Talk:Young Earth creationism/Archive 6

Note on the Gallup poll that gives % of "scientists" that believe in forms of creationism

I brought this up ages ago but it seems that in that time the change we agreed on was reverted. If you bother reading the sentence below the table that gives the number of "scientists" that hold those opinions you would see that "scientist" is defined as "someone with a professional degree in science". This is an important distinction because some would define a scientist as someone with a pHd in science, or someone whose employeed to actively research some aspect of science. To avoid confusion and allegations of intentionally misleading readers the poll's definition of scientist should be emphasised. Eccentricned (talk) 18:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I say get rid of the poll altogether. An opinion poll, of people from a certain country with a certain degree, has nothing to do with scientific criticism of YEC. Opinion polls are only an illustration of a subject's level of support or belief. With respect, scientists are not generally valued for their beliefs. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:50, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

It is clear that the description of the poll in the article does not agree with the description of the poll in the reference [63]. The correct description for the group is not "US adults with professional degrees in science" but rather should be "scientists" in order to accurately describe the poll. Regardless, as noted above, this opinion poll is not really appropriate for inclusion in an encyclopedia article describing this subject and should simply be removed from he article. Mkwelborn (talk) 03:16, 19 June 2008 (UTC) —

Are polls or "voting" permitted for both sides or only one side? Comments such as "our side" has more scientists than "your side" seem to be permitted by Ec5618 for an anti YEC viewpoint, but what about a poll such as Gallup? I didn't read the poll, but they do have a long history for poll-taking. Kristinwt (talk) 05:50, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Capital "C" or lowercase "c"

I'm just wondering if creation should have a capital "C" in it or a lowercase "c". There seems to be no reason to regard it as a proper noun. I see some logic, per the Wikipedia Manual of Style recommendation, in using a capital letter for the Creator, as this is a proper name. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 16:45, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Since there have been no responses, shall I conclude that the event of "creation" should indeed have a lowercase "c" since it is not a proper noun, whereas "Creator" should have an upper case "C"? siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 13:30, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I would agree that "creationism" should be lc; "creator" should only be UC when it refers to a particular (supposed) deity. TheresaWilson (talk) 13:37, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually I was referring to the supposed event of "creation". I note that, whereas here the term is nearly always lower case, at Dating Creation it is everywhere uppercase in seeming defiance of the Manual of Style. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 13:44, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Same applies, if a deity is involved then, I suppose, it should be capped. If not then no. (As it's all rather silly (IMHO) it really doesn't matter but no need to needlessly offend the believers.) TheresaWilson (talk) 13:48, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I think only "God" (when talking specifically about the Judeo-Christian god, in a similar manner to Allah, its Muslim equivalent) should be capitalised. If we capitalise "creator" and "creation", then where do we stop? "Redeemer"/"Redemption"? "Saviour"/"Salvation"? "Messiah"? If you capitalise one function/byname of godhood, surely you'd have to capitalise them all. Better to only capitalise the god's proper name (be it the Judeo-Christian "God", the Judaic "Yahweh", the Islamic "Allah" or the Norse "Odin"), and leave creator, saviour, old-one-eye, etc in lower case. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 14:24, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Can't argue with that! TheresaWilson (talk) 14:27, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, according to the MoS recommendation:

Proper nouns and titles referencing deities are capitalized: God, Allah, Freya, the Lord, the Supreme Being, the Messiah.

I believe that "Creator" falls within the scope of this recommendation, although I could be wrong. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 14:34, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

It seems that the convention would be Creator--creation, Redeemer--redemption, etc. Christian Skeptic (talk) 15:49, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Unless it's a creator in the form of a little green man as possible in some scenarios of course. TheresaWilson (talk) 16:25, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't see what the big deal is in changing it. Both Scientific American and TalkOrigins use it in lower case. I could probably find dozens more sources. The Squicks (talk) 03:07, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think it matters more for other articles like Dating Creation (which seems to take a more apologetics POV than it should), where both "Creator" and "Creation" are capitalized throughout. However, in this article "Creator" at least I can see as conforming to the manual of style (and thus should be capitalized per Wikipedia's conventions) whereas "Creation" should definitely not be capitalized. I just wanted to make sure that this was in accord with the prevailing opinion of editors, but there seems to be no especially coherent opinion on the matter one way or the other. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 04:07, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I mean, we should use whatever conventions the reliable sources use, shouldn't we? Our personal preferences-- this looks cleaner, this doesn't-- aren't at issue. The Squicks (talk) 04:37, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Why hasn't this article been condensed and merged with Creation Science?

