evolution Vs. Creationism (pg. 51: "...to Christian, Jews and Muslims this supernatural force is God; to people of other religions, it is other deities...").


 * Frankly, it doesn't even make sense (or makes less sense...) without God. --Draco 2k (talk) 19:43, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * All this means is that most religions interpret "supernatural force" (as they would the 'whatever' behind "supernatural creation") as being the deity or deities they worship. The 'intelligent' part is non-determinative, merely virtually ubiquitous. Would some particularly bizarre Taoist who decided that science conflicted with the Tao Te Ching and thus that the Tao formed the universe in some way that science contradicts be any less a creationist? I don't think so. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 03:36, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay... So far it'd be:

It'd be nice to specify said forces, or maybe use some other phrase. --Draco 2k (talk) 19:48, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Don't forget that the original name is shrouded in complexity but "antievolution" is still in occasional use. Also, while I'm happy with "its supernatural creation" as that covers all deities and any other "intelligent designer", however here's an option –


 * Note USian spelling, and not sure if it should be god or God. . . dave souza, talk 20:22, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Sounds about perfect. --Draco 2k (talk) 20:59, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I prefer your [Dave's] first version [i.e. the one dated 16:33, 27 August 2008 (UTC)] -- it was tighter. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 03:36, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Which first version? Could you quote it, maybe explain what could be changed about current one? --Draco 2k (talk) 11:25, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * They're identical save for terminology (antievolution; development of the universe), and the latter actually clarifies *which* kind of supernatural creation we're talking about, and offers room for some examples. --Draco 2k (talk) 14:38, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * It is not a 'clarification', it is a completely unnecessary elaboration. What other "kind of supernatural creation" is there? And why wouldn't it be creationism? The more non-core elaborations that get dumped into the definition, the vaguer and more ambiguous it becomes. This means that it should have no "usually...", "typically..." or "such as..." clauses -- these merely muddy what is essential to the definition by adding in inessential (but near-ubiquitous) elements, which are better handled as examples outside the definition. I'm also uncomfortable with moving "which is presupposed" into its own clause, as that appears to open the door for an 'I'm-not-a-creationist-really' to argue tendentiously that their deity is inferred rather than presupposed, so 'it's not creationism'. I'd actually prefer to leave presupposed out entirely (as it doesn't appear to be determinative), but am willing to accept it in Dave's original version, as it gives 'presupposed supernatural creation' as a single integral unit, rather than giving the impression that 'supernatural' and 'presupposed' might be separable. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 15:20, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * "antievolutionism"??? Never heard of it in 35 years of reading about creationism. rossnixon 02:12, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Hardly surprising then. The move to rename it started in 1929, and was more or less complete by the early 1970s (last remnant that I know of was the 'Evolution Protest Movement' which was renamed the Creation Science Movement in 1980). <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 03:36, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I've updated the article with the new definition. Modify as needed - please state your reasoning if you do. --Draco 2k (talk) 14:48, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

<span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 15:34, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Your edit was premature, as there is as yet no consensus for a specific new definition.
 * 2) You have no idea what Hayward originally wrote, so cannot tell that the version you inserted was "partly Hayward's", or if the language retained from the older version was merely some earlier editor's elaboration on what Hayward actually wrote.
 * 3) There is no particular need to retain any second-hand information from a source who is not an expert on the definition of Creationism, when we have the first-hand words of three experts on the subject (Scott, Forrest & Numbers).


 * Well, I figured it's already better than the previous version, so it's a start. Just edit it as needed.


 * Yes, I didn't pick up Hayward's book - I assumed the previous definition (presupposed deities, etc.) was paraphrased from his words, and the new one goes in line with it. If not, the reference will have to go, I assume. Should it? Any other problems? --Draco 2k (talk) 15:54, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, but you have no idea as to how close a paraphrase it was, let alone whether this new frankensteined version actually reflects what Hayward wrote (or if the added material in some way contradicts his version). If you don't have the original in front of you, you should not be citing substantially altered material to it, nor attempting to merge it with newer material. We should base the new definitions on sources that we actually have to hand -- particularly when all three of these new sources are more authoriative than Hayward in any case. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 16:14, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Neither of the other two sources contain the description we have now, too. The cited Scott/Eldredge define it as "...the idea that supernatural force created..." and Numbers and Forrest define it as... Actually, I don't know where that came from - you didn't give any citations (please do). Hayward defines it as (I assume) religious belief that deity X created everything, which is what the previous revision was about. --Draco 2k (talk) 16:32, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The Numbers citation is already in the article, a quote of the cited Forrest material (from Creationism's Trojan Horse) is above (including page number). Assuming what Hayward might have written simply isn't good enough. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 17:45, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm having trouble finding anything even relatively resembling what we have now in supposedly Number's material (that link), and the Forrest doesn't seem to be mentioned anywhere...


 * Well, should we remove Hayward's ref then? According to previously revision, he defined it as mainly a religious belief in creation rather than rejection of evolution in favour of said creation. --Draco 2k (talk) 18:17, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * It should not be defined by what it isn't nor by what it (often) rejects. Broadly, creationism is a belief in a creator.  Theistic evolutionists are creationists who do not reject evolution. Rlsheehan (talk) 00:28, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, it is historically defined as an anti-evolution/science/etc. as well as creation movement - and we even have some references to support that. Theistic evolution does not fall under this definition entirely, but it's still quite relevant to the subject. --Draco 2k (talk) 01:17, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Online Webster says: "a doctrine or theory holding that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by God out of nothing and usually in the way described in Genesis —" The literal interpretation of Genesis is only one view, among many.  Imagery, poetry, and alegory are also common among mainline protestant beliefs. (references are available)Rlsheehan (talk) 01:31, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Eugenie Scott and Niles Eldredge, both experts in the field of creation-evolution controversy, also describe it as an adherence to the idea of supernatural creation, but Numbers also describes historical origins of the movement as stemming from antievolution one, citing that the only thing that really changed about it since the then is the name (much like with Creationism and ID). And, frankly, rejection of evolutionary and other scientific theories follow logically here, as well (which is also described later on in the article).


 * Old Earth Creationism is an example of non-literal interpretation of the Bible in this case. The definition doesn't address literal or non-literal interpretation of any applicable religious texts.


 * It's a tricky thing - we need a definition that encompasses Creationism in it's entirety most accurately, but it also needs to come from a reliable source or sources. --Draco 2k (talk) 01:45, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * A recent edit changed the currently disputed definition to predominantly Hayward's one - this is something we'll have to avoid if we don't have proper citations and if cited definitions starkly conflict with each other. Hayward's definition is also the main reason the edit was proposed to begin with. All in all, we need non-conflicting definition(s) from reliable (and citable) expert(s) in the field. --Draco 2k (talk) 02:44, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I removed Hayward's ref since it's no longer relevant. His definition described Creationism as a religious belief, which is not mentioned in current revision - mostly - and maybe it should be. It also appears to be virtually unverifiable.


 * Do we have a citation from Forrest/Numbers on this definition, or any part of it? --Draco 2k (talk) 02:54, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Take two
I'd like to present three principles for formulating a consensus definition of 'Creationism'
 * 1) It should be consistent with the descriptions of Creationism contained in the authoritative reliable sources available to date.
 * 2) Without conflicting with #1, it should encompass the widest range of creation myths that could conceivably produce a creationist apologetic.
 * 3) It should not contain any inessential/non-determinative material ("typically...", "such as...", etc), which should be left for later paragraphs.


