Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of scientists who believed in Biblical creation


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   Delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 06:10, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

List of scientists who believed in Biblical creation

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Inherently POV article, providing no value to an encyclopedia. This is not a list of current biologists, which might be interesting, but rather a list that includes Tycho Brahe. Whoo! Hipocrite (talk) 13:11, 12 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete as a ridiculous synthesis: "This is a list of scientists who either believed in creationism, or who did not express any doubts on record". Why not have a "list of scientists who believed that the moon was made of green cheese, or who did not express any doubts on record"? Utterly idiotic... AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:17, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I note that the "or who did not..." phrase has now been removed from the lede - which now leaves us with a list based entirely on vague assertions from questionable sources about people who may or may not have been 'scientists' in the modern sense, who apparently lacked the foresight to reject the norms of the period they lived in, and adopt instead the scientific concepts of a time they didn't live in. Even more ridiculous... AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:57, 16 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - inherently creationist POV-pushing, with tons of unsourced entries and many of the sources are incredibly unreliable (Henry Morris can't be considered a reliable source for anything related to evolution). In addition, the ages of many of those scientists means they were active when Biblical creation was the only narrative available to them.  At that point, every single person on the planet would believe in some form of creation myth, making an equally valid title for the page "list of people alive before 1859".  As a final point, a lot of these people are only questionably categorized as scientists.  Come one.  Delete.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 13:38, 12 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep but significantly Amend - The topic is certainly notable enough, so I think there is a valid list article here (or at least a list that is similar to this). However, if we are to keep, the reformulated list would definitely need to impose a much more clearly defined and very strict inclusion criteria.  It is certainly disingenuous to list scientists (such as Brahe) who lived during the era before any alternative to the Biblical account had been formulated.  Any scientist that is included in such a list would have to be from the modern era, and on record as having expressly and unambiguously asserted their belief in Biblical creation... as opposed to including those who merely have not expressed doubt. Blueboar (talk) 13:49, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I 100% agree with Blueboar's reasoning here, but I instead come to the conclusion to Delete instead of Keep/Fix because the article as it currently is would have to be thrown out and 100% restarted from scratch. Unless someone agrees to do this work right now, it's better to delete and wait for an editor to create the article at a future date when it's ready.  Otherwise we would have this article as a stub with no content, no point in that and it would also give the wrong impression.  Zad68 (talk) 14:23, 12 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete Because we should not list peoples opinions on things, For example, we wouldnt have a 'List of musicians who think Lang Lang can't play the piano well'  User Talk:Willdude123 13:45, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete or (somehow) split (???). Believing in biblical creation in 1500 cannot be lumped with the same belief in 1900, 1950 or 2000. I did ponder about splitting....but belief in it in days of yore was non-notable, and I don't know when the line to it being notable is...if ever. Also there is the question of intensity of belief and what field of science the believer holds...how they hold both views, do they.... blah blah. Too many apples and oranges in the same basket. Ergo, the list is an artificial conflation and inherently misleading and is a net negative to encyclopedic content. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:51, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - Fundamentally flawed article. To begin with, "or who did not express any doubts on record" implies that there are no sources available for this assertion for many of those listed.  Next of all, belief in the commonly held theory of the a particular time period can't be legitimately compared to other time periods with other different theories.  Finally, belief and faith shouldn't really have much bearing on science - which is based largely on empirical fact . . . so the beliefs of people doing work in this field shouldn't matter any more than the beliefs of other people in other professions, which kind of renders the whole article pointless.-- Stv  Fett erly  (Edits)  14:06, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete as per all the reasons above. As Blueboar says, if it was just an article about 20th/21st century scientists that have specifically stated their belief in Creationism, that's one thing. That is not what this article is, there are over 100 scientists listed. Inflating the show of supposed support by adding the weasel term "or who did not express any doubts on record", but not including it the heading is at best, deceptive. By this yardstick, should would also create a List of scientists who don't believe in Biblical creation? Please add all eleventy-billion (ya, that's right, eleventy-billion) scientists who have never mentioned their opinion on the subject to that article too. Ridiculous. Afterthought, they didn't even do a good job of supporting their case, they went back 500 years, and could only come up with a list of just over 100 people that haven't said "No, that's clearly wrong.", I'd say that hurts their case more than it helps it, but I realize that's not related to this discussion --  Despayre  tête-à-tête 14:17, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Addendum, Darwin published his book on evolution in 1859, anyone listed who lived before that date is irrelevant at best. --  Despayre  tête-à-tête 15:14, 12 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete Hard to think of reasons not already given - it's an inappropriate list - it's like a list of scientists who didn't believe that light had a finite speed, or didn't believe in relativity. It also makes the assumption that the term 'scientist' can apply to a 13th century scholar in the same way it can apply to a 21st century scholar, which is pure original research but the basis of the article. Dougweller (talk) 14:51, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep with heavy pruning There is a category Category:Creationists (with subcategory Category:Christian creationists) so I don't think it's inappropriate to have a subcategory of creationist scientists, or a list of the same. Just because something was done badly doesn't mean it can't be done with some semblance of intelligence. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:40, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment This doesn't get around the problem of the fact that 'scientist' now doesn't mean the same thing as it did centuries ago. And among other things, there's the fact that today everyone knows that there is a competing scientific theory. Dougweller (talk) 18:25, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * "Creationist" also didn't really mean anything before Darwin, or really wasn't even in use as a term before the 20th century. Just like calling someone a "Young Earth creationist" would be completely meaningless if that person lived prior to the development of modern geology. postdlf (talk) 19:37, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * That's fair comment, but the article could differentiate between those post-Origin of the Species, and to those pre-OotS who actually wrote on creationism. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:42, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment I have to plead guilty to inserting the above mentioned weasel words. I did so because I thought that it more accurately described the content of the article, because scientists were being cited as 'believers in biblical creation' merely because they are not on record as having expressed doubt. Hooke is a good example. I think its an absurd and tendentious list, and inherently POV (& should be deleteed) : I'm sorry if I've muddied waters. (I think if you did prune the article, it would need a lengthy explnation of th critia for inclusion/exclusion & the 'list of...title would become inappropriate)TheLongTone (talk) 16:47, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - Even though the dubious "did not express any doubts on record" has been were to be removed, the page remains woefully unsourced, and with a questionable POV. Might as well synthesize a list of Medieval clerics who had no opinion (or hid it if they did) on phlogiston, or species of fish who never see bicycles. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 18:08, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment I should have thought of the phlogiston argument! Dougweller (talk) 18:25, 12 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete As per nomination. This is exactly the type of articles which shouldn't be here. --Kristjan Wager (talk) 19:38, 12 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - The key word here is "believed," which goes to state of mind. State of mind WHEN — do not beliefs change over time? And how does one prove or disprove that a person had certain beliefs? By one statement? By a series? On my user page I've got a Jimmy Wales quote in which he calls voting "evil" — would that qualify him for a List of people who do not believe in democracy? Moreover, some individuals are included on this list with no sources at all! This is, frankly, something akin to what we see on Conservapedia with their list of Christian athletes, etc. It's a POV exercise, plain and simple. Carrite (talk) 19:57, 12 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete without Prejudice I think this should be deleted without discouraging the creation of some future article without the obvious flaws that this one has (listing those "who did not express any doubts on record", listing pre-darwin scientists, etc.) A good template for that future article is List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming. Notice how that article carefully defines its listing criteria. Normally I would say "so fix it", but there rreally is nothing in the current article worth saving. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:55, 12 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete Normally, I would say keep, but there's really nothing worth saving. A list of contemporary scientists who believe in creationism would be a nice article, but all the scientists listed are dead, and most of the entries are uncited.  Also, does the term 'scientist' as we know it today apply to someone born in 1214?  I say delete the article and someone create a List of scientists who believe in Biblical creation with tighter inclusion criteria. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:05, 12 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete with Extreme Prejudice. All "list of..." Wikipedia articles are inherently problematic. Absent reliable sources which actually list  people or events or objects or whatever it is being listed together in a manner similar to the subject article, they are inherently the result of original research by editors and synthesis of various unrelated sources. This article is a particularly egregious example of the problem, given the listing of people over the course of centuries and the admixture of "supporters" with "haven't publicly objected".  Lots of scientists refrain from commenting publicly things unworthy of comment, lest it confer undeserved legitimacy.  If this absurd article stands, I'm starting an article List of theologians who reject Biblical creation as a patently nonsensical fairy tale that would rightfully be ridiculed by any rational person should you seriously content that it should be regarded as factual, with St. Augustine heading up the list, and defy anyone to delete it. Fladrif (talk) 00:50, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * All "list of..." Wikipedia articles are inherently problematic? Every single one? Including List of 7400 series integrated circuits, List of mathematical symbols and List of pharaohs?
 * Lists are an intrinsic part of Wikipedia and allowed by policy, so you can't use "lists are intrinsically bad" as an argument. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:43, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I did not say that lists are intrinsically bad. I said that they are inherently problematic, and that the problem arises where the list is not supported by reliable, third party sources that group the members of the list together in the manner suggested by the Wikipedia list article. One can find such sources listing 7400 Series Circuits or Pharaohs, so the examples are not well taken.  I see no suggestion in this article's footnotes, in the source lookup, or by those advocating its retention that there are similar reliable sources supporting this list, meaning that this list is entirely original research and synthesis. Fladrif (talk) 13:21, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree 100% that this particular list is bad on several levels. The good news is that it will soon be gone, given the way the votes are going. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:30, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

