Talk:Day-age creationism

Pennock, DA & OEC
I'm citing Pennock fairly extensively on the views of DA-Creationists. One problem that I'm running up against is that he seems to treat them as more-or-less synonymous with OECs generally (although he doesn't appear to come right out and state this), and refers to explicitly DAy-Age arguments as OEC arguments. Are there any forms of OEC still with a following other than DA? If so, I'll have to be careful which of the arguments Pennock describes that I use in this article. HrafnTalkStalk 03:48, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Improper grammar title
should be lower case C


 * Why?PiCo (talk) 15:17, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

POV
Okay, I tried to add the this Template:unbalanced to the article, but it got reverted so I'm here going to explain my reasoning. Basically, the article needs a criticism section. It only contains the view of those that believe in Day-Age creationism, and doesn't mention the views of those who disagree with it. Those that do, can be divided into two categories: fundamental theists who believe that the word day means the literal meaning of the word day i.e. 24 hours, OR non-theists who believe in a less religious view i.e. it wasn't God's doing or whatever, or (perhaps?) criticizing it as some kind of an attempt at hanging onto beliefs they would see as long disproved. I therefore feel until such a section can be created, the template would be adequate to show that it isn't neutral. Deamon138 (talk) 06:43, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

HrafnTalkStalk 07:01, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) "Fundamental theists" has no well-defined meaning in this context. If you mean Young Earth creationists, then it would be perfectly reasonable to include the views of more prominent YEC organizations/individuals on DAC (though I should warn you that there's a troll doing the rounds who insists on attempting to delete such perspectives).
 * 2) "Non-theists" would not have any view on DAC, as it is a viewpoint on interpretation of a book (the Bible) that they assign no value to. Any disagreement they would have would be with Old Earth creationism (or even Creationism) more generally -- so should reasonably be handled in that (those) articles.

Yeah YECs were what I meant for the first group. Still, there must be a group that think that the Day-Age creationism doesn't go far enough, and that believers in it may as well just accept science full stop and reject the Bible, no? Of course, criticisms of OEC should go in that article, but surely those that disagree with it would disagree also on particular aspects of it, of which this article is one? A small criticism section would be adequate, so that it's at least known that people disagree with this idea. Deamon138 (talk) 07:08, 27 June 2008 (UTC) Plus the OEC article doesn't mention the second type of criticism anyway, only the criticism that it rejects the Bible's infallibility, which is done by thise in your point one (YECs). Deamon138 (talk) 07:10, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I've just been reviewing the talk archives & The Creationists, and the problem on the first point seems to be that the DAC/YEC disagreement seems to quickly devolve into a 'he said/she said' over the exact meaning of the wording of Genesis -- a subject in which neither side provides reliable experts. This makes it very hard to make a balanced presentation per WP:DUE. The "believers in it may as well just accept science full stop" view applies to all creationism, so isn't a specific to DAC. Also this perspective generally doesn't care about the theological reasons why creationists hold these views so would be uninterested in singling out DAC. HrafnTalkStalk 07:21, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * In response to your tacked-on second comment. DAC (and OEC more generally) is less vocal, and makes fewer claims (and generally no unique ones) than YEC (particularly Creation science) and Intelligent design -- it therefore receives far less critical attention from the scientific community specific to it. WP:UNDUE would therefore dictate that the article should not say much more than to note the scientific community's general rejection of creationism and acceptance of evolution. HrafnTalkStalk 07:31, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Also, strictly-speaking, DAC straddles the creation-evolution divide in that it includes theistic evolutionists and progressive creationists. As such, it can be considered to be a purely theological, as opposed to (pseudo)scientific, position -- thus rendering scientific criticism largely beside the point. What we really need is a good, neutral, discussion of the theological merits vs YEC, from a religious studies perspective. HrafnTalkStalk 08:05, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Quark Confinement Time
I ran into an explication of Day-Age creationism a number of years ago that may be significant enough to merit inclusion here. It's the argument of Gerald Schroeder that measuring days from the point of quark confinement yields approximately 15 billion years, each day-age roughly corresponding to the Genesis account. Thoughts as to whether it should be included? Gabrielthursday (talk) 20:02, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * You will need to source this and show that it is notable enough to warrant inclusion, along with explaining the "mechanics" of this theory i.e. how do quarks see time in the way you describe? Deamon138 (talk) 20:10, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Agree about sourcing and with your point about dealing with the mechanics of the suggestion. As for notability, it is a standard applied to articles, rather than content.  I think the question is whether it is relevant and significant with respect to the subject article.  Other thoughts? Gabrielthursday (talk) 21:28, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * About the notability thing: you kinda summed up what I meant when you said, "I think the question is whether it is relevant and significant with respect to the subject article." I guess I meant notable with respect to the subject article. I reckon if you find a number of sources about this then it would show this anyway, but it's important that it is a significant idea, and not just this one guy Gerald Schroeder's idea. Deamon138 (talk) 21:32, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Schroeder's reasonably prominent (at least from memory of his name turning up in similar discussions before -- his article doesn't provide cites for an association with creationism -- or for anything else much actually). We would however need WP:RSs for both the argument and placing it/Schroeder within the boundaries of DAC. HrafnTalkStalk 04:56, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Day-Age Creation is an attempt to contempories the Bibles account??
The first sentence of this article states: 'Day-Age creationism, a type of Old Earth creationism, is an effort to reconcile the literal Genesis account of Creation with modern scientific theories on the age of the Universe, the Earth, life, and humans.'