 * Numbers lists this movement as being described as "advocates of creation" and "anti-evolutionists", and describes them as dedicating their organizations to "Christian Fundamentals" and "Anti-Evolution". This clearly and unambiguously indicates that a key point is anti-evolutionism. 'Creation' is left amorphous, with the implication from the context that it is meant in a religious (and thus supernatural) sense.
 * Forrest describes American (i.e. predominantly Christian) creationism as involving "creation of the universe by a supernatural designer" (her 1st point), anti-evolutionism (2nd & 3rd), and a clear link between the two (4th).
 * Scott states that "Broadly, "creationism" refers to the idea that a supernatural force created"(p51), and that the "Pillars of Creationism" are the view that "Evolution is a 'Theory in Crisis'", "Evolution and Religion are Incompatible" and that "'Balancing' Evolution" (with Creationism) is desirable.(pp xxi-xxiii)
 * Creation myth lists a large range of supernatural creator entities, archetypes and forces, many of which would not typically described as 'deities'.

I would therefore suggest that the definition:
 * 1) focus upon (i) supernatural creation & (ii) anti-evolutionism; and
 * 2) leave the identity of the agent of this 'creation' as general as possible (preferably by merely leaving its existence as an implication of 'supernatural creation')

I would therefore like to propose the following:

I would be willing, as a compromise, to accept either "a presupposed supernatural creation" or "creation by a supernatural force" (or even "a presupposed creation by a supernatural force" -- though the latter is clumsy), but would object to either (i) further non-determinative specificity on the identity of the 'creator' (that would unnecessarily remove some mythologies' creators from contention) or (ii) giving emphasis to the 'presupposition' when it is not explicitly mentioned in any of the available sources. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 05:11, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Good, sound principles and a good opening sentence. The idea of "creationism" as meaning "religious views of creation irrespective of whether or not evolution is involved" has been superseded in general usage by the anti-evolution meaning. That could be dealt with in a second sentence, perhaps on the lines of "The concept of divine creation is also part of what has been termed theistic evolution, but in the creation-evolution controversy such beliefs are not usually described as creationism." . . dave souza, talk 10:48, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I would concur with everything but the last few words.


 * Scott and Eldridge mention that it's not just "supernatural creation", but "creation by supernatural forces" - and then go on to clarify exactly which forces ("deity or deities, such as God or Allah"). Supernatural Creation is an extremely broad term, and is not something Creationism argues for in general. "Presupposed" bit is also important - otherwise it would sound like Creationism actually tries to prove existence of God (like it should, according to scientific method).


 * Also, technically, "rejection of [...] development of the universe and the evolution of life" - though I'm not sure we have a reliable source on that.


 * And it's "antievolution", not "antievolutionism" - the latter is out-of-use term.


 * As for the second paragraph, yes, some clarification might be in order. --Draco 2k (talk) 11:20, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I really wish that Draco 2k would learn the difference between a direct quote and a paraphrase. Scott and Eldridge do not use the phrase "deity or deities, such as God or Allah" nor do they provide what this is a (bad) paraphrase of as a clarification but merely as an example ("To Christians, Jews and Muslims, this supernatural force is God..."). Also, antievolution is the adjective, antievolutionism is the known (hence The Antievolution Pamphlets of Harry Rimmer, The Antievolution Works of Arthur I. Brown). The noun form has been largely supercded by 'Creationism', but the adjective is still used somewhat more frequently. Attempting to use 'antievolution' as a noun is both improper and likely to cause confusion. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 19:04, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The exact context is, "...broadly, 'Creationism' refers to the idea that a supernatural force created. To Christians, Jews, and Muslims, this supernatural force is God..." - I never proposed the definition to refer to deities as such, but rather clarify the exact type of creation. Good point about anti-evolution. I'll assume that you don't have any further criticisms regarding mine or anyone else's remarks.


 * I also wouldn't mind it if you would stop throwing snide remarks around. --Draco 2k (talk) 19:30, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I reverted "antievolution" again for at least these reasons.


 * 1) It has not been in use for a long time and is now an unknown term.
 * 2) There is no citation.
 * 3) If it was current, the correct form (grammar in the sentence) would be "antievolutionism".
 * 4) It is inaccurate anyway, as all young earth creationists agree with many aspects of evolution. rossnixon 11:27, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Numbers lists this movement as being described as "advocates of creation" and "anti-evolutionists", and describes them as dedicating their organizations to "Christian Fundamentals" and "Anti-Evolution". If "all young earth creationists agree with many aspects of evolution", it does seem remarkable that so many seem to oppose it being taught. Citation from a secondary source? . . dave souza, talk 12:10, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * (1) is irrelevant, and untrue. Creationism movement stems from and a continuation of the antievolution movement. Historically, it's both. (2) There is, though it's hard to obtain. See discussion above. (3)"Antievolution" is the much more commonly used term, despite being interchangeable with "Antievolutionism". (4) Is not cited anywhere in the article. --Draco 2k (talk) 12:11, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I reverted the article back to previous definition as per antievolution definition dispute. The definition that was reverted reads:


 * Signed. --Draco 2k (talk) 12:06, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Another proposed definition:


 * Cited (supposedly) directly from Number's/Forrest's material (first ref - hard to verify). Partially ("creation" part) supported by Scott's/Eldrige's definition (second ref, exact page cited).


 * Not sure if it should also mention rejection of consensus on development of the universe - any sources on that?


 * Not sure if you can address "force" as "who", maybe it's better to say "entity"?


 * Not sure if it should clarify the type of "supernatural forces".

Signed. --Draco 2k (talk) 19:49, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * What sources give prominence to the "whose existence is presupposed", necessitating that it be given its own clause in the definition? This essentially changes the 'checklist' from two boxes to be 'ticked' in order to conclude 'Creationism' (antievolutionism, supernatural creation) to include a third (presupposition). Where do the sources indicate that this point is crucial to the question of 'what is or is not Creationism'? <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 05:19, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Good point. While theistic religion inherently presupposes the existence of a aupernatural force, it's superfluous to the definition and opens a weasel hole for the ID argument that "it could have been time travelling aliens, or Anthony Flew". So, crop it. . . dave souza, talk 09:10, 30 August 2008 (UTC)


 * It's a clarifying statement. Creationism doesn't draw conclusions that God exists, nor does it follow as a consequence of rejecting evolution, it just assumes he does.


 * Presupposition is vital part of all god-myths, and is usually not used when describing them as such - like we don't use "mechanical" when talking about cars - but we're describing God thinly veiled as "supernatural force" here - and what kind of force this is clearly follows from cited sources. So It's either call them by name - God, Allah, whatever, long list - or call them by their definition.


 * Basically, Creationism is not a theory or hypothesis, or science for that matter - it doesn't draw conclusions from evidence; it just assumes something exists, and that's it. I think it's a hugely important point, which should be mentioned one way or the other. --Draco 2k (talk) 11:58, 30 August 2008 (UTC)


 * From which I gather that your only justification for inclusion of "whose existence is presupposed" is WP:OR. Further, I see no evidence that "supernatural force" is any less 'presupposed' than any god, deity or whatever, so "supernatural force, whose existence is presupposed" is just as redundant and excessive as "car, which is mechanical". This is therefore an unnecessary OR elaboration, "clarifying" nothing that is not already abundantly clear. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 14:23, 30 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Not really - it's paraphrasing. It's either that or listing Yahweh, Allah, etc. or each respective religion according to Scott/Eldridge definition - which would be extremely cumbersome.


