Talk:List of Catholic creationist organisations

Prodded with no discussion?
I dislike it when stub articles get prodded without any discussion. I have worked considerably on the article to improve its content, its wiki-links, and its sourcing. Therefore, per the instructions that accompany the prod template, i have also removed the prod notice. cat yronwode Catherineyronwode (talk) 00:38, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Catherineyronwode: HrafnTalkStalk 04:35, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Thank you for continuing to WP:WIKISTALK me.
 * 2) I really don't care if you don't like WP:PROD. Given that you also don't like WP:V, your latest dislike is hardly a surprise.
 * 3) WP:PROD does not require discussion. If discussion is needed, the correct forum is an AfD (where this article is going momentarily).
 * 4) The sourcing for your additions have almost-solely been to their own webpage, with the sole exception being brief tangential mention by the National Center for Science Education (which, given its focus, routinely mentions very minor creationists and creationist organisations).

Assume Good Faith
The Daylight Origins Society article describes a Catholic creationist organization notable enought to present a seminar before the European Parliament; it was a stable stub from June, 2007 until September, 2008, when Hrafn suddenly prodded it for non-notability and lack of citations. I added a couple of refs, wrote in more text data (doubling the length of the piece), made some needed wiki-links, and took the prod off. In less than 2 hours hrafn nominated the article for deletion.

04:47, September 8, 2008 Hrafn (Talk | contribs)             (3,556 bytes) (restore Articleissues; AfD) 03:55, September 8, 2008 Catherineyronwode (Talk | contribs) (2,796 bytes) 13:54, September 6, 2008 Hrafn (Talk | contribs)             (1,286 bytes) (Articleissues & prod) 20:29, May      27, 2008 Dana boomer (Talk | contribs)       (978 bytes) 18:37, December 28, 2007 Lquilter (Talk | contribs)          (976 bytes) 15:48, December 11, 2007 WinBot (Talk | contribs)          m (991 bytes) 21:25, September 20, 2007 Cydebot (Talk | contribs)        m (992 bytes) 1:34, September 4, 2007 Egpetersen (Talk | contribs)        (989 bytes) 9:43, June     22, 2007 86.42.67.223 (Talk)                 (932 bytes)

The above is copied from a working sandbox page that attempts to document how hrafn effaces, redirects, and deletes articles about religion. catherine yronwode Catherineyronwode (talk) 05:15, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * This is an article talk page, not a page for your personal disputes. As for the Daylight Origins Society article describing "a Catholic creationist organization notable enought to present a seminar before the European Parliament", source please? Verification is required. . . dave souza, talk 12:22, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Catherine, for removing that off-topic information to the biography of Maciej Giertych who presented the seminar without any evident involvement of the Daylight Origins Society. . . dave souza, talk 14:42, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Off-topic material
The article does not state any direct involvement by the DOS in the European Parliament seminar, nor do any of the sources appear to support such an involvement. I have therefore tagged this material as off-topic. HrafnTalkStalk 07:07, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * False premise. I did not say that the DOS had "direct involvement" in the EP seminar. I said that "This seminar resulted in negative attention being drawn to the work of the Daylight Origins Society."


 * Both the Nature article and the National Center for Science Education article were negative and both of them specifically name the Daylight Origins Society while discussing the EP seminar in a negative manner.


 * NCSE If you require help finding the mention of the DOS in the National Center for Science Education article, please use this highlighted google link


 * If you require help with the Nature article, this google-snippet will show that the Daylight Origins Society was indeed mentioned in the article.


 * Nature A timely wake-up call as anti-evolutionists publicize their views ... a seminar held in Brussels at the European Parliament on ... the Daylight Origins Society, ... www.nature.com/nature/journal/v444/n7120/full/444679a.html - Similar pages


 * Also, please note that the following google-snippet also specifically mentions the Daylight Origins Society while describing the European Parliament seminar. I did not use it, though, as it seemd to be a blog:


 * Infidels.org Evolution denial in Europe [Archive I] - IIDB ... at the European Parliament organised by Swedish MEP Maria Carlshamre .... the Daylight Origins Society, a British ... iidb.infidels.org/vbb/archive/index.php/t-225833.html - 18k - Cached - Similar pages


 * Please respect the work of your fellow editors ad do not waste our time with your POV-driven attempts to exclude good references. I have removed the "off-topic" and "dubious" tags.


