Talk:Young Earth creationism/Archive 11

Recent changes
Two changes were recently made to the lead. First, a detailed description of exactly where YEC gets it basis was added, even though a concise summary was already present in the following sentence. A totally unecessary addition.

Second, the sentences about the scientific consensus and creation science were reversed, with the stated reason that science was secondary. The entire point of that paragraph is to give the scientific viewpoint on YEC in response to the first paragraph explaining what YEC is. That is then balanced in turn with the counter-mention of creation science with an explanation of the scientific community's view on that. There is nothing primary or secondary about it. Rather, it is a simply structured 1. YEC viewpoint, 2a. scientific viewpoint, 2b. YEC viewpoint, 2c. scientific viewpoint. This structure should not be changed without good reason. GDallimore (Talk) 22:23, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The YEC belief in scripture is unsourced and distorted to say the least. Do you have some good sources to put in to support what is there as it has to be corrected.Simbagraphix (talk) 13:15, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * You're going to have to be a bit more precise about your problem since many view the YEC view of scipture to be distortred in itself. GDallimore (Talk) 17:06, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Right you are, G.D., many different interpretations (esp. recently) have been offered for the opening chapters of Genesis. I'm back. Wekn  reven i susej eht  Talk• Follow 16:24, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Hey Wekn, welcome back.  N o f o rmation  Talk  20:42, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Islam and Young Earth Creationism
It is stated that "Young Earth creationism (YEC) is a form of creationism that asserts the Heavens, Earth, and all life on Earth was created by direct acts of the Abrahamic God during a relatively short period, sometime between 5,700 and 10,000 years ago.[1] Its adherents are Christians, Jews[2] and Muslims[3] who believe that God created the Earth in six 24-hour days, taking a literal interpretation of the Genesis creation narrative as a basis for their beliefs.[4][5]"

But in citation [3] (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15857761/ns/technology_and_science-science/t/muslim-creationism-makes-inroads-turkey/) does not mention anything related with Young Earth Creationism. It only mentions that some muslims in Turkey support Creationism but not explicitly stated as Young Earth Creationism.

I suggest that either the citation is changed with another citation that explicitly state muslim support for YEC or any statement of muslim support for YEC should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ridwan Nurhayat (talk • contribs) 04:23, 7 September 2011 (UTC)


 * My understanding was that creationist Muslims, basing their beliefs on the Koran, rather than the Book of Genesis do not specifically subscribe to a young Earth -- see Islamic views on evolution for details. I'm therefore removing the passage. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:13, 7 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Good call. It's easy, but now I see demonstrably wrong with this example, to tie together an unchanging creation with Young Earth Creation. With a bit of research, 32:4 and 32:5 of the Koran explain why the "six days" is not interpreted literally in Islam. I might see if I can add this to the islamic theology article somehow. GDallimore (Talk) 14:43, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't it be better to say "mainly Christians and Jews", instead of excluding the minorities? Wekn  reven i susej eht  Talk• Follow 16:37, 1 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Again, that's creationism in general, not necessarily YEC. GDallimore (Talk) 21:32, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, let me point the sentence out: "Most Islamic Young Earth Creationism is imported directly from the USA." Thank you. Wekn  reven i susej eht  Talk• Follow 07:03, 2 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Not in the original article: http://www2.truman.edu/~edis/writings/articles/islamic.html GDallimore (Talk) 10:44, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, you're right. My apologies. Wekn  reven i susej eht  Talk• Follow 14:13, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * How about this one? The sentence on the right column. Wekn  reven i susej eht  Talk• Follow 14:17, 2 October 2011 (UTC)


 * This appears to be disputed: see Adnan Oktar and http://books.google.com/books?id=0mSCHC0QMUgC&pg=PA141&dq=%22Adnan+Oktar%22+-inpublisher:icon&cd=6&hl=en#v=onepage&q=%22Adnan%20Oktar%22%20-inpublisher%3Aicon&f=false. Again, I think it's too easy to confuse an anti-evolutionary stance and intelligent design with YEC. Although they do often go hand in hand they are not necessarily equivalent.
 * Maybe a better discussion could be started at the Islamic_views_on_evolution article. Editors there might know more. GDallimore (Talk) 15:31, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You're right. I'll check it out. Thanks for pointing me there. All it takes to add the "most" in there is one Islamic YEC, so I highly doubt there isn't one, although I have to actually find one to add the word. Wekn  reven i susej eht  Talk• Follow 14:10, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I couldn't access this source, sadly (the article's citation for Creationism being totally absent from the Muslim world) because it is located on a members-only website. That's a dilemma. Wekn  reven i susej eht  Talk• Follow 14:17, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It seems like it does exist, but I've yet to come across a reliable source. Wekn  reven i susej eht  Talk• Follow 14:32, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Members-only sources at reliable sites aren't a problem. See WP:PAYWALL. -- King Öomie 19:30, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm well aware of that, I just couldn't access it. Wekn  reven i susej eht  Talk• Follow 14:47, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Accusation of bias
In the creation series of articles in Wikipedia it is obvious that the author(s) are completely biased against anything creation related. With a desire to learn more about the subject and stance of proponents of these ideas I read through a barrage of reasons why evolutionists say it is wrong rather than an article explaining the subject matter. I simple sentence saying evolutionary theories disagree with these tenets would suffice with a link to an applicable article. This is an op-ed rather than an encyclopedia article about the subject heading.

Yes, there are headings which state the stance of various religions, but in every case there is substantial bias against the subject matter with an effort to discredit anything which varies from evolution. When we so judiciously implicate and attack a subject with an article which should rather be encyclopedaic in nature, it only serves to demonstrate a lack of true belief in our own stance and emotional maturity. Let each side explain its doctrines and beliefs so the public can choose. Although I may choose to believe in evolution, I would like to hear what the other side has to say. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Willemta (talk • contribs) 12:05, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia isn't a debate moderator that presents "both sides" for the public to decide. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and for the same reasons that a biology textbook couldn't treat creationism as science, Wikipedia can't either.  There are several policies involved with this, including WP:FRINGE, WP:UNDUE and of course WP:NPOV.  It would be doing our readers a disservice if we presented the material as if it had merit and without rebuttal.   N o f o rmation  Talk  00:00, 7 October 2011 (UTC)


