User talk:Philip J. Rayment/Discussion with Filll 1

Discussion
Permit me to respond to some of the terms you have on your user page, as a means of promoting greater understanding.--Filll 14:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Terminology
One of my concerns is the biased use that sceptics make of terms. Just as Christians often use "spiritual language" that may be obscure to non-Christians (e.g. salvation, redemption, repentance, eschatology), sceptics use words that have a meaning to them that is not used by others.


 * The same is true of Creationists. Many words used have a special meaning, different than conventional meanings, or the meanings of scientists. For example:
 * science
 * fact
 * theory
 * proof
 * evolution
 * religion
 * humanist
 * materialism
 * naturalist
 * humanist
 * atheist
 * Christians
 * To someone not familiar with the "debate", trained in science etc, it is a bit of a shock to be confronted with the realization that these words are being used in completely different manners. For example, it is a bit disconcerting to be told that science is a religion, or evolution is a religion and the source of all wars and pornography and all evils in the world. It is a bit much to be told that Catholics are not Christians, or are in fact are atheists or satanists. I could go on and on, but talking to a creationist is like entering an Alice in Wonderland fantasy world.--Filll 14:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The same is true of Creationists. Many words used have a special meaning, different than conventional meanings, or the meanings of scientists.
 * I would appreciate it if you didn't talk as though "creationists" and "scientists" are two mutually-exclusive groups, because they are not (unless you have your own definition of "scientist" that specially excludes creationists).
 * Yes, creationists do sometimes use at least some of those words differently to some other people, but I would put to you that the use creationists make of them are all legitimate (i.e. not invented) or are justified rather than just taken for granted.
 * Philip J. Rayment 10:27, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

However, whilst Christians often make an effort to avoid "spiritual language" when talking to non-Christians (albeit with limited success at times), sceptics appear to expect others to accept their terminology as correct and non-negotiable.


 * I realize scientists can speak their own special language that is confusing. But all groups do this. At least the scientists meanings are often if not usualy included as one of the meanings in the dictionary. Many creationist meanings are not in any major dictionary or encyclopedia. It can take a lot of study to even understand what they are saying and answer their angry charges and hate-filled diatribes and threats (maybe you have no experience of this, but I certainly do. It is common for people in the US who are creationists to make death threats against judges, doctors, professors, authors, etc).
 * As mentioned above, I reject that creationist meanings are not in dictionaries, etc. Please supply (and explain) an example.
 * Not being an American, perhaps I don't appreciate what some American creationists are like, although I find it extremely hard to believe that it is "common" for them to make death threats.
 * However, I would ask that when you are criticising the creation view, you stick with the views espoused by the major creationist organisations, such as the Creation Research Society, the Institute for Creation Research, Creation Ministries International, and Answers in Genesis. I do get the impression that a considerable number of man-in-the-street creationists, particularly in the U.S., are not at all familiar or up to date with the details of the creation model as understood by those organisations.  Anybody can find somebody that promotes some whacky view of anything, but picking on the views of someone who is not representative of the majority of creationists (or evolutionists) (unless notable in their own right) is hardly fair.
 * Philip J. Rayment 10:27, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Words frequently have multiple meanings. Although one word can sometimes have two or more totally unrelated meanings (such as lead, which can be both a metal and the opposite of follow), normally these meanings are related in some way. Thus computer was something generally that computed, but a derived (and now more common) meaning is an electronic programmable device. Another category is metaphorical meanings. An example is day, which means a single rotation of the earth, but metaphorically also means a period of time. Literal meanings come before metaphorical meanings; that is, metaphorical meanings are derived from literal meanings, not the other way around. The normal manner of distinguishing which meaning is intended is from the context. Thus there is no confusion about the meanings of the word "day" in the following sentence, that actually uses it in three different ways: "In my grandfather's day, it took six days to travel across the country, travelling only during the day".


 * Yes they certainly can. But often I have found creationists will want to use this as a trap for the unwary secular layperson, or the scientist, in debates etc. Sometimes without knowing it, but often knowingly. Very disingenuous and dishonest, frankly.--Filll 14:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I find the reverse; evolutionists equivocating about just what "evolution" means, with creationists more likely to explain just what they mean. Philip J. Rayment 10:27, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Regarding "Religion"
Religion can mean (this is not intended to be exhaustive):
 * 1) A set of beliefs on which one bases one's life
 * 2) Belief in a deity or deities (e.g. Christianity is a religion)
 * 3) A particular set of rituals (e.g. He is practising his religion)
 * 4) A particular broad set of beliefs (e.g. Which religion are you?  Christian, Muslim, or Hindu?)
 * 5) A particular narrower set of beliefs (e.g. Which religion are you?  Methodist, Baptist, or Catholic?)