Do we have any proof for this, because as we look through Christian history, we have seen many debate the age of the earth BEFORE any "Modern" theories such as evolution have come to light. E.g. Augustine, and many others —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kronix (talk • contribs) 00:28, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Isaac of Acre
I have some question's regarding this edit. First of all, I assume that the quoted source (Hinshaw) only supports the 13.7 billion figure, right? Hinshaw doesn't mention Isaac? In that case, could someone name (a) the source saying that Isaac made this calculation and (b) the source saying that Isaac's calculation is relevant to the topic of Day-Age creationism? Gabbe (talk) 17:38, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Agreed -- both of these components are absolutely necessary, and need to be cited to a WP:RS, for this material to be included in this article. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 18:07, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The claim about Isaac of Acre & 15,340,500,000 years appears to have been made by Aryeh Kaplan in Immortality, resurrection, and the age of the universe: a kabbalistic view. Nothing to link it to D-A creationism as yet. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 18:23, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Ambiguous wording
A sentence reads:

The day-age theory tries to reconcile these views by believing that the creation "days" were not ordinary 24-hour days, but actually lasted for long periods of time—or as the theory's name implies: the "days" each lasted an age. According to this view, the sequence and duration of the creation "days" is representative or symbolic of the sequence and duration of events that scientists theorize to have happened.

I can see a few problems with this sentence: I would suggest "that scientists have discovered", "which science discovered" or "which were evaluated scientifically". I am not sure what to suggest for "day-age theory", perhaps that "day-age doctrine" would not be adequate. Perhaps that interpretation or hypothesis would. Possibly that we could simply use:
 * "day-age theory" might make it sound like it's a Scientific theory, but it lacks the weight of a scientific theory (and is actually a doctrine).
 * "that scientists theorize to have happened" is ambiguous, especially in the light of the previous issue: it gives the impression that both are merely opinions or hypotheses, if we don't consider "day-age theory" to be a scientific theory. We however know that there is strong consensus and evidence for dating the earth (and interestingly, those subscribing to the "day-age creationism" doctine do not deny this aspect).

Day-age creationism attempts to reconcile these views by believing that the creation "days" were not ordinary 24-hour days, but actually lasted for long periods of time (as day-age implies, the "days" each lasted an age). According to this view, the sequence and duration of the creation "days" is representative or symbolic of the sequence and duration of events which were evaluated scientifically.

