Talk:Rejection of evolution by religious groups

Do young Earth creationists reject all science?
I see an edit war going on between some (?) IP editors, who are trying to soften the stance of young Earth creationists to say that they reject all science "on the issue", and some Wikipedia regulars who are insisting on "all science" (period). I find the latter claim implausibly broad (do they reject Newton's laws? Classical thermodynamics?), and the burden of proof should be on them. So what do the sources say? Unfortunately, most of the citations clustered at the end of the paragraph don't mention young Earth creationism at all, as far as I can tell. I'm going to tag some of them. RockMagnetist(talk) 22:22, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Actually, none of the sources support the first half of the sentence. I have also come to realize that the sentence contradicts itself, saying that "this view" completely rejects science, and then saying that creation science attempts to prove that young Earth creationism is consistent with science. This latter statement is actually supported by some of the sources, particularly the one by Eugenie Scott. RockMagnetist(talk) 22:46, 10 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Young Earth Creationists reject everything that does not agree with their interpretation of the Bible, science, history, philosophy, math, medicine; you name it, and if it can neither conform to or be distorted in order to conform to a YEC's favorite misinterpretation of the Bible, they will reject it and denounce it as the Devil's excrement.--Mr Fink (talk) 22:41, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * e/c I was going to say the same, but less eloguemntly!! -Roxy, the dog. Esq . wooF 22:45, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Both of you - this is Wikipedia. What are your sources for this statement? RockMagnetist(talk) 22:47, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * My spelling above, for one thing. -Roxy, the dog. Esq . wooF 22:48, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Among other things, RockMangetist, have you ever bothered to look at Young Earth Creationist sites to begin with, let alone that they are rife with anti-science propaganda? did you read the sources and note that they don't actually state Creation Science/Young Earth Creationist is consistent with science?--Mr Fink (talk) 22:51, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Astrophysics, astronomy, nuclear physics, geophysics, geochemistry, geology, paleontology, biology, evolutionary theory, genetics, molecular biology, paleobiology, and anthropology, according to https://ncse.com/files/pub/legal/stearns/expert_witness_ayala.pdf (Ayala 2007). Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:09, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

I need to apologize beforehand, but also need to say this. Mr Fink, the only way you could make the statement of "Young Earth Creationists reject everything that does not agree with their interpretation of the Bible, science, history, philosophy, math, medicine; you name it, and if it can neither conform to or be distorted in order to conform to a YEC's favorite misinterpretation of the Bible, they will reject it and denounce it as the Devil's excrement." would be if you were speaking for the entire group. I can't, and haven't heard of anyone who can. You are speaking of a group of individuals who may be influenced to an extent by those who lack sufficient knowledge. Given that, I fail to see how this type of hostility I'm seeing here is in like with the WP purpose. The idea is to provide quality articles. How that is to be accomplished is also defined in the guidelines for editing and conflict resolution. So the internal structure of WP is defined. Now how does that get accomplished amid the emotionally charged dialog I see? There does seem to be some type of conflict, if it is only the apparent hostility being tossed around above. If the idea is to hurl accusation and insult, I see that being accomplished. What I don't see is definitive methodology leading to improvement. Can we get to that? I'm also at least a little surprised that User:Tgeorgescu would be here in like manner, yet as I suspected, there may be some affiliation suspect of WP:COI: "ncse.com", tells the story. I'm calling for disclosure at this point for affiliation to the organization: National Center for Science Education (N.C.S.E.). The NCSE is decidedly biased in their anti-religious POV. Any affiliation with them is cause for COI concern. Are any editors on this page, or in this article, affiliated with NCSE? I'm asking for good faith disclosure. I don't see any disclosures listed on the article page or this one. If I missed something, help me out and direct me to the place where any disclosures might be found.BRealAlways (talk) 12:07, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The NCSE does not have an anti-religious POV, except when religious groups try to have their beliefs taught as fact in science classes. Even if editors are not "affiliated" with the NCSE, it is unsurprising that most will agree with a group whose purpose is to keep science teaching restricted to facts and reality. Black Kite (talk) 12:28, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, creationists live in a parallel universe with alternative facts where creationism is valid science and where non-religious equals anti-religious. If you want to write articles that pretend that the parallel universe is the real world, you will not be happy editing Wikipedia. There is actually a Wiki for that parallel universe: Conservapedia. You will not succeed morphing Wikipedia into another Conservapdeia, so maybe you should directly go there instead. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:32, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * , I make and stand by my statement that "Young Earth Creationists reject everything that does not agree with their interpretation of the Bible, science, history, philosophy, math, medicine; you name it, and if it can neither conform to or be distorted in order to conform to a YEC's favorite misinterpretation of the Bible, they will reject it and denounce it as the Devil's excrement" due to both personal observations of Young Earth Creationists demonizing literally everyone who commits the sin of disagreeing with them, i.e., Answers In Genesis staff twisting "I respect all religions" into a tacit confession to promoting Satanically inspired ritual cannibalism, and personal interactions with Young Earth Creationists explicitly belittling me as a hellbound idiot for committing the sin of not believing God magically poofed the world into existence over the course of six 24 hour days exactly 4 to 10,000 years ago, or praying me to go to Hell for committing the sin of pointing out that it's physically impossible for the last mammoths to be frozen by magical falling pieces of magic ice falling from a magical floating ice dome, or even that scientists, in general, are a bunch of Satanic idiots engaged in a centuries-spanning conspiracy to hate Jesus for no profit beyond hating Jesus.--Mr Fink (talk) 15:15, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Well, since everyone is sharing their POV on the subject, I may as well chime in. As a preacher's kid from multigenerations of YEC, but now an atheist, I'd word it differently. I have two medical educations and have worked in YEC university settings and medical centers alongside medical and scientific researchers who were YEC. They live a compartmentalized existence, so here's a more accurate statement:
 * YECs "reject those aspects of science, history, philosophy, math, and medicine that do not agree with their interpretation of the Bible, but believe, practice, and research all other aspects of those subjects just as other, non-YEC, people do."