 * (EDIT CONFLICT) I'll begin this reply by saying you have a point. The article shouldn't have to be as it is. As an example, I wish the lead didn't have to have the much-argued over line about the IAP's view on the scientific consensus.
 * But it is not anti-creation bias which has put it in it's current sorry state. The problem is modern day YECs who have chosen to wage an insistent and continuing war against science and science education. Without that attack, this article could simply state, as you suggest, that "YEC is a religious belief that the earth was created in the fashion described under a literal reading of Genesis".
 * Unfortunately, by choosing to attack science rather than merely stick to religious belief, and by further insisting that science education should promote a religious belief, there is no choice but to include the response of the scientific community to that attack. Furthermore, it is not a sign of pro-scientific bias that the response shows just how unfounded and ridiculous the current attack on science is. You can't blame the scientific community for being able to poke so many holes in the YEC's attack. You also can't blame the scientific community for the fact that every time they knock down one argument, the YEC's change their argument and try again, leading to a plethora of dubious statements and their rebuttals.
 * Hopefully, this whole modern argument will go the way of the Galileo debacle over the Geocentric model and the misguided activities of the current YEC movement can be shortened to an historical footnote similar to that article's brief discussion.
 * The only way I can see you and I getting what we would like would be to turn to WP:NOTNEWSPAPER and to cut out most of the modern YEC arguments out as simply not being notable in the long term. However, it is difficult from the vantage point of the middle of the event to see which arguments will prove noteworthy and which not, so keeping all but the most ridiculous attacks on science seems the best option for now. GDallimore (Talk) 00:29, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Non-western Christian views of Young Earth Creation
Can we document the non-western viewpoint of the orthodox church in the middle east and the orient? The understanding of Creationism as a worldview developed in the West. Probably Ron Numbers has been most influential in promoting the historical study of creationism. I have not noticed any history presented of orthodox or oriental Christian thought. Can any editor show studies done? DonaldRichardSands (talk) 12:59, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, Til Eulenspiegel: You said: "The Oriental Orthodox Churches as a body explicitly and officially state that they doctrinally adhere to YEC as their teaching." Can you provide the online source for this? Thanks. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 13:01, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I believe I can, but I'll have to look for it after tonight when I get home. If anyone else wants to beat me to it and look it up, go right ahead. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:04, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, Donald! One of the problems you're going to have to deal with that doctrine in Eastern churches is much more minimalistic in what it says their adherents must believe. Wide latitude for individual thought is allowed as long as it conforms to the basic dogmas. These churches haven't gone as far as Roman Catholicism in spelling out in microscopic detail what is to believed or not. And statements by the hierarchy are more advisory than compulsory except on core dogma. It's really a completely different can of worms than Western Christianity. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 13:14, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * That is quite incorrect and can only be spoken in ignorance. A hole in your knowledge about this area doesn't mean nothing is there. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:23, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Feel free to enlighten us. With reliable sources, of course. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 13:37, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Donald: There is no "official" support for YEC in the Eastern Orthodox or Oriental Orthodox churches. Some bishops may have made statements supporting YEC, but those statements are neither dogmatically or doctrinally binding. There is some support for creationism among the laity, but that really doesn't mean anything, either. The Oriental Orthodox Pope Shenouda III clearly rejects YEC (see my answer in the previous section) Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 14:37, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I see your point, but please don't accuse me of talking nonsense. The OO Churches firmly insist that mankind's appearance on earth was within the last few thousand years, while perhaps some allow for much more time to have elapsed between the creation of earth and mankind. Thinking about it though I can see this might be more technically Young Mankind Creationism, but Young Earth Creationism is also widespread enough in the Middle East to warrant at least some mention. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 15:42, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Let's document what OO Church thought leaders have written on the topic. This can include books as well as periodicals. It is of benefit to our Wikipedia readership to understand the facts on this. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 15:47, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Document what? There's nothing to document so far... GDallimore (Talk) 16:11, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not worth the effort. It would be only a footnote at best. I've taken care of the problem by adding a single word to the article. That's more than enough. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 16:16, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * GDallimore and Dominus Vobisdu, I appreciate your opinion and view your statements as such. The discussion may continue... DonaldRichardSands (talk) 16:23, 15 October 2011 (UTC)


 * @GDallimore, perhaps we will conclude that. But, Til Eulenspiegel is reporting that all throughout the Middle East the Oriental Orthodox Church members believe in a Young Earth Creationism. Perhaps all we will be able to show is that the Oriental Orthodox Churches teach a six day creation. Notice this:


 * The Shorter Catechism of the Syrian Orthodox Church of Antioch and Malankar Orthodox Syrican Church, Catechism: Section One. Chapter Three: On Creation


 * 2. In how many days God create the world?


 * In six days. []


 * This does not state a Young Earth view, but it does state a six day creation view. Is the distinction important? DonaldRichardSands (talk) 16:22, 15 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, it's vitally important. And irrelevant. See the Pope's comments in the previous section. Really, Richard. Their just ain't no story here. And blind Googling without a basic knowledge of creationism and Orthodox Christianity is not going to produce anything of value. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 16:43, 15 October 2011 (UTC)


 * This adds nothing. If this were relevant then each and every Christian, Jew and Muslim would be a YEC since the Bible and the Koran both say the earth/universe was created in six days. The key is how this is interpreted: literally or allegorically. GDallimore (Talk) 16:43, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * By the way, let me make absolutely clear that I know nothing at all about eastern orthodoxy. Zero, zilch, nada. I am not arguing this point because I believe strongly in the contrary view. I am arguing this point for two reasons:
 * 1. Til made an agressive attack on the regular editors of this article, accusing people of ownership, biased editing and removing material to support a POV. That is out of line and I will not condone such behaviour by staying silent.
 * 2. Not one single source has been presented (so far) to support Til's view, so it's clearly not suitable for adding to the article. If Til or someone else brings a relevant source to the table then this discussion can continue. Until then, I'm not sure there's any point continuing this conversation. GDallimore (Talk) 16:54, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The commanding, domineering style of commenting can be interpreted as a sense of ownership. No one is asking you to condone someone you disagree with. It would be helpful if we address the issues and not try to dominate other editors. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 17:29, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Dominus, thanks for your advice, and yes I certainly need to study more. I have noted that there are different forms of Orthodox Christianity. Weeks and months of reseach will be done, I hope. In the mean time, I have noted that the Syrian catechism reads different than the Russion one.