 * Supernatural forces don't have to be presupposed, it's not in their definition. It's in definition of God, sure, but we're not calling it that here. So we either have to stray away from the exact definition by calling them Gods/Deities, or elaborate on what kind of forces we're talking about here - either by listing examples, or by narrowing down the scope of the definition. --Draco 2k (talk) 14:54, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

<span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 15:38, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) If it is "paraphrasing" then quote the passage in the source that it is a paraphrase of.
 * 2) Give a WP:RS for your "definition" of "Supernatural forces". Give a WP:RS for your "definition" of "God". Because quite frankly, all these assertions appear to be complete (and very flimsy) WP:OR. I see no reason why anything supernatural would not necessarily be "presupposed", nor why some supernatural entities would be presupposed while others weren't. And we "have to" do nothing of the sort. Neither of the options you delineate are either (i) necessary (ii) desirable or (iii) substantiated by the sources as anything beyond examples of the supernatural forces under discussion.

Interesting. Actually, there doesn't appear to exist a definition of not just "supernatural force", but also "evolution of life" or "supernatural creation". But that's beyond the point.


 * Then why are you making claims about things being "not in" or "in" these non-existent definitions? <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 17:32, 30 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The paragraph in question is: "...broadly, 'Creationism' refers to the idea that a supernatural force created. To Christians, Jews, and Muslims, this supernatural force is God..."

I'm quoting this for about sixth time here.


 * This paragraph says nothing about "presupposition". <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 17:32, 30 August 2008 (UTC)


 * This is the answer to your other question. I'll assume you don't have anything to say about it then. --Draco 2k (talk) 18:10, 30 August 2008 (UTC)


 * "Supernatural force" is bullshit. It does not have a definition, and it's exactly that - two words: "supernatural" and "force". The only way we know what this means is the clarifying statement, listed above.

As I said before, without clarification, it's a meaningless statement.


 * No. It is this claim that is "bullshit". Both "supernatural" and "force" have well-understood meanings. "Supernatural force" is simply the juxtaposition of those two meanings. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 17:32, 30 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Then you won't object to it's usage here, or ask me to provide you with RS explaining it's meaning like you did above. --Draco 2k (talk) 18:10, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

It's also rather weird to ask for sources on something you said you know meaning of in the first place, even without "unnecessary" clarifications.


 * I was only asking you for the "source" for your made-up definitions of them. As far as I could see you were simply pulling them out of your arse -- but I assumed good faith and asked if you actually had a source to back up your claims. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 17:32, 30 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Your definitions, not mine. "Supernatural forces" is direct quote - asking for RS on it is meaningless. --Draco 2k (talk) 18:10, 30 August 2008 (UTC)


 * If you suggest that any "supernatural force" has to be presupposed or not, the burden of proof is on you. By default, we'll have to assume it can be either.

Basically, it can be whatever - this is why clarification is in order, as well as to avoid misquoting the original source.


 * <Bzzzz> Wrong -- per WP:V, the burden of proof is on you as the editor attempting to introduce "whose existence is presupposed" into the article. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 17:32, 30 August 2008 (UTC)


 * We're not discussing whether or not to insert this statement here, but whether or not it "supernatural forces" are presupposed or not. The burden of proof is on you, otherwise we'll have to clarify the definition to correctly paraphrase the source. --Draco 2k (talk) 18:10, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, I've yet to see you list the exact quote from Numbers or Forrest on this definition. Doesn't feel right to work with something that's not even there.


 * Then you need your eyes checked. The quote from Forrest is above, and I specifically cited which of her points support 'anti-evolution' & 'supernatural creation' at the start of this thread. I likewise specified where Numbers supports these points.


 * If I can direct you over five times over to Scott/Eldrige quote, you can probably quote your definition the second time. So please do, because I don't see it. Mind, I'm asking for a direct quote too, not your paraphrasing. If you'd be so kind. --Draco 2k (talk) 18:10, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and it doesn't make sense denounce something as "undesirable" or "unnecessary" when going for consensus among multiple individuals. Nor does it make sense to define points of said consensus to begin with. --Draco 2k (talk) 16:31, 30 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Umm, I never said that anything was "undesirable" (hint: do not use quotation marks unless what you are saying is a direct quote). Likewise, as far as I know, I did not "define points of said consensus", I merely suggested basic principles that might lead to one. And it is perfectly unexceptionable to point out that a piece of text is "unnecessary", in that it "clarifies" no point requiring clarification.


 * I quote from above: "Neither of the options you delineate are either (i) necessary (ii) desirable or (iii) substantiated [...]". These are meaningless descriptions if you don't give any clarifications as to why, where and how.


 * And again: "I'd like to present three principles for formulating a consensus definition of 'Creationism'". Might be a misunderstanding on my part, but you basically said: "What we agree on should look like this". I assumed it to be bad wording and you really meant pointers as to what the definition should look like so, moving on.


 * I also wouldn't mind if you could be a bit more civil here. I don't mean to be hostile to you or anyone else here. --Draco 2k (talk) 18:10, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

As for ensuing confusion: why am I arguing that it makes sense to clarify the type of creation we're discussing here.


 * Supernatural creation is a broad term. It could refer to God (deity?) just as well as space aliens, but we can easily infer that Creationism only addresses the first one in this case - from the sources we cite, as well as well as rest of the article and any given examples.

Without clarification, however, the reader may assume it's space aliens.


 * <Bzzzz> Wrong -- aliens are generally not considered to be supernatural. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 17:32, 30 August 2008 (UTC)


 * What about space magicians? The three old ladies? The Flying Spaghetti Monster? --Draco 2k (talk) 18:10, 30 August 2008 (UTC)


 * What does this supernatural creation has to do with Creationism? Well, easily, Creationism assumes it to exist. It doesn't infer it from evidence, it doesn't argue for it's possibility, it doesn't say it may or may not exist.

Without clarification, however, the reader may assume that Creationism holds any of the latter positions.


 * Assuming for the sake of argument that 'inferred supernatural creation' were possible, demonstrate (without using bogus definitions, or other unsubstantiated assertions) why this would not be 'Creationism'. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 17:32, 30 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Which is why we have to provide such a definition. --Draco 2k (talk) 18:10, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

This could be worded better, of course. It'd be nice if someone could clarify it without using far-off terms or constructs. --Draco 2k (talk) 16:45, 30 August 2008 (UTC)


 * (i) You have demonstrated no need for "clarification". (ii) You have demonstrated neither need nor RS basis for "presupposed" (iii) You have in fact given neither evidentiary support nor coherent logic for anything that you have been advocating here. I am tired of arguing around in circles on this. Either cite solid evidence supporting your positions, or expect to be simply ignored. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 17:32, 30 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I've demonstrated all of the above and provided all citations required, most of which you've successfully ignored, or failed to provide a rebuttal to (as of current time). If you disagree with my position, I would kindly ask you to explain why or accept it as a matter of consensus. --Draco 2k (talk) 18:10, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Take three
Well, we seem to have narrowed the path down to two definitions. Since it's hard to establish a consensus on any matter across the Internet, let's, for the sake of experiment, try this format:

Simply sound off below the definition. Do not reply to previous comments, but rather the definition itself. I'll start:


 * Mostly accepted. A good definition. I've yet to see exact references on it, but it gets the point across fairly nicely and comes from a couple of third-part experts. Does not clarify the the type of supernatural creation as does at least one of the sources though - possibly broadens the scope of the definition.


 * Mostly accepted. Basically an extension of the above. The ending doesn't sound quite as nice and is a bit more lengthy. Clarifies the exact type of creation in question - narrows the definition down to it's supposed original meaning as cited in the respective source. --Draco 2k (talk) 18:21, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

But by Draco 2k's own admission these 'definitions' of "Supernatural forces" & "God" don't exist -- he simply made up these definitions and whether 'presupposed' is "not in"/"in" them. I am, at this stage, heartily sick of all this irrelevant, unsubstantiated hand-waving. I will not accept the introduction of "whose existence is presupposed", unless and until Draco 2k actually comes up with a quote from one of these sources that actually makes use of "presupposed" or a close cognate of it. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 18:56, 30 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I would ask you, again, to cease personal attacks.