 * Finally, it appears that the Daylight Origins Society is notable enough to have spawned an obviously like-named counter-organization, the Daylight Atheism Organization (daylightatheism.org). I shall now add that information to the article, where it will hopefully address your belief that the group is "not notable."


 * cat yronwode Catherineyronwode (talk) 08:03, 8 September 2008 (UTC)




 * ''False premise. I did not say that the DOS had "direct involvement" in the EP seminar. I said that "This seminar resulted in negative attention being drawn to the work of the Daylight Origins Society."


 * And what you said is pure WP:OR on your part. No WP:RS states that they received "negative attention" as a result, or makes any direct connection between DOS and the seminar (any more than they make a direct connection between the Polish Academy of Sciences (also mentioned) and this seminar. HrafnTalkStalk 09:46, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * ''Both the Nature article and the National Center for Science Education article were negative and both of them specifically name the Daylight Origins Society while discussing the EP seminar in a negative manner.


 * Only for Giertych being an honorary member. And it is not a "Nature article" it is "correspondence", effectively a letter to the editor. Further, both it & the NCSE piece are written by the same person. HrafnTalkStalk 09:46, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * ''NCSE If you require help finding the mention of the DOS in the National Center for Science Education article, please use this highlighted google link


 * ''If you require help with the Nature article, this google-snippet will show that the Daylight Origins Society was indeed mentioned in the article.


 * See above. HrafnTalkStalk 09:46, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * ''Nature A timely wake-up call as anti-evolutionists publicize their views ... a seminar held in Brussels at the European Parliament on ... the Daylight Origins Society, ... www.nature.com/nature/journal/v444/n7120/full/444679a.html - Similar pages


 * Bare mention, no direct connection between the seminar and DOS. HrafnTalkStalk 09:46, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * ''Also, please note that the following google-snippet also specifically mentions the Daylight Origins Society while describing the European Parliament seminar. I did not use it, though, as it seemd to be a blog:


 * Infidels.org Evolution denial in Europe [Archive I] - IIDB ... at the European Parliament organised by Swedish MEP Maria Carlshamre .... the Daylight Origins Society, a British ... iidb.infidels.org/vbb/archive/index.php/t-225833.html - 18k - Cached - Similar pages


 * ''Please respect the work of your fellow editors ad do not waste our time with your POV-driven attempts to exclude good references. I have removed the "off-topic" and "dubious" tags.


 * I will "respect" your "work" when (i) it ceases to be a mix of sloppy sourcing & outright WP:OR and (ii) it ceases to be part of an ill-considered WP:WIKISTALKing crusade against me.


 * ''Finally, it appears that the Daylight Origins Society is notable enough to have spawned an obviously like-named counter-organization, the Daylight Atheism Organization (daylightatheism.org). I shall now add that information to the article, where it will hopefully address your belief that the group is "not notable."


 * And I have removed it again -- as any relationship between the two is again pure WP:OR. HrafnTalkStalk 09:46, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * By a remarkable coincidence, I read the sources and reached the same conclusion as Hrafn before reading this talk page. Think I'm psychic? . . dave souza, talk 12:31, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Hyper-tagging
Hrafn, this tag of yours makes no sense at all. I deleted it once, and you reinserted it. But ... it's the TITLE of the seminar! You made it look like this:

The title of the presentation was "Teaching evolutionary theory in Europe.[off-topic?] Is your child being indoctrinated in the classroom?"

But the title of the presentation was ''Teaching evolutionary theory in Europe. Is your child being indoctrinated in the classroom?''

That was the title. Two sentences.

Get it now?