While I'm sure that serious students of the topic enjoy the differences between YEC and Creation Science, I don't think that the two topics are, on their face, distinct enough to warrant separate articles. This entry is far too long and the authors have spent far too much time relating useless detail after useless detail (as well as the obligatory criticism of those details). Call a spade a spade: while YEC might mean the world to some editors, it's really just another footnote of creation science which, in turn, is just a footnote of theology. Let's strive for clarity, Wikipedians, and stop clogging the tubes with this overwrought prose. 98.219.34.116 (talk) 01:04, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

For the record, this previous entry belongs to me. I see that I'm still unable to edit this article, but as soon as I'm able to do so I will suggest that it be condensed and merged with the creation science article. If the stewards of this verbose article care to address that same verbosity then I would be happy to hear their arguments. EDITED TO INCLUDE SIGNATURE Highmind89 (talk) 04:02, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you will get far in combining this with another page. There is a BIG difference between YEC and Creation Science. If anything Creation Science might be considered just a footnote to or phase of YEC. True, YEC is a religious belief, just the same as Naturalism-- the basis for Abiogenesis and Evolutionism. Creation Science is simply science done within the paradigm of YEC just as Evolutionary science is done within the paradigm of Naturalism. I agree that it may be a bit verbose..... Christian Skeptic (talk) 04:55, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Christian Skeptic's claims are fallacious:

1. Methodological naturalism is not a "religious belief" (and in fact even metaphysical naturalism could be argued not to be a religious belief, merely a contra-religious one)
2. Creation science is not "science done within the paradigm of YEC" -- as (i) it does not attempt to do anything beyond trying to find 'evidence' to support its own original premise of YEC ('YEC therefore YEC' -- hardly profound) -- so is valueless for anything other than YEC Christian apologetics and (ii) it's 'research' is largely mere quote mining of legitimate scientific research.

Whether separate articles are needed for YEC and pseudoscientific apologetics for YEC (i.e. 'Creation Science') is another matter. My impression is that there is insufficient overlap to warrant merging and more than sufficient RS information to support the two separate articles . Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 06:47, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, there are many creationists who are scientists that do more than just look for evidence of Creation. Christian Skeptic is right in that Creation science is "science done within the paradigm of YEC". Science does not aim to to prove either creation or evolution. Both of them are beliefs, and both interpret the same evidence differently. Don't bother getting Creation science changed to "pseudoscientific apologetics for YEC", because it's blatant POV pushing, and will never happen. --Pwnage8 (talk) 15:33, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

We're getting off topic, but, yes, there are a small number of creationists who are also scientists. But they do not publish their creationist "research", at least not in the scientific literature. Monday to Friday, 9am to 5pm, they work as professional scientists in a range of fields (predominantly the physical sciences), and publish papers in these fields much as other scientists do. But there's a cavernous gulf between this work and their creationism, as evidenced by both their own scientific output and the absence of creationist concepts in science. I don't know how these creationist scientists do it, but one can't but admire their ability to resist cognitive dissonance. But, I guess, when you know you're right ... --PLUMBAGO 16:02, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Look, all of this is completely beside the point. My 2 cents is that since YEC is an intellectual belief and Creation Science is a methodology of action/activies-- they are different enough that they merit seperate articles. See the seperate articles 'Dianetics' and 'Scientology', for example. The Squicks (talk) 04:48, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

A Big Change

With Hrafn retired, please see MsTopeka. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.103.31.116 (talk) 01:49, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Zuiyo Maru.jpg

The image Image:Zuiyo Maru.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --07:43, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Self-published sources, Tor proxies, and disruptive editing

The issue of whether the Discovery Institute and Answers in Genesis are admissible as sources for the beliefs of creationists has already been discussed in the archives at /Archive 5#Unreliable sources, where it was determined that there was nothing wrong with the sources. An anonymous IP, who is running under a Tor proxy (see [1], [2]) continues to remove these sources. Another (?) anonymous editor behind a Tor proxy has already disruptively and tendentiously attempted to stir up trouble here some time ago. If edit-warring continues, I will have the page semiprotected so that only established users can edit it. In the mean time, I suggest that the IP editor consider that the topic ban against Tor users who try to remove sources from this article remains in effect. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 22:57, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I think you were looking for Tor (anonymity network). I don't happen to agree with that consensus, by the way, but I offer my support anyway. My reasoning is that while it does INVOLVE a religious belief, the content being supported is not. For example, rather than saying that the opponents are prejudiced, why not simply accept that the see things differently... that THEIR faith conflicts with the YEC faith. I will look at the text, and see if I can offer a bit of help, if the war lets me.sinneed (talk) 00:10, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I have changed the wording, as its previous state would seem to me to violate wp:BLP. I believe the current wording is a neutral statement of the fact that the YEC organizations cited strongly condemn the lack of support. I would encourage you not to restore the old wording without careful consideration of wp:BLP. All the best, and I hope that helps.sinneed (talk) 00:17, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

This is not a WP:BLP, so I really don't understand your concern. It seems like a cop-out in order to put your own version beyond any possibility of dissent. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 00:28, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Lead-in text.

"For example," - this says that the following text is an example of a consensus. It isn't needed lead-in. My favorite English prof would yell "JUST SAY IT!"

"evidence-based facts" - Current, excellent theory. Not facts. Excellent evidence. How can people trust us when we mislead them?

"established" - false. Conclusions and theories are supported by evidence.

"derived experimental results" - derived is not correct. The results are the results.

"without any contradiction from scientific evidence" - pointless and OR. The numbers vary, they *MUST*. We have inferences, averages, and consensus. Claiming exact numbers, 100% agreement, etc. is false and destroys credibility. There is no excuse for it.

"that the Earth is approximately 4.5 billion years old" - Why not hit the low end and say "more than"? Then there *ISN'T* any contradiction. There most certainly is for the 4.5 billion number. What's a few hundred million either way? Just longer than humans have been walking around, that is all.