 * These definitions do not exist seperately - this doesn't mean they don't retain their meaning (although vague), and I've never said otherwise. I certainly didn't make them up - they are merely quoted directly from original source.


 * I explained why "presupposed" bit is important before. I'll repeat:


 * What does (this) supernatural creation has to do with Creationism? Well, easily, Creationism assumes it to exist. It doesn't infer it from evidence, it doesn't argue for it's possibility, it doesn't say it may or may not exist. Without clarification, however, the reader may assume that Creationism holds any of the latter positions.


 * I assume paraphrasing of the source does not qualify as original research. But here we face a simple choice of either naming all of the associated "supernatural forces" by name - Yahweh, Allah, Thor, "other deities", what have you, like the source does - or insert them all under one umbrella term.


 * I assume this umbrella term to be adequately represented as "presupposed supernatural forces or entities". I wouldn't object to an introduction of a better equivalent. --Draco 2k (talk) 19:10, 30 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I dispute virtually all of the above, but as you've presented no factual basis whatsoever for your claims, I really can't be bothered arguing individual points. So I will simply state that it is all unfounded and impermissible WP:OR and leave it at that. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 19:45, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Further, there is no "exact type of creation" requiring 'clarification' -- it is a general definition, meant to be applicable to all types of creation myth that might generate a creationist apologetic. I would also point out that I have given the "exact references" on the first version, repeatedly. They are Creationism's Trojan Horse (p283), Antievolutionists and Creationists & Evolution Vs. Creationism (pp xxi-xxiii, 51). <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 19:05, 30 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm merely attempting to avoid misquoting the source - and source so far provides a very clear definition of the type of creation in question by providing adequate examples.


 * Examples are not part of a definition. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 19:45, 30 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes. They are used to clarify an unclear definition. --Draco 2k (talk) 20:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for providing references. I'll put them after the first definition, if you don't object. I have yet to see the exact quote dealing with the matter, however, as it does not appear to be in the references cited. --Draco 2k (talk) 19:10, 30 August 2008 (UTC)


 * You can do so for all I care -- as nobody can read them it serves no purpose whatsoever however. I have already given you exact quotes and demonstrated how they indicate that Creationism involves (i) antievolutionism and (ii) supernatural creation. I do not intend to go over this again -- I am heartily sick of your WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 19:45, 30 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Alright. Though providing an exact quote would probably resolve this a lot quicker. I'll see if I can dig it up myself. --Draco 2k (talk) 20:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, the Trojan Horse is on Google books, that's a good start. -Link-

You've also quoted it above (way above), so, apparently I overlooked that. My bad.

As the first criteria, we are greeted with "creation of the universe by a supernatural designer". Given that...

There. It's a direct quote, and we no longer need to clarify the kind of creation - it's by a designer - and whether this designer is "presupposed" or not, since it's called by it's name now, a "belief".

How about that? --Draco 2k (talk) 20:54, 30 August 2008 (UTC)


 * On second thought, it could also be:

Most common definition first. It could also be attributed to a way bigger number of sources, starting with Ofxord's dictionary and currently mentioned Hayward. --Draco 2k (talk) 21:00, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

"Belief"
Did anyone here actually tried a Google search for this thing?.. An awful lot of sources define Creationism as a "belief that all living things and the universe were created..." Etc.

Not the least of which would be the |Oxford Dictionary: "The belief that all living organisms originate from specific acts of divine creation, as in the biblical account, rather than by natural processes such as evolution".

It wouldn't seem fair to not give a slight mention of that lot of sources, would it? Any comments? --Draco 2k (talk) 19:38, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Wow. Making it sound so simple is....well...what we should be doing?  Creationism is a belief set.  Why do we have to complicate things?  I'd support changes that you propose Draco.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 19:48, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 * So a proposal using this source, reworded to avoid plagiarism? Also, theistic evolution (not creationism in the anti-evolution sense) is the belief that all living organisms originate from specific acts of divine creation before evolution kicks in, and if you mean separate acts for each "baramin", species or whatever, certain ID creationists appear to accept some descent and origination of species through evolution, though they're inconsistent about that. Needs thought. . dave souza, talk 20:18, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

It's all mighty confusing. "Belief" thing seems to be the most common definition, but that doesn't mean it's right or even consistent... Quite ironic, considering the nature of Creationism itself, may I add. Maybe cite a few different definitions in the lead? Can we do that? --Draco 2k (talk) 20:39, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Take four
How about that?

Most common definition first, clarification later on. Looks like it has all bases covered, to me. --Draco 2k (talk) 21:07, 30 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Why do you want that little phrase "also known as antievolutionism." Known by whom?  Until I saw it here, I've never seen it before, and I've read a lot of books about this subject.  It's also kind of POV.  Creationism is not the antithesis of evolution, they work in separate belief sets.  Essentially, from a philosophical standpoint, they ignore each other (though from a sociopolitical one they don't).   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 21:17, 30 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually I can't remember right now. I think it comes directly from one of the references, which establishes Creationism in logical and historical continuity with anti-evolution movement.


 * The fact that Creationism is opposed to evolution, however, is cited in pretty much every reference provided. Googling the term will mostly return the same results. --Draco 2k (talk) 21:22, 30 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Creationism is not the antithesis of evolution, they work in separate belief sets. Essentially, from a philosophical standpoint, they ignore each other. Not true. Evolution is a scientific theory, but creationism is a metaphysical belief system which has (since shortly after Paley's watchmaker analogy was refuted in the mid 1800s) only proceeded by strawman arguments against evolution. It has never developed any independent theories of phylogenetics.Trilobitealive (talk) 21:53, 30 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Evolution is not and has never been a scientific theory. Rather, it is the working assumption of Naturalism.  Natualism is the metaphysical belief system that is behind how most scientists interpret geology and life knowingly or not.  Creationism and Naturalism are compeating paradigms within each of which science is done.  Science is a method of studying nature, but it can only be done within paradigms the supply the assumptions needed to do science.  Both Naturalism and Creationism supply the required assumptions.


 * Creationists will never develop any theory of phylogentics because the animals, plants and fungi, etc., are not related but created as different things in different kinds. They are developing the science of baraminology instead. Which is, of course, based on Biblical explanation and observations.  --Christian Skeptic (talk) 22:40, 30 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I too have never heard creationism refered to as "antievolutionism." Look, Democrats may be anti-Republican, but they ar not "knoiwn as" Antirepublicans.  Let's not mix up a common feature with a name. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 00:05, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


 * As I've said before, it's not original research - it's historical. Creationism movement is what was previously known as as anti-evolution movement, which was, in turn, previously known as anti-science movement. At least that's what the source says, if I recall correctly. Same thing for ID and Creationism itself, really. --Draco 2k (talk) 00:15, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Draco2K, are you responding to me? Did I use the phrase "original research?"  My point is very very simple: you say that creationists are opposed to evolution.  i happen to agree with you.  But this simply is not the same thing as saying that they are also "known as anti-Evolutionists."  It is simple English semantics.  You are confused about the difference between a description and a name.  You keep saying over and over that creationists oppose Evolution and few will argue with that ... but it is a non-sequitor, it does not mean that creationists are "known as" (and jeez, that awful passive voice that good writers of English typically avoid as it is such lousy style) "anti-evolutionists."  Slrubenstein   |  Talk 15:44, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm just trying to say that one of the sources cited Creationism as basically a new name for what was previously known as anti-evolution movement. I don't remember exactly which one though - but you could probably ask Hrafn about that - he brought it up to begin with, and he seems to know a thing or two about the whole subject overall. --Draco 2k (talk) 16:05, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


 * But today Creationisn is 'not "known as" anti-evolutionism. Here is my suggestion which will resolve this conflict: first, create an article entitled "anti-evolutionism" and have it just redirect to this article.  Second, in the body of this article (not the introduction) have a section that explains the historical relationship between creationism and anti-evolutionists, including citing the quote you provide below.  If you follow my suggestion we will remove what is false from the intro (that creationism is "known as anti-evolutionism," which is not so), but anyone looking up anti-evolutionism will be directed to this article, and the appropriate place for nuance and history - the body of the article - will explain the connection between the two. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 16:15, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


 * That's a great idea. Still not sure about the exact reference though. --Draco 2k (talk) 16:29, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks! About references, I thought people were finding referenced material, below.  Anyway, I am glad you like my idea and will leave you to execute it, since you have been more active in this discussion and have a better sense of what would be acceptable to others active on this page, Slrubenstein   |  Talk 01:42, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks to you. I hope we'll figure something out. --Draco 2k (talk) 18:40, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Updated version below.