There are large areas of science and medicine where they will agree with others and their YEC beliefs are not evident. But there are areas where their deviance from science-based thinking will become evident. So it's not "all", but just that which disagrees with the Bible, which isn't everything. As with much in life, "all" is an extreme, and rarely true, exaggeration. Use a bit of common sense. -- Valjean (talk) 15:52, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

The editors with a COI in relation to the NCSE are likely those making requests at Talk:National Center for Science Education to avoid editing the article themselves. There's only one that I'm somewhat familiar with and he's not very active on Wikipedia. I also don't find edits from him in this article's history or on this talk page. But the NCSE is notable, so it's not surprising for it to have mentions. Its focus is science education, that especially in the US has a history of corruption. An encyclopedia promoting public education and with academic bias (WP:ABIAS) like Wikipedia is compatible with that, it seems. This article also mentions theistic evolution and includes a source from the BioLogos Foundation that can be considered apologetic but does not promote rejection of evolution. — Paleo Neonate  – 18:10, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

My final analysis of this section is that it's out of control. Opinions based on "conversion from YEC to atheism" are a contrived way of expressing an opinion that is not backed up by anything other than personal POV. What I would be looking for is sources. Those hapless individuals plagued with YEC sugarplums dancing in their heads would be better served by producing content that is unbiased, pointing out the error of their ways. The verbiage above doesn't accomplish the task. Harboring an obvious animosity or contempt for the "religious" is an unacceptable norm for edits, as far as I can discern from WP guidelines for editing. That is one of the reasons I called for disclosure of affiliation. Though this is a talk page, it is not a general forum for discussion of material superficial to the article, unless it is included to support improvement of the article (with sources, of course).