 * Syrian
 * http://www.stmaryscathedral.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=62&Itemid=71


 * Russion (see page 19)
 * http://www.stseraphimmichigan.org/big/catechism.pdf


 * Part of my goal here is to help Til document what he asserts, if he can. As we examine what the various faith groups say, the issues clarify. Everyone even Dominus and GDallimore want clarificaton, right? DonaldRichardSands (talk) 17:13, 15 October 2011 (UTC)


 * There is systemic bias present in the minds of some wikipedians, evident in opinions expressed that the Oriental orthodox Chuches are so insignificant as to merit only a footnote, and not even that. Let me tell you, in countries where the majority population are oriental orthodox adherents, they have a significant voice.  Systemic bias is blindness or unwillingness to look at what people in other places think. The way to fix the systemic bias is to expand coverage of areas outside the United States.  Also I see some people are trying the tired old tactic of making this an ad hominem against me for raising it up.  Finally I think the edit to the article needs to specify "EASTERN" orthodox since there is no support for "theistic evolution" with ORIENTAL Orthodox. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 17:14, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * All I've ever done is ask for a source. Supply one. You're the one going on about people "controlling" this article. You're the one making ad hominem attacks. I'm not going to waste any more of my time on a disruptive editor like yourself until you find a source for your opinion. GDallimore (Talk) 17:33, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Some strong-talking editors seem like they are trying to control. GDallimore, we have not discussed much of anything. However, Dominus often speaks like he is a commander, or so it seems to me. We are in this together. Our goal is to have this article be the best that it can be. Til perhaps is noticing what one author has observed: "The Eastern traditions of Christianity nowadays have large congregations (numbering well over 200 million), but they have attracted little scholarly attention to date from Anglophone anthropologists." It has been suggested that only a footnote will do. Til challenges this. However, we still need documentation. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 17:59, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * @Til we have the Syrian Catechism part of Oriental Orthodoxy, are there others? Has Creationism been debated within the Oriental Orthodox community. What about the Coptic Popes statement cited by Dominus above? He is Oriental Orthodox, isn't he? The quote above reads very much like the Russian Catechism (p. 19 )above. More sourcing would help. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 17:26, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I have not ad hominemed any editor here. I am not being disruptive either. That is what's called an "unjustified reproach".   The sheer level of animosity of some against expanding this article to cover more than the United States should be apparent.  That's what we call "systemic bias".  The solution may be to bring this case up on the Systemic Bias noticeboard. As for my sources, I said I would dig them up after I get home tonight.  Please be patient a few hours good sir. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 18:32, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Young Earth Creationism, "In Six Days" Creationism, and Theistic Evolution
This line in the article needs verification:

"Some churches such as the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox churches accept the possibility of theistic evolution but despite this, some individual church members support young Earth creationism"

The associated link seems to be dead.

I seem to recall that the Roman Catholic Church via Pope Benedict has made its peace with common origin evolution. I have not seen the verification for the orthodox view of the same. In fact, evidence has been submitted in the last section that the Oriental Orthodox Church (syrian church) does not accept theistic evolution but a six day creation belief instead. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 16:31, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You're still not getting the point. Orthodox Christianity has no definitive dogma on creationism, nor any doctrine that mandates biblical literalism. Please do your research before making further suggestions. And by that, I mean weeks or months of research, not just silly quick Google searches. Orthodox Christianity is a whole different world than the Christianity you are used to, and it will take you some time and work to figure out how it works. You're making a grave mistake by trying to understand it in terms of Western Christianity. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 16:55, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * My research is ongoing, of course, weeks and months research. :) I don't do silly quick Google searches. Quick, but never silly. I appreciate the need to view Orthodox Christianity in its own terms. I suggest that we seek to understand Til on his own terms as well. I am always intrigued with WP editors who speak as though they are the commanders of others. We are equals not in knowledge, but in task. Shall we view each other that way? DonaldRichardSands (talk) 17:20, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Terms:
 * Young Earth creationism is the belief that the earth was literally created recently, within the last 6-10 thousand years ago. A modification of this is the belief that life on earth was literally created recently, with the same time frame. This modification allows for the creation of non-life components of the earth in long time before this. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 15:04, 16 October 2011 (UTC)


 * "Six days" creation is the belief that the earth was created in "six days" according to the assertions of sacred texts. Young Earth creationists usually believe that those six days were literal 24 hour days. Others who cite "six days" allow for those days to be figurative or of longer duration than days are literally. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 15:04, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * see also Day-age creationism Joja  lozzo  16:57, 16 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Theistic Evolution is the belief that God created life and then caused or influenced its development through the process of evolution. This view is compatible with naturalism. Contemporary science concerns itself with naturalistic explanations and usually does not enter into discussions about the existence of God. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 15:04, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Systemic Bias
Why is it so hard to keep information here about the Oriental Orthodox Churches' adherence to YEC? Because it doesn't fit in with the official mythos of YEC being just an American hillbilly phenomenon? The Oriental Churches are the predominant denomination in areas of Africa and Asia that were never under Roman domination, and they have always held firmly to YEC since literally year 1. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 23:53, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * There should be no problem at all maintaining information in the article if it's backed up with reliable sources. GDallimore (Talk) 00:08, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * True, and what does 'literally year 1' mean? Dougweller (talk) 05:01, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe that Adam and Eve were Oriental Orthodox Christians? LOL --  Obsidi ♠ n   Soul   07:33, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Is this discussion of any help to the article? Wekn  reven i susej eht  Talk• Follow 12:00, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes because it seems whoever is controlling this article are promoting the myth that YEC is mostly confined to the rural US, when in fact it is practically universal among Middle East Christians as well, but the article doesn't mention that, and if added it is always removed. this needs to be addressed as a case of WP:BIAS and a more global and informative article needs to result, not a propaganda piece.  And yes although Adam and Eve were of course Oriental Orthodox Christians (tongue in cheek, lol yuk yuk) I was thinking more since roughly year 1 AD, ie since the foundation attributed by the OOC to itself, by the first Apostles who visited Asia and Africa outside the Roman Empire. At any rate, what I really mean is, there has never been a time when the OOC was not YEC. This is deliberate propaganda by omission. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 12:45, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Is it bias? Wikipedia has not decided to declare itself as holding a naturalistic science point of view. Though some of its policies lean that direction. Young Earth creationism is considered FRINGE by many editors. Politicians, such as those in the European Union, often consider YEC to be a threat to science. These politicians see it as their duty to protect society from "unscientific" assertions. Often schools become the battle ground. Wikipedia reflects this bias toward naturalistic science. 69.158.91.88 (talk) 12:53, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * If the anon would read WP:BIAS, s/he might learn that I am complaining of a classical case of "systemic bias" here, not so much a POV bias. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:11, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * @Til Eulenspiegel: Which is all fine and dandy, as long as you can provide reliable third-party sources to back that up. Also, there's a bit more to creationism than just believing in the scriptures. Some element of rejecting modern scientific conclusions is required, as well. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 12:55, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The Oriental Orthodox Churches as a body explicitly and officially state that they doctrinally adhere to YEC as their teaching. What more do you want?  The sources can be dug up again if you like, but as of now we still have a one sided and skewed misleading article. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 12:59, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I have not seen any sourced discussion of this removed from the article for the months that I have been watching it. So you are either in the wrong on that point, or are posting your complaint VERY late in the day. Also, if you look up this page a bit, you might see that I started trying to piece together some surveys of worldwide belief in YEC. I hit a dead end trying to get more information from the survey-makers, so hadn't got around to introducing it into the article. Perhaps you might like to take a try based on the sources I've found and any others that you're aware of, possibly by expanding the end of the Young_Earth_creationism section.
 * By the way, if you look at the survey data above, you'll see that belief in an unchanging creation (which I suggest is a superset of YEC) is not even close to being "universal" in any country (eg 50% of egyptians belive in God-guided evolution). Sadly, the summary doesn't break the info down by religion within each country. GDallimore (Talk) 13:03, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