 * To me, if there is no diety and no supernatural, there is no religion. So plumbing is not a religion. Farming is not a religion. Car repair is not a religion. Counting tree rings is not a religion. Looking through a microscope is not a religion. Solving equations is not a religion. Science is not a religion. Evolution is not a religion. Atheism is not a religion. Agnosticism is not a religion. Some political systems that elevate a leader to almost godlike status can approach religions. For example, in Egypt in the time of the Pharohs, the Pharoh was a god. In Japan, in the Shinto religion, the Emperor is or was a god. In communism, with the "cults of personality" that exist, the totalitarian leader is treated like a god. Sometimes even the term "messianic zeal" is used to describe this situation. I am not sure if they are religions or not, and where the boundary line might be drawn. But they can take on features of a religion.--Filll 14:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * To me, if there is no diety and no supernatural, there is no religion.
 * Okay, so you choose to use definition 2 of my list. That doesn't mean, of course, that your choice is the only legitimate choice.  And it does not follow from your list of things that you consider not religions, that your choice is a reasonable one.  Several of them, for example, could not reasonably be considered to be consistent with the first definition, the one I generally use.  There are some things in your list, however, that would be be considered religions according to definition No. 1.
 * Philip J. Rayment 10:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Creationists will often want to define, for legal purposes, or political purposes, or to try to smear the other side, that "evolution is a religion" or "evolution is atheism" or "atheism is a religion" or "science is a religion" or similar things. When I have tried to understand, through the screaming and cursing and physical threats of creationists against me, what they were saying, I often find that when pushed, creationists will stretch the meaning of the word "religion" to mean something that someone does passionately. If you farm passionately or clean your toilet passionately, it is a religion. I never imagined that I was worshipping  my toilet by cleaning it carefully, but that is what I was told over and over. The reason is that for legal purposes, creationists (at least in the US) want to define science or at least evolution as a religion, so they can get it excluded from the public schools on constitutional grounds. A secondary reason is that they feel that science is being put on a pedestal and superior to religious beliefs, so they should smear it in the same way as creationism is smeared, and brand science as a religion. This can be effective at irritating scientists and rationalists etc, and possibly effective for proselytizing purposes. But it is quite irritating, and serves to confuse the issue. Of course, the creationists who delivered the message that cleaning a toilet is a religion were very proud of themselves and cocky, and very smug and pleased with themselves, as though they had defeated Satan himself. The ones I encountered were angry, and unable to hear the other side of the argument ever or to acknowledge what the other side had said. And cursing and screaming and threatening and nasty and insulting, calling me stupid and ignorant. Not nice. So it does color my opinion somewhat.--Filll 14:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry you've had those experiences, but I must say that I've had similar from you, at least for this bit: ... angry, and unable to hear the other side of the argument ever or to acknowledge what the other side had said. Philip J. Rayment 10:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I never use No. 5, preferring to use denomination for that (My religion is Christian, my current denomination is Baptist)

No. 2 is, in my opinion, an arbitrary subset of No. 1. People believe in multiples gods (polytheism), everything-is-god (pantheism), one god (monotheism) or no god (atheism). Pantheism and atheism don't fit into definition No. 2, yet to consider them somehow "different" is arbitrary and self-serving. Thus I use definition No. 1 in preference to No. 2, and argue that atheism (and related views such as secular humanism) are religions, every bit as much as Christianity is. The difference is simply how many gods one believes in.


 * I have had some heated discussions with Muslims who claim that all Christians are polytheists or blasphemers or worse, and as such, deserve to be forced to convert or put to death. And they are just as passionate as Christian fundamentalists, let me tell you. It is impossible to argue with them on these points, let me tell you.--Filll 14:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, you have pointed out that you prefer definition No. 2, and I've said that I go for definition No. 1. I have also provided justification for my choice.  This bit about Muslims has no relevance to my choice, as far as I can see, and you have not provided proper justification for your choice.
 * To put it another way, one can't prove that God doesn't exist. So belief in no god is a faith position, just as belief in God is.  Both beliefs affect how we view a number of issues.  So, for example, a believer in God might believe that abortion is wrong, on the grounds that a foetus has a soul (before you disagree, this is an example only; I'm not arguing that position, here and now at least).  Similarly, a believer in no god might believe that abortion is okay, on the grounds that there is no such thing as a soul.  Therefore, both beliefs affect one's views on various issues.  To label one as "religious" and the other as not religious, and to therefore dismiss the "religious" view because it is religious is self-serving nonsense.  I don't particularly care if one wants to stick with the "religious" label (I'd prefer "worldview", actually), as long as one don't use it as grounds for dismissing or disregarding one of the views.
 * Philip J. Rayment 10:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Objection: Your use is an invented one
 * Not at all. I didn't make up this use of the word; it is also used that way by many others, and that use is found in dictionaries.