Removing trivia about antievolutionism: seems more appropriate to mention it in the History section, as per Slrubenstein's suggestion. --Draco 2k (talk) 16:31, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

An obsessively over-cited version for people who still can't work out where everything comes from
(Numbers(2006) = latest version of The Creationists.)

Shorter version:

Note this is actually far closer to my original version due to: Of course I am not suggesting that this level of over-citation be introduced in the article -- it really only needs the page numbers, at the end of the definition, without the quote-spam. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 05:24, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) The need for a compromise between the "it's still occasionally called antievolutionism" vs "I've never heard it called that" sides. "Historically" leaves open the possibility that it's still occasionally called that today, but does not state it is.
 * 2) "Supernatural creation" appears to be the greatest-common-factor consensus between "creation of the universe by a supernatural designer", "supernatural force created" and mere "creation" (in "advocates of creation", though for the latter it is a slight, but I think permissible, stretch).


 * That's nice of you. I hope you can pick up and read, at least the definition parts, of the original sources and work out where this comes from if you really want to, like I had to.


 * Good point.


 * I object. Oxford's definition clearly states it as a belief in creation by God, Forrest says it's belief in a creation by designer, Scott says it's an idea that God, Allah, or some other deity created everything... It's not just "supernatural creation" - it's creation by a designer (a direct quote) and, furthermore, it's a belief in creation by a designer (another direct quote).


 * The order of words is confusing. Only one of the sources cited defines Creationism as "historically known as antievolutionism" or "rejection of evolution", the rest cite it as a belief in creation of life/etc. by X or Y - all while this amends mentioning that the "belief" definition is the most commonly-used one and, indeed, most supported by reliable sources already cited, or amended from citing.


 * Basically: There's misquoting, misleading statements, frankensteinism, undue emphasis, and bad readability. I'd consider the previously suggested version superior to this one in all but "historical" aspects (though "historical" could be a weasel word). --Draco 2k (talk) 12:46, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

<span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 03:55, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) My proposal is not framed as a direct quote of anybody, so cannot be misquoting.
 * 2) I am not engaging in WP:SYNTH (the closest wikipedia policy relevant to your vague claim of "frankensteinism") as all the sources cited emphasise the two points contained in my proposed definition.
 * 3) Forrest is explicitly talking about "American" and therefore predominantly Christian creationism. She is also generally most focused on the Neo-creationism of Intelligent design. That the Intelligent designer (of the IDM) is the Christian God is well established. This particular instantiation should however not limit a general definition of creationism. Placing "designer" in the definition gives WP:UNDUE weight to Intelligent design over other forms of creationism.
 * 4) You are misrepresenting Scott. She states that it is the idea that "...the idea that supernatural force created..." and goes on to say "to Christian, Jews and Muslims this supernatural force is God; to people of other religions, it is other deities". She gives no impression that this list of examples is meant to be exhaustive (to list all possible 'supernatural forces') or restrictive (that creation by supernatural forces not in her examples wouldn't be 'Creationism'). I have no problem with including similar discussion/explanation of the identity of the 'creator', but would prefer to follow Scott in separating it from the core definition.
 * 5) Given that the "only one of the sources" is Ronald L. Numbers, we don't need any other source. He is the absolute gold standard of Creationism scholarship. In any case both Forrest and Scott concentrate almost exclusively on the modern American controversy, so for the "historical" aspect we are left with Numbers by default.
 * 6) Placing rejection of evolution before "creation" in the definition reflects both the historic development of the movement, as well as the weight that all three sources give to the balance. The Creationists (at 600 pages) is rather diffuse for seeing this, but look at the balance between anti-evolution & creation in Forrest's 4 points, and the fact that Scott's "Pillars of Creationism" are all concerned with evolution.


 * 1) Actually it's the definition of misquoting - not quoting anything at all. Though maybe it's correct to call this "misrepresenting", when paraphrasing.
 * 2) I would say you are, though I'm sure, unwillingly. I'm just trying to explain why your proposed definition does not accurately represent the cited sources.
 * 3) Good point. I haven't seen a presented definition of Creationism as such, however, unless you're attributing it to Scott - in which case it would make sense to quote her directly. Another thing is that Creationism typically seems to be defined as an American movement - by Oxford and a some other sources, I think.
 * 4) Good point. But your definition does not outline it as an "idea" either (actually it simply doesn't say what it is). I think it would make sense to define this as a "belief in creation", as per Forrest and Oxford. Either way, an idea held by a person constitutes a belief, if I recall correctly.
 * 5) Another good point. But this is not enough ground to cross out the rest of professionally defined and most commonly used definitions. I'm not sure I recall Number's definition, but he didn't expressly state that it's rejection of evolution *without* asserting anything to extent of "God did it"?
 * 6) Yet most of the sources express Creationism as foremost a belief in creation, sometimes followed by rejection of evolution. I'd suggest listing it as a belief first for easier readability of the subject and moving the historical origins to it's respective section. More than that, I think it's important to state that an important aspect of Creationism is a belief in creation, as outlined by all sources cited.


 * tl;dr: I think we should mention it's also a belief. Maybe also improve readability by visibly breaking the definition into two fundamental aspects - rejection of X and belief in Y. Also, thanks for being civil in your explanation, it was a pleasant read. --Draco 2k (talk) 15:48, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

A few points: <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 17:13, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) "Belief in creation" may be the source of creationism, but it is not sufficient and not determinative. Believers in Theistic Evolution believe in creation, but include a number of ardent and explicit anti-creationists.
 * 2) Creationism is not a purely American movement -- it has had strong followings in the UK (particularly the Creation Science Movement and the Biblical Creation Society), and more recently in the Middle East, particularly Turkey. Going beyond the Abrahamic religions there is also Hindu Creationism.
 * 3) Numbers historical perspective does not "cross out" the others, it merely supplements them with a historical perspective that they lack.
 * 4) Anything 'supernatural' involves belief (as the existence of supernatural entities cannot be proven -- at least by accepted means). It can thus quite conveniently be left implicit. Explicit mention just opens up the door for the 'I can prove my god empirically' or 'evolution requires just as much belief as creationism' arguments.


 * 1) I thought we agreed before that TE only vaguely relates to Creationism?.. Anyway, I think it's still an important point to clarify: creationists don't just reject X, they reject X and believe (not assert, not try to find out, not argue for) in Y. It's easily citable.
 * 2) Do you have any sources on that? I have an impression it's mainly an American movement which had small repercussions in one or two other places. It might be a good idea to cite definitions of both "American" and "Universal" creationism if we can.
 * 3) Yes. That's why I'm saying it's important to clarify the overall definition according to other sources - they simply doesn't interfere with Number's definition.
 * 4) I'm not sure where you get this idea. Supernatural entities may or may not exist independently of anyone's belief in them. Your statement would be true, however, if all supernatural forces were objectively proven not to exist. Which is simply not the case.

