Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-12-07/Christian apologetics

Where is the dispute?
Dispute is at Talk:Christian_apologetics Regarding Christian_apologetics

Who is involved?
Just a list of the users involved.


 * User:Hrafn
 * User:Gingabox

What is the dispute?
The dispute is regarding the inclusion of a statement in Christian_apologetics. The statement previously read that Creationists "disagree with the science of evolution" and the closest I have gotten to a compromise is his/her suggestion to change it to read that Creationists "disagree with the scientific theory of evolution". Hrafn's view is that all creationists disagree, while my view is that it is not proper to make generalizations such as this in a topic that is sensitive to many people... myself included... as I consider myself to be a creationist but do not disagree with the scientific theory of evolution. Violating RNPOV?

What would you like to change about this?
As it has become difficult to reach any compromise with Hrafn, I would simply like to work towards a mutually agreeable wording which is not offensive to those of us that hold to the view of creationism yet do not disagree with evolution.

How do you think we can help?
Assessment of whether or not my concern and argument is valid (not to say take my side but simply whether I am out of line in my thinking). Also please mediate dialog between the parties to help keep the discussion on point. The issue I raise here is the general use of language, which feels a lot like a stereotype.

Discussion

 * As I understand the problem as it is explained here, it seems to have been caused mainly by the two editors misunderstanding the others terminology, and has now been resolved by the inclusion of a paragraph on theistic evolution/evolutionary creationism in the article by User:Gingabox to which User:Hrafn has not objected too . I have left a note on the requestor's talk page asking if that is the case, and will close the case if so. Ajbpearce (talk) 19:28, 17 December 2010 (UTC)


 * No, the central problem is an (unresolved, but minor and now stale) dispute over whether creationism entails rejection of the Theory of Evolution. "The inclusion of a paragraph on theistic evolution/evolutionary creation ism " (the only prominent source that I know of, that calls it "evolutionary creationism", explicitly states, its name not withstanding, that it is a form of evolution) does not resolve this. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:03, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I would have thought the difference between "evolutionary creation" and "evolutionary creationism" is semantic. This talk origins summary seems a reasonably well referenced (assuming its offline sources are good) guide to the spectrum different theological positions that might be said to comprise "creationism"? Ajbpearce (talk) 21:25, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * (i) The difference is not semantic. Theistic evolutionists generally believe in "creation", that God created the universe, but are frequently critical of creationism. (ii) The source that TOA cites is my "only prominent source" above, which states:


 * (I would further note the source Scott cites, Lamoureux, refers to the viewpoint as 'Evolutionary Creation'.) HrafnTalkStalk(P) 03:24, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It is I think clear that the term "creationism" per se does not entail a rejection of evolution (as our article explains). However, the term as it is more commonly used is used to refer to a variety of positions that do entail such a rejection. Evolutionary creation is a position that does not entail such a scientific rejection, but does consider itself to be a creationist position in the first sense of the word (see lamoureux quotation I have placed below). so when I say that the difference is semantic I mean that they can be used to refer to the same position while still explicitly separating them from the more commonly used theological positions that are often referred to as "creationism".Ajbpearce (talk) 09:02, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * (i) Our article on creationism explains "However, the term is more commonly used to refer to religiously motivated rejection of certain biological processes, in particular much of evolution, as an explanation accounting for the history, diversity, and complexity of life on earth." (ii) Whilst Lamoureux does use the word "creationist" to describe adherents of his position, he appears to never use "creationism" to describe that position. The problem appears to be that English grammar does not allow regular adjectives distinguishing between "adherent of creationism" and "adherent of creation". (iii) The term "creationist" in its general usage (e.g. see Ronald L. Numbers' The Creationists) is in the former sense. I suppose we could retitle the section ' Creationist Creationism apologetics' and state that ' creationists adherents of the position of creationism reject the scientific theory of evolution' -- but that would seem to be a lot of clumsiness to allow for a fairly idiosyncratic & non-prominent usage of the word "creationist". (Having the section cover both 'Creationism' and 'Evolutionary creation' would mean lumping two rather disparate and inimical positions together.) HrafnTalkStalk(P) 09:27, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, I am going to mark this as closed. (For what its worth, I think the section might be better termed "creation apologetics" and expanded to deal better with christian responses to issues of origins and creation in general, but its not a topic I am going to start editing in.) Ajbpearce (talk) 16:50, 23 December 2010 (UTC)