The Oriental Orthodox most definitely do not adhere to YEC, according to their own Pope Shenouda III in his book "So many years with The Problems of People":
 * "[Q] How can the saying of the Bible that God created the world in six days coincide with the opinion of the geologists that the age of the earth is thousands even millions of years?
 * Answer: The days of creation are not Solar days as our days now. The day of creation is a period of time, not known how long, which could haven been a second or thousands or millions of years. This period was determined by the saying "so the evening and the morning were..."

and
 * "Let the geologists say then whatever they want about the age of the earth; for the Bible did not mention any age for the earth that may contradict the views of the geologists. The way the Lord looks to the measurement of time is explained by the apostle as follows: "With the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day" (2 Pet. 3:8)."[].

Til Eulenspiegel is talking nonsense. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 14:24, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Dominus, our goal here is to understand Til Eulenspiegel's concern. To proclaim his talk "nonsense" doesn't seem very helpful. You have quoted from Pope Shenouda III. Let's identify the source for Pope Shenouda's statement and who in particular consider his statements authoritative. I understand that there are six different faith groups which associate as Oriental Orthodoxy. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 15:43, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * @Til Eulenspiegel, is Pope Shenouda III a spokesperson for the Oriental Orthodox group as a whole, or just the Coptic Orthodox group? DonaldRichardSands (talk) 15:43, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Re the term "Creationist". Clear lines can be drawn between a YEC worldview and other worldviews. The YEC worldview does not allow for earth's biological life to be millions of years old. The quotes from Pope Shenouda seem to indicate that he is willing to consider the possibility of an old earth-old life view. This is often called OEC, or Old Earth Creationist view. Til Eulenspiegel is it your contention that Oriental Orthodoxy holds exclusively to a YEC worldview? DonaldRichardSands (talk) 15:43, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

It has been 3 months since Til said he would be offering sources for his claims. I think that's enough time to allow him to get home; has there been any word on where these reliable sources are for his claims? SuperAtheist (talk) 17:24, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Adhering Church Bodies
This section is intended for an examination of official church statements on the age of the earth. It is important to distinguish between the belief in common descent and in the age of the earth. For example, the Southern Baptist Convention seems to adhere to the special creation of Adam and Eve as the first humans even though it makes no statement on the age of the earth. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 15:54, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

The Evangelical Reformed Presbyterian Church states:
 * 13.) We affirm that the Scriptures teach that the heavens and the earth were created in six literal and contiguous twenty-four hour days, and that the Scriptures teach a recent origin for the entire creation. 24

Compare this to the Seventh-day Adventist statement:
 * 6. Creation: God is Creator of all things, and has revealed in Scripture the authentic account of His creative activity. In six days the Lord made "the heaven and the earth" and all living things upon the earth, and rested on the seventh day of that first week. Thus He established the Sabbath as a perpetual memorial of His completed creative work. The first man and woman were made in the image of God as the crowning work of Creation, given dominion over the world, and charged with responsibility to care for it. When the world was finished it was ``very good,'' declaring the glory of God.

The Southern Baptist Convention has a statement about man:
 * Man is the special creation of God, made in His own image. He created them male and female as the crowning work of His creation. The gift of gender is thus part of the goodness of God's creation. In the beginning man was innocent of sin and was endowed by his Creator with freedom of choice. By his free choice man sinned against God and brought sin into the human race. Through the temptation of Satan man transgressed the command of God, and fell from his original innocence whereby his posterity inherit a nature and an environment inclined toward sin. Therefore, as soon as they are capable of moral action, they become transgressors and are under condemnation. Only the grace of God can bring man into His holy fellowship and enable man to fulfill the creative purpose of God. The sacredness of human personality is evident in that God created man in His own image, and in that Christ died for man; therefore, every person of every race possesses full dignity and is worthy of respect and Christian love.

Missouri Synod of the Lutheran Church
 * We affirm that Adam and Eve were real historical human beings, the first two people in the world, and that their fall was a historical occurrence which brought sin into the world so that “since the fall of Adam all men who are propagated according to nature are born in sin”...

Comments

Of the faith communities quoted only one makes specific mention of a young earth, i.e. The Evangelical Reformed Presbyterian Church. Some in the Seventh-day Adventist Church are advocating a change in wording to be more like the wording of the ERPC. Can we say that the SDA church is a Young Earth creationist denomination? Yes and No. Confusing? How about the Southern Baptist Convention. Baptists are congregationalists it seems. Are all, most, or few Baptists of the YEC persuasion? It seems that most SBC members do not believe in common descent evolution. Does this make them YEC? Not necessarily. The key to this ambiguity is that the Scriptures do not clearly advocate an age of the earth. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 16:24, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

More Faith Communities

The Roman Catholic Church  John Paul II, if I remember correctly, clarified the RCC's stand re: common descent evolution and that it did not necessarily conflict with the church's doctrine.

The Eastern Orthodox Church The Russian Orthodox Church, quoted in a section above, considers the days of creation to be different than the literal days of the week.

The Oriental Orthodox Church The Syrian Catechism, also quoted above, seems to be teaching a literal understanding of the creation week. Dominus provided a quote from the Coptic Church's pope providing evidence that at least the Coptic church of the Oriental Orthodox Church view the days like the Eastern Orthodox Church does. Til Eulenspiegel reports that the Middle East churches of the Oriental Orthodox adhere to a Young Earth view. He plans to provide documentation for this.