Objection: It is not fair to use a term of atheists that they don't use of themselves
 * If the term is accurate and appropriate, why not? There are many instances of people not using particular terms of themselves, but where it is still an accurate and appropriate term to use.  And if that objection were to be allowed, then people ought to stop using the term religion of Christians, because many Christians don't use the term of themselves (probably because they are Protestants who have in mind definition No. 3).


 * Of course the differing definitions are confusing. But if a scientists or secular person or regular layperson is going to discuss things with a fundamentalist, or a creationist, one has to realize what language they are speaking. Otherwise, the creationist will use it as a weapon and attack and cut the opposition to ribbons. I personally do not think it serves any good purpose to define just about all human activities as religions. It makes the word lose its meaning. I understand why they are doing this, but it is not helpful frankly.--Filll 14:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * And as I have explained above, neither is it helpful to simply label one point as "religious" and use that as a point of distinction. Philip J. Rayment 10:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Regarding "Belief"
Belief is assent to an idea. Thus I believe that the world is round, that gravity exists, and that God created the world as described in the Bible.


 * Of course you are incorrect. The planet earth is closer to an oblate spheriod, or a generalized ellipsoid with lateral heterogeneities. But it is roughly spherical. You are free to believe the world was created as described in the bible. However, to function well with others, it must be acknowledged that:
 * as near as we can determine so far, the dominant view is that much evidence does not support this, or at least in some strict interpretations
 * many others will read the bible differently than you, or have a different bible and will disagree with you
 * This does not mean that those who disagree with you are wrong or stupid or ignorant. It does mean that there is substantial disagreement about this, even among creationists (as I noticed reading a few creationist letters to Ken Ham). People who choose to accept the dominant view supported by the evidence interpreted in the dominant way, the best current scientific understanding are not evil. They are not worshipping a false god like a toilet or secretly plotting some humanist totalitarian New World Order. These sorts of accusations (which I have heard often) are just silly.--Filll 14:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * When I said that I believe the world is round, I was distinguishing it from the belief that the world is flat. I wasn't trying to be precise as to its exact shape.
 * I certainly recognise that the dominant view among scientists is not a creationist view.
 * I also recognise that people differ on what they think the Bible means. But I don't think this difference is as big an issue as you seem to think it is.
 * And yes, there are disagreements within creationary circles about some issues, just as there are disagreements within evolutionary circles about some issues. But I disagree that the dominant view is supported by the evidence.  And if the Bible is correct, then those that disagree are evil, but again, I'm almost certainly using that word in a way different to the way you would understand it.  I'm using it something like "not of God", not like "particularly gross or objectionable".
 * Philip J. Rayment 11:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

However, the word often has connotations of accepting an idea without evidence, or without good reason. Thus I have come across evolutionists who object to being described as believing in evolution. I (generally) do not use the word "belief" this way; if I say that someone "believes in evolution", I mean that they agree with the idea; that is what they think occurred/occurs. I will continue to use the word in that context because I don't know of another way of putting it that is not wordy or awkward.


 * A scientist only accepts any theory until a better one comes along to replace it. That is called the scientific method. So belief is a bit of a strange word with strange connotations; it is more of a provisional belief. The reason scientists might not like the word "belief" is that they do not want to be accused of following a religion. And smeared with being idolators and blasphemers. And having science then censured as being a religion, excluded from schools and government funding etc.--Filll 14:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * A scientist only accepts any theory until a better one comes along to replace it.
 * That's the theory, but scientists are human and it doesn't always work out that way in practice. If it did, there would surely be no disagreements at all among scientists?
 * The reason scientists might not like the word "belief" is that they do not want to be accused of following a religion.
 * That may be so, but that is not the dictionary meaning of the word. And no informed creationist claims that science itself is a religion.  Remember that creationary scientists are themselves scientists.
 * Philip J. Rayment 11:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Regarding "Evolution"
Two meanings of Evolution (from a dictionary) are as follows:
 * Any process of formation or growth; development
 * Biol. the continuous genetic adaptation of organisms or species to the environment by the integrating agencies of selection, hybridisation, inbreeding, and mutation.


 * There are of course many other related meanings of the word "evolution".--Filll 14:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Philip J. Rayment 11:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

It should be clear that the first meaning is not limited to life, and we can thus (and do) talk of, for example, the evolution of stars or the evolution of cars.