I put the title in italics rather than double quotes so you'd see it more clearly.

cat yrowode Catherineyronwode (talk) 10:11, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Catherine, I'll try to put this as simply as I can. The title of the seminar refers to the seminar, and the seminar itself is off-topic as no connection has been established between the seminar and the subject of this article other than the non-notable point that the seminar was presented by someone who also happens to be a honorary member of the Society. He did not present it as a member of the society or as a presentation by the society, he presented it as an MEP and a "Population Geneticist, MA, Oxford University; PhD, University of Toronto". The seminar is more relevant to these organisations than to this one. Get it? . . dave souza, talk 12:39, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Dave, First, please note that the words on the page said that the group got press, not that the group gave the talk. Next, note that part of the name of a talk can not be off-topic to the whole name of the talk. Hrafn put an off-topic tag in the midst of the name of the talk. He did not say that the talk was off-topic. He said that the first half of the name of the talk was off-topic to the rest of the name of the talk. That makes no sense. It would be as if one wrote: "He read the book On the Wings (off-topic) of the Dove" -- which makes no sense. Now do you see? I sure hope so, but if not, i will try to help you see more next time. cat yronwode 64.142.90.33 (talk) 23:40, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Glad to see that you now accept that the presentation was made by Maciej Giertych without any evidence of involvement by this society, and have moved the information to his bio. . . dave souza, talk 14:44, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Breakdown of refs
Conclusion: as yet no non-trivial third party coverage. HrafnTalkStalk 09:19, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Trivial coverage (per WP:NOTE):
 * Beatriz Navarro, La Prensa Panama
 * British Centre for Science Education
 * Christians in Science
 * National Center for Science Education (moved to Maciej Giertych as off-topic here)
 * Nature (journal) "correspondence" (moved to Maciej Giertych as off-topic here)
 * Related party (per WP:NOTE):
 * Daylight Origins Society
 * Theotokos Catholic Books (hosts their webpage)
 * Kolbe Center for the Study of Creation (senior cross-membership)
 * Christian Order (publishes material from Daylight)
 * Sennot (and most probably The Ark of Noah and the Church of Christ, hosted on his website) (fellow Catholic Creationists)

'Notability coatracking'
This article appears to be getting loaded up with heavily tangential material on:
 * CESHE
 * Giertych
 * Berthault
 * Berthault's "theory"

I have removed the worst offender (essentially a reprise of the material previouslyremoved to Maciej Giertych as off-topic) and will -irrlevence-tag the rest.

I also note that we currently have four citations for the unchallenged and uncontroversial statement that Nevard is the editor of Daylight.

All this padding is suggestive of an attempt to make the topic appear more notable than it is. HrafnTalkStalk 05:26, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Sennot ref
I managed to track this down to here. The passage in question states:

From this we learn that: I will update the information on the article to reflect this. HrafnTalkStalk 05:45, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) There is no mention of an 'affiliation' to Morning Star, only that it is a "counterpart" to CESHE
 * 2) That DOS is a mere branch of CESHE


 * Good work, hrafn. You also got Anthony Nevard's two middle initials out of that. Do i need to footnote the initials or can i just add them in?