More Comments Obviously, these views are not easy to determine if the faith community does not state a position. Belated signature DonaldRichardSands (talk) 14:11, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Views on Prehistoric Life
The article states that creationists do not deny the existence of prehistoric life-forms such as dinosaurs, but I find that an equally common view among creationists is that dinosaurs never actually existed, but their bones were put here by God to test our faith. I, of course, think this is pure bullshit, as are most creationist views, but since this article is meant to give information on the views of creationists, it is somewhat incorrect to say none of them deny the existence of the animals. Just to once again be clear, I do not support these views whatsoever and I'm actually quite the dinosaur enthusiast. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.148.242 (talk) 10:11, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Can we document the sources which say that God put the bones here to test our faith? DonaldRichardSands (talk) 15:43, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course, for YECs "prehistoric" never existed, as the world was created in historic times. The only mention of the word in the article is in the section on the Omphalos hypothesis which I think covers the view being discussed, though not its application to dinosaurs. As Donald says, source needed. . dave souza, talk 18:54, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Prehistoric refers to the time prior to recorded history. Many conservative Biblical scholars hold to the idea that Moses wrote Genesis. This places Abraham in prehistory since he lived prior to Moses' written account. Even Biblical adherents can recognize an age prior to recorded history. The difference, of course, is that some believe that Moses' (or whoever's) account is reliable. If we mean by prehistoric, prehuman, Young earth creationists don't accept that any age of history was prehuman. I have heard the idea of God testing humanity but have not seen the documentation for it. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 16:14, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Good points. A minor quibble, some Pre-Adamites appear to have been YEC in the broad sense, but not in the post-1960 version. . dave souza, talk 18:57, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Some sources relevant to dinosaurs, age of the earth, fossils, etc.
I have been searching for sources which advocate the idea that fossils have been placed there by God as a test. So far, I have found no sources advocating such a view. I have found quite a few sources that say some creationists advocate it. A few of these say that it was a view held in the middle ages. Others attribute the view as more recent. The search continues for a source which advocates this "God is testing us" view. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 18:16, 29 October 2011 (UTC) --

Questions about God: a guide for students by Patrick J. Clarke, Nelson Thornes, 2001 - Religion - 197 pages

"Creationists have responded to these claims with the reply that God, by miraculous means, has altered the fossil record as a test of faith. Tis has led to the distinction between the actual age of the earth, and the apparent age of the earth. In this view, the earth was created according to Genesis about 10 000 years ago, but has an apparent age of millioins of years." p. 67

Resource for students studying courses involving understanding the philosophy of religion. Four main areas of importance for student understanding: The Existence and Nature of God, God and Science, God and Experience and God and Language.

"This view has been expressed by A. J. Monty White in How Old is the Earth? (1985): 'We can see clearly that the Bible teaches that created a mature creation that had superficial appearance of age.' He dismisses the theory of evolution as a prejudice that forces a reading rocks and fossils as millions, not thousands, of years old! The refusal of creationists to yield to scientific advances that conflict with the Bible is a reflection of their concern to preserve the religious and moral implications of the Bible's message. But many would argue that this is too high a price to pay for something that can be preserved and upheld in harmony with evolution.

Views of the world

Scientific The world is a natural product of a scientific event that took place 20 billion years ago. It was probably a random, or chance, event.

Religious The world was ultimately intended to exist by God and is sutained by his power. It is the testing ground for man to work out his salvation. "

page 68

--

The challenge of creation: Judaism's encounter with science, cosmology, and evolution, Nosson Slifkin, Natan Slifkin, Zoo Torah, 2006 - Religion - 357 pages

p. 159

"Some claim that God might have implanted such a false history in order to test our faith in the truth of the Torah. There are, however, considerable theological difficulties with such a theory...

“This work demonstrates that grappling with issues such as evolution, the age of the universe, the literalism of our sacred texts, miracles, divine providence, and the scientific worldview in general can result in a new appreciation of the breadth and depth of our Torah... Seekers, whether new to the Jewish observance or born into the Orthodox fold, will find in this work a model of honest confrontation with serious challenges. The Challenge of Creation spells out these challenges articulately, analyzes them keenly, and refers to impeccable and authoritative traditional sources to address them... Rabbi Slifkin is to be commended for his contribution to our abiding faith as well as for his courageous intellectual honesty.” Rabbi Dr. Tzvi Hersh Weinreb Executive Vice President, The Orthodox Union "In this revised edition of The Science of Torah, Rabbi Slifkin addresses creation and evolution with courage and integrity. Eschewing apologetics, Rabbi Slifkin sets down a highly sophisticated and deeply religious account of how an informed contemporary Jew is to think about the biblical story of creation. Clear, cogent, and philosophically convincing, Rabbi Slifkin's The Challenge of Creation is an intellectual kiddush Hashem (sanctification of God's Name)." Professor Yehuda Gellman Department of Philosophy, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev Author, Experience of God and the Rationality of Theistic Belief "The Challenge of Creation is a wonderful and important book. Rabbi Slifkin demonstrates that cosmology and evolution are not a threat to religion and that Orthodox Judaism should not be hostile to modern science. On the contrary, educated Jews should embrace scientific progress as giving us a better understanding of and appreciation for the glory of God. Rabbi Slifkin writes with clarity and logic and with a firm grasp of the scientific issues. He provides extensive references to a wide range of Torah giants whose interpretations show that cosmology and evolution are not alien from our tradition. It is an invaluable resource for those of us in communities where the scientific ideas described in this book are known to be firmly established and where students, friends and colleagues constantly question us about traditional Judaism's views on modern science." Professor Carl Rosenzweig Department of Physics and Astronomy, Syracuse University "No one could read this book without being aware of the author's deeply spiritual nature and his absolute devotion to the faith of his fathers. At the same time, one meets a man for whom the world is God's creation and it is for us, made in God's image, to go forward bravely exploring and trying to understand this creation. Rabbi Slifkin shows us that modern science is in the end a wonderful hymn to what God has wrought, and its appreciation enriches our lives and makes possible an even greater respect for, and love of, the Author of all things." Professor Michael Ruse Department of Philosophy, Florida State University Author, The Darwinian Revolution and Darwin and Design

---

The good life: options in ethics, Burton Frederick Porter, Rowman & Littlefield, 2009 - Philosophy - 265 pages

"In defense of the religious view, theologians sometimes used implausible arguments such as 'God planted fossils on earth to test our faith,' or 'He made the world complete with dinosaur remains.',   p. 133

A primer in ethics focusing on ultimate aims in living as proposed throughout philosophic history. Preliminary chapters cover the relation between ethics and science, religion, and psychology, as well as the challenge of relativism and determinism. The central section explores the ethical theories of hedonism, from the Greeks to the Utilitarians; self-realization, both of the individual and of our humanness, naturalism, including the Stoics and Transcendentalists; evolutionism as presented by both Darwin and Spencer; the ethic of duty of Immanuel Kant; religious systems including Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and Buddhism; virtue ethics in traditional and feminist forms; and existentialism from Nietzsche to Sartre. At various points, key concepts are introduced such as egoism and altruism, hard and soft determinism, deontology vs. teleology, and act and rule approaches to ethics. In addition, the 'standard of reasonableness' is discussed as a means of evaluating the ethical options.