*Keep What is anyone afraid of? Creationism is nonsense so who cares who did or didn't believe it. Evolution is so true, that nothing can usurp it. perhaps this list should be eliminated too-- List of common misconceptions SmittysmithIII (talk) 04:04, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * people are "afraid" that instead of being an encyclopedia, wikipedia will become a POV pushing blog -- The Red Pen of Doom  12:25, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * (and that other list, yep it probably should go, too)-- The Red Pen of Doom  03:28, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * "What is anyone afraid of?" is the same as asking "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?", suffering from the same logical fallacy, the Loaded Question, it's a poor argument. It's not fear, and it's wrong to suggest it's a motivation. The list suggests "these are the facts" by its existence, and quite basically, these are not the facts. A poor article that attempts to bolster its cause by adding "celebrity names" (go Tycho!) to it to suggest validity. Definitely not encyclopedic behaviour (whatever that means!). --  Despayre  tête-à-tête 15:24, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The correct question might be "what's the harm in it?", to which the response is, Wikipedia is the 4th most popular website on the internet today (last I checked), you don't think some creationist is going to use this article as "proof" of their position, saying opposition to evolution goes back hundreds of years, attempting to use Wikipedia's reputation to indicate that this position is correct? Of course they would, and that's wrong (but just for continuity, go Tycho!). --  Despayre  tête-à-tête 16:07, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Go, Galileo (Is there a list of scientists mentioned in 70's rock songs?)TheLongTone (talk) 16:29, 13 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. For all the reasons stated above.  This list is simply ridiculous and fails even the most basic test of verifiablity and reliable sources. -  Nick Thorne  talk  18:18, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. As per proposal. Freikorp (talk) 06:01, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment As I said above, I think we should delete the article and create a List of scientists who believe in Biblical creation with tighter inclusion criteria. Who wants to get the ball rolling on the new article? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 10:05, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * that is how this article started I changed it to the current name because all the "scientists" quoted were dead - this is not surprising as any list of scientists who believe in creation would be short and full of people who have let faith overcome reason, thus making their scientific reputation questionable. BTW  Delete Porturology (talk) 12:51, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It is not Wikipedia's place to decide whether a scientist has a questionable reputation, and it would be particularly wrong to exclude someone from a list of scientists who believe in biblical creation on the basis of them believe in biblical creation.


 * Delete. I haven't seen any list in a reliable source that this based on, that's the minimum I'd expect even if the criteria had to be amended a little for policy or other reasons. Also the name is problematic for Wikipedia, one cannot verify beliefs, only what people do, say or write. It may be possible for something like this to be set up in the future but the criteria should be shown to be notable and only include people who very definitely satisfy the criteria. Dmcq (talk) 11:42, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Sources are unreliable. Some of the names are incorrectly listed. Belief in creation as taught in the biblia is hard to define and almost impossible to prove. Von Restorff (talk) 19:37, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - another attempt to use Wikipedia to make A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism-type WP:POVPUSHes. We don't need another nightmare like List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming where the people supporting this POV-pushing settle in. 86.** IP (talk) 20:33, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Then create an article entitled List of scientists who believed in evolution and delete that one too. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:31, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

(Discussion moved to talk page) --Guy Macon (talk) 14:12, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.