User:PaleoNeonate, While it may seem innocent enough to conceptually limit the activities of a radical group to a specific topic, if we apply that same reasoning to Hitler's activities, we would end up in a position under his boot. Working under a similar assumption, if the N.C.S.E. is only about science education, why would they be concerned at all about religion? BRealAlways (talk) 13:07, 3 February 2022 (UTC)


 * What specific changes to the article are being proposed here? AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:16, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

I propose that the article has no merit in and of itself. Therefore it should be removed from the stacks. This will, of course be a point of conflict, but be it as it may. It comes across as a propaganda piece against religion, and doesn't cover the topic sufficiently. It is sparse on scholarly sources. Big surprise! I'm seeing Eugenie Scott and Richard Dawkins show up in the list of references. Eugenie Scott = N.C.S.E. Anyone here affiliated with that group in any way? Just a question. Yes, I move for deletion. The world will not suffer if a list of anti-religion revolutionaries don't have their day in court. If it were a scholarly piece, it would include "Religious Groups", rather than singling out Judeo-Christians. This is the only religious group I see mentioned in the article. Surely this is not the only religious group in the world that rejects evolution theory as given. If it isn't canned, it should be seriously rewritten, as in be serious about covering the topic properly and fairly. WP is not for painting targets on any religion.BRealAlways (talk) 17:39, 3 February 2022 (UTC)


 * BRealAlways, if you want this article deleted, your next step is to go to WP:AFD and follow the instructions. --McSly (talk) 18:02, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * There's no need to ping me. Sure, Scott did important work against the corruption of education and is very notable for that.  Why would that be Wikipedia's problem?  — Paleo  Neonate  – 23:13, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

On second thought, deletion isn't absolutely necessary, but a major rewrite is the only saving factor. For example a contradictory statement is made in paragraph 4: "The Catholic Church recognizes the existence of evolution ...". The pope is then quoted as saying "Evolution in nature is not inconsistent with the notion of creation, because evolution requires the creation of beings that evolve." This is not a recognition of the existence of evolution theory, but the defining of the reliance of evolution theory on Creation, thus, a Creator. In engineering terms, God is the Designer of all self replicating machines (if life forms are to be classified as such). Some people are much smarter than I am, and might view such nonsense as an insult to their intelligence. The problem seems to be much bigger than a single article. This is only the tip of the iceberg from what I have already seen. I'll ask for advice before moving to delete. Thanks, McSly BRealAlways (talk) 18:16, 3 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Make sure you mention that the NCSE is some sort of radical atheist group. Doug Weller  talk 18:39, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Our own interpretation of what the Pope meant is not usable per WP:OR, but if you mean that many Catholics believe in theistic evolution I think that there are sources supporting that, one is from Scott, Theistic evolution also appears to use this one. There's also an article about the Watchmaker analogy...  — Paleo  Neonate  – 23:13, 3 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Accusing me of WP:COI is laughable. I mean: really funny!
 * Other remarks: at Wikipedia we do not sing Kumbaya, My Lord. We sing A mighty fortress is mainstream science.
 * There is life outside of Wikipedia. Wikipedia does not have a monopoly on Net 2.0. tgeorgescu (talk) 03:01, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Me, on the other hand... — Paleo  Neonate  – 04:19, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

This section shouldn't exist according to talk page guidelines. I will, however, answer the above opening edit to an extent. Some good information on the history of Young Earth Creationism can be found here [|here]. The research was done by 2 authors who looked into the origin in a systematic fashion. Their book must go into the subject more thoroughly, although I haven't read it personally. Those who are interested in knowing more about the topic may want to purchase a copy. The page gives a sequence of development for the Young Earth paradigm from the origin to a point near the present (subject to date of publishing and revision). The authors have found that certain factions or sects of Christianity held to certain literal translations of selected text. This is an excerpt from the author's book: "The “heretical” and “infidel” tendencies of modern geology were roundly condemned by some churchmen, few of whom had any knowledge of geology, although there were a handful of individuals who had produced acceptable field-based studies of regional geology in Great Britain. These “Scriptural geologists,” however, found themselves increasingly marginalized by the vast majority who had extensive working geological knowledge and were now convinced that the Earth is very old."