-

Building Blocks in Science, Gary Parker, New Leaf Publishing Group, 2007 - Religion - 160 pages

An evolution-free look at the life sciences for junior high students.

"Dinosaurs seemed to provide such powerful support for evolution that a few Christians began to believe (incorrectly) that dinosaurs were all fakes, or maybe bones put in the ground by Satan to test the Christian's faith!", p. 45

-

The last dinosaur book: the life and times of a cultural icon, W. J. Thomas Mitchell, University of Chicago Press, 1998 - 321 pages

"In the Middle Ages, fossil bones were thought to be a hoax played by God to test the faith of Christians..." , p. 16

For animals that have been dead millions of years, dinosaurs are extraordinarily pervasive in our everyday lives. Appearing in ads, books, movies, museums, television, toy stores, and novels, they continually fascinate both adults and children. How did they move from natural extinction to pop culture resurrection? What is the source of their powerful appeal? Until now, no one has addressed this question in a comprehensive way. In this lively and engrossing exploration of the animal's place in our lives, W.J.T. Mitchell shows why we are so attached to the myth and the reality of the "terrible lizards." Mitchell aims to trace the cultural family tree of the dinosaur, and what he discovers is a creature of striking flexibility, linked to dragons and mammoths, skyscrapers and steam engines, cowboys and Indians. In the vast territory between the cunning predators of Jurassic Park and the mawkishly sweet Barney, from political leviathans to corporate icons, from paleontology to Barnum and Bailey, Mitchell finds a cultural symbol whose plurality of meaning and often contradictory nature is emblematic of modern society itself. As a scientific entity, the dinosaur endured a near-eclipse for over a century, but as an image it is enjoying its widest circulation. And it endures, according to Mitchell, because it is uniquely malleable, a figure of both innovation and obsolescence, massive power and pathetic failure--the totem animal of modernity. Drawing unforeseen and unusual connections at every turn between dinosaurs real and imagined, The Last Dinosaur Book is the first to delve so deeply, so insightfully, and so enjoyably into our modern dino-obsession.

On fossils
Thanks for finding these. Historically, fossil meant anything that had been dug up from the ground. In the early 17th century, some collectors regarded what we'd call fossils as simply curiously shaped stones, or possibly stones shaped by a "plastick virtue" to mimic living things. Protestantism introduced a literal rather than symbolic interpretation of the Bible, and also may have encouraged the development of science taking a realistic view of findings, though there was a context that science had to be reconciled with biblical history.

Nicolas Steno found fossils which he recognised as shark's teeth, and in 1669 published this with a geological sequence of strata which he attributed to two episodes of deposition: the creation, and the deluge. Robert Hooke found fossils of wood, and in 1668 read a paper to the Royal Society, his "Discourse on Earthquakes" which described fossils as the remains of animals and plants buried in sediment. He proposed that the seabed had been raised by violent earth movements such as the sinking of Atlantis within the time of human history. He also found fossils without living equivalents, and proposed that "Animal Beings may have been destroyed" in the earth's convulsions, an early concept of extinction.

Extinction posed theological problems with its implication that modern populations differed from those at the creation. The founder of natural theology and influential proponent of the design argument John Ray could not accept that a caring God would create species then let them die out in a natural catastrophe. In 1692 he argued that the unknown species must be alive in unexplored areas of the world, but in 1713 he took up Edward Lhuyd's proposal that they came from seeds that somehow grew in rocks to mimic living forms.

In 1695 the antiquarian John Woodward attributed the fossils he had collected to Noah's flood, with denser organisms sinking to greater depths to explain strata. Around then most naturalists thought his explanation unlikely, but the explanation is nowadays commonly used by YECs. In 1681 Thomas Burnet proposed the earth's formation from dead stars as a perfect sphere with waters inside, and the deluge caused by the spherical crust collapsing to form mountains and force up the water. He responded to the problem that this made God's punishment a natural, and hence inevitable, occurrence, by arguing that an omniscient God would have foreseen the need for punishment and pre-arranged the catastrophe accordingly. In 1691 Gottfried Leibniz published the view that this implied gradual cooling, and that fossils showed that many rocks had been formed by natural processes in the course of Earth's history. Benoît de Maillet proposed that the Earth was billions of years old in his Telliamed written around 1700 but only published posthumously in 1748. Source: * pp. 32–38.

So, quite an old discussion. Of course dinosaurs weren't discovered until the early 19th century, by which time geologists accepted ancient earth going back millions or billions of years. . dave souza, talk 16:31, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The Bowler source helps. He doesn't seem to mention anyone who considered fossils to be fakes planted by God to test faith. The idea is certainly asserted by critics but it has not been established that contemporary YECs assert it. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 22:50, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * True. Wekn  reven i susej eht  Talk• Follow 10:02, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * OTOH, Price described the fossil-based sequence of the geologic time scale as "the devil's counterfeit of the six days of Creation as recorded in the first chapter of Genesis." Cite: Numbers, have edited accordingly...... dave souza, talk 10:58, 1 November 2011 (UTC)