 * The multiple definitions can be a huge source of confusion and used by creationists as weapons against evolution.--Filll 14:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * As I've said before, creationists tend to define their use of the word (want evidence? This is precisely what I was doing by putting this on my user page!), but evolutionists tend to equivocate on what it means.  Philip J. Rayment 11:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

However, going beyond those dictionary definitions, creationists point out that biological evolution can be subdivided according to the mechanisms involved. Many people use the terms macroevolution and microevolution to distinguish these categories, although leading creationists these days discourage the use of those terms. The distinctions are:
 * A sorting or loss of genetic information results in modified characteristics of living things. Thus fish living in unlit caves might lose some of the genetic information for making eyes, leading to a variety of eyeless (or at least sightless) fish.
 * A gain of genetic information adds new capabilities to living things. Thus some dinosaurs gained the genetic information for wings and feathers and became birds (over a long time and in small steps, of course).


 * It is sometimes claimed that mutations never result in a gain of information, or sometimes with an improvement in the organism. I would ask, what about my father, who had a reaction time 3 times faster than the average person? His father and mother did not have it. My sister has it. I do not. What about my friend who has preternaturally good eyesight? His parents do not have it. What about the gentleman "rainman" was based on? And other "idiot savants"? Although they do not have uniformly better characteristics, they have some remarkably good characteristics that just arose. How? From where? Recessive genes? There is never any random change in the genetic code that causes an improvement in things? Part of the difficulty here is the definition of what constitutes a "kind" and what constitutes a "species" and what constitutes "evolution". Since big evolutionary steps happened long ago and we only have records in fossils and in the genetics, creationists can and do claim that it never happened. But many sciences are not experimental and are only observational. Seissmology. Solar physics. Meteorology. Astrophysics. Geomagnetism. Etc. So just because the events happened a long time ago, does not mean that they cannot be studied. And no one knowledgable claims that the theory explaining how they species came to be is infallible or the truth or unchangable. It is only the best possible answer at the moment from the evidence we have. And it will be replaced by another when better evidence emerges. What is wrong with that?--Filll 14:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I would ask, what about...
 * It is of course a bit hard to answer about your father and the other examples, without knowing anything about the situations. But yes, recessive genes could be one explanation.  Another could be a mutation that damages or destroys some biological control mechanism.  It's a bit hard to go into specifics with such general and personal questions, but every mutation that has been studied has been a neutral change or a loss of genetic information.  This is an observation of science.
 * There is never any random change in the genetic code that causes an improvement in things?
 * There can be losses of genetic information that improves things, such as the loss of the information to develop wings on beetles on windy islands. Not having wings means that they are less likely to be blown into the sea and drown.  It is an improvement in that particular environment, but it is not a gain in genetic information.
 * ...many sciences are not experimental and are only observational.
 * I suspect that there are experiments that can be done in most of your example fields, but at least they are, as you say, open to observation. The past is not, although as I have said before, science can be on some use.
 * And no one knowledgable claims that the theory explaining how they species came to be is infallible or the truth or unchangable. It is only the best possible answer at the moment from the evidence we have. And it will be replaced by another when better evidence emerges. What is wrong with that?
 * There is nothing wrong with that. But I would ask, does this just apply to some details of the evolutionary theory, or also to evolution itself?  Because it seems as though evolution itself is sacrosanct, and beyond question.
 * Philip J. Rayment 11:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Evolutionists generally don't make the distinction between the two, and thus usually end up offering evidence of the first and then consider that the second has been demonstrated. They also accuse creationists of making up a distinction that doesn't exist (and of coining the terms "microevolution" and "macroevolution", but this is wrong; see here). But whilst it may be true that creationists highlight the distinction and evolutionists don't, it is also clear that there is a distinction. Losing and adding genetic information are two different things.


 * Bioinformatics and information theory are very technical subjects. And frankly, I do not believe any creationists are adequately conversant with these fields to have anything to say about them. Including people like Dembski, whose work was critically reviewed by experts and found wanting. Very deficient. As in wrong.--Filll 14:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Despite your belief that no creationists know what they are talking about in this area, there is no good reason for thinking that your belief has any validity. And I find much criticism of creationists to be motivated by a passion for them to be wrong.  I haven't studied Dembski's ideas much, so I can't comment much on him, but it wouldn't surprise me at all to find that the "experts" who found his ideas "wanting" were nothing more than people who had different views than him.  Would you also dismiss Dr. Werner Gitt, former Head of the Department of Information Technology at the German Federal Institute of Physics and Technology?
 * Philip J. Rayment 11:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Creationists deny that the second (the gain in genetic information) occurs, and deny that it has been observed. Unfortunately many lay creationists fail to make the distinction when discussing the topic, but similarly many evolutionists (and not just lay evolutionists) fail to appreciate the distinction when responding to creationists. Thus they (a) offer evidence for a loss of genetic information when challenged on the lack of evidence for a gain, and (b) misrepresent creationists as rejecting all evolution when they in fact only reject the second category (although it is true that creationists do reject the use of the term "evolution" for the second category).