76.10.128.192 (talk) 19:44, 4 March 2014 (UTC)


 * "Day-age theory" is fine as far as I'm concerned. It is not the case that all theories are scientific theories, so I think your concern misplaced. I do agree that the phrase "events that scientists theorize to have happened" is awkward and could be tightened up, but I fear your proposed phrasing is not an improvement. Maybe "...duration of events recognised by the scientific community" but that's not wonderful either. Gabrielthursday (talk) 23:41, 5 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree that there also is the colloquial term "theory", and depending on the context we may infer that it's the implied meaning... Another idea might be:


 * Day-age creationism attempts to reconcile these views by believing that the creation "days" were not ordinary 24-hour days, but actually lasted for long periods of time (as day-age implies, the "days" each lasted an age). According to this view, the sequence and duration of the creation "days" may be paralleled to the scientific consensus for the age of the earth.
 * Day-age creationism attempts to reconcile these views by believing that the creation "days" were not ordinary 24-hour days, but actually lasted for long periods of time (as day-age implies, the "days" each lasted an age). According to this view, the sequence and duration of the creation "days" may be paralleled to the scientific consensus for the age of the earth.


 * Considering that the article title itself is "Day-age creationism" I have preserved it above, but it's still only another suggestion. I have seen other uses of "theory" in the article, but those seemed less awkward in their context.  Thanks again, 76.10.128.192 (talk) 05:31, 13 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't see the awkwardness in the use of theory in this context, but perhaps I'm missing something. I'd suggest it's not a colloquial use of "theory", it's right in the vernacular - there are theories in literature, history, etc. as well as in science.
 * I like the language of "parallel to the scientific consensus for the age of the earth", but I think we're losing the parallels to specific periods. So maybe "scientific consensus for the history of the universe"? Thanks, Gabrielthursday (talk) 09:46, 14 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I think that you're right, it's not only about the age of the earth itself... Since you now are two who suggest to keep "theory", perhaps that it should remain, afterall.  Probably that the reason I find it awkward is because of the way "theory" is often misinterpreted.  I've seen this fallacy exploited in religious literature, like "Darwinism is just a theory" ("Darwinism" is used here to imply a cult or avoid mention of the Modern evolutionary synthesis, and "just a theory" claims that the theory is merely opinion or hypothesis).  Day-age creationism seems to be held by both theistic evolutionist and some more traditional creationist beliefs (other than Young Earth creationism).  So yet another iteration:


 * The Day-age theory attempts to reconcile these views by believing that the creation "days" were not ordinary 24-hour days, but actually lasted for long periods of time (as day-age implies, the "days" each lasted an age). According to this view, the sequence and duration of the creation "days" may be paralleled to the scientific consensus for the age of the earth and the universe.


 * Note that the "earth" and "universe" links above actually point to age of the earth and age of the universe. 76.10.128.192 (talk) 04:55, 16 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I have made the change as there seemed to not be any objections to the last proposed formulation. Thanks for your help. 76.10.128.192 (talk) 15:09, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

15.219.233.70 edit
I've not taken the liberty to revert the recent 15.219.233.70 edit but there seems to be a few issues: might be original research if not referencing to a text demonstrating the same conclusion (references are to verses only), and is slightly unclear about the part where the day is taken from the bible. 76.10.128.192 (talk) 15:16, 25 March 2014 (UTC)


 * After rereading the change today, I found that there were multiple issues, and since noone fixed it or proposed changes here, I decided to revert it for now. 76.10.128.192 (talk) 06:17, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Is this necessarily pseudoscientific?
There is a warning at the top of the talk page that sanctions might be imposed on editors of this article, because the article is related to pseudoscience. However, the article states that the day-age interpretation is also popular among some theistic evolutionists, who accept the scientific consensus on evolution. Therefore, I don't think it would be WP:NPOV to label this article as such. It's fair to label YEC, Intelligent Design, and to a certain extent the other forms of OEC as such, because they reject the scientific consensus on how evolution works, but I think this is more a literary interpretation of the Bible rather than a pseudoscientific thinking, as both people who accept and reject the scientific consensus on evolution believe in this interpretation. (Note: I personally believe in theistic evolution, and I fully accept the scientific consensus on evolution, the age of the earth, etc. The article on theistic evolution is not labelled as pseudoscience.) Félix An (talk) 16:36, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I was WP:BOLD just got rid of it. If you disagree, you may add it back as necessary and/or discuss. Félix An (talk) 22:33, 5 January 2021 (UTC)