--Draco 2k (talk) 18:55, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * How about a compromise –
 * Tweak to suit, dave souza, talk 14:38, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Tweak to suit, dave souza, talk 14:38, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think that version's quite accurate. To be accurate it'd need to read something like:
 * The original, 1929, change was just one author, not the movement as a whole (so "introduced" not "adopted"). Also, the noun was 'antievolutionism' (with 'antievolution' being used as an adjective). With these alterations, I can probably live with it. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 14:57, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The original, 1929, change was just one author, not the movement as a whole (so "introduced" not "adopted"). Also, the noun was 'antievolutionism' (with 'antievolution' being used as an adjective). With these alterations, I can probably live with it. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 14:57, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I still think we should mention it's a belief in X as well as rejection of Y in the definition, as per sources cited. Kinda like this:



Still think the "belief" definition should go first for notability and readability purposes, but it's not hugely important.

The "creation by a designer" bit is a narrowed down definition of "supernatural creation", which I think most of the sources allude to (at least two explicitly so). They might, however, refer to American Creationism movement, but Creationism really seems to predominantly be an American movement. The definition could expand on it a bit, actually.

The anti-evolution trivia might do better in History section, though there's little harm in keeping it in the introduction - it all comes down to how notable it is. --Draco 2k (talk) 15:48, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I still disagree with "designer" as it gives WP:UNDUE weight to Intelligent design. I think the "belief" makes it clumsier (as well as opening up arguments, per comment above). I think "antievolutionism" should stay in the lead -- as this was how the movement was known, and was called by its own members, for much of its existence. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 17:17, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Not sure how this could be an undue emphasis - the presence of designer is a clarifying characteristic explicitly or implicitly mentioned in most of the sources we're citing. Same goes for "belief" - it's a defining characteristic which is, again, predominantly mentioned in the sources. If we can trust Numbers on anti-evolution to be notable and defining enough to be mentioned here, we can trust him, or Forrest, or Oxford, on the belief/designer part.


 * I've tried to say it before, but leaving out clarifying details broadens the term beyond it's scope, and is not entirely faithful to the whole idea of citing things in the first place. --Draco 2k (talk) 18:42, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Agree about the importance of anti-evolution as that's not only the original name for this religious movement, but it's the defining characteristic of creationism as the term is used nowadays. Similarly, "designer" is a particular brand of relabelling God, and too specific. Hrafn's version of 14:57 looks good to me, "belief" is arguably unnecessary and potentially confusing, here's a version with it added. :
 * On balance I think it's probably as well to miss out the belief. . . dave souza, talk 18:13, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * On balance I think it's probably as well to miss out the belief. . . dave souza, talk 18:13, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * That's the whole idea. The definitions we're paraphrasing are very specific on the fact that creationists assert/hold an idea/believe there's a God/creator/designer. Failing to cite these details simply broadens the term.


 * I think it would make sense to cite the anti-evolution thing at the end of first paragraph, for readability purposes. --Draco 2k (talk) 18:42, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Concrete example of how it "broadens the term"
Draco 2k: could you give a concrete example of how failure to include "belief" (or your earlier details of "designer", "deity", "presupposed", etc) illegitimately "broadens the term". I.e. can you point to any viewpoint that unambiguously shouldn't be considered 'Creationism' (or which the cited sources clearly don't envision as creationism) that would be included in the definition without these "details"? <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 04:54, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * In advance, please excuse me if I happen to misunderstand something.


 * But, of course. I'm not an expert in creationism or world's religions - but it's all arguing for a possible scenarios, really.


 * For example, a certain religious group believing in creation of life because of, say, some bacteria from the surface of a distant starship drifted off and landed on our planet, followed by rejecting evolution would comply with "supernatural creation" definition, but would be rejected by Forrest's definition, as no designer was involved.


 * I'm an idiot. "Creation by a designer" is a tautology, it's not needed. --Draco 2k (talk) 18:50, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Or, a certain group claiming to have harvested evidence and logical arguments to prove a possibility of existence of God and creation of life would qualify for "supernatural creation"/"rejection of evolution" definition, but will be rejected by Forrest's or Oxford's definition, which also requires a belief in proposed claims.


 * This would clearly be a natural theology-type argument, of which intelligent design is the most prominent modern example. It is most certainly creationism. It would also most certainly be encompassed by Forrest's description, which was written principally with ID in mind (the subtitle of the book is "The Wedge of Intelligent Design"). <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 19:07, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Almost. Intelligent Design, however, also makes a claim (assertion, idea, belief) that this Designer exists, out of the blue, while this proposed hypothetical group doesn't. In light of this, ID still fits Forrest's description nicely though.


 * I sincerely hope I'm not giving Creationists any new ideas writing this. --Draco 2k (talk) 19:38, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Advocacy of "supernatural creation" implicitly contains a "claim" that this creation took place (an 'it didn't happen but you should believe it anyway' advocacy being incoherent). Your "certain group" (which could, from the description, quite easily be the Discovery Institute) is advocating creationism and would be encompassed within Forrest's description. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 05:16, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Not quite. Theory of evolution also "advocates for" or "claims that", say, genetic changes in populations over time. ID "advocates for" and "claims" the existence of God. The difference between the two is that MES does not propose a belief in something, but offers an explanation for a group of observed phenomena based on X and Y, leaving belief or lack of thereof to be formed by the observer.


 * A "belief" is a rather broad term, but is usually defined as "a proposition held by an individual as true". ID rests on it as it, Evolution does not (though maybe it does if we take into account all the axioms), and neither does my hypothetical group - and it's just one of the possible examples.


 * Yes, it's hard to conceive a Scientific explanation for God. But leaving out bits would not be scientific or encyclopaedic in itself, more so, it helps to describe what Creationism really is - which, I assume, is the whole point. --Draco 2k (talk) 14:04, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I am going to ignore the "claim" thread hereafter, as it is getting increasingly garbled and beside the point -- to the extent that I have no idea what you're trying to argue for anymore. On the 'scientific argument for God' point (it can't be an "explanation" for God, as something unobservable requires no explanation) -- it is not "hard to conceive" -- this would be just the teleological argument wrapped up in pseudoscientific trappings -- i.e. ID, or something very near to it -- again this is creationism. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 17:08, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, I have no idea what you're talking about. I've provided a hypothetical example as you asked.


 * If you, or anyone else, have any problems with it, please, detail them here so I could explain my position on the matter further, or retract the argument. --Draco 2k (talk) 17:31, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Clarification: by "claim thread", I meant "Not quite. Theory of evolution also 'advocates for' or 'claims that'...", which appeared, at first glance, to be in response to the first sentence of my reply prior to it, but whose relevance to the original example I could not fathom. On closer examination you appear to in some way be attempting to distinguish ID=claim-as-belief from science=claim-as-explanation. Given that you did not explicate which "claim" you meant in the original example, and as "creation" is a belief rather than an explanation, I still don't see how you have distinguished your example from ID. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 18:01, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * If this helps any, try to imagine ID using scientific method to further it's points. It's kinda hard to do, but it's not entirely impossible.