 * However, i think you have read the Sennot passage incorrectly. You say that Sennot states that the DOS is a "branch" of the CESHE, a Belgian group. However,the paragraph you quoted actually deals with the American Morning Star Society, mentioning that "the new American society is a counterpart" of CESHE, and that "the English branch of this society</B>" is the publisher of Daylight -- e.g., the the Daylight Origins Society. Note the relaionship between the words Morning Star / Daylight Origins and Society / Society. I have reworked the text on the page accordingly. cat yronwode a.k.a. "64" 64.142.90.33 (talk) 17:15, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * No, you are clearly incorrect. By "this organization" & "this society" he is clearly referring to the immediately-aforementioned CESHE. Any other reading is tendentious. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 17:27, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Further, it is unlikely that an American group would have a Monaco-based secretary of "this organisation" (or that Sennot would bother mentioning a lesser officer, having already mentioned Becker), and we have already established strong cross-links between DOS & CESHE but none to Morning Star. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 17:37, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * There's also the little problem that DOS predates Morning Star. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 17:42, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * This may seem like splitting the difference, but I think it's very ambiguous and both readings are possible. This creates a problem for using it to support a statement in the article other than the fact that a U.S. creationist writer mentioned it as a counterpart to Morning Star and the CESHE. However, if another source supports the relationship to CESHE that clarifies things. The other problem is that this doesn't look to me like a reliable source so we should be careful about putting too much weight on it. By the way, my link to Morning Star is just a wee UK joke, and I'm surprised it's still going. The disambiguation page shows a couple of religious organisations which seem to be completely unrelated. . dave souza, talk 17:54, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I hate to disagree with you dave, but I cannot see any way that Morning Star can be the parent organisation of a society that (even under its parent name) is three years older than it, particularly as the book was published only two years after Morning Star's founding (so it is highly unlikely that it would have sufficiently overtaken DOS in numbers to have absorbed the older organisation). This defies all logic. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 18:15, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Or to put it another way, the original text is slightly ambiguous, but tending towards CESHE, but the contextual circumstantial evidence means that only one reading makes any sense. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 18:17, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

In the interest of "splitting the difference," and acknowedging that Sennot was quite unclear, i have reinstated editor Linda's text, minus the word "loosely" and plus the word "Society" (afer Morning Star), with the same ref, plus the full quotation from Sennot, so that people can see the "affiliation" for themselves, however they wish to understand it.

I think that insisting on the word "branch," as hrafn is doing, opens us up to the question of which group Daylight is said to be a "branch" of -- and whether Sennot correctly used that word in a formal organizational sense or loosely as an informal term -- or was *inaccurate* (hey, it happens, even in print-published books).

The matter of dates is also open to question; we'd need to know when the CESHE founded in order to fact theck Sennot.

I think that Linda's word, "affiliated," is the best compromise word. I believe that hafn will vigoursly oppose the use of this word, though, because his stated intent is to get this page removed from Wikipedia, and now that his Speedy Delete failed, he must convince other editors on the AfN page that DOS group is obscure or non-notable. I feel that his removal of Linda's text on an article he has devoted days to getting removed is a serious case of tampering with the evidence, by the way, but that is material for another discussion, of course.

catherine yronwode a.k.a. "64" 64.142.90.33 (talk) 18:20, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * This is not splitting the difference. Neither interpretation support it being affiliated with both groups (as the article now claims). And both interpretations have it as a mere "branch" of one of the groups. I have therefore tagged your version. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 18:45, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

When it cannot be agreed what a piece of text means, the best (most neutral & least likely to introduce OR) compromise is to let the text speak for itself without interpretation -- so I've put it in as a straight quote. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 18:51, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm fine with that. cat Catherineyronwode (talk) 20:12, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Personal issues

 * Also, more seriously, this is the first time i have seen you do any research. Firefly noted that you had, but it was a new thing to me. If shows a willingness to do more than delete material. It is much appreciated.


