Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Neo-Creationism

On merging with Creation science (aka 'scientific creationism')
As far as the claim made by Endomion that neo-creationism is a variation of scientific creationism (aka creation science), it is clear that the two are distinct and mutually exclusive concepts and groups, each with their own well-defined literature, terms and neologisms, and intellectual boundaries. Those boundaries are drawn around the acceptance of scripture as a foundation for their respective claims and whether validating scripture as fact through science is a primary a goal. The prime example of a neo-creationist concept is intelligent design; the idea that an unidentified designer is responsible for existence of life. A typical neo-creationist group is the Discovery Institute. Contrast that to a typical example of a creation science concept, Flood geology. It's the idea that geological formations were created by the global flood described in the story of Noah's ark, and seeks to prove the biblical account as factual through the use of science. Even the names of the leading creation science groups, Answers in Genesis and Institute for Creation Research, betray a very different perspective than that of neo-creationists.


 * From Scientific creationism: "Creation science is the effort to provide scientific evidence supporting the account of the creation of the universe related in the Bible."


 * From Neo-Creationism: "Neo-Creationism is a movement whose goal is to restate creationism in terms more likely to be well-received by the public, policy makers, educators, and the scientific community. It aims to re-frame the debate over the origins of life in non-religious terms and without appeals to scripture."

Clearly the two are diametrically opposed in their view on scripture, a topic central to creationism, and neither would be well-served by a merge. There are literally hundreds of statements from either side of the creationism aisle that recognize the distinction between the two movements/groups, not to mention the those from critics and neutral observers. All see neo-creationism as a clear and distinct movement from creation science/scientific creationism for the former's embracing of scripture and the latter's eschewing of it in favor of posing as mainstream science. Merging two creationism articles when one is philosophically opposed to the other doesn't make much sense. FeloniousMonk 07:04, 5 December 2005 (UTC)