 * Yes it is impossible. There is no "scientific method" for establishing the existence of a supernatural creation -- it violates methodological naturalism, as well as being untestable as there is not a possible observation that it would be inconsistent with (see latest thread on Talk:Intelligent design). <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 19:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Basically, I feel the current definition does not make the relation between Creationism and Creation particularly clear - is it a belief, is it a presupposition, a hypothesis, or a scientific claim? The rest of the article and sources we cite give a very clear answer to that. --Draco 2k (talk) 18:43, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * And I feel that you're lumping in irrelevant 'clarifications' and elaborations that muddy the waters. "Supernatural creation" is never "a scientific claim" nor is it a testable hypothesis. Whether you call it a "belief", a "presupposition" or whatever is merely descriptive, it is not prescriptive -- and as each of these alternate descriptions have slightly different meanings, none of which is any more necessary for the viewpoint in question to be "creationism" than any of the other descriptions, it is best not to tie down the definition to a specific description. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 19:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Of course it's a description. A description used by the original source in order to clarify the meaning of the term. As such, I don't see how it could be irrelevant or unimportant. --Draco 2k (talk) 19:30, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * It's not something to consider when you usually think of Creationism, and does not fall under the definitions our sources offer - and that's why I feel it's (mildly) important to mention. It's just one word, to patch a small hole in the proverbial ship- but those can still be rather annoying if they sprung a leak. --Draco 2k (talk) 18:40, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Rather than Draco 2k & myself arguing around and around in circles, does anybody else have an opinion on whether his/her example, above, is consistent with ID and therefore (or for other reasons) legitimately a form of creationism? <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 18:05, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * That's not the right way to do it. If anyone else has anything to say about this (would be nice), please comment on the original issue - whether or not Creationism should be defined by a belief in supernatural creation along with rejection of evolution. --Draco 2k (talk) 18:43, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The reasoning above gets a bit baffling, and I think perhaps this is because the section starts with a question if anything shouldn't be considered 'Creationism' that would be included in the definition without "belief" being required. ID follows in the tradition of empirical theology, the idea that there is empirical testable "evidences of Christianity" which formed the basis of natural theology. This goes against transcendental or mythical views of theology which assert faith as belief which does not require physical evidence. Natural theology was at a peak in the 1820s, at a time when religion and the sciences were thought to be in harmony. It then got increasingly difficult to accommodate findings in geology and biology, and liberal Christianity adopted a more deistic approach in which God is a first cause, and the working out of geology and life develops though laws determining secondary causes. Asa Gray produced apologias on these lines. ID attempts to give creationism validity as science by asserting empirical testable support which does not require belief. Thus, in principle ID could exist without belief, and they wheel out old Flew to support that claim. This fails because the claims are just an extension of the negative argument already common in creation science, they're incapable of testing their models because the supernatural is inherently incomprehensible and untestable, and the testable negative arguments consistently fail as research explains the previously unexplained. Also, they have a habit of misrepresenting science which does them no good in court. However, in a theoretical alternative universe where empirical evidence meant that belief was not needed as creation was testable, this ideal ID would be creationism without any need for belief. Including "belief" narrows the definition to exclude empirical theology in which belief is asserted to be unnecessary.  . . dave souza, talk 19:05, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * This was very interesting, thanks.


 * I still don't see how ID falls under the this (what do you call it) definition. It might claim to have evidence, but that does little to cover the fact that it doesn't, and that's it's still based on belief. The simple fact is: if empirical theology did have anything in it's deck, it wouldn't be considered creationism according to the sources we cite.


 * In other words, it's a hypothetical test the otherwise paraphrased definition fails. --Draco 2k (talk) 19:30, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * What I'm suggesting is that including belief gives ID or other forms of creation science the loophole that if they assert that their assertions are empirically based, they can then claim that they're not creationism. The essential isn't the belief, though all religious views involve kinds of belief, the essential attribute is the claim of creation outside testable natural laws. . . dave souza, talk 21:11, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * ID is based on unfounded beliefs. It's a simple, well-documented fact. Asserting it doesn't isn't going to help it any more than asserting it's science will help it become science. I'm not exactly sure how clarifying this point opens the backdoor to these things any more than not asserting any status at all, which also weakens the unfounded-crap connotations of Creationism, if we're going for POV pushing here...


 * But even if it did, it'd be none of our business - our business is to report what other people have to say about this, isn't it? Most of the sources we cite cite belief as an essential part of this sad outfit. Really, this could only be easier if they called it "faith", for what it is.


 * If this helps any: "Believing is thinking of something as true. What do Creationists think about Creation?" --Draco 2k (talk) 21:55, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The core definition of Creationism
To illustrate why I do not wish to place extraneous descriptors in the definition of 'Creationism', I'd like to offer the following example.

Prior to the exploration of the southern hemisphere, all known swans were white. Although colour was in no way determinative of 'swan-ness' it is possible then that somebody could have defined them as a "white bird that ..." instead of a "bird that ...". When the black swan was discovered, there is two things that might have happened under the first definition -- (i) the could admit that the definition is (and always was) wrong; (ii) they could say (rather arbitrarily) 'it's not white, so it's not a swan'.

I am attempting to avoid the same problem with the definition of 'Creationism' -- allowing loopholes whereby a tendentious creationists comes along and says 'my concept of creation is not a [belief/presupposition/whatever], it's [some-other-whatever] -- so its not creationism.'

I think Draco 2k is getting sidetracked on the trying to nail down the type of creation that 'creationism' encompasses, when it is not so much the type of creation as its relationship to evolution that is determinative.

Looking at this with formal logic:


 * 1) Let C be the set of all creation myths and interpretations thereof, and c be an arbitrary member of that set.
 * 2) Let E be "the scientific consensus on the evolution of life".
 * 3) There exists a subset of C: C~E: (C|c => ~E), the subset such that all of its members have the implication that E is false.
 * 4) As a corollary of this, E => ~c~E for all c~E that are members of C~E (E implies that all c~E are false)
 * 5) Therefore for an advocate of any particular c~E, they must falsify E, for their own creation myth/interpretation to remain unfalsified -- a position of ~E and (some arbitrary) c~E. It is this conflict that is determinative of creationism, not the precise contents of the myth/interpretation.

Specifically, the definition of creationism is unconstrained by either:
 * 1) The identity (or failure to identify) the supernatural force/entity/designer/deity/etc responsible for the creation.
 * 2) The exact epistemology (divine revelation, natural theology, etc) by which the advocate justifies their acceptance of it.

Also, given that it is the conflict with evolution that is defining, not the specific conception of creation, it is appropriate that evolution goes first. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 07:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * That'll be a problem. We cannot, and should not decide what Creationism is - we can only quote what people who actually know what they're talking about have to say about this. As an encyclopedia, it's always better to define white swans until we can say otherwise.


 * If you have any reliable sources that suggest that rejection of evolution is the backbone/primary definition/whatever of Creationism, just say so. So far we have two core components (plus a historical one), but only one source that places "belief" definition prior to "rejection" one (which logically follows anyway, as per your example). --Draco 2k (talk) 12:56, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * "We cannot, and should not decide what Creationism is" -- yet you've been deciding this all along, stating that it must involve a "deity", "designer", "presupposition" or "belief" to be creationism, based upon an inaccurate synthesis of examples in the sources' descriptions. All I'm really suggesting is that we should not exclude anything that the sources don't themselves explicitly exclude.


 * I don't recall any such occasions currently. I have been, however, trying to point out that chopping bits of the definitions we cite would be - misciting. A lot of the sources we cite define Creationism by it's belief in supernatural creation, as well as rejection of evolution. --Draco 2k (talk) 14:02, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Your quote on "rejection of evolution is the backbone/primary definition/whatever of Creationism":

75 years of increasing use of the term "anti-evolutionists", and being "united far more by their hostility to evolution than by any common commitment to a particular view of creation" would appear to place rejection of evolution at the forefront. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 13:38, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * An interesting bit - could we cite it anywhere in History section?