 * As I said, gain or loss and reproductive suitability in a given environment is a very complicated subject. Just finding a turtle with two heads does not prove "loss of information". If the two heads are useful in some environments, then this mutation will enable the turtle to breed better and pass this mutation along. I think the entire loss of information complaint is a bit confusing and really misused. Things like "entropy" and "information" are great weapons for creationists, because no one really knows what they mean.--Filll 14:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * ...great weapons for creationists, because no one really knows what they mean.
 * Are you saying that creationists are the only ones who know what they are talking about?
 * Seriously, your lack of understanding of information theory is not a good argument for dismissing it.
 * Philip J. Rayment 11:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Regarding "Evolutionist"
I was surprised to find that many people who believe in evolution object to being described as evolutionists. As far as I am concerned, that is an accurate and appropriate use of the word. That is, an evolutionist is simply someone that agrees with the idea of evolution. Again, as for "belief", I will continue to use the word because I don't know of another way of putting it that is not wordy or awkward.


 * It is only used by creationists, so it has a bit of a negative connotation for that reason I suspect.--Filll 14:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd accept that it is mainly used by creationists, because evolutionists tend to misleadingly prefer to make a distinction between "scientist" and "creationist", but it is not only used by creationists, and regardless of who uses it, the real point is, is it a legitimate term? I contend that it is. Philip J. Rayment 11:29, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * yes Phil I dont get that. they dont want to be called darwinists or evolutionists. what is OK with them? its a game. then they object to the term macroevolution when it is used in the journals all the time. its just meant to obfuscate the issue raspor 15:46, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the reason they object is that "-ist" implies (in their minds at least) a subjective faith belief in something, and they like to think that their particular view is objectively the "right" one.
 * I don't actually think that "macroevolution" is all that common a term, but it is certainly not unique to creationists, as some have charged.
 * Philip J. Rayment 01:12, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Regarding "Fundamentalist"
A fundamentalist was originally one who accepted the fundamental truths of the Bible. Since the coinage of the term in the early 20th century, however, the semantic range of the word has expanded to include other meanings:
 * One who strongly believes the basic teachings of any religion
 * A literalist
 * A legalist
 * An extremist, sometimes with connotations of a terrorist.


 * It has gained the negative connotations because of the actions of some like the Islamists, the Jihadists, the fundamentalists who murdered doctors who perform abortions, and blew up abortion clinics, who killed hundreds of people in Oklahoma city, who preach hatred of other races, who want to execute all homosexuals, want holy wars, etc. So it gained these negative connotations somewhat honestly, frankly.--Filll 14:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * That doesn't explain why it was used of those people in the first place. Why, for example, was it used of Islamists, when its original meaning referred to someone believing the Bible?  Nevertheless, I was simply pointing out the range of use, not questioning the use.  Philip J. Rayment 11:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

In fact the original meaning of the word almost seems to be lost these days.


 * This is a well known process called pejoration. How long would it take a person to develop a negative connotation of a group when the first 10 members they met screamed in their face, spit at them, cursed them in the worst possible way, threatened them and told them they were evil and going to hell, and that everything they had ever been taught by family and friends and school and church were WRONG and EVIL? How long would it take a person to develop a negative impression of someone who told them their church was full of whores and their pastor was a filthy [deleted]? How long would it take someone to develop a negative impression of a group that told him his parents were disgusting and stupid and evil and satanists? Fundamentalists have earned their negative connotations, in my book. You dont like it? Change your actions. And get your friends to change their actions, and behave in a civilized manner. --Filll 14:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * How long would it take a person to develop a negative connotation of a group when the first 10 members they met screamed in their face, spit at them, [etc.]
 * However, as I mentioned above, it wasn't the original "fundamentalists" that acted in this way.
 * You dont like it? Change your actions. And get your friends to change their actions, and behave in a civilized manner.
 * First, I didn't actually say that I didn't like it (although I don't particularly). Second, I and my friends do not behave that way.
 * Philip J. Rayment 11:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I, along with many other Christians, object to being called a "fundamentalist" on the grounds that the word has meanings and connotations that we disagree with. I have no objection to being described as a fundamentalist if it is clear that the original meaning is intended, but this is hardly ever the case.


 * A bit difficult. Every word you choose will soon get the same negative connotations attached to it. Pejoration again. Bibliolaters? Bible literalists? Fundamentalists? Evangelists? Bible thumpers?--Filll 14:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * How about (depending on the situation) simply "creationists"? Why a perjorative term at all?  What I'm objecting to is people using a known perjorative term of me, simply because it is perjorative.  What does "fundamentalist creationist" convey that "creationist" does not, if not a perjorative aspect?  Philip J. Rayment 11:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, I have frequently seen creationists described as fundamentalists simply because they are creationists. That is, the word is used as if creationists are fundamentalists by definition. In this case, there is no merit in saying "creationists are fundamentalists who...". It is both redundant, and, given the connotations that the word carries, little more than an attempt to caricature and abuse creationists.