Hope this helps. What affect it may have on article improvement is unknown at this point. The section doesn't appear to have been created for that purpose, but looking at the history of a movement always helps to determine why it is what it is. YEC doesn't seem to have been formed for any other reason than to be a "follow me" paradigm. It (YEC) is a radical isolate, not founded on sound principles. The entirety of their belief system appears to be due to the types of relationships developed by Jim Jones and David Koresh. Need I say more? Your question doesn't follow, unless it is leading to article improvement. BRealAlways (talk) 05:51, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

re: "Our own interpretation of what the Pope meant is not usable per ...". I did not interpret what the Pope meant. I interpreted what he said in the framework of the assertion. The article is self contradictory on that issue. If a person says something they don't mean, then how can I assume they mean what they say? There is a minimum expectation that a person is not suffering from some mental disorder that dissociates their ability to transmit their thoughts cogently. What you suggest is "putting words into other people's mouths". That should only be done when the person is aware of the conversation. That way, they would be able to explain to us all whether they are being "interpreted" correctly. BRealAlways (talk) 06:07, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
 * As far as I'm concerned the discussion is done here, unless perhaps more specific proposals were done with citations. WP:BRD is also a good guide.  Another possibility is creating text drafts in a sandbox for review by other editors.  — Paleo  Neonate  – 08:25, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Article title
Controversy is a word to avoid. In particular, it should be avoided for a false controversy between science and motivated reasoning. This article makes the case very clearly that what we are describing is not a controversy, but religious rejection of evolution, and the resulting legal cases. To borrow the legal usage of the term, a "live case or controversy" is a situation where the parties still have a valid dispute. As we make clear, that has not been the case with evolution for a very long time. Attempts to portray creationism as anything other than religious have failed consistently since Scopes. The courts are clear: it's religion v. reality.

So, per NPOV, we should use a title like religious rejection of evolution or creationist reaction to evolution - or, perhaps, as a parallel to Acceptance of evolution by religious groups, Rejection of evolution by religious groups. Guy (help!) 10:20, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Agreed, either "religious rejection of evolution' or "Rejection of evolution by religious groups" would be preferable, there is no "controversy". Theroadislong (talk) 10:59, 2 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I completely agree. I like Rejection of evolution by religious groups, but the main issue is getting rid of "controversy" in the title, it's absurd. Bishonen &#124; tålk 11:14, 2 May 2020 (UTC).

Just did it - now awaiting reaction ... :) Vsmith (talk) 13:17, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Too soon. I actually agree that this is a more accurate title, but the the term creation-evolution controversy is well-known, and this is far too brief a discussion.  Pepper Beast    (talk)  15:29, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * An improvement, from where I sit. There is no real controversy, just extremist xtians in Merkia, and a few other minor religious groups of varying flavours. -Roxy the effin dog . wooF 15:36, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I think it was too quick, as well. I'm still digesting. I'm not thrilled with the word rejection, because it is a bit loaded although not inaccurate. I would suggest that "opposition" might be a better word choice. "Groups" might exclude prominent individuals. The words "doctrinal" and "faith-based" come to mind, but neither feels quite right to me. I would argue for not reverting the move, but no more moves without a well-discussed consensus. BiologicalMe (talk) 15:57, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * A bold move, IMO, an improvement which can stand until there is consensus to refine it. "Opposition" could work nicely. Just plain Bill (talk) 17:21, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , you can't really oppose evolution, though, any more than yo can oppose the Earth being an oblate spheroid. Guy (help!) 09:39, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * What? Opposition to evolution is certainly possible, as shown by the barrels of ink spent on the subject. It is religious, rhetorical, political, and very much present in various venues of public discourse, including state and federal court cases. See Category:United States creationism and evolution case law. While the opposition may be deluded, gullible, or willfully ignorant, it is a demographic reality. Just plain Bill (talk) 18:12, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , but that's still repudiation not opposition. As I say, you can't oppose something that is a fact of nature, but you can pretend it doesn't exist. Guy (help!) 08:07, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I was startled and confused when I discovered the name of this page had changed. I spent about ten minutes looking in the archives for discussions of a merger with Creation-evolution controversy, since there seemed so much overlap! I finally noticed this tiny discussion. The point of all that is that this name change was premature. RockMagnetist(talk) 17:04, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * If it stands, what happens to History of the creation–evolution controversy? Does it become History of the rejection of evolution by religious groups? RockMagnetist(talk) 17:04, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , it could do, or something else, but equally it might stay because (a) "a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds" and (b) there was, historically, some legitimate controversy, albeit over a century ago. Guy (help!) 08:04, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
 * In your original message, you linked "word to avoid" to the disambig page WTA. I tried to correct it, but someone who applies rules without understanding reverted me. The link that I'm sure you intended is WP:LABEL. RockMagnetist(talk) 03:46, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Currently it links to WTA which looks ok. Thanks, . dave souza, talk 09:00, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for making this page move, it's an improvement. . . dave souza, talk 09:00, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

