Talk:Theology of creationism and evolution

Rationale
Unnecessary Fork?

I don't think so, but then, I created it. The Creation-evolution controversy article rightfully focuses on the historical and philosophical/ideological debate, yet almost all of the introduction/summary in the beginning is about the political issue of today regarding public policy on teaching creation and evolution in public education. However, this topic is mainly covered in the last section of the article, as Ramifications of the controversy, and seldom mentioned in the main text.

By separating out the political aspects of the controversy in the new entry on the politics of creationism, the new entry can cover the ever changing political issues more in detail, allowing the Creation-evolution controversy article to progress faster towards stability.

-- Terjen 06:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

All of the Ramifications of the controversy section from the Creation-evolution controversy article has now been moved to the politics of creationism entry. Terjen 05:25, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

History of the creation-evolution controversy now covers the historical aspects of the controversy, leaving the Creation-evolution controversy article to the philosophical debate and the Politics of creationism article to document the attempts on changing public policy. Terjen 05:30, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

What this article might include
I think that the article is redundant if all it does is focus on the battles regarding teaching creationism. However, I think it could become a very interesting and worthwhile addition if it actually took on the politics associated with the creationist movement--the "culture war," alliances with political parties, ideas about taxes and sovergnty (check out Kent Hovind), and so forth. 68.165.23.148 (talk) 17:34, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Focus on education
There is too much of a focus here on education. I've restructured the article slightly to make it clear how much space is given to the subject. The article also contains unique material not covered in the daughter article; this shouldn't be so, as a summary should be like a lead section in that it contains no information not included in the full coverage. A better summary is needed. Richard001 (talk) 01:59, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Is there a reason for this article?
This article only has two substantive sections: Is there then a reason for this article to exist? Should we merge the former into 'Creation and evolution in public education' and perhaps use the latter as a basis for an article on the 'Theology of creationism and evolution'? HrafnTalkStalk(P) 16:00, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) 'Creationism in education', which appears to be a WP:CFORK of Creation and evolution in public education; and
 * 2) 'Religious politics' appears to be about theology, not politics.


 * Maybe this article could be tweaked into a "Creationism in politics" article? Then it could include coverage of politicians who have supported/sympathized with the creationist movement, as well as the influence of neo-con/social conservative movements on modern politics...?Quietmarc (talk) 22:46, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

The overlap between 'Politics of creationism'/'Creationism in politics' and the issue of creationism in public education is very close to total. I would therefore suggest: HrafnTalkStalk(P) 03:34, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Reducing this article down to the 'Religious politics' section and rename it 'Religious acceptance of evolution'; &
 * 2) Alter the redirect at 'Politics of creationism' (created by this rename) to point to Creation and evolution in public education.


 * I still think that there is a (very narrow) segment being missed between the religious and the education aspects of creationism and politics, but since scrounging up sources and overhauling this article might be more effort than it's worth, I have no objections, Hrafn. Quietmarc (talk) 16:14, 24 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The only potential non-overlapping bit of Creationism in politics' I can think of is claims of discrimination outside education -- the only politically-significant example of which being the Sternberg peer review controversy. If any significant political dimension of creationism turns up that is not covered/coverable by current articles, we can always create an article on it specifically. If enough political dimensions turn up, we can recreate a 'Politics of creationism'/'Creationism in politics' that gives a summary overview of them. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 16:41, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Status of the Christian Reformed Church
I would like to remove the Christian Reformed Church from the list of denominations espousing young-earth creationism for the following reasons:

Jonathan Calebs (talk) 13:29, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * While the CRC's 1991 synod condemned evolution as an acceptable mechanism for human beginnings, a subsequent (2010) synod overturned this ruling (Position Statement on Creation Science)
 * Calvin College, the denomination's flagship university, openly teaches evolutionary mechanism as the best explanation for life on earth (Calvin College Biology Department Perspectives on Evolution)
 * Peter Enns and the Haarsma family have been prominent members of this denomination in exploring (and affirming) theistic evolution Haarsma's book

Is there a point to this article?
If so, it is not clear what it is, as it is not clarified or explained in the lead. It is difficult to try to improve an article when the topic is so uncertain. &middot; &middot; &middot; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 09:13, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Science and religion complement each other
There is a reason for the article to remain as it is, just to make it a little better. At the Catholic Faculty of Theology, there exists as subject "Theology of Creation (and Development)" that deals with this topic. Taking into account the Catholic view today that creation and evolution do not oppose but complement each other, this branch has an unprecedented potential for future development. “Science and faith do not contradict each other, but complement each other” (Anton Trstenjak).--Stebunik (talk) 21:52, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Theology of Creation and Evolution is an expression that conveys some meaning to me. Theological science is not. Therefore the current article needs to be changed to clarify what it is about.
 * Is it religious philosophy or philosophy of religion or theology or something else? It does not look like science as I see no potential for testable hypotheses. &middot; &middot; &middot; Peter Southwood (talk):

Theological science
What is a theological science as mentioned in the lead sentence? Where is it defined? By whom? What aspect of the field of study makes it a science, and by what criteria? &middot; &middot; &middot; Peter Southwood (talk): 16:38, 30 October 2019 (UTC)