 * cat yronwode a.k.a. "64" 64.142.90.33 (talk) 16:40, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * No Cat, it is not the "first time [you] have seen [me] do any research" -- you just weren't paying attention previously. I researched and sourced most of the material in Michael Dowd‎ before you arrived, and have researched numerous topics in Category:New Thought movement. If you had bothered to check the history of Victoria Institute before you added that irrelevant article as a see-also (it has no relationship to DOS), you would have seen that I made a major addition to that too. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 16:50, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Incidentally, I just provided a reference for a fact-tag on Of Pandas and People 16 minutes after it was tagged. While we aren't always quite that fast, in my neck of the woods we do take maintaining the articles we have on our watchlist seriously. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 17:56, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * A problem with Wikipedia is that it's so huge that we judge people by the edits we see them make, but it can take a huge effort to really get a grip on an editor's contributions when they've done a lot of work, which I think applies to both of you. My memory is of seeing Hrafn make a lot of good contributions, and I hope to see many useful improvements with you two working together. . . dave souza, talk 18:02, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Dave, i did not appreciate you characterizeing my writing as "sarcastic." I am rarely sarcastic and dislike sarcasm as a form of speeach; what i wrote was stright English. As for the prospect of working with hrafn (and you, since you have been following him around lately), all i can say, and i say it sincerely, is that i hope he knows more about Pandas than he knows about the history of New Thought, because, in my opinion, he made bad choices while trying to delete things from New Thought pages. I would not be here now if he had not started that ill-considered deltion campaign, and he would not now be the subject of a MEDCAB attempt by Firefly, an ANI report from Firefly, and a civility report from Madman if he had restricted himself to straight edits, sans incivility and sans deletionism, on the primary topic of his interest, which seems to be creationism, in which he obviously takes a POV-pushing viewpoint. I have had a difficult time with hrafn, and i have not been impressed with his good will or his ability to work with others. For that reason i will be uploading my own ANI-proposal material into the ANI that was brought by Firefly. I am sadly sure that more harsh words will transpire. I want you to know that events such as hrafn's long campaign against historical New Thought pages and his tag-team playmates, as well as the current Poetlister scandal and its ongoing shush-up by admins, are giving me a despairing view of Wikipedia, which, since you are an admin and i am just a user, i lay at your feet. Can you help? Or are you going to once again simply pick sides with hrafn based on the your shared socio-political interests in pseudo-skepticism (with which, by the way, 19th century New Thought has next to no overlap, given that writers of that era used the word "science" quite differently than scientistic editors like hrafn use it today).  cat yronwode Catherineyronwode (talk) 20:43, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

See-alsos
I note that none of the organisations and topics in the see-also section have any direct relationship to the DOS. I don't intend to make an issue about it now but, should this article survive AfD, they need to be replaced with more relevant ones. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 16:41, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm open to that. I brought in what i saw as "other British anti-evolution groups" and a few uber-topic pages on the whole religion/science debate that i had found helpful, especially as the DOS is not a Protestant Fundamentalist anti-evolution group of the type with which i am familiar in the USA, but a British, Catholic, Young Earth Creation Society group, that uses science to promote counter-evolutionalry theories. I'll admit that a week ago i was unfamiliar with European Catholic science-based anti-Darwinism. Thanks to Wikipedia's great knowledge-base, i have learned a lot about the subject, using see-alsos and wiki-links, and now, thanks to the work of editors like Linda and Firefly, i understand the organizational links between the many players in this socio-political struggle. A week ago i did not know that this Catholic YECS group lists as an "honourary member" an anti-semite European Parliarment member from Poland, that both are on the Board of Advisors of a group right here in my own nation, the USA, and that DOS is affiliated with a Belgian group and with another USA group, and has published the work of a French anti-evolutionist geologist. Now i know. That's why i want to see the DOS article survive AfD -- it has taught me about the many varieties of creationism -- and if it remains in Wikipedia, it can teach others. Knowledge is always better than ignorance. I fight for this article because it taught me something. cat yronwode a.k.a. "64" 64.142.90.33 (talk) 18:45, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

The only see-also that is an 'obvious include' is Evolution and the Roman Catholic Church -- which I've just added.

Beyond this there are the other British creationist groups (but they're all evangelical, and we have BCSE's word that DOS doesn't have much to do with them): Beyond that we might include more general topics:
 * Creation Science Movement (this is the only group that has a connection to the Victoria Institute)
 * Biblical Creation Society
 * Truth in Science (this is the one Brit group that has any real connection to the Discovery Institute)
 * Young Earth Creationism
 * Creation science and possibly
 * Flood geology (if Berthault's model appears to be a strong influence)

More hyper-tagging
Adding tags (in this case the tag "irellevant") is an aggressive move when conducted as part of a hyper-tagging campaign against an article.

In this case, the text dealt with a publication and described the material within that publication. I therefore commented out (hid) the tags, in order to table them for discussion. My editing comment read like this: " We are discussing a publication. Ipso facto, what it publishes and where its material is republished should not be deemed "irrelevant" to a description of the publication.)" I used the same text in my comment-out explanation, The tags themselves then looked like this to an editor:

My comment tags were removed within a few monites by hrafn, with the editorial comment "(Rvt: this material is heavily tangential -- please do not hide legitimate tags without a consensus to remove)."

Of course, he did not ADD these tags with a consensus. So now, let's try for a consensus, shall we?


 * remove the tags The subject of this section of the DOS article is a magazine, called Daylight. In this section we present three paragraphs: (1) history and distribution, (2) authors, (3) type of texts published. The third section is important to the undertanding of the magazine in that it relaetes to the publisher's mission, stated in the lead paragraph as a Young Earth Creation Science organization -- implicitly not the same as an Old Earth, Intelligent Design, Fundamentalist, or other anti-evolution group. To tag this description of material as irrelevant is to remove from the article its substance, which is disingenuous, since the person tagging the material as "irrelevant" first tried to Speedy Delete the article and has now brought an AfD against it, demonstrating a pattern of bias against the existence of text in this article that might demonstrate the subject's notability.

Thanks for reading and commenting. cat yronwode a.k.a. "64" 64.142.90.33 (talk) 18:00, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * My, you've both got sarcastic tongues in your heads! ;) Thanks for bringing it to talk, I think it's relevant but the sources look rather unreliable in Wikipedia terms so we must treat them as primary sources and be careful not to imply anything more than they say. Good luck, everyone. . dave souza, talk 18:08, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Remove the material, per WP:NOTE "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information". All magazine articles have titles, but these are not generally noteworthy (either in an article about the magazine or its publisher), and favourable mention in an apparently obscure fellow Catholic-creationist magazine does not make it noteworthy. Likwise like-minded organisations frequently cross-publish material from each other, but again this is not noteworthy unless the publication it is appearing in is quite prominent. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 18:39, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

New York Times Syndicate ref
In an article about Roman Giertych, this reference states:

GoogleTranslation:

The description is clearly just a translation of its self-description:

As such, it (i) should not be used per WP:NONENG, (ii) as it is simply quoting the DOS self-description it is not "intellectually independent" & (iii) that this is merely a trivial mention.

I would further point out that "New York Times Syndicate" is not identical to The New York Times, as the former includes articles from "and more than 30 partner newspapers."<span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 11:31, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Rename
I've renamed this article 'List of Catholic creationist organisations' as:
 * 1) Even under the old title 'Daylight Origins Society', there was considerable slop-over coverage onto related organisations
 * 2) The rename allows a broader base for notability, particularly as CEHE is considerably older than DOS & Kolbe appears to be more active.

I'm fairly sure that I can expand the CEHE section further, if/when I manage to track down the online copy of Les droites nationales et radicales en France: répertoire critique again (which I appear to have mislaid). It had considerably more information on the topic (unfortunately in French). <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 13:18, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

International Institute for Culture
In the material I added to the article on this group, I purposefully neglected to include one of the lecturers, one Hugh Miller, a purported "Research chemist" whose main claim to fame is apparently co-authorship of the paper Recent C-14 Dating of Fossils Including Dinosaur Bone Collagen -- the existence of which I was unable to confirm (only search hits were IIC website & a post by Miller himself on a bulletin board). Can anybody either confirm existence of this paper (and where it was published) or that Miller is sufficiently noteworthy for mention? <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:18, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

C.S. Lewis
The phrase "it has reprinted works by historical Catholic authors, including G. K. Chesterton and C. S. Lewis.[2]" implies Lewis was Catholic - wasn't he of a different denomination (or two - ISTR he changed his religious views twice and Tolkien and he disagreed on Catholicism).Autarch (talk) 20:30, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on List of Catholic creationist organisations. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080719121143/http://www.theotokos.org.uk/pages/creation/daylight/daylight.html to http://www.theotokos.org.uk/pages/creation/daylight/daylight.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—<sup style="color:green;font-family:Courier;">cyberbot II <sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS;"> Talk to my owner :Online 15:23, 14 January 2016 (UTC)