 * It is difficult to know what to call them. Not all fundamentalists focus on Genesis. Some focus on the book of Daniel. Some focus on the book of Revelations. Some focus on Romans or some other book. Very few focus on the Gospels I notice.--Filll 14:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It is difficult to know what to call them.
 * As I've just asked above, why not just "creationist"? What's so difficult about that?

Consistent with this, Wikipedia's own NPOV policy cautions against using the term inappropriately.


 * I do not mean to slur fundamentalists. It is hard to keep the negative connotations out of it, however.--Filll 14:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * How is it so hard to use "creationist" instead of "fundamentalist"? Philip J. Rayment 11:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Apologetics
My parents raised me to believe that the Bible could be logically and rationally defended from sceptical criticism. This was mainly in the area of archaeology, but later I learnt of the overwhelming evidence consistent with the Bible's records of creation and the flood, and related events. Without this evidence, I likely would have still believed in creation and the flood, but I would never have dared debate the matter with sceptics. Armed with the evidence, however, I have considerable confidence that the Biblical record is rationally defensible.


 * My parents raised me to believe in science and rationality. My parents and church raised me to see it as a beautiful book with beautiful poetry and allegory and some deep truths in it. But every word is not literally true, no. I was taught this from an early age. It is part of my raising and my religion. Am I evil and cursed because of this? All my ministers and spiritual leaders and family? It is a bit hard to swallow, frankly.--Filll 14:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The problem with the view that you were raised with is that Genesis (with some minor exceptions) is not poetry, and it is written as history, not allegory. As far as being cursed, this again might be "Christian terminology", or, more accurately, Biblical terminology.  The Bible says that all of creation is cursed (because of man's rejection of God), so of course that includes you (and me).  Philip J. Rayment 12:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * You are free to believe what you want. And I am free to believe what I want. Most western countries allow freedom of religion and discourage aggressive proselytizing and religious minorities from demanding that all others accommodate them. And believe me, the cursing was real. With real curse words.--Filll 13:50, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, most western countries do allow freedom of belief. I've never indicated otherwise (although western countries often do control what you are taught, such as not allowing the creationary view to be taught in government schools&mdash;so much for freedom!).  But I will go further.  Regardless of what a country allows, God has given us the ability to believe what we want.  Even an oppressive dictatorial country cannot force you to believe something.  This ability to choose our beliefs is referred to as "free will".  But in the atheistic/materialistic view, even our thoughts are determined by chemical reactions in our brains.  In this view, there appears to be no place for free will.  Philip J. Rayment 01:45, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Creation Ministries International
I have found Creation Ministries International (formerly Answers in Genesis) to be an organisation of great integrity and enormous passion. I therefore have no hesitation in recommending their materials to others.


 * They are certainly passionate. I give you that.--Filll 14:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * They are also scientific, meticulous, and concerned for the truth. Philip J. Rayment 12:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh yes? I guess that depends on your definition of "truth". Should we fire all of the faculty that believe otherwise and teach it? Like about 99.9% of the biologists?--Filll 13:48, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * My definition of truth? Truth is what is true, factual, real.  It doesn't change according to one's views on things.  No, we shouldn't fire all the biologists, but perhaps we should stop them acting as though only they have a handle on the truth about origins, hey?  I mean, no creationist that I'm aware of has ever suggested that biologists should be fired because of their beliefs.  But I know of several cases where this or similar things have been proposed or have actually happened because the person concerned was a creationist!  Double standards?  Philip J. Rayment 01:45, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Creation Ignorance
I find it quite annoying and frustrating that there are so many sceptics that argue vehemently against the Biblical record of creation and the flood, yet are so grossly ignorant of the idea that they argue so strongly against. Yet they often have the gall to call a creationist ignorant because the creationist supposedly doesn't understand evolution!


