Template talk:Creationism sidebar

Section header inserted here
There is an archived discussion of this template at Templates_for_deletion/Log/Not_deleted/May_2005. There was no consensus for deletion. Joe D (t) 10:09, 17 May 2005 (UTC)


 * So there should be no tag at all indicating it is proposed for deletion? - T&#949;x  &#964;  ur&#949;  16:45, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
 * So there should be a tag for deletion on a template that was once but is no longer on TFD? - Hm. SV|t 20:11, 18 May 2005 (UTC) PS - resored vertical version redirected by Joshuaschroeder. SV
 * Ok. I'm only asking the question because the tag still existed but Joe D's comment said the vote was over. Glad to see it's resolved. -  T&#949;x  &#964;  ur&#949;  20:14, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

I removed the edit button at the bottom to tighten the template.--ghost 30 June 2005 14:47 (UTC)

redundancy
heya -- good edits generally ... but the contents of the "pseudoscience" subsection are redundant -- they're on the template twice. i'm just deleting the redundancy ... Ungtss 20:10, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

also ... regarding flat earth ... on what basis are we describing it as a form of creationism? it seems to me it's a "related concept." to believe the earth is flat is not a form of creationism like the others -- the others relate specifically to how and when the earth was created, while flat-earthism speaks only to the shape of the earth. so if "flat earthism" is a form of creationism, then "roundearthism" is too ... and THAT'S certainly not a form of creationism. beyond that, the article title itself is "flat earth society," not "flat earth creationism," and the word "creationism" does not appear in the text. what do you think? Ungtss 20:21, 24 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree...and am deleting it.


 * Since it is a related concept, we've included it under "related concepts".

Regarding the image of Adam and Eve, I believe they should not have naval, as they were "created" and not born from womb. The image should be cleaned.

Length
You don't need to include every word that can be associated with creationism, never mind the suptopics for these. The nav bar is not supposed to be longer than the articles. Bensaccount 8 July 2005 00:49 (UTC)


 * Bensaccount explained his edits Ungtss; they weren't "destructive", its called editing... and in this case culling. - RoyBoy 800 8 July 2005 18:25 (UTC)


 * that's not an explanation, it's a bald and erroneous assertion by a repeatedly proven vandal that no one has the courage to rfc.  the template allows the reader to quickly, easily and conveniently access creationism articles.  it is not longer than the article, as bensaccount claimed.  on the contrary, it is shorter than every single article there is.  deleting the bulk of the links serves absolutely no purpose except allowing bensaccount to giggle to himself.  it plainly and simply a destructive edit.  culling?  no.  poaching.  Ungtss 8 July 2005 21:07 (UTC)


 * Yes, culling; because the template is long Ungtss. One of the longest I've seen; and there is no expectation or need for it be comprehensive on the subject. - RoyBoy 800 9 July 2005 04:49 (UTC)

My explanation, which Ungtss must have missed, is that subtopics of distantly related associations don't belong in a nav bar. Ungtss has posted the above link about a dozen times so far, while omitting the following:. This is an attempt to mislead, no doubt motivated by spite. Ungtss, as usual, offers nothing of value. Bensaccount 8 July 2005 23:26 (UTC)


 * The explanation comes to late, firstly. This rather large edit should have been discussed on the Talk page. Its what Talk pages are for. Secondly, I agree with Uggtss' assesment. The template allows the reader to quickly, easily and conveniently access articles refering to creationism. There is no reason to change it. -- Ec5618 July 9, 2005 01:33 (UTC)


 * Yes there is. - RoyBoy 800 9 July 2005 04:49 (UTC)


 * the stated reasons are "shortness" and "prevent distantly related topics." both of these fall far short of the arguments for "access," "clarity," and "convenience."  the claim that it is longer than all other templates is false.  have a look at Islam.  your ultimate argument is that "there is no need for it to be comprehensive."  What?  you'd prefer mediocrity?  Isn't "comprehensive" better than "half-ass?"  Ungtss 02:44, 13 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I didn't claim its longer than all other templates. And I prefer brevity over comprehensive; I would consider it half-ass if those sub-articles aren't linked from the main articles listed. - RoyBoy 800 04:10, 13 July 2005 (UTC)