 * A minor problem would be the fact that this is a historical anecdote, not the proposed part of definition of Creationism. It could be used to imply that anti-evolution is indeed more common among creationists that belief in creation - but that'd be somewhat OR. If there's a more clear statement anywhere, or if I'm misunderstanding something, this would seal the deal about mentioning rejection of evolution as the first and defining characteristic of Creationism. Good job. --Draco 2k (talk) 14:02, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I would further point out that all three of Scott's "Pillars of Creationism" have to do with rejection of evolution, and that of Forrest's 4 points, 2 have solely to do with anti-evolutionism, as opposed to only one solely to do with creation (and one to do with both). <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 13:46, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * "Pillars of Creationism"?.. Well, yes. But Forrest still mentions "belief in creation" as one of the defining points, as does Scott, as does Oxford. --Draco 2k (talk) 14:02, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * A definition is best when it describes what someting is rather than what it sometimes is against. Creationism is a belief in creation by a creator. This may include or exclude scientific processes such as evolution.  The Stanford Enclyclopedia of Philosophy  says "Creationism:  At a broad level, a Creationist is someone who believes in a god who is absolute creator of heaven and earth, out of nothing, by an act of free will. Such a deity is generally thought to be constantly involved (‘immanent’) in the creation, ready to intervene as necessary, and without whose constant concern the creation would cease or disappear. Christians, Jews, and Muslims are all Creationists in this sense."  This says it well.  Rlsheehan (talk) 22:28, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * There's that "belief" definition again. There's always both belief and creation and rejection of evolution, but it's seemingly never agreed which is the defining one - though the excerpt by Hrafn above gives a pretty good insight on that.


 * But, anyway, I'm not sure what gives you the idea that definitions of words have to describe something in a positive cue. Case in point: atheism. --Draco 2k (talk) 23:11, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * What is the question about "belief"? An -ism is often a system of beliefs.  We are not limited to scientifically provable facts.  We are talking about Creationism which is belief about creation and a Creator.  Basically all Christians (and most other religious people) are Creationists.  Only a vocal portion, however, are against evolution: Many others accept evolution.   The definition of Creationism must be inclusive.  It certainly cannot be defined as "anti-evolution'', even though some people have tried to label it as such. Rlsheehan (talk) 14:32, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Sourcing for 'antievolutionism'
This "antievolutionism" is nothing but POV framing. Drop it. Everyone. --Pwnage8 (talk) 22:27, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


 * How come? It's properly cited and all. --Draco 2k (talk) 22:30, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Anybody can hide behind policy by citing a reliable source and using it to push their POV. --Pwnage8 (talk) 22:34, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Do please provide a reliable source supporting the POV that you're pushing. Don't forget the need to comply with WP:NPOV and WP:NPOV/FAQ. . . dave souza, talk 22:50, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm a bit lost. What are we discussing here? --Draco 2k (talk) 23:03, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


 * It's obvious that this lengthy discussion is all about gaining consensus for a POV pushing statement. --Pwnage8 (talk) 23:45, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


 * This discussion is about replacing an old introduction paragraph, as it is currently attributed to a biologist, instead of a third-party expert in the field of creation/evolution controversy or a reliable dictionary. If you have any problems with any proposed definitions, please, do say so - but take care to outline exact causes of concern. --Draco 2k (talk) 23:57, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest that Pwnage8 "drop" his ill-informed claim. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 03:21, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Our source for "antievolutionism" is Ronald L. Numbers, the premier scholar on the history of Creationism, and the author of the most authoritative history of the movement, The Creationists.
 * 2) The truth of this historic self-identification is attested to by the names of such groups as the Anti-Evolution League of America and the Evolution Protest Movement.
 * 3) The move in self-identifying as 'antievolutionists' to 'creationists' only started in 1929 following the conception of flood geology by George McCready Price. It was not completed until after publication of ''The Genesis Flood in 1961.


 * This doesn't belong in the opening sentence. If some sources say creationism is also referred to sometimes as "antievolutionism" then it should probably be in the lead. But I fail to see how putting this in the first sentence is not POV pushing. It's automatically framing creationism as "anti-evolution" before even explaining what it is. Since anything other than evolution is perceived by the majority to be automatically wrong, this is not presenting the subject from a neutral point of view. Another problem is that "antievolutionism" excludes those who believe in theistic evolution (which is a form of creationism), and this article is supposed to cover all types of beliefs in creationism. Also, creationism has been around much longer than the theory of evolution, so how can it be "anti" something that hasn't been thought up yet? Your source only covers 1923 onwards. A better wording choice would be "Modern Young Earth Creationism is sometimes referred to as antievolutionsim". The fact that there's been such a long discussion demonstrates that others also have issues with this change as well. --Pwnage8 (talk) 13:45, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I would agree that this could be dropped from the lead - and instead put into the History section where historical things belong (probably in the introduction somewhere; also allows for more lengthy explanation).

But there is no avoiding mentioning that Creationism is anti-evolution as it's cited in nearly every source available, including Forrest's, Hayward's and Oxford's definitions. The idea that Earth was created by some sort of God is older than Evolution - Creationism, however, is not.--Draco 2k (talk) 14:10, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * But belief that the universe was created by God is exactly the definition of creationism. Before the theory of evolution, what did all the scientists believe? So then how can creationism itself be antievolution? Evolution is anti-creationism, yes, but which one of them came first? Only a modern YEC movement could meet the definition of antievolutionism. But this narrow definition should not be in the first sentence. --Pwnage8 (talk) 15:57, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Creationism did not exist before mid-90s, and is a technical continuation of the anti-evolution movement. Creationism is defined not only by a belief in creation, but also rejection of evolution - as per cited sources. You can also do a Google search if you want. --Draco 2k (talk) 16:11, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Your comments keep getting more and more ridiculous. Creationism has existed long before evolution has. Sources say that it's "often used to refer to religiously motivated rejection of evolution". That does not mean that it's necessarily part of the belief. How could someone in the 1700s, for example, reject something that hasn't been come up with yet? There are some creationist beliefs that don't conflict with evolution as well. A google search does nothing, because it includes links to unreliable sources. Sources may also differ. Just because one source says something does not mean that other sources agree. --Pwnage8 (talk) 16:35, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Copy-paste from above explanation by Hrafn:

All relevant quotes and sources are in the small font.

Here's another previously suggested definition which cited an exceedingly bigger number of sources, if you care to look it all up:

Hope that clears this issue up a bit. --Draco 2k (talk) 16:38, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Before the theory of evolution, scientists hotly contested whether evolution, or transmutation of species, or metamorphosis, was a better explanation than various ideas of creation. The debate goes back before science, to the ancient Greeks. While the term "creationist" was used privately by Darwin and a few others, Creationism meant the doctrine that God creates a soul for each body that is generated, in opposition to other doctrines about souls. The modern usage as meaning Biblical literalism opposed to evolution has been dominant since the 1980s, and most people take that meaning. Calling early ideas of how God created things "creationism" is an anachronism used by creationists to claim a pedigree for their ideas, often wrongly. . . . dave souza, talk 18:32, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the key difference between 'Creationism' and preceding acceptance of creation myths is that the latter were made in the context of large voids in our scientific knowledge, wherein there was no scientific information to contradict them, whereas the former is made in the presence of, and often in direct conflict with, scientific information. Prior to these voids being filled in, it was no more unreasonable to accept, with little question, a young Earth and separate creation of lifeforms, than it was for the ancient Greeks (lacking knowledge of electricity) to accept that lightning bolts came from Zeus. After these voids were filled in, there is a clear qualitative difference in continued advocacy of such positions. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 04:48, 2 September 2008 (UTC)