 * This Price quote by Numbers is interesting. Price seems concerned about the sequence of fossils. How did Price view dinosaurs? Numbers, Ronald L. The creationists. University of California Press, 1993 - 458 pages, page 81
 * Seems to me like a fringe view within a fringe view. Wekn  reven i susej eht  Talk• Follow 18:57, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Proposal to add this group and others like it to Categories: Cults
I think it's safe to say from the discussions on Wikipedia the past few years that we have enough consensus to start adding some of these organizations to Categories: Cults. Wikipedia's definition of a cult is "The word cult in current popular usage usually refers to a group whose beliefs or practices are considered abnormal or bizarre", which I think some of these YEC and anti-evolution groups fall into. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.231.231.231 (talk) 12:23, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * For something that's generally viewed as highly derogatory, I would say we'd need a reliable source to make this categorisation. GDallimore (Talk) 13:00, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that reliable sources would be needed to use such a label. Note that WP refers to both beliefs and practices considered bizarre. What is bizarre practice? Kneeling to pray to the God who created heaven and earth? YEC groups include most fundamentalist churches, some Evangelical churches, and some respectable post-secondary institutions related to those denominations. I also suggest that those who want to label a belief in the Biblical account of origins as cultic are setting the stage for evolutionists to lead the way in persecuting such belief. It is a slippery slope which some believe will lead to the persecution prophesied in the Bible. Jesus predicted a consensus among those who would persecute his fellowers. He also warned against a consensus in favor of a person. "Beware when all men speak well of you." Beware of a consensus that wants to negatively label a person, or a group. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 13:30, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Labelling often results from fear. If we can call a group a "cult" then more people will avoid them. If we label a group "Fringe" then the unsuspecting will be protected from confusing real science from "fringe" science. I recall reading an official statement from the EU. In the statement the fear of Fringe science was evident. The statement felt that science, necessary for civil advancement, was threatened by creationism which denied evolutionism. The search for truth is curtailed by labels, IMO. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 13:54, 10 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I would be against this categorisation, above and beyond the lack of WP:RS. Whilst YEC may share "abnormal or bizarre" beliefs in common with cults, so do many WP:FRINGE movements. Structurally the YEC movement demonstrates little commonality with typical cults, being more diffuse and having more in common with general Right-wing authoritarianism than with a generally specific-leader-centric and isolationist 'cult'. The label therefore seems prima facie inaccurate. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:14, 11 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Strong Against It's just a weird belief. There's lots of those, especially if it's culturally supported.  Cults have very specific definitions, and it does not fit YEC.  --Harizotoh9 (talk) 19:22, 11 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Strong Against As above. And it may be fringe, but certainly not weird. rossnixon 02:14, 12 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Strong opposed YEC is definitely a bunch of anti-science, brain-dead cretins, but they do not meet any definition of a cult. Usually, a cult requires a figure for devotion, and there just isn't one here.  Can we drop this?   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 02:25, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong Against Too much support from mainstream to be considered a cult. Wekn  reven i susej eht  Talk• Follow 17:14, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Removing passive voice.
I recently edited a section that read "creation science has nonetheless been found to be unscientific" to read "the consensus among scientists is that creation science is unscientific." The person who reverted me noted in the edit summary that the edit did not improve the article. I beg to differ. The original phrasing was passive voice: WHO has found CS to be unscientific? Did it just happen? My version assigns a degree of agency to the scientists who have taken an informed position of the question. Any freshman writing seminar will tell you that passive voice weakens arguments. I'm a relative noob here, so I won't revert, but I would like some input as to why we should prefer second-rate writing. PaulHA2 (talk) 17:11, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * My aplogies my edit summary referred to your edit "period of time" which I reverted to "period" Regards Theroadislong (talk) 17:21, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, fair enough. I'll re-insert the part I really care about, if that's okay with you. PaulHA2 (talk) 17:25, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Removing Pornographic pictures
What I don't like is the pictures you guys put. I understand that on the picture you have for young earth creationism is the famous painting of Adam and God, but I still think it's pornographic. I understand if when you look up a body part it shows the picture, but when your looking at something Biblical you should not have this and this isn't the first time something like this has happened. I would say for all your biblical pages you shouldn't have pornographic pictures. Maybe if you think the pictures are needed (Which I don't) you could create a page just for those, but certainly don't have them on biblical pages. You guys can do whatever you want I guess I will just decided to get all my information off another website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.60.205.1 (talk) 04:00, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * If you are offended by one of the greatest works of art in the history of humanity simply because it portrays a naked man, then perhaps you should investigate the difference between porn and art. I also highly recommend visiting some public art galleries as an excellent mind-expanding experience. GDallimore (Talk) 11:00, 6 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I also recommend reading more of the Bible. It has highly "pornographic" and extremely violent passages that you might want to censor as well.-- O BSIDIAN  †  S OUL  11:10, 6 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Careful, obsidian, this is not a censorship issue. As the anon (sort of) says, the picture is unecessary for understanding the topic, so removing it from the article would not be censorship, at least not a form of censorship that WP policy would prevent. What this is is one person with a view of what's inappropriate and pornographic which is so far removed from what is reasonable (I was almost tempted to think it was a joke but I'm too cynical) that this needs explaining to them along with a clear consensus that their minority opinion does not carry enough weight to change the situation. Sort of an allegory for this article as a whole, really... GDallimore (Talk) 15:58, 6 February 2012 (UTC)


 * What, no appreciation for Science and Culture? . . dave souza, talk 11:25, 6 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I knew it, Adam had no balls and the Vitruvian Man is a eunuch!.-- O BSIDIAN  †  S OUL  12:59, 6 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Several discussions have already been made on this topic. You may wish to read them. Fortunately, the photo is at a small scale. Wekn  reven  Confer 15:46, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Violation of the NPOV
Much of this article (mainly the intro) contains an evolution theory extremist point of view. Also, the third paragraph is extremely bias by implying the all pious/religious people are unintelligent. It does not matter whether it is fact or not, all that matters is that your numbers are screwed up because according to quite a few other wiki pages, over 77% of the worlds population is religious and 78.4% of the U.S. population is Christian meaning that a Creationism page is defiantly no place for a minority anti-religious group who tries to use evidence that proves creationism is correct to try and prove them wrong like evolution THEORY.

There are many parts of the article that contain irrelevant or opinionated sentences trying to state that creationism is wrong (though, on a person note, my Rubik's Theorem proves he is failing at doing it, so therefor, there is just an excessive amount of irrelevant garbage mixed in with a few relevant neutral sentences).

So could we please work towards fixing up this page so it is no long bias stop it from violating Wiki's Neutral Point of View policy any more then it already is. Thanks!

Rartrin (talk) 01:11, 5 June 2012 (UTC)


 * It is not POV to state that there is no scientific basis for YEC. If as, you say, there are (unsourced) statements that YEC is simply wrong, please point them out for us here. Joja  lozzo  02:23, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

NPOV does not mean removing critical information or giving equal weight to fringe scientific positions. See: --Harizotoh9 (talk) 01:54, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:UNDUE - Undue weight
 * WP:FRINGE - Fringe theories


 * Just to throw in my position: I would also prefer it if the lead did not have a lot of the content that it does. But the sad truth is that significantly vocal young earth creationists have decided to set up a battle ground against science so it is only NPOV (ie giving due weight to important topics in field of YEC) to provide the majority view of YEC in the lead of the article. GDallimore (Talk) 10:02, 5 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Okay, read the third paragraph and prove to me that it doesn't practically say that most pious/religious people are unintelligent. Those numbers are wrong either way, I checked a dozen other sites all claiming the exact opposite, plus, the data has no source. Rartrin (talk) 01:57, 6 June 2012 (UTC) and
 * I read it and that paragraph doesn't say that at all. It talks about education, not intelligence. Contrary to what you say, it is also sourced (Reference 8 and 9). If you have sources with different numbers, you are welcome to bring them here so we can update the article.--McSly (talk) 02:17, 6 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Here is why it is a violation of the religion section of the NPOV policy.

Also, my bad on the references, I hadn't seen them at first but now that I do, I look at them and notice that it was accidently misinterpreted and mislead a little from what the data was actually about. Could we fix the wording so that it specifically states that 47% of people believe that people were created by god directly (Adam and Eve) and 27% believe that god only guilded the creation of man. As well as how the higher the education the more people believe that god only guilded them. Plus we should also stated that the data is ten to twenty years old. >Rartrin< — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rartrin (talk • contribs) 02:53, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Just because you believe in the judeo-christian god of the bible does not mean you subscribe to young-earth creationism, only a small subset of Christians believe in an absolute literal interpretation of the Bible, and with good reason, it's borderline insane. YEC purports it's self as science, therefore it's labeled pseudoscience and therefore we treat it as a science topic in which it's WP:FRINGE and WP:WEIGHT come into play. — raeky  t  04:05, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Raeky, As a creationist, I have learned to accept the labels of WP:FRINGE and to acknowledge the need for not adding undue WP:WEIGHT. I am rather intrigued with the label of "borderline insane." I cannot comment on my own mental state, such a denial can't be trusted. lol. You have a right to your own opinion, of course. As I read the leading scientists in their defense of an ancient earth, I have not come across such invective. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 16:25, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Obviously that's my own opinion on people who reject all the facts of science and everything we've learned about the world and cling to a bronze age book as literal truth. I don't find YEC much different than Flat Earth Society people, Holocaust denialism or other of other groups of people who operate outside of normality. Sure it's probably a bit of a jab at such people, but tbh that's how I, and probably A LOT of other people think. — raeky  t  20:25, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * As parables show, it's impossible to hold a literally literal reading of everything in the Bible, but biblical literalism is a term for a specific set of interpretations. Belief in a young earth entails rejection of geology, and was found untenable by the (creationist) geologists of the late 18th century onwards. However it's unnecessary and impolite to call such beliefs "borderline insane", they merely conflict with empirical findings accepted by most Christians as well as nearly all scientists. Ron Numbers is interesting reading on the struggles YECs such as Price had with stubborn facts. . dave souza, talk 17:09, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 1. It is extremely possible to have a literal reading of the Bible.
 * 2. On a personal note, I find it unhealthy to not be religious. It has been SCIENTIFICALLY proven that people who believe in some form of religion are happier than those who don't. To me, atheism seems like a disease, it strips you of your morals and then there is nothing stopping you from doing something stupid right before you are going to die and end up hurting or even killing many people.
 * 3. According to the same source as the second sentence in the second paragraph (#9), More Christians believe in Young Earth Creationism then Christians that don't.
 * Rartrin (talk) 03:43, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Your going to try the moral argument against atheism? really? Thats like so last year. Believing anything is possible, but all logical reason, evidence and every branch of human understanding and knowledge shows that taking everything from the bible as literal is just wrong. As for the polls in the article, polls are not a good way to tell what people really think, it's far to easy to skew the results and they're hardly ever accurate... Considering that about 25% of Christians in the united states are catholic... Either way, argumentum ad populum is not a valid argument. The source for your "scientifically" proven hypothesis that people who believe in the magical sky daddy is happier? — raeky  t  03:54, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm glad that you understand my point about the fact data can be easily skewed with which is why we should change the second and third paragraph so that it's wording is as misleading as it already is (that was sarcasm if you didn't know). Also, since 80% of people in the United States are of a religion using the old testament and since Catholics use the Old Testament (I don't understand why you mentioned Catholics, they use the same Bible, even though Christians aren't the only religion that uses the Bible), atheist are quite lucky to not get beaten up for arguing, because the fact that unlike atheists, we have morals. Because the fact your comment was either meant to be and insult in which case it was extremely biased and racist, other wise you just proved you know very little about religion due to the fact that Christians, Catholics, Jews, and most other main religions today all use the Old Testament, therefor Your Argument is Invalid!
 * Rartrin (Converse in General "Chit" and "Chat") 04:59, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Judaism and Islam also use the old testament, your point? Roman Catholics accept evolution and the scientific age of the universe and earth, therefore are not YEC, that was my point. Just because you identify as christian or use the old testament, as you seem to say, does not mean you accept it as literal. The moral argument is just an false, if you even cared enough to do a cursory search on the internet you'd see how debunked and foolish that argument is. The God of the Old Testament is hardly a moral being... so how can you say the morals of the bible are ANYTHING you'd want to follow? — raeky  t  05:07, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

First, a general warning that talk pages are not forums for general discussion of the topic at hand, but are for the improvement of the article. Stick to article discussion. See WP:NOTAFORUM. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 06:19, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * See above, with a note that discretionary sanctions do exist for this particular topic area and can be imposed by any uninvolved administrator, so everyone should be extra vigilant to keep a cool head and stay on task.  elektrik SHOOS  (talk) 06:58, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I would remind contributors that this is the English Language version of Wikipedia, not the 'US Edition'. It's useful to know how many people believe in YEC but references to various percentages of practising religionists in the USA should be irrelevant in determining the content or bias of this article. In the 2011 census, 65% of UK citizens described themselves as 'not religious'. I don't know what the figures would be from other English-speaking countries but from a non-American perspective, Abrahamic and YEC beliefs would appear to be held by only a tiny minority of the populace. 80.176.88.21 (talk) 09:15, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry not to WP:AGF, and I don't conclude this often, but this has to be a troll. The OP is rife with cliche logical fallacies and specious conclusions. The responses seem to misinterpret obvious wording (i.e "read the third paragraph and prove to me that it doesn't practically say that most pious/religious people are unintelligent" - something it obviously doesn't say). Then we have "according to other wiki pages," which seems to beg a response of "wikis can be edited by anyone and aren't WP:RS's." Then there's the fully capitalized THEORY. Sorry, too much; the entire thing seems perfectly constructed to troll. On the other hand, it's a truism that parody is indistinguishable from extremism. S Æ don talk 10:31, 12 June 2012 (UTC)


 * That's unfair. Just because someone believes in some anti-science propaganga doesn't make them a troll. Sadly, the anti-science propagaganda is the reason this article has to be so pro-science to respond to the outlandish pseudoscientific claims some people make in support of their religious preferences. This article would be so much better without it. Any chance of a fork to focus on the modern creationist's attempts to discredit science so that this article can focus on the relgious perspectives? GDallimore (Talk) 12:47, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * So let's get back on track, shall we?  Wekn  TAKN 14:04, 12 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Erm, that's what I was trying to do... GDallimore (Talk) 16:19, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Exactly, and I was seconding it.


 * As we have it now, 80.176.88.21 (I believe) was trying to point out that, instead of including just statistics on YEC in the United States, we should advance to a more global level -- in the introductory section. True, the movement is, percentage-wise, most concentrated there, but as it is not limited to the states, but widespread (as a minority) in other countries, like Britain, Korea, Russia, and Australia. Instead of devoting an entire beginning paragraph to American statistics, why not just state that YEC is most prevalent among the populace in the United States?  Wekn  TAKN 11:22, 13 June 2012 (UTC)