 * so which would you like removed, insofar as they aren't linked to the topic? Perhaps we should start with Flat Earth Society and geocentrism, which have absolutely nothing to do with creationism, and leave things like Creation biology and flood geology, which are, for all intents and purposes, core to contemporary creationism, but which bensaccount removed.  what criterion would you like to apply here for determining which links are in and which are out, as opposed to sheer culling?  Ungtss 20:39, 13 July 2005 (UTC)


 * What you've said so far sounds like a good start; Baraminology, Vapor canopy, Created kinds are sub-articles that aren't necessary. While I understand the Vapor canopy is a key creation concept; if its one of the key concepts in Flood geology; then IMO its already been pointed to and the reader won't have trouble finding it. (but upon looking at the articles, the vapor canopy is not a key creation concept, and hence should not be cited in the template) And I'd clarify that although I felt a culling was necessary; Bensaccount did go overboard, but from now on if I need a template assassin I know who to call. - RoyBoy 800 02:01, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

yes, i think vapor canopy and baraminology could go too. here's what i propose we remove:
 * Gap Creationism (part of old earth creationism, already on template)
 * Day-Age Creationism (same as above)
 * Progressive creationism (same as above)
 * Irreducible complexity (part of intelligent design)
 * Specified complexity (same)
 * Intelligent design movement (same)
 * intelligent designer (same)
 * Scientific creationism (should be given its proper name, creation science)
 * Created kinds (part of creation biology)
 * Baraminology (same)
 * Vapor canopy (part of flood geology)
 * Teach the Controversy (part of controversy)
 * The Wedge Strategy (part of controvery)
 * Santorum Amendment (part of controversy)
 * Omphalos hypothesis (part of history)
 * Modern geocentrism (not creationism)
 * Flat Earth society (not creationism)

what do you think? Ungtss 04:07, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

. Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Creationism2"


 * I concur; although I'd like to see Teach the controversy stay given its recent prominence; and I suspect it will be a strategy that will be front and center for some time to come. - RoyBoy 800 04:18, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

People dont need to see every page that is remotely related to creationism on the side of their article. It simply does not help anyone, and it clutters the page. Another problem is the image. Images do not belong on nav bars. Another problem is the headings. It is POV to say that CS is the basis for creationism, since creationism came first. What makes you think that anyone would find this list of word associations to be convenient? Bensaccount 03:50, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
 * you're telling me that you don't think it's any use to have a template linking to creation biology and flood geology. cute.  Ungtss 20:40, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Pseudoscience
I removed it from the template because I'm confident this is not the place for statements; and I'm assuming pseudoscience will remain in the article(s) listed. - RoyBoy 800 01:00, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Sorry for trouble
It appears I've deleted the "Creationism2" template. This was not my purpose but it happened due to my clumsy computer skills. What I tried was to remove the box from "Flat Eath Society" article. A message I sent to the Flat Earth discussion is below (with some typos corrected).
 * Don't worry about it. It was easily fixed. --Ian Pitchford 12:02, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

---

Sorry if I caused unwanted trouble with the "Creationism2" template. My purpose was to remove the box from the Flat Earth article -- not to delete the template itself. Sorry if the latter happened.

Now, because it seems I don't have the computer skills myself, I strongly suggest someone to remove the box if I didn't succeed in the proper way.

The reason for this is quite clear. Although Flat Earthers mostly are creationists, the opposite is not the case. As mentioned in the article itself, the view of flat Earth is somewhat a ridicule. I'm not willing to speculate why the box had been placed on such a notable and important place, but nevertheless it gives the impression that creationism and even intelligent design are among jokes comparable to flat Earth.

I'm well aware that many naturalists and evolutionists personally think that way, but on my opinion no neutral view supports this. Firstly, the number of supporters of creationism anf flad Earth differ with a factor of four powers of ten, or so. Secondly, and more importantly, the supposed flat Earth is something that is contrary to everyday observations that almost anyone can make.

For prehistoric events, most often there are more or less some indirect clues, often to different directions, but the direct observation is beyond human perspective. Although some models combine better with the indirect evidence, no-one has to play fool and think contrary of what is seen today.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Flat_Earth_Society"

Part of a series
This template is used by articles outside of the ones mentioned in the template. I'm note sure what common procedure is, but shouldn't the template contain links to all articles? Or shouldn't there be a project page in which all relevant pages are linked? Should we not put a link to in the template to help people find all creationism related articles? I understand the template needn't be comprehensive, but shouldn't something tie the creationism articles together?

Should we perhaps link to ? -- Ec5618 18:15, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Flying Spaghetti Monsterism
...was removed from the template. Why? &mdash; ciphergoth 18:08, 15 February 2006 (UTC)


 * As a parody of ID it is too narrow to warrant inclusion on a general creationism template.

Teleological argument
While certainly many creationists revel in this idea, it is not part-and-parcel to creationism as a subject. In general, creationism derives from creation (theology) not from any sort of philosophical concern over proofs of the existence of god. Teleological argument may be appropriate for the Intelligent Design template, but creationism as a bigger tent doesn't necessarily ground itself in William Paley or his watchmaker. --ScienceApologist 15:49, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Changes
I've made some appearance changes to match it to Template:Intelligent Design and Template:Evolution3, which it shared some pages with. Notably, I upped the width so it plays nicely with being combined into one box. Adam Cuerden talk 05:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I also rearranged the links a bit so it is more practically ordered. I was wondering if there was a way to integrate umbrella term distinction into the template. Intelligent design includes all forms of creationism excluding theistic evolution; Old-earth creationism includes gap creationism, day-age creationism, and progressive creationism. This distinction should be noted in the template somehow. Pbarnes 16:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Evolution and the Roman Catholic Church
There's an article about the reactions of the Roman Catholic Church to evolution and of course creationism, and a small discussion as to which template we could include it in here. Is it all right to put the article in this template and vice versa? -- StevenDH (talk) 14:38, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Section titles
The section titles on this template do not seem logical to me. The "types of creationism" section is followed by the "other religious views". The latter seems to suggest that the former deals entirely with Christian creationism. If this is true, why isn't the "types of creationism" section called "Christian views"? If this is not true, an article called Christian creationism or Christian views on evolution should be listed along with the other religions represented in "other religous views", which should then be renamed simply "religous views". Neelix (talk) 12:59, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Template & infoboxs
Given the increasing utilisation of infoboxes, could we come to some consesnsus on the best way of displaying this template in an article which has the infobox occupying the top-right-tand corner of the article. My preference would be for the template to be immediately below the infobox, but others tend to put it into a lower section (e.g. Answers in Genesis). If the former, what is the cleanest way of coding it? HrafnTalkStalk 06:04, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Theistic evolution & this template
Would anybody object to removal of TE from this template, and removal of this template from Theistic evolution? TE is not generally considered to be 'creationism', and a number of prominent TEists are prominent anti-creationists. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 02:27, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Evolutionary creationism
(Cited at Theistic evolution HrafnTalkStalk(P) 18:25, 23 July 2009 (UTC) )

- I'm not sure that one source (eugenie carol scott) is definitive proof that "Evolutionary Creationism" shouldn't be considered creationism, especially when the source herself is fairly ideologically anti-creationism and seems motivated to deliniate, even beyond the point of legitimacy any linkage between evolution and creation. This is especially considering the article this is citing from in the same passage references Denis Lamoureux, who himself includes Evolutionary Creationism as one of several different viewpoints on creationism. That being said, I'll do a bit of extra resource, and unless I can find some more definitive arguments in favor of Evolutionary Creationism being classified *not* as creationism (despite is name), it seems that there's no good reason to exclude this from the template. (Simulcra (talk) 19:00, 23 July 2009 (UTC))


 * Eugenie Scott is head of the National Center for Science Education, and is generally considered to be RS. As far as I know, no source disputes the statement. Also advocates of EC apparently tend to term it "Evolutionary creation" not "Evolutionary creationism", further distancing it from creationism. You can find discussion on all this in the archives of Talk:Creationism. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 19:10, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * -- Upon doing further research, and reading Eugenie Carol Scott's source material, it seems clear to me that the citation in Evolutionary Creationism is taken a bit out of context. Rather than purporting to dilineate between evolution and creationism, eugenie carol scott was intending more to illustrate that "Evolutionary creationism" and "theistic evolution" are both similar, fairly evolutionary-friendly creationism concepts and that the former is name-branding to make theistic evolution more palatable to evangelical christians, even though both are scientifically similar and scientifically accepting of evolutionary theory.  Given this, I feel that it is appropriate to add Evolutionary Creationism to the types of creationism and make the appropriate reference fixes in the Evolutionary Creationism/Theistic Evolution article. In fact, if we were to go strictly by Eugenie Carol Scott's opinions on what constitutions "creationism" (even though she explicitly strives to make clear in the writing she's being quoted from that she's trying to illustrate a continuum of creationism viewpoints, not a dichotomy), we would have to *only* include flat earthism, geocentrism, and young earth creationism, which the template clearly does not restrict itself to.  (Simulcra (talk) 19:14, 23 July 2009 (UTC))


 * If you've got other reliable sources that disagree with Eugenie Scott, then by all means lets look at them and figure this out. But bear in mind that we can't substitute our own judgement for reliable sources.  Guettarda (talk) 20:53, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

First of all, let's define Creationism. Quoting the current Wikipedia page on Creationism, Creationism "is the religious belief that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe were created in some form by a supernatural being or beings, commonly a single deity. In a broad sense, it covers a wide range of interpretations of beliefs that a supernatural force such as a deity intervenes, or has intervened, directly in the natural world." This seems fairly straightforward and broad - as the name implies, God is (somehow) responsible for the creation of the universe and the things in it or at least has "intervened" in that universe. And let's not be dishonest with quotations here. If we bother to look up the above quote by Scott, we can clearly see that Scott cites "D. Lamoureux, personal communication" as the source of the brief section on Evolutionary Creationism, the only mention of it in her book. The fact that she is the head of the National Center for Science Education is irrelevant to her authority on Evolutionary Creationism if we consider that a mere 8 lines out of the entirety of "Evolution vs. Creationism" is dedicated to discussing it. What of her source? Denis Lamoureux is an Assistant Professor of Science & Religion, St. Joseph's College, University of Alberta. He wrote a book on EC, "Evolutionary Creation" and appears to be a significant proponant of it (he is referenced in the top three relevant google hits for Evolutionary Creationism, including the Wikipedia page for Thiestic Evolution). Let's see what he has to say.

This position seems entirely parallel with the current Wikipedia definition that God created the universe, as well as that he intervenes within it that we visited above. We can perhaps conclude that Scott holds a different view of Evolution than wikipedia. As such, we should do one of two things. The Wikipeida article on Creationism could be edited to be in line with Scott's view that Evolutionary Creationism, despite espousing that God created the universe, is not part of Creationism at large. Or we might modify Template:Creationism2 to include Evolutionary Creationism because Scott is not an authority (or not the definitive authority) on Evolutionary Creationism. I think that the problem with Scott's quote is that it represents a view that Evolution and Creationism are diametrically opposed - to be "evolution," a school of thought cannot also be "creationism." Lamoureux explicitly warns against this in describing Evolutionary Creationism:

Thus, Evolutionary Creationism, as defined by Lamoureux, both subscribes to the broad definition of Creationism as well as accepts the scientific theory of evolution. This is in line with the idea that Evolution and Creationism are not opposed, but rather orthagonal concepts. This is not what Scott is implying in the short quote above. I suggest that if we read both the Wikipedia definitions of Theistic Evolution / Evolutionary Creationism (a definition that Lamoureux seems to support) and the Wikipedia definition of Creationism, we must conclude that the existing Wikipedia text is more in support of Lamoureux's position on this matter than Scott's (i.e. it may be possible that EC could support both evolution and creationism). Should Template:Creationism2 be applied to the article on Theistic Evolution / Evolutionary Creationism? I think there's a compelling argument that it should be acceptable. Shane Lin (talk) 07:25, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

In quoting the lead of Creationism, you seem to have left out the next sentence:

In this context the term was originally adopted (by one of George McCready Price's followers), and is still used, to signify some religious-motivated claim as to the origin of life/species/the-universe/etc that is in opposition to the scientific consensus (usually on evolution, but also at times on geology and a range of other fields).

As Ronald L. Numbers (the leading historian of creationism, and the source cited for the passage I have quoted above ) states ( in the citation here), 'Creationism', as a movement, is a rebranding of the 'anti-evolution' movement of the early 20th century. It is possible that some theistic proponents of evolution may wish to claim the label 'Creationism' for themselves -- but they do not claim inheritance of the history of creationism, and the likes of Price, Rimmer & Morris. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 10:25, 24 July 2009 (UTC) [Somebody seems to have changed the citation. Will attempt to find the Numbers source supporting this. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 10:29, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I bolded the relevant part of the quotes for you. The Creationism of the largely American Evolution/Creationism debate is in fact all the things that you say it is. But the Wikipedia article is careful to point out that it is only "in relation to the creation-evolution controversy" rather than in general. In fact, the rest of the article covers a wide variety of creationisms - Hindu, Islamic, and Jewish creationism. It even lists Theistic Evolution in the section on Christian Creationism. Clearly, the scope of the Wikipedia article is larger than what Numbers is talking about - unless "Price, Rimmer & Morris" also allow for Brahma and the Qu'ran. Either we should remove or move all entries not related to the modern Creationism movement of the Evolution/Creationism debate or else we accept that Wikipedia's view of Creationism is not entirely centered on America/Christianity/the contemporary. (Forgot to sign in)Shane Lin (talk) 18:56, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The vast majority of sources (and particularly prominent sources), making use of the word "creationism" are doing so in context of the Creation–evolution controversy‎. This includes Islamic, Jewish and Hindu creationists, with the former actually reproducing Christian creationist anti-evolution arguments. We should therefore giveWP:DUE weight to this interpretation. Creationism does not "list[] Theistic Evolution in the section on Christian Creationism" -- but in the history of creationism (as Creationist resurgences has often been a reaction to overt Christian acceptance of evolution). AFAIK there hasn't been a prominent "creationist" movement in the last 150 years that hasn't been about this controversy, so I don't see what there is to "remove or move". HrafnTalkStalk(P) 08:46, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

chronological or alphabetical order
I changed the order in which the religions are listed around to reflect chronological precedence, and another editor changed it back to conform with alphabetical order. Is there some sort of rule that resolves this issue? Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 04:12, 5 August 2010 (UTC)


 * There is no "precedence" consensus. Alphabetical solves the issue with no bias. Andrew Colvin • Talk 05:58, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Image in template
My attention having come here from the discussion at the talk about Template:Intelligent Design, I noticed that the image here was deleted without really having had a discussion on this talk page, so I would like to start that discussion now. I've read the edit summaries, and I realize that there are concerns that (a) it is decorative, and (b) that it is POV to represent an Abrahamic religion when other religious traditions also have creation stories. I went and read the lead at Creationism, the parent article for this template, and it summarizes the subject entirely in the Abrahamic context, and I think this image shows that in a way that is not simply decorative. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:57, 6 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with restoring it, and would further point out that most secondary sources (e.g. The Creationists) treat the topic from mainly (and in most cases, exclusively) within the context of Abrahamic religions. Vedic Creationism, the only non-Abrahamic form I'm aware of, lacks any great prominence, and does not even have an article of its own (in comparison to the dozens of articles on the Abrahamic forms). HrafnTalkStalk(P) 03:27, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It really does seem to me that it is an error to argue that it is somehow POV or UNDUE to use this image. I think we all agree that the image arises from Abrahamic traditions. But that does not mean that Abrahamic traditions are unrepresentative of this particular topic. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:21, 14 December 2010 (UTC)


 * You must not understand the full bias of that image. Regardless of whether there is supposedly only one other creationism—Norse, Hopi, Babylonian, Mossi, Wakaranga, etc. to mention a few—the image misrepresents all the different versions of Judeo-Christian  creationism. Old Earth creationism, day-age creationism, progressive creationism, and especially Intelligent Design creationism consider creation to have taken place over time, not an instant creation like genesis purports. Additionally, the image is just of man’s creation. Not the creation of the earth, the universe, or other animals (or life forms). It is just Gods (the Judeo-Christian God) creation of humans (more specifically, male humans).  A. Z. Colvin  •  Talk  00:29, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for coming to talk. As for what I and other editors understand, there's the lead of Creationism. And as for "just of man's creation", I think that we shouldn't be too literal here. The painting is at least as much an elegant metaphor as an attempt at photojournalism. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:42, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * A. Z. Colvin: (i) You appear to be conflating Creation myths with Creationism -- they are not the same thing. (ii) Please provide WP:RS evidence of extant (let alone significant) "Norse, Hopi, Babylonian, Mossi, Wakaranga, etc" creationist movements, to demonstrate that they are "significant viewpoints" to which we should give WP:DUE weight. (iii) "especially Intelligent Design creationism" -- the Discovery Institute used banners based upon this image for a number of years, and the image features on Intelligent design. (iv) Man's direct creation by God is very near to ubiquitous as an article of faith within the creationist movement. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:51, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Image in template v2
Here's another issue:

The painting of God creating Adam poses some issues with Christianity (which is the main foundation of Creation Science), primarily the inapproriate picture and a human interpretation of what God looks like. 1Thess5v16 (talk) 04:04, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

That picture is part of Creationism2, and discussion belongs on Template talk:Creationism2. (But you may wish to work on making your argument clearer before you go there.) HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:08, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

There is God the Father and God the Son (Jesus) and the Holy Spirit, God the Father is not incarnate (not in human form), therefore since God the Father created the heavens and the earth, a painting of God the Father as a human is incorrect, not to mention there is no way of knowing what Adam or God looked like. (Note most of these Renaissance paintings portray all the Biblical characters as Caucasian). Furthermore, the inappropriate nature of the image would negatively affect younger viewers. An image of say the first page of Genesis would probably fit the main page well. (File:Genesis1.jpg)1Thess5v16 (talk) 04:23, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

As Hrafn pointed out, that image is part of Creationism2 and you would have to discuss it on their talk page. As Hrafn also pointed out, you will likely need better reasoning. That image has been part of the template for a long, long time, and it is doubtful it will be changed due to your personal take on the bible and the concept of offense. Noformation Talk 04:27, 30 May 2011 (UTC) All three of you have very good points. However, it probably isn't necessary to change the picture itself (considering this article isn't only on theology). If someone wishes to cut out the bottom half of the picture, it would be fine with me (It could be considered pornographic in its present state). Wekn reven i susej eht (talk) 10:20, 30 May 2011 (UTC) It could NOT be considered pornographic by any stretch of the imagination!!TeapotgeorgeTalk 10:54, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Displaying the private areas of a man is, by my reckoning pornography. Wekn reven i susej eht (talk) 11:03, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Your reckoning is incorrect Pornography or porn is the portrayal of explicit sexual subject matter for the purposes of sexual excitement and erotic satisfaction. The painting comes no where close.TeapotgeorgeTalk 11:33, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

The way I see it, we both have different definitions. By your definition, the painting may not have been 'for the purposes of sexual excitement and erotic satisfaction,' but it could be used that way. Just don't look. Wekn reven i susej eht (talk) 11:58, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Any photos can be used for sexual gratification it doesn't make them pornographic. Are you suggesting we delete photographs of horses because some people get sexual excitement from looking at them?TeapotgeorgeTalk 14:17, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh, brother! Wekn reven i susej eht (talk) 08:34, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

We are dealing with humans, here. Weknreven i susej eht Talk• Contributions 08:53, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Based upon these points, I see no reason whatsoever to replace the image.HrafnTalkStalk(P) 10:19, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) The picture in question is The Creation of Adam from Michelangelo's Sistine Chapel ceiling
 * 2) As such it is an important work of art NOT "pornography".
 * 3) It is on prominent display in the most prominent chapel of the official residence of the head of the largest Christian denomination -- so clearly hardly representative of some WP:FRINGE heretical viewpoint within Christianity.
 * 4) As commons:Category:God the Father demonstrates, portrayals of God in Christian religious art are very common -- it can be considered artistic licence (it's rather hard to paint an unincarnate being without such licence).
 * 5) As has been noted above, a derivative work of this work was prominently employed on their website for a number of years by a major creationist organisation, the Center for Science and Culture of the Discovery Institute.
 * Hrafn, although you may not consider it to be pornography, you cannot argue that it isn't nudity (sadly, wikipedia has no policy against that). Your 5th point, however (unlike the rest) does make sense. As the icon is already in use among wikipedia users, I suppose the best thing would be to keep the image (I never objected to that). If anyone chooses to change the image, I will not object (unless it's worse). Wekn reven i susej eht  Talk• Contributions 10:46, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * That this is not pornography is not my personal opinion, it is the opinion of the vast majority of the Western world (of which the English-speaking community, that this encyclopaedia is aimed at, is a subset), and particularly of any number of experts on art. Any contrary opinion is WP:FRINGE and may be ignored. (ii) Nudity is not pornography. In any case, the representation is so small that you'd need a microscope to see the 'naughty bits'. (iii) Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED. This whole line of argument is really really silly. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 11:00, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * By the way, the Center for Science and Culture is a part of the Discovery Institute. Wekn reven i susej eht  Talk• Contributions 10:49, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I believe I just said that. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 11:00, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Oops! My mistake. Wekn reven i susej eht  Talk• Contributions 12:12, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Why are we arguing about this anyways? Wekn reven i susej eht  Talk• Contributions 12:14, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Another thing, if you actually click on the thumbnail, all 1/2-dozen 'naughty bits' are visible very clearly. No need for a microscope. Wekn reven i susej eht Talk• Contributions 12:19, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * That's rather like a court case that I once heard of where a person was complaining that their neighbour was a nudist -- turns out that the only way the person could see the neighbour was standing in a certain spot and using binoculars. The judge dismissed the case as anybody going to such lengths could reasonably be expected to know what they're about to see. Ditto anybody clicking on the thumbnail can reasonably be expected to know what they're going to see (and even at full size, the genitalia is fairly small and discrete). Anybody who would be offended by such is clearly going out of their way to be offended, and deserves to succeed in their endeavour. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 13:04, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Ha, ha! That's hillarious. Ok, you win! Wekn reven i susej eht  Talk• Contributions 13:31, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Anyway, I don't think the image is really a problem. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:04, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm throwing in my $.02 here to say that this image in no way violates any sort of WP policy and there is no justification to remove it aside from ones own personal sensibilities. That, however, is covered by WP:NOTCENSORED N o f o rmation  Talk 01:52, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I already said that; thanks for providing the link, anyway. Wekn reven i susej eht  Talk• Follow 07:55, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * What about something like this? (Don't take me seriously): Creation Science Movement; Made in His Image Cover

Link out of place
In reverting my edit, you appear to have overlooked or ignored the second part of my rationale for removing Genesis creation narrative from the Creation–evolution controversy section: it is out of place. The article on the myth does not discuss the controversy. It belongs in Biblical cosmology, where it already is. RockMagnetist(talk) 17:35, 20 July 2020 (UTC)