"common primordial origin" - primordial is just for effect. Indicated: common origin. Inference: primordial. For all we know it all died off and new stuff came along. Maybe more than once. Why not stay to things that are easy to defend?

sinneed (talk) 01:28, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Copy/paste

At http://www.interacademies.net "© Copyright 2005-2008 IAP. All Rights Reserved." appears on short study to apply to the text in the lead-in copied from http://www.interacademies.net/Object.File/Master/6/150/Evolution%20statement.pdf

If not, it needs to be documented, and really, the fact that it is quoted should be shown by quotes at least. They deserve credit.

If so, it needs to be rephrased. This certainly explains the pedantic wording.

sinneed (talk) 02:16, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

The material is cited to this source and is not a verbatim copy&paste of the material (longest exact match appears to be "Life appeared on Earth at least 2.5 billion years ago"). I don't think that quote-marks for such material is advisable, as it would give the impression that this is just a single opinion, as opposed to the opinion of the entire scientific community (or as close a facsimile as you can get an answer out of). If somebody objects to the above without quotemarks, then they are weclome to come up with an equivalent paraphrase. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 03:57, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually no, paraphrasing was NOT welcome. Perhaps a different paraphrasing.*shrug*sinneed (talk) 23:21, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Source?

"^ Christianity and Judaism being the two major religions for which Genesis is canonical."

This statement appears to be cited as a wp:reliable source in the lead-in. Killing it. Perhaps it should be a parenthetical phrase?sinneed (talk) 17:58, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

You might be surprised to discover that in most scholarly literature, footnotes are not only used to present sources, but also to clarify points in the text. Wikipedia is no exception. Per our Wikipedia:Footnotes section of the manual of style:

"Wikipedia footnotes serve two purposes. First, they are used to add material that explains a point in greater detail, particularly if the explanation would be distracting if written out in the main article. Second, they are used to present citations to reliable sources that support assertions in the main article."

Since no reasonable person could be expected to think that the footnote you objected to is intended to cite any sources, it must be that, in fact, the purpose of this note is to clarify the point stated in the text. I have removed your parenthetical version of the footnote, because it did not follow the standard grammatical norms for punctuation, and it rendered the sentence nearly unreadable. At any rate, I don't think this point needs to be made, and I think the footnote was originally added for the dubious purpose of mitigating those who would unthinkingly add "...and Muslims" to the list (despite the lack of any prominent YEC Muslims). siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 18:48, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Restored the fact flag. Since there was a statement that needed a citation, and there was none.sinneed (talk) 21:23, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't quite understand what your {{fact}} tag was about. Was it about whether these are Christians and Jews? Or was it about the definition of Young Earth creationism. The latter seems a reasonable request, so I have given a good general reference on the subject. Otherwise, I don't know what would satisfy you here: that there are Christian YECs? Jewish YECs? Both of these details are already covered in the article. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 22:41, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

The statement in the article is that only Christians and Jews are Young Earth Creationists. That needs a source. I have pulled it. Please do not readd it without a source.sinneed (talk) 08:17, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

(killed a remark I made that did not belong here at all)sinneed (talk) 08:28, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Only Christians and Jews are YECs, as these are the only religions for which Genesis is canonical, and therefore the only religions with any reason to take it literally. We have sources for both these groups having members who are YECs. We have no source for any other religious group having members who are YECs. Therefore it is reasonable for the article to state "Its adherents are those Christians and Jews who..." Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 09:27, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I know there are Muslim Creationists, and Islam certainly accepts Genesis at some level. Probably Bahai'i does, but I don't know that they extend to Creationism. Other than that, your argument seems sound. Spotfixer (talk) 02:05, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Bahai'i is not a major world religion. Also, I'm totally open to the possibility of Muslim YECs as well, but so far the only ones to cross my radar have been isolated WP:SPS websites from Muslims sympathetic to the Genesis account. As Hrafn says, the Biblical account of Genesis is not canonical in Islam, and so Muslims are not bound in the same manner by dogma to believe in a young Earth. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 02:28, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Harun Yahya is a good example of Islamic Creationism, and I think the form he espouses is young-Earth, but I could be mistaken about that detail. Spotfixer (talk) 03:16, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Indeed you are mistaken in that detail. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 03:34, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Good. Spotfixer (talk) 03:48, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Hrafn, if so, you will have no trouble finding a source, I am sure. In the meantime, I have restored the fact-flag, as there remains no such statement. "major" is not "only", just for example. It really is essential *NOT TO KILL* a flag without providing a source. I have restored this for the 3rd time now. Please stop.sinneed (talk) 02:06, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Restored the flag yet again. This is not appropriate. The article says something VERY different than the source.sinneed (talk) 02:12, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Restored the fact flag again, 3rd revert for me today, and done. The source does not say what the article claims. sinneed (talk) 02:44, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

The fact flag is neither to make a point, nor is it to be tendentious. It is certainly acceptable to include a false statement in Wikipedia, if there is a wp:RS that says it. There is not in this case. The flagged statement needs a source.sinneed (talk) 02:59, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Sinneed: you are WP:EDITWARing to include a fact-tag on an already-referenced statement in an extremely WP:POINT manner. The statement does not explicitly state "only", and whatever implication there may be of it is reasonable given that only Christians and Jews regard Genesis as canonical and as there are no WP:RSes for counterexamples. The current text is reliably sourced and is more accurate and informative than any immediately-apparent alternative. There is a WP:CONSENSUS for its inclusion as is. If you want to make a song and dance over it, then your legitimate recourse is to call an RfC. It is not to editwar on the subject.

Hafrn, as you say, it is not to editwar on the subject... so, why would you?sinneed (talk) 03:25, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I have reverted twice on this subject in recent days -- you have (by my count) tried to get your way 6 times, against multiple editors. Equivalence? I think not. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 03:32, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Finding a copy of the cited source shows no mention of "Young Earth" or "Creationism" anywhere in the book.sinneed (talk) 03:12, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Owning and frequently referencing (the latest edition of) The Creationists, I know that you're completely wrong. On p10-11 it describes Flood Geology & Creation science (two pseudoscientific movements supporting YEC) as holding to a "6-Day Edenic Creation of Life and Humans" "4000-8000 BC", covers YECs in chapters 5, 7, 10-12, as well as in many other parts e.g. discussing the Biblical Creation Society's refusal to limit membership to "young earthers" at p358. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 03:27, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Further the latest edition is cited three times elsewhere in the article, which should have told you that it was mentioned. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 03:42, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

The searchable text of ISBN 0809143496 is available online, and does not contain the text I quoted. So no, I am not "completely wrong".sinneed (talk) 03:36, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Did you search for "young earth" or "recent creation" or any other variant? I think not. Therefore "completely wrong" covers it perfectly. Anybody who actually knows something about this subject knows that The Creationists is the most canonical history of the movement, and would most certainly cover major forms of it such as YEC. Anybody making statements to the contrary simply loses all credibility. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 03:42, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the ISBN under contention here is the one one the Torah, which was provided to indicate (per the original placement of the {{fact}} tag) that Genesis is only canonical in Christianity and Judaism. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 03:53, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Then nobody in their right mind would expect it to have "mention of 'Young Earth' or 'Creationism' anywhere in the book". It supports the explanation of why these are the religions that would be open to YEC. It does not purport to verify their inclusion in the statement (which is done by the Numbers & Zucker citations at the end). For myself, I am sick to death of Sinneed's edit-warring on a hair-splitting WP:POINT, and would suggest that she is rapidly approaching earning a block or topic-ban. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 05:24, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

A source for the elusive non-Christian/Jewish YECer

Does sinneed have a source for any non-Christian or Jewish young earth creationists? I honestly can't see a legitimate reason to fight for this tag (especially a cite for the nonexistent word "only") unless one had some sort of evidence these people actually exist. Aunt Entropy (talk) 04:57, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

People versus Subject matter

I've notice spots where the YEC topic flips around from being a subject YE Creationism to it being a reference for people YE CreationISTS". I believe this article should not be a forum to take pot-shots at people, but should keep to a distanced view by discussing the subject matter and not discussing adherents. A business like approach is to address the subject not the people. Less personal that way on a heated topic. Kristinwt (talk) 09:38, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Given that the history of YE Creationism is closely intertwined with that of prominent YE Creationists who created/promoted it (most notably George McCready Price and Henry M. Morris), your suggestion would seem to be unreasonable, as a general principle. If you wish to bring up specifics, they can be looked at. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 10:06, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

They may be closely related. However, it's a psychological trick to bring up people as an object rather than a subject. Remember in the book 1984, during the Two Minutes Hate, the face of the person would morf into a wolf? Orwell, was speaking to something that happens in humanity. In the reverse, as an example, there was a British book on the Revolutionary War. The author most often refers to George Washington, not as a person, not by name, but as "The man in blue" (or was it the "figure in blue") This disembodies a person, makes them not of substance. And plus, if you talk about people, or a person, then isn't it more liable to disparagement and personal attack rather than attacking a subject would be?Kristinwt (talk) 06:02, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Neither of these analogies seem particularly apt (and the latter flimsy even on its own merits). Please give specific examples of the "psychological trick to bring up people as an object" within the article. Is it 'disembodying' Johnny Cash to refer to him as "The Man in Black"? I think not. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:32, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Promotes Ad Hominem attacks. Kristinwt (talk) 18:56, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

That response is neither specific, nor even coherent. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:16, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Hrafn, since Kristinwt has mentioned Orwell, you are by default sinister and evil for continuing to disagree with them. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 04:22, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Who is this "them" of which you speak. <shudders> siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 04:48, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Anybody who isn't one of us o'course, and <portentously> they must be eliminated. </portentously> Y'know? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:07, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Anyway, I'm only slightly a leftie -- more or less ambidextrous -- so I'm really not that "sinister". So there! :P Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:10, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

YEC & Pseudoscience

Can anybody point to a prominent form of YEC that is not closely associated with claims that the scientific community generally regard as pseudoscientific? By YEC, I am meaning viewpoints since the geological discoveries of the 17th century that made the age of the Earth an issue, and particularly those views coming after the popularisation of Biblical literalism and adoption of the label 'Creationism' in the early-to-mid 20th century.

Given George McCready Price, The Genesis Flood, ICR, AiG, etc, etc, the overlap between YEC & its pseudoscientific claims would appear to be complete. This would appear to be in contrast to Gap creationism and Day-age creationism, which hew to a more accomodationist path, finding theological solutions to accommodate the scientific discoveries of their day.

I would therefore recommend the re-inclusion of the 'pseudoescience' cat. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 02:53, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I find this argument convincing. Re-inclusion sounds like the way to go. ClovisPt (talk) 00:09, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Can't argue with this logic. While YEC is a religious view, it is one that attempts to supplant science, hence it is pseudoscientific. Spotfixer (talk) 01:03, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

YEC is a religious view that is opposed to the current scientific consensus on origins. It often calls on Creation Science in support - this is the pseudoscientific topic, not the religious YEC view which often stands alone. ^rossnixon 01:44, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

The definition at [Category:Pseudoscience] is "A system of theories or assertions about the natural world that claim or appear to be scientific but that, in fact, are not". YEC's primary support is a plain interpretation of the Bible. ^rossnixon 01:49, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

As I implied, and as Spotfixer explicitly stated, "YEC is a religious view" that "attempts to supplant science". It does not merely 'often call upon' Creation Science, it to all intents and purpose is Creation Science -- to the extent that The Creationists summary of the major creationist positions (pp10-11 of the latest edition) calls the YEC position "Creation Science or Flood Geology". Please point to any major YEC organisation or book that does not intimately involve pseudoscientific claims. Claims that (a particular interpretation of) the Bible is scientifically/historically accurate when it contradicts the consensus of the appropriate academic community is pseudoscience/pseudohistory. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 02:11, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect to Ross Nixon, the plain interpretation of the Bible is that it's a collection of various myths from a couple of thousand years ago. YEC, on the other hand, interprets it as a science textbook. This is precisely what makes YEC a form of pseudoscience; it claims to replace science as we know it with something "better". 05:19, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Oriental Orthodoxy Officially YECist?

There's a passage in the article which states, without citation, that

YEC has always been the stated position of the Oriental Orthodox Church, without having gone through any decline and revival.

The only supporting statement given is a quote from one Coptic Orthodox cleric.

I believe this statement is dubious – first, the Oriental Orthodox churches are autocephalous/independent, so for the above statement to be true, YEC would have to be the official position of all the national churches that make up the Oriental Orthodox Communion. Second, I see no proof that any of these churches have taken an official, church-wide position on evolutionism versus creationism, Young Earth or otherwise.

Basically, unless some back up references can be produced, this section needs to go. Peter G Werner (talk) 01:28, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I would agree that the claims are more than a little tenuous, and require considerable further substantiation or downgrading/removal. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 02:03, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Since nobody has shown up to defend keeping this, I removed it as uncited. I moved the Malaty quote to "Interpretation of Genesis". Peter G Werner (talk) 22:17, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Holy Trinity

Off-topic until a reliable source can be found linking Trinitarian theology to YEC
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Do Young Earth creationists have any particular beliefs about the Holy Trinity ? I am surprised that Trinitarian beliefs about Creation are not included in the creationism series, since it is of course the orthodox Nicean teaching about who God is and what he does. Having a Trinitarian view of Creation means that the Father is Creator, the Son is Creator and the Spirit is also Creator ; but there is only one Creator. The Athanasian creed provides the basis for much of the Trinitarian creation theology. ADM (talk) 01:19, 9 April 2009 (UTC) Can you find a WP:RS that relates Trinitarian theology to YEC? HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:23, 9 April 2009 (UTC) But if they were all one that would only be one creator.--Pattont/c 13:25, 9 April 2009 (UTC) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life, and the life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it. -- Gospel of John 1:1-5 If you are looking for a connection between the creation of 'all things' and trinitarian beliefs that I would suggested to start with commentaries on these verses. As a basic starting point, one trinitarian view of this verse would have Word (note it's capitalization) being a title for The Son, God being God the Father, and and the verbs 'made', 'shines', and 'through' implying the Spirit of God. As a matter of personal opinion, assigning creation to one of these rather than all of them would be the same as saying leaves of a Euphorbia milii create glucose and not giving any credit to the vital roots and stems. On the contrary; leaves, roots and stems are very distinct and well-defined in their function, while the definition of Holy Trinity is at best deliberately nebulous. --King ♣ Talk 20:16, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

YEC claims examined and compared with scientific claims

Much like the lunar landings hoax, I'd like a section added that deals with some of the major claims of the YEC that prove the earth is young.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_moon_landing_hoax_accusations#Hoax_claims_examined

For example, the lunar dust theory (and how was supposed to be a lot more than NASA expected) has been proven wrong time and time again, yet it is still commonly referenced. Another is the antarctic ice core samples, and how the YECs compare it to snow fall layers in the arctic (antarctic is a desert). Sedimentary layers that are deposited at a common intervals, the change in magnetic fields of the Atlantic ocean floor and there are living TREES that have been dated to be older that 10,000 years. 70.75.51.202 (talk) 17:07, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd suspect that it'd belong in Creation science (or a subsidiary article thereof), which deals with YEC's pseudoscientific claims, rather than here. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 18:08, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Misleading statement

<<Its adherents are those Christians and Jews[2] who believe that God created the Earth in six 24-hour days, taking the Hebrew text of Genesis as a literal account.[1][3]>> Genesis does not mention hours or define a day as 24 hours, the 24 hour day was not invented until the 4th day. Therefore believing that God created the Earth in six 24-hour days is NOT taking the Hebrew text literally, so as a fundamentalist I object to this distortion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.11.151.136 (talk) 00:57, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

The statement is about what YECs believe, not what Genesis says. Those who believe that the 'days' were greater than 24 hours subscribe to Day-age creationism. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:38, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Dei Verbum

I think it is frankly misleading (or at least irrelevant) to use Dei Verbum as a way to attack YECs. First of all, Dei Verbum is a very conservative document which literally claims that God himself wrote the Bible. It goes way beyond the typical infalliblity position and actually cites a good deal of material in favour of the inerrantist view. It discusses the nature of divine revelation and does not try to explain what creation exactly is or why God was doing what he did at this particular moment in earthly terms. It is also a very magisterial interpretation of Scripture which privileges the works of the Church Fathers above the private interpretations of Protestant scholars, be they fundamentalist or not. ADM (talk) 07:39, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

It wasn't used as "a way to attack YECs" -- it was used as a caveat on a Catholic criticism of the YEC viewpoint. The passage was in any case unsourced, so can be removed without a need for discussion of its underlying theology. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 08:21, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Anyways, the most recent document on the subject is an instrumentum laboris on The Word of God in the Life and the Mission of the Church, which interprets Dei Verbum in a fairly liberal sense, and not a conservative sense like what I was talking about. A big part of the debate involves interpreting Dei Verbum itself, and not necessarily the Bible. [3]. ADM (talk) 19:36, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Belly buttons?

Why do the images of Adam and Eve have belly buttons? Throckmorton Guildersleeve (talk) 16:43, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

1. Real answer: The concept of them not having navels is relatively new, and those images are not.
2. Snarky faux-religious answer: Who's to say (besides the vast majority of the scientific community) that they weren't created by god appearing as we do today (white, somehow)? --King ♣ Talk 16:51, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, world's best username! --King ♣ Talk 16:52, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Omphalos hypothesis :) . . dave souza, talk 07:16, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh wow, how convenient THAT is. "Even though there's tons of evidence, I'm going to explicitly ignore all of it, because it is in itself proof of MY perfectly valid scientific theory!" --King ♣ Talk 12:34, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Creation-Evolution Headlines EL

This EL:

• "does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article" -- as it provides no actual information on YE Creationism.
• is "only indirectly related to the article's subject" in that its topic is the Creation-evolution controversy (but would most probably be excluded on #2 there).

In fact, as far as I can see, the link makes no explicit mention of 'young earth'. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:05, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

The "unique resource" aspect of http://crev.info is the erudite and up-to-date analysis of science articles from a YEC POV. The comments have always, as far as I recall, presented a YEC view. ^rossnixon 03:19, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

The point is that it is not a "resource" on YEC, but on another topic from a YEC POV (though the latter claim itself appears to be WP:OR). This makes it "only indirectly related to" YEC. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:15, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

(out-dent) Hmmm... OK, then we might have to remove the link to TalkOrigins. From its FAQ, "The purpose of the talk.origins newsgroup is to provide a forum for discussion of issues related to biological and physical origins." No mention of refuting YEC. ^rossnixon 02:40, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you rossnixon for conflating the newsgroup with TalkOrigins Archive. I'd be surprised if you could find any YEC claim that did not have commentary and refutation in the latter. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:35, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I find the refutation for the age of lunar craters (due to finite rock viscosity) lacking. Dan Watts (talk) 16:52, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Article Introduction

I believe that Muslims also believe in the creation of the earth by God, and that there are some of them who hold to the Young Earth creationist view. Would it not be prudent to include them in the trio of the three religious groups that show at least some support for this view?

The main Islamic voice, as far as I know, advocating creationism is Harun Yahya, who is explicitly Old Earth. If there are YEC muslims, a source has to be given. It seems unlikely, since the book of genesis is not part of the muslim cannon. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 01:37, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, here is a link to a Muslim scholar who advocates a young earth, Dr. Mohammad N. Wagdi, Ph.D. [4]BreshiBaraElohim (talk) 02:14, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I have added a link to the above scholars web site, and included some text to the effect that some Muslims also support a young earth.BreshiBaraElohim (talk) 02:23, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

The source provided appears to be a self-published book. Is there any evidence that YEC views are at all widespread in Islam? It seems that the account of creation in the Qu'ran is not as specific as Genesis, so that a literal interpretation doesn't seem to require a YEC perspective. This is, at least, what the article Islamic creationism says. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 03:05, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I am not trying to debate how many, or how much Muslims support the young earth thoery, simply that some of them do. If this statement is in error, then it is in error, if it is fact, then it is fact. Even only one Muslim who uses the Qur'an to support or advocate a young earth would make the statement, "Even some Muslims advocate a young earth," true. BreshiBaraElohim (talk) 04:09, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Even if true, the coverage in the encyclopedia should still meet the requirements set forth in WP:WEIGHT. YEC beliefs are quite widespread among Christians and Jews. At this point, putting Muslims alongside them seems like WP:UNDUE weight, since so far we have a reference that there is one Muslim holding a YEC perspective, not that it is a widespread belief, nor that there is even a small but noticeable group of Muslims that hold this belief. If there are better and more reliable sources, then this can stay here. Otherwise it should go. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 13:23, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

O.K., how many Muslims do I need to find?BreshiBaraElohim (talk) 09:21, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Typically when several individuals believe the same thing, they come together to form a group. Are there any societies devoted to YEC is a Muslim context that we can reference? Have their been any noteworthy controversies over (e.g.) teaching the age of the earth in schools with a significant Muslim population? Is there any mention of YEC creationism in some published books or in the media? siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 12:44, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Muslims dont believe in YEC. In fact, Quranic view of creation is very much in line with the Big Bang theory (i.e. Surah Zariyat, 51.47. And the heaven, We have constructed it mightily; and it is surely We Who have vast power, and keep expanding it.). I havent come across a single muslim, or publication by a muslim, in my life, who believes in YEC. We leave the discussion of the young earth to our Jewish and Christian friends... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.66.80.226 (talk) 19:58, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Denialism

The situation: An anonymous IP has been placing this category up in the "See also" section. It has been removed at least 3 times that I can tell, and this IP places it right back. Most recently it was then place back by an established User, who criticized the another editor for taking it down, even though it is within Wikipedia guidelines, and even though they left reasonable and instructive comments on the IP's page. Therefore I have moved it here to place it up for discussion to stop the edit war that is brewing.

Question for discussion: Does Denialism belong in the See also section? Cheers, T Berg _{Drop a Line ޗ pls} 21:03, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I think the Denialism article expands upon the philosophy inherent in the movement. Why do you think it's irrelevant? Aunt Entropy (talk) 21:22, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I actually think it fits. But that's not the point here. I am not going to rail-road my opinion through without discussion. T Berg _{Drop a Line ޗ pls} 21:46, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Are you saying that you are edit warring to make a point? And the first time it was put in you called it "vandalism." So something doesn't fit here. Aunt Entropy (talk) 22:15, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

It is Denialism. The first sentence of the article on Denialism says: 'Denialism is the term used to describe the position of governments, political parties, business groups, interest groups, or individuals who reject propositions on which a scientific or scholarly consensus exists.'

Young Earthers say the earth isn't any more than 10,000 years old, (when science has shown it to be over 4 billion years old) and that the reason nobody believes this is due to 'censorship'. That's flat-out denialism (...'rejecting propositions on which a scientific or scholarly consensus exists'). HalfShadow 22:26, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Can we put the link back in now? Or is the POINT still being made? Aunt Entropy (talk) 22:31, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Aunt E., stop being so arrogant. Why do you have to be so? I have put a comment on Smage's talk page telling him/her about this and I think that he/she should be given time to respond why he thinks that this should not be here -- you've barely allowed an hour. Believe it or not, this article has survived a long time without that wiki-link and I'm sure it can last another day out of common courtesy to other editors. T Berg _{Drop a Line ޗ pls} 22:41, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Err, arrogant? Please be civil as you violate WP:POINT. This is the most obvious example of denialism. Vsmith (talk) 22:51, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

<edit conflict> Tjbergsma, calling Auntie "arrogant" is a personal attack, please withdraw that statement and accept that in good faith you seem to be edit warring out of WP:POINT rather than on the merits of the edit. Of course you may have an explanation you didn't bother giving in response to the earlier enquiry. . . dave souza, talk 22:54, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Forgive me, I was trying to solve a conflict between two other editors in a simple manner. I have seen it moved to talk pages before and it has worked, and so I was doing the same. I had only good intentions (see here, and here) - which was to allow the anonymous IP's edit to stand without having a User keep deleting it and calling it vandalism (as was happening). It is also true, I initially called it vandalism several days ago (AuntE. only gave 1 side of the story and spread this half truth around: Here), but I apologized for it to the IP (I was hasty in my vandalism patrol), and this was my attempt to make it up to that IP:

When I noticed that it kept being labeled as vandalism, I moved it here in order to form a consensus, so that it could stand in the article. I did it this way, because I wanted to assume good faith with the User who deleted it, which is what I hadn't done originally with the IP who added it. Unlike others who came here for the sole purpose of being "cantankerous" and looking to create an edit war (see here), I was trying my best not to step on toes in a very, very minor occurrence that has been blown out of the water by some who otherwise have no interest in this article. However, it's done. Let's leave it alone. T Berg _{Drop a Line ޗ pls} 23:45, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

This will not be dropped until you retract your false statements against me. I did not call in outside editors. That is a lie. I asked Orange Marlin to comment on the talk page, which is exactly what you asked him to do, but in an edit summary. It's better to contact the person directly instead of arguing per edit summary, so that is what I did. And for that I get all these accusations of gaming the system.

I spread no "half-truths". You pushed the idea that the edit was vandalism repeatedly because it was put in after being reverted. Well I looked at the history and noted the first time it was put in you called it "vandalism" which pretty much put a whole in your original claim. And just because someone may have followed your lead in calling it vandalism doesn't make it so. Aunt Entropy (talk) 01:11, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

T-berg, if you are able to tell time, you will note that I reverted you at 14:21. Aunt Entropy asked me to review your edits at 14:40. That's your first problem. Secondly, YEC is a form of denialism, and if you care to actually read the denialism article, you would note that it is. Otherwise, the rest of the article is a religious discussion of the faith-based understanding of the geology and the natural world. As long as YEC doesn't claim any science, you can write whatever else you want, up to and including that sasquatch was saved by Noah. But if you say, there's geologic evidence that it happened, well that's POV, and frankly not true. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 03:14, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Orangemarlin: Problem one is no problem -- she told you I thought it was vandalism (she was wrong and not AGF) and asked you to come here. The problem is that you came (in your own words) "in a very cantankerous mood" and in order to "right the attitude of some creationist POV pushing editor." Problem two is also not a real problem (are you actually reading what I've written??) because I supported the addition of the wiki-link to Denialism. I was making my first ever attempt at getting two other editors to agree nicely, and then it blew up when the whole neighborhood showed up (the one kept deleting the other one). What is wrong with what I've done? I was only trying to build a quick consensus so that the one editor would not keep deleting the anonymous IP's edit. And stop spreading half-truths about me please, Tjbergsma (talk) 03:28, 29 November 2008 (UTC) 03:26, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Per WP:TLDR, I was kind of done at "problem one is no problem". You should look up the word "succinct." OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 03:34, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok, how's this: You are (in your own words) "in a very cantankerous mood" and you came here in order to "right the attitude of some creationist POV pushing editor." And now you are just plain rude. Tjbergsma (talk) 03:38, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

At no time did you imply you considered the edit in question anything other than vandalism, and you did mark it vandalism the first time you reverted it. That is a fact. Do not again say I failed to show you good faith. That is a personal attack. I've asked you repeatedly to stop with your false accusations. You need to focus on the edit, and not what you think are my, Orange Marlin's or anyone else's private motivations. This has been a big waste of time and has gone on long enough. Aunt Entropy (talk) 07:20, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Tell you what, I don't want any part of this. I made a mistaken edit. The consensus seems to be keep. I have my own views on the subject, and I no interest in editing this article any further. --smadge1 (talk) 02:51, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Since everyone is in agreement about the content issue, it looks like the article has been improved, and in the interests of a harmonious editing environment, can we close this thread? SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 15:47, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Reverted the re-addition. Have a look at the 2nd line of the Denialism defintition. "... rhetorical tactics to give the appearance of argument or legitimate debate, when in actuality there is none". YECs are *not* using rhetorical tactics, and *are* involved in legitimate debate. ^rossnixon 01:45, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Legitimate debate my foot. All YEC has for it is religious texts and flat denial of scientific evidence and consensus. I'm pretty sure denying the consensus and the evidence is denialism, according to its own page. As for them not using rhetorical tactics: Of course they do. Alongside logical fallacies, half-truths, and outright lies. 69.109.184.226 (talk) 02:11, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Just a note, I'm 69.109.184.226 and the other anon IPs that were adding Denialism to the see also. I got tired of using anon IP so I made an account. Mkemper331 (talk) 02:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

YEC involves the denial of wide swathes of science -- evolutionary biology, palaeontology, geology, nuclear physics (underlying much of geochronology), astrophysics and cosmology immediately come to mind. The category would therefore seem to be accurate. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:09, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure that whether YEC *is* denialism is the point: I think everyone here would agree that explicitly calling it denialism in the body of the article is non-NPOV, so if the "see also" link is supposed to be a passive-aggressive way of saying it implicitly then it's definitely a bad idea. And even if that's not the goal, it's not unreasonable to think that the presence of the link with no commentary may be taken to be saying that YECs *are* denialists. I do think the Denialism article is relevant, however. I think the best solution would be to note within the body of the article that YECs are often accused of engaging in Denialism, with the cite and link and whatever context there. FCSundae ∨^☃ (talk) 08:01, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

YEC is "generally considered" denialism, so categorising it as such is congruent with WP:ARB/PS's ruling on calling things pseudoscience. GoogleBooks give a number of hits on the juxtaposition of the two terms, including "Fundamentalist Christians staked a great deal on a young earth and a denial of evolutionary development of species, especially of humanity"[5], "Creationism is the religiously based denial of evolution"[6], "The denial of common ancestry is unsurprising in creation science"[7] Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 08:34, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I was mainly responding to the "see also" link to the Denialism article, which is the one I think keeps being added and reverted. I didn't see anyone adding the category, but it doesn't necessarily seem like a bad idea. FCSundae ∨^☃ (talk) 08:59, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I was unaware there was a denialism category. It would fit. Denialism is defined, in the article, as the denial, by a group of individuals or an interest group or other body, of something on which there is a scientific or scholarly consensus. Young Earth creationism is certainly an example of that. They deny biology (evolution), cosmology (big bang), physics and chemistry (age of the earth), geology (plate tectonics)... Mkemper331 (talk) 09:33, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Thinking about it, it's very name is an explicit and unambiguous denial of the scientific consensus on the age of the Earth, so it probably ranks as "obvious" denialism (using WP:ARB/PS's hierarchy), so both category and see-also would, prima facie, be acceptable. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 10:03, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Evolutionary theory denies the scholarly consensus of Bible literalists. So Cat:Denialism would be a "obvious" fit for the Evolution article too! ^rossnixon 01:45, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Bible literalists have no evidence backing them up except for the Bible itself (which is about as reliable as the Odyssey or the Iliad, really). Scientists have mountains of evidence supporting evolution and flatly contradicting the literalist biblical view. Therefore, you're wrong. Mkemper331 (talk) 02:41, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

A whole range of science (not just "Evolutionary theory"), along with a large body of genuinely scholarly research on the Bible, contradicts the religiously-motivated axiom of biblical literalism. Are you finished playing spurious word-games that are in violation of WP:NPOVFAQ#Giving "equal validity" rossnixon? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:23, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Evolution has evidence and young Earth creationism ignores evidence that contradicts it, so the denialism link is fine for this page but not the one for evolution. --Evice (talk) 01:05, 17 January 2010 (UTC)