 * Part of the problem is the different versions of creationism, versions of the bible, translations, interpretations, different creation stories from other faiths, etc.--Filll 14:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * This is another common sceptic furphy. The various translations/versions of the Bible use slightly different wording to convey the same information.  There is substantial agreement, not disagreement, between the different versions.  Philip J. Rayment 12:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Just to start with, lets consider Young Earth creationism, Modern geocentrism, Omphalos hypothesis, Creation science, Old Earth creationism, Intelligent design movement, Gap creationism, Day-Age Creationism, Progressive creationism, Neo-Creationism, and Islamic creationism. Lets consider the two versions of creation in genesis with different orders. Lets consider the variety of Creation within belief systems. Lets consider the Creation_according_to_Genesis. And that is just for starters.--Filll 13:58, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Perhaps I was remiss in not answering your claim about different versions of creation, but it should have been clear that I was answering your point about different versions of the Bible, and your response does not address that.
 * Yes, there are different versions of creation, just as there are different versions of evolution (Lamarkian, Darwinian, neo-Darwinian, Punctuated Equilibrium, etc. and various versions of human evolution, such as Out of Africa vs. Multiregional). So what?  If I have to cope with different evolutionary views, how is it a problem for anti-creationists to cope with different views of creation?
 * However, your list of different views is inflated somewhat. As I remarked recently elsewhere (Raspor's talk page I'm pretty sure), the word "creationist" can, strictly speaking, refer to anyone who believes that we are created.  But in everyday use, "creationist" refers to a rather more limited group of people, and I reject that some of the views you list above are creationist views in this everyday sense.
 * Young-Earth creationism certainly fits the bill. Modern geocentrism is not really a separate view on creation, although I'll grant that they are creationists.  The Omphalos hypothesis was a 19th Century proposal, and I don't believe that it has any significant support today, and is not creationist in the everyday sense.  Creation Science is essentially Young-Earth creationism, and to the extent it's not, it fits under others mentioned anyway.  Old-Earth creationism I'll grudgingly concede, although they are rare and not really thought of as creationist in everyday use.  ID people reject that they are creationists, and creationists reject that ID is creationism; it's only the critics of both that love to lump them together.  "Gap creationism" is usually referred by as "the gap theory" and is not creationism in the everyday sense, and only appears to have support among those that haven't kept up to date on the issue.  Day-age creationism is also not generally known by that name, and not everyday creationism.  Progressive creationism I'll reluctantly concede also, and neo-creationism I don't know much about, but appears to not be something much different to normal creationism.  Islamic creationism I don't know much about either, but I wonder how different it is.  The creation stories of various cultures are not what is understood by "creationism", and is just an anti-creationist attempt to muddy the waters.  If you want to include those accounts of origins, why not include the atheist one, goo-to-you evolution?  That's an "origins myth" also.  But one that's promoted as somehow "scientific", despite it being just as much a belief system as others.
 * As for different versions of the creation story, what is different about them? The first account is an ordered chronological account, but the second isn't, so claims that the order is different is nonsense, when the second account is not describing the order!  Yes, there are two accounts, but they are complimentary, not contradictory, so there's no issue there, except in the minds of sceptics who try to find differences even where they don't exist.
 * Philip J. Rayment 02:12, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

As a creationist living in a secular country, I get uniformitarian and evolutionary ideas thrown at me every day, whether that be via the education system, television, the Internet, newspapers, general magazines, or science magazines and journals. Being a creationist, I also read lots of books, magazines, and Internet articles supporting creation, watch videos and DVDs, and hear speakers on the topic of creation. Thus I learn about the debate from both sides.

Evolutionists, on the other hand, generally get to see and read very little creationary material, so most evolutionists (there are exceptions of course) do not have a balanced education on the topic. Probably 99% of their knowledge on the debate is from the evolutionary side, including what little knowledge they have of the creationary case. This is understandable, but what is not understandable is how they then make out they know enough about creation to be able to reject it!


 * This is a big problem. It leaves a scientist or secular person open to attack by creationists since they all believe slightly different shades of things and expect the whole world to know their personal interpretations of the bible and the words they use.--Filll 14:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Rubbish. Such people should have no more problem understanding the "slightly different shades" than creationists have understanding the different claims about evolution.  The problem is that they don't actually bother to find out what the creation view is, except for what the next anticreationist or anticreationist web-site tells them.  Philip J. Rayment 12:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

The following are some aspects of the creation model that many anti-creationists get wrong. I have not attempted to substantiate them (they can put in the effort for that themselves) but in the future I may at least provide links to where they can learn more.


 * Noah's flood did not cover Everest and similar high mountains


 * But some creationists say it did.--Filll 14:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Come on, name names. Philip J. Rayment 12:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Noah's flood did not last 40 days and 40 nights


 * I do notice different accounts of this.--Filll 14:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Do any claim that it only lasted 40 days and 40 nights? If they do, name names.  Philip J. Rayment 12:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The water of Noah's flood did not come solely from rain


 * That I know.--Filll 14:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Good. That's a start.  Philip J. Rayment 12:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Creationists (as a whole) do not reject plate tectonics


 * Some sure do.--Filll 14:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Which is why I qualified the statement. I've come across anticreationists who are surprised to hear that any creationists accept plate tectonics.  Of course I doubt that that have any inkling that the idea was proposed by a creationist partly on the basis of the creation account in Genesis! Philip J. Rayment 12:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Creationists do not reject science