The title is decidedly POV, and is a point of potential social conflict. A better POV would be reflected using the above suggestion: "Religious groups reaction to evolution theory", but even this is potentially divisive. Don't we already have enough social schisms and irritation without anyone opening any more wounds and pouring in a generous amount of salt? The article is positioned as a point of contention over an ideology with the current title. Let's stop pretending and join in the effort to smooth out civilizational differences. Wikipedia would be a perfect platform to launch a global message of reconciliation and peace. With an alternate title, such as the one suggested, the article can accomplish much more than simply hurling accusations at religious groups. WP:NPOV has a goal of advancing article development in a way that is redemptive. This is also reflected in numerous WP rules and guidelines. If the idea is for editors to come to terms, why would there be an impetus to be divisive in the minds of readers? The title positions the article for conflict either through edit wars, or by ideological presentation. Perhaps the best title might be: "Rejection of evolution theory". With this title, development would be more neutral by definition. The implication is that only those who are affiliated with religious groups have problems with evolution theory. That is patently not true, and the article should speak of rejecting evolution theory without putting the bullseye on religious groups. I am also calling for disclosure of WP:COI.BRealAlways (talk) 09:12, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia would be a perfect platform to launch a global message of reconciliation and peace I think you need to read WP:NOT. Wikipedia should not say there is peace when it is not true. There are religious loons who attack the science for stupid reasons, and pretending they do not exist is not what an encyclopedia should do.
 * "Rejection of evolution theory" is disingenious because it pretends there is no elephant in the room. And "disclosure of WP:COI" sounds like the usual creationist conspiracy theory saying the evolution is hyped and creationism suppressed by sinister forces. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:39, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Possible alternatives may be "Religious views on evolution" but this is not really what this article is about; "Evolution and religion", although that'd possible invite a WP:GEVAL refocus that is discouraged. Objections to evolution also already exists, this article is more about its rejection (that can be considered a political controversy but not a scientific one in this case, so previously renamed to be more accurate).  Oh and teach the controversy also exists.  — Paleo  Neonate  – 18:19, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * but there are no competing scientifically plausible alternatives and the evidence is overwhelming. If not religious reasons it would be other ideological ones or ignorance (where science education should help).  This doesn't mean that there aren't scientific debates about details of the scientific theory.  Hypotheses are put forward, tested, falsified, etc.  There are debates in behavioural genetics and evolutionary psychology, about the demarcation with nature and nurture (including in evolutionary developmental biology), etc.  Alternatives to Darwinian evolution are historical views and details.  There are movements producing pseudoscientific argumentative literature, but that's not sound science.  — Paleo  Neonate  – 18:51, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

You guys seem to be using this talk page for soapboxing, rather than suggesting improvements to the article. I call it ironic when the person citing yours truly for soapboxing is joining in the fray.

re: "Wikipedia should not say there is peace when it is not true." Nice choice of words. WP is not here to be anything other than an encyclopedic resource, yet you may consider whether it is implausible for Ford to make automobiles. Doing anything in an environment of hostility or resentment has an inherent impact on the quality of the product. It's the environment that can either help or hinder war or peace. One of the WP guidelines is that we should (as editors) treat one another with a minimum level of respect. When followed, this guideline will lead to development. When not followed, it will most likely lead to some form of anarchy. This didactic principle can be demonstrated as having been constructed from careful analysis of things that lead to success, and things that lead to failure. We desperately need that type of analysis in these times that you infer when "people are at each others throats, and taking advantage of one another mercilessly". WP has already set the stage for success. We need to each play our part in either using the "Divide and Conquer" method, or the "Let's work together to accomplish a worthwhile goal" model.

Back to business. Regarding the article title, it is deceptive, as stated above. The title says "religious groups", but only YEC are dealt with across the article, making the article unbalanced and not conformed to WP:NPOV. Much has been written here in this talk page, but most of it has nothing to do with article improvement. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that the purpose of these talk pages? That's a major violation of the good faith (trust) WP is extending. You would use their resources to support personal agenda rather than for the intended purpose of this venue. I have seen productive talk pages. This isn't one of them. Is this the norm in controversial pages? How about a change: productivity? It would be no surprise to me why the best editors may not want to work here. This could be good article. 75.86.176.155 (talk) 06:48, 4 February 2022 (UTC)


 * You don't understand something: for academics harsh criticism is not a token that we hate each other, but business as usual. Some of us like to know our own errors and learn from it. tgeorgescu (talk) 07:15, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Your message is long itself, but thanks for the reminder that this is not a general discussion forum. There's also a point where sanctions may be necessary at times but meanwhile I think that it was also an effort and display of good faith to participate.  I also agree with tgeorgescu that there's no hatred involved or necessary...  — Paleo  Neonate  – 08:19, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh, but the above is too, more text by BRealAlways (Special:Permalink/1069433885). — Paleo  Neonate  – 08:22, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Possible FAQ improvements
I had a few notes on my TODO list about the above FAQ, so will express them here in case others are interested in evaluating their merits and/or improving it before I do. I otherwise think that it's pretty good already. — Paleo Neonate  – 10:44, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Q3 lacks (or it may be for a possible Q4, perhaps):
 * A common argument is that if it's not science it's religious so does not merit any scientific scrutiny. The answer is of course that it attempts to pass as science (sources about the history from YEC to Creation Science to ID to prevent neutral biology education in schools may be relevant here); that it makes false claims about topics that science properly covers; that it aims to corrupt science education.
 * There's no mention of pseudoscience in Q3 either (it's implicit, not explicit), but the above could also address that.
 * Common arguments are in relation to metaphysics, that they're all equal doctrines including idealism (and that they each could provide proper science resulting in different conclusions versus methodological naturalism and materialism, etc), but the scientific method allows to evaluate and test their tenets and positions against reality (i.e. a proper "theistic science" would either deny evidence or achieve the same results). Some relevant sources may be found in relation to philosophy of science, the history of science and deep history, etc.

Has the rejection of evolution died out?
The rejection of evolution by religious groups surely is a very notable topic, especially in the filed of American culture wars, so this article has a great deal of references. This article covers mostly the rejection of evolution by American fundamentalists in the 2000s, when it was a prominent issue in the culture wars, in the context of the creation of Conservapedia and the foundation of the Creation Museum, when even president George W. Bush was in favor of the teaching of "intelligent design".

However, this article has few, but any, references to rejection of evolution in the 2010s and 2020s. I know American politics and debates are very complex (if not crazy), but as an educated guess, it seems that the subject of this article has become dated and historical, because rejection of evolution still exists but is no longer propagated by its foremost supporters, American conservatives. The culture wars have shifted, have you seen Donald Trump defending the teaching of intelligent design? The former real estate magnate and U.S. President surely is an indicator that the political polarization in the U.S. still exists but its subjects change.

Just to be clear, I know that evolution is a fact, and the rejection of evolution is a purely political discussion, not a scientific controversy. I just say that this article has become dated as American politics surprise us every day with a new polarizing subject, and it seems the subject of this article has moved on. 2804:14D:8084:A496:7882:1F19:B1E4:27D0 (talk) 17:35, 24 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Well, it could be true. Do you have a source for your claim? tgeorgescu (talk) 18:26, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
 * "references to rejection of evolution in the 2010s and 2020s." The article is probably outdated, but the Ark Encounter opened in 2016, and is used to propagate Young Earth creationism to gullible audiences. That Donald Trump does not seem to care about the topic does not mean that creationism has suddenly died out. Dimadick (talk) 15:39, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

"the rejection of evolution is a purely political discussion, not a scientific."??? Not entirely true. Yes, it is not a subject of real controversy within the world of science, but it is just as much a theological POV and doctrine as ever within the many conservative groups that elevate the authority of the Bible over anything from science. Whether or not it is a prominent point of discussion in politics is just part of the normal ebb and flow of discourse. The underlying beliefs are still there. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:16, 28 November 2022 (UTC)