 * Some reject so much of it and the scientific method that they might as well reject it all.--Filll 14:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Name names, and support your claim. I know of no creationist that rejects science per se at all, and especially do not reject the findings of scientists in pretty well any field other than ones dealing with origins.  Philip J. Rayment 12:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Creationists do not reject natural selection


 * Some sure do.--Filll 14:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Not the ones from the organisations listed above. Only some of the uninformed man-in-the-street creationists I mentioned above.  Philip J. Rayment 12:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Creationists do not reject speciation


 * Some sure do. If you do not reject speciation, then what of evolution do you reject?--Filll 14:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Again, not the informed ones. Creationists reject that mutations provide new genetic information.  Speciation is due to a loss of genetic information.  Philip J. Rayment 12:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Creationary scientists do hold real qualifications in all areas of science (i.e. including biology and geology)


 * Very few. In the US, way less than 1% of all geologists and biologists are creationists. Maybe less than 0.1% as the best references I have tell me. --Filll 14:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Very few what? Very few "creationary scientists ... hold real qualifications in all areas of science".  Back that up or correct your statement.  I didn't make any comment about how many geologists, etc. are creationists.  My comment was about the scientists who are creationists.  Philip J. Rayment 12:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Creationists do not deny that there are beneficial mutations.


 * Some sure do. And will fight you to death on that issue.--Filll 14:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Again, name names. Philip J. Rayment 12:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Well I might investigate that. And come up with a substantial sourced list. However, I am doing other things at the moment. This would be a lot of effort and investigation. I do know what people tell me to my face and what I have read, however.--Filll 13:45, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll take pity on you and possibly save you some waste of time. Creationists do deny that there are information-increasing mutations, but not beneficial mutations.  It is entirely possible to have an information-losing mutation that bestows a benefit in a particular environment.  And as I've mentioned several times above, I'm talking about the informed creationists, the ones associated with the main creationist organisations listed above.  Philip J. Rayment 01:45, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Wikipedia bias
Whilst I find Wikipedia very useful in many respects, it is severely biased when it comes to Christianity and creation in particular. Despite the NPOV policy, many editors seem unable to accept a neutral point of view when discussing creation, and the enforcement is totally inadequate.


 * It is imperfect. It is just as bad for someone in science, let me assure you.--Filll 14:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It's worse that "imperfect". Enforcement is close to non-existent in religious areas.   Philip J. Rayment 12:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I spent a great deal of time editing articles to do with creation, only to find that anticreationists would butcher them. In one particular case, I listed some beliefs of creationists, carefully wording it to make it clear that they were creationists beliefs, not something accepted by all, and referenced the information to on-line sources. An anticreationist deleted my edits and replaced them with his own views on what creationists believe, without reference sources. This was just one small portion of the butchering. I attempted mediation, but no mediator offered themselves, so no mediation occurred. The anticreationist continued unchecked. He subsequently successfully put the article up for deletion. Some people who voted for deletion openly admitted that they did so on the ground that they considered creation nonsense, not on the merits of the article itself. The fact that they felt free to do so speaks volumes. No moderator bothered enforcing the rules, and the improper negative votes of the anticreationists were counted along with all other votes. See here.


 * I would have argued strongly to keep that article. I think we need to document carefully the creationist views. I would be glad to work on such articles with you and fight like crazy to keep them. We need to know what creationists think and all the different varieties of thought and belief and reasoning. It is incredibly important.--Filll 14:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Somehow your comments on the Noah's Ark talk page don't fill me with confidence that your help would actually be a benefit. Sorry.  Philip J. Rayment 12:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Meanwhile, an anonymous creationist editor found himself in an edit war, and was prevented from editing articles by them being locked. How were his opponents able to get action, and I wasn't? One of his opponents was a sysop! See here


 * I dont know what to say about this.--Filll 14:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I came to realise that editing creation articles was a waste of time, as there are more anticreationists trying to undermine creation than there are people willing to write such articles from a neutral point of view, and totally inadequate moderation to control the situation.

Consequently, I have no intention of returning to edit such articles until and unless I learn that the situation has improved markedly.


 * If you wanted to try to write articles about the creationist POV (remember there are many to consider; at least 10 or 20 varieties), I am sure I could rally some of my friends to push your case and keep them from being attacked. I would like to try anyway, if you wanted. However, they should be labeled as creationist views, not facts or the truth or whatever.--Filll 14:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not about to try anything again at present. I have no problem with the articles being clear that they are the views of particular groups, but I do have a problem with creationist views being treated as false, and even with them having refutation sections when opposing views do not.  Philip J. Rayment 12:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC)