Talk:Young Earth creationism/Archive 10

Separate section for local statistics?

I've taken out the statistics (in the intro section only) relating to US adherents as I don't think that this is primarily a US matter and a global perspective is needed for a global encyclopedia. I'd suggest a separate section giving the status of adherence in the US and in other countries. Asnac (talk) 11:20, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I've undone your removal. YEC is virtually non-existant outside the US, and relatively prominent within it. With that in mind, it makes sense to include sourced statistics on how common it is in the US. True, if there were sources more explicitly detailing the support YEC has outside the US, that would certainly merit inclusion in this article (possibly in a separate section with a only brief summary in the intro). But a dearth of sources on YEC prevalence outside the US is no reason to remove the statistics from this article in the meantime. Gabbe (talk) 14:26, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Gabbe, if it's virtually non-existent outside US (and I don't necessarily agree; consider Africa)then this would be a fact highly pertinent to the article and needs to be expressed at the start of the article. It won't do just to cite one country's statistics without explanation (and I haven't removed the statistics from later on in the article so they do exist, but the inappropriate prominence has been addressed). Look at it this way: if the intro said that 35% of Kenyans were adherents without mentioning any other country, would that be appropriate? Citing one nation's statistics without a justification tends to mislead the reader into thinking it's purely a US phenomenon. I've removed again, I suggest that if it's replaced, then further information needs to be given.14:53, 31 December 2010 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asnac (talk • contribs)

The US is certainly the heart of YEC. Its modern form was created there by Henry M. Morris and John C. Whitcomb. It's main organisations are there -- the ICR, AiG, CRS, GRI (CMI would be the sole exception). Its main advocates are American or American-based. So it is not WP:UNDUE to give emphasis to the US in discussing it. Do we even have Kenyan (or UK for that matter) stats on this? I doubt it. I'm replacing the stats as relevant. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 15:41, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

YEC is largely confined to the US because in the US a great deal of stress is placed on the history of the earth in intellectual circles and even out among the populous. In Africa the number of people who have actually spent any time studying Uniformitarianism vs. Neo-Catastrophism vs. Creationism vs. whatever-other-theory-you-can-think-of is essentially zero. Even in universities it is simply not an important issue. If you polled them they might give a definite answer, or they might not, but it's not something they've thought about. The same applies to Asia, South America, and (to a lesser extent) Europe. However, in the US it is an important issue, and so organizations are formed supporting the various sides of the argument. There is very little mention of YEC outside of the US, and so it is with Evolution. Evolution is generally accepted in universities, but it's not harped on like in the United States (though one exception to this rule is western Europe, where the support of Evolution is more pointed).Lunamia (talk) 02:07, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what that last comment means. Evolution isn't 'harped on' in the rest of the first world in much the same way the fact that the Sun rises in the east isn't 'harped on': simply because it is accepted as unquestionable scientific truth. YEC is pretty much unique to certain elements of the fundamentalist evangelical community in the US. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.152.95.1 (talk) 13:08, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Similarly "the number of people who have actually spent any time studying" quantum mechanics or the Theory of Relativity "is essentially zero." This is because the amount of time, background and context to understand either of these, or geology, or evolutionary biology, is far greater than they can afford to expend. The vast majority of YECs are similarly ignorant, but simply accept the inaccurate claims of glib and ill-qualified charlatans, that serve to reinforce their preconceptions. I would point out that in the US the "organizations" predate and created this "important issue". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:15, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I support those arguing that the relative prevelance of YEC globally is relevant. First, in principle, Wikipedia should not take a parochial view -- that only the US matters or even that the US matters more. I don't know how widespread YEC is outside the US but I am sure there have been polls elsewhere and I think what they show would add context to this topic. I would like to know myself.Jreiss17 (talk) 19:22, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

The article says "Around 10–45% of adults in the United States, depending on the poll, say they believe in YEC." However, the reference points to a series of polls in all of which the reported number is 40% or higher. So, it seems to me that it should read "Around 40-45%" rather than "Around 10-45%" unless a source can be provided with notably different findings. I realize that the wording of poll questions can have dramatic affects on results so I can believe that there may be polls showing only 10%. But, if so, they should be referenced.Jreiss17 (talk) 19:41, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

The polls cited in footnote 7 ask peoples' views on evolution, natural selection, and whether God created human beings in their present form less than 10,000 years ago. What they do not ask is whether the person being polled believes that the Earth or the universe as a whole is less than 10,000 years old. While I understand that many people for the proposition that human beings were created only 10,000 years ago might also believe that everything else is equally young, I do not believe that is necessarily the case. In short, the polls do not address "YEC." Now, I do not believe in "YEC" or that human beings--at least in their physical form--arose any other way than through evolutionary processes, but I also do not see a problem for someone who believes in a unique human creation being fine with the notion that the first "day" or two of creation reported in Genesis may in no way correspond to a 24-hour rotation of the Earth today. Opposition to evolutionary theory may be highly correlated with "YEC," but the subjects are distinct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.114.161.13 (talk) 23:53, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree with this post. The polls in footnote 7 have little if anything to do with the specific views on YEC, all of the options that tend TOWARD YEC are only ever directly confronting evolution, or intelligently-designed evolution. It would be more fair to state that 40% of Americans do not believe in evolution, guided or not. Unfortunately, they have no bearing on this article and should probably be removed as "skewing" the way they present facts. 132.3.33.68 (talk) 20:08, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

"Creation Myth"

You can't just assume that Creation is a myth. Evolution is a theory, it has not been totally proven yet. Therefore, I believe it is not good to automatically assume that Creation is a myth and to write it as such... (this appears towards the end of the first paragraph) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.160.8.88 (talk) 05:11, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Genesis contains a creation myth -- "a traditional story which embodies a belief regarding some fact or phenomenon of experience" (wikt:myth) about creation. A scientific theory is never proven, only confirmed (as evolution has been repeatedly) or disproven. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:58, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Creation is a myth, Evolution is a fact as supported by the evidence. Proofs dont exist outside of maths. You may deny it, but Evolution has masses of evidence and your religion (A baseless belief) doesnt have any for it and alot against it.--27.33.105.42 (talk) 08:36, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

This talk page is not a place for the discussion (first and previous posters) about your opinions on what is fact or not. As the second poster tried to point out to you, you're confusing the use of the word "myth". Please refer to what they referenced. "Creation myth" is the generic term used to describe this type of origin story. It is not used in an inflammatory or value-laden way. That is the proper term, and implies no judgement on validity. It is referring to the type of explanation of origins, not its relative believability. This is akin to the generic usage of the word theory (as in, a hypothetical guess) and the scientific use of the word theory which connotes something much less ambiguous. Evolution is a theory in the same sense that gravitational attraction is a theory. That term, like "myth" is being used in a specific, not generic, sense.204.65.34.246 (talk) 14:00, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I think the discussion of the terms myth and theory comes from an uninformed sterotype of YEC and its proponents. That stereotype is that people who promote YEC do so solely because they believe it aligns with the Bible (although that part is true), but leaving out the fact that there are scientific points to be made for creationist theory, just as there are gaps in evolution theory. If the only basis for belief was a story then myth would be an appropriate term. In any case, I flagged the article for neutrality. It is clear that Wikipedia presents mainstream views as mainstream views and minority views as minority views. However you can find many articles on Wikipedia that are far more "minority views" that are written and edited in a more neutral manner. I would expect a neutral definition of what the term means, its origins, etc., followed by a presentation of the beliefs of proponents and detractors, and emphasis on the fact that it is a minority view if such is needed. I don't see this page as reflective of the quality standards of Wikipedia overall as it relates to bias and neutrality. Danicaza (talk) 04:12, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

There isn't one single piece of for creationism. Not one. And we're not here to do anything but write a neutral article based on reliable sources. If you have ANY that show creationism is true, go for it. Otherwise, spend some time reading WP:NPOV. And WP:VERIFY. And WP:FRINGE. You misunderstand what is a neutral point of view. If an idea is ridiculous, and we have sources that state it's ridiculous, like creationism is, we get to state it for all to hear. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 05:18, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

"Evolution is only a theory"... which means a hypothesis (a plausible explanation for an observed situation) that has been substantiated by facts. I'm afraid this failure to understand that the phrase "only a theory" actually means it's a substantiated hypothesis crops up all the time. Creationism is only a hypothesis; evolution has gone one step further and is a fully fledged, scientifically sound, theory. Sjrees (talk) 16:12, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree that this is not a neutral article. I think that regardless of whether you believe in this view or not, it should be presented in a way that describes what it is and what it stands for without trying to prove it right or wrong, since in reality we cannot actually "prove" anything. I believe that there seems to be evidence to support both theories and it is up to you to decide whether you believe it or not. I think that both this article and the article on evolution should not be used to try to disprove either theory but should instead be used to present what each threory entails. 98.232.244.240 (talk) 00:07, 27 July 2011 (UTC)Mari

Please read WP:WEIGHT & WP:FRINGE. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 01:13, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Unsorced Dates

I cannot speak for any of the Christian dates given, however, I cannot find any source whatsoever (besides cut/pastes from this article) for the author's claim that Seder Olam (Rabbah or Zutta), or Maimonides, or Yom-Tov Heller differ from the accepted Jewish date of 3,761 years BCE. Indeed, the wiki article regarding Seder Olam Zutta asserts that it was written in 804, based on textual references that result in the same date of 3761 BCE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.126.204.87 (talk) 08:42, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I am considering removing these references unless someone has a source for them. None of the online sources referenced support these dates. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.126.204.87 (talk) 13:22, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

It is wrong to say this fact is not sourced. It is sourced, only the source is not linked. The source refers to Young's Concordance quoting A New Analysis of Chronology. Young's concordance does not appear to be freely available online, but the quoted reference is: A New Analysis of Chronology and Geography, History and Prophecy: Chronology ... By William Hales

Pages 210-213 list 120 different creation dates, including the one from Seder Olam Rabbah which is said to be 3751 BC. I cannot speak to the reliability of the source but without another reliable source (wikipedia is not a reliable source in itself) contradicting the source, I'm not sure anything should be changed. GDallimore (Talk) 19:04, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Full disclosure: I (the author of this talk section) am a rabbinical student partway through ordination; I have learned most of these books in the original (especially Maimonides' works) and while discrepancies exist they tend to be on the order of one-two years and very existential in nature; I have never come across major, practical differences in creation timelines. Maimonides is very clear regarding the date of creation in numerous places and it is the standard one (3,761 BCE). Frankly, I would love it if someone could find a linked source or excerpt the relevant text from the cited works; it would be the first time I saw such a thing. The cited work (Hales' A New Analysis) relies seemingly exclusively on David Ganz's research, which I have no access to, and Hales is hardly neutral in tone towards the Jewish calculation of these dates (see his remarks regarding Rabbi Lipman, p. 219).

It may not be neutral, but that doesn't necessarily make it unreliable. In any event, his disparaging tone appears to be as a consequence of the disparity in the dates and the various methods by which they were achieved, not some underlying dislike which would lead him to fabricate the data. GDallimore (Talk) 22:01, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Lack of neutrality doesn't concern me in this context, it's the fact that his (Ganz's, and by extension Hales') research seems to contradict the plain meaning of all his sources. I have never seen a traditional Jewish source which argues substantially with the accepted date, including the several of his sources with which I am specifically familiar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.126.204.87 (talk) 04:05, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I thought your comment about lack of neutrality was intended to cast doubt over the reliability of the source. Personally, I am not surprised that all "traditional" sources (from any religion) back each other up; otherwise they would find themselves out of favour as a traditional source. I would also be very VERY surprised if there was not some Jewish scholar somewhere at some point who did not express a view different from that of the generally accepted view. That, to me, seems beyond the realms of plausibility especially given the dubious nature of the subject matter - estimates about the exact date of creation of the world in the past 10,000 years are about as whimsical as estimates about its ending date, and recent news stories have shown how much they can be trusted.

Joking aside, ultimately, unless the original work can be reviewed and checked or unless some good argument for lack of reliability in the available sources can be found then, your clear knowledge of the subject notwithstanding, there is no reason to remove the currently sourced information. There might be a justification for indicating a lack of theological acceptance for dates other than the traditional one, but personally I'd be nervous of doing that without also indicating the level of theological acceptance of the concept of a literal creation in the first place. GDallimore (Talk) 11:24, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

One reference that's missing is the well-known calculation of the age of the earth made by Archbishop of Armagh James Ussher in the Ussher Chronology of 1850. It's his dating that seems to be used most frequently in YEC circles, from what I've seen, and is based on painstaking analysis of ages and generation times from the old testament. Sjrees (talk) 15:41, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake, I didn find a brief reference to Ussher buried in the list of names in the opening section. The history element of creationism is what I find fascinating, although it's interesting to see that there are still people who believe in it. Nice to see some passionate discussion, whatever the merits of the argument. Simon out Sjrees (talk) 16:03, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

"Scientific evidence has never contradicted these facts"

Disclaimer: I am someone who does believe YEC. However, I do believe I am coming at this with a fairly even head.

First heading, second paragraph contains: "...the universe has existed for around 13.72 billion years, that the Earth was formed about 4.5 billion years ago with life appearing at least 2.5 billion years ago. Scientific evidence has never contradicted these facts which have been established by observations..."

There is scientific evidence for the YEC position. Therefore, as I see it, the statement "Scientific evidence has never contradicted these facts" is patently false. I have replaced it with "Scientific evidence to support these numbers has been gathered by observations..." Kdulcimer (talk) 22:57, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Restored. What evidence? Vsmith (talk) 23:27, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

When you respond, please provide reliable sources documenting the evidence, otherwise we can't put it in the article. Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 02:51, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I would point out that the "scientific creationism" perspective is already mentioned in the same paragraph of the lead. ie the same paragraph already says that there are indeed some people who dispute these facts, just that they have no scientific evidence to back them up. So, the lead provides and clearly sourced and attributed statement of the scientific consensus and then admits the counter-position held by modern YEC supporters. I fail to see a problem. GDallimore (Talk) 11:04, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you all for your comments, and especially Jess for providing some links on my user page that were very helpful. Upon reading around, I see I did not have the proper reason for my original edit, and I support Vsmith's decision to revert. I cited falsehood as the reason for modifying "Scientific evidence has never contradicted these facts". However, as stated on the WP:verifiability page, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth".

Even so, there is still cause for re-introducing the edit I made. The statement "Scientific evidence has never contradicted these facts" violates the very rule I just cited. The claim "Scientific evidence has never contradicted [billions of years]" cannot be verified.

With all that said, I realize "Scientific evidence to support these numbers has been gathered by observations..." may not be worded right. It's kind of flat and not very interesting. Kdulcimer (talk) 14:53, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

It's sourced to a conglomerate of scientists and therefore verifiable. GDallimore (Talk) 15:28, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

What note #5 points to is a statement made by the IAP, "We agree that... scientific evidence has never contradicted these results". However, the IAP's claim is itself impossible to verify. The IAP would have to possess all scientific knowledge in order to make their claim. Furthermore, the statement is a position paper, not scientific evidence, and as such is not a valid source for the claim "Scientific evidence has never contradicted these facts". The statement "Scientific evidence has never contradicted these facts" would require citing all scientific evidence.

Perhaps it would be best to simply document "This is what the IAP said", rather than have Wikipedia making a claim which is inherently impossible to prove true, yet contains potential to be shown false. Kdulcimer (talk) 17:35, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I find it amusing that your last sentence is the very definition of scientific fact. Nothing can be proved with absolute certainty, and it is ALWAYS possible that something can be shown to be false with suitable evidence. This is science's most basic strength, not a weakness and no apology or disclaimer needs to be made for stating something as scientific fact when there is overwhelming evidence to support it and not one shred of evidence to the contrary. If 68 academies of scientists are happy to say it, then Wikipedia should be happy to say it (and it is already attributed to the IAP) without it being watered down. GDallimore (Talk) 18:29, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

This man speaks truth, Kdulcimer, see our article on Falsifiability. And yes, Gdallimore, I found the irony of that statement to be quite sweet as well :) N^oformation ^Talk 18:37, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

First, my last statement ("making a claim which is..." on through the end) was not scientific in nature, it was logical in nature. Even at that, the sentence as a whole was not a rigid logical statement, it was intended as a suggestion and an observation (note the "Perhaps" at the beginning of the sentence); a way of seeking WP:consensus, so the "Scientific evidence has never contradicted these facts" phrasing could take a more WP:NPOV. Second, it was not intended as the main thrust of my argument. You are quite correct that I did make a mistake; however, my fault was that I got ahead of myself. Third, the claim "Nothing can be proved with absolute certainty", makes a claim to be absolutely true and is therefore self-refuting. If that claim were true, then it would be false.

Interestingly enough, by your own standards you cannot prove "[there is] not one shred of evidence to the contrary" with absolute certainty. Therefore, judging by your standards, there is the possibility of evidence to support the YEC position.

As it is, the main thrust of my argument still stands: the statement "Scientific evidence has never contradicted these facts" makes a claim that there fails to be any scientific evidence against billions and billions of years. The statement (which, like my previous observation, is not scientific in nature, it is logical in nature°) makes a presumption which is false: it presumes the IAP (or in this case, Wikipedia) contains the whole of human knowledge.

°Even if the statement were intended to be scientific in nature, it would violate the very nature of scientific fact, at least under the definition you provided of scientific fact as being impossible to prove true. By your definition, since the statement makes an absolute claim of being true, it cannot be scientific fact. Nor can it be theory or hypothesis; it is most clearly worded as an absolute statement.

Insisting the current wording must stay because you don't want the phrasing "watered down" does not present a neutral point of view. It's not Wikipedia's business to take a stance on the evolution vs. YEC debate. Wikipedia is encyclopedic in nature, not bound by the naturalistic empiricist view of science.

Please take some time to consider the points I have brought up. It is good and proper for an encyclopedia to be as free as possible from bias and declarations which are logically unsound. I would be happy to work with you on wording which is as neutral as possible. I realize that yes, I have made some very strong statements against your position. However, please do not take that to mean I totally dismiss you out of hand. Please! I want to work with you on wording which can gain consensus. Kdulcimer (talk) 14:57, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

• I would point out that Wikipedia is not in the business of verifying the claims of reliable sources -- we verify claims to reliable sources. Therefore whether "IAP's claim is itself impossible to verify" is irrelevant. Nor should we have to independently verify it -- in terms of WP:PARITY of sources, comparing the IAP to creationist sources is like comparing a granite mountain range to a kid's sandcastle. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 17:29, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Where to begin with the above? It's difficult to respond to comments which appear at first glance to be well reasoned but contain so many errors and internal conflicts that prying them all apart is next to impossible. One problem which runs through the whole comment is that statements of "truth" drawn from the three distinct disciplines of logic, science and philosophy (of science) are compared as if they define truth in the same way. They do not. So unfortunately most of the above is just word-juggling. Sorry, but that's truth (in at least one of the above mentioned disciplines).

I won't bother discussing the NPOV comment further because you're so far on the losing end of that argument it isn't funny.

There is only one point relevant to the discussion in the above which is best expresed by you in the following: you say "judging by your standards, there is the possibility of evidence to support the YEC position". Of course there exists that possibility (although the chances are about the same as of finding evidence that the Earth is flat). It is possible that thousands of scientists working in multiple different disciplines have all made errors and overlooked something. BUT, if there were evidence conflicting with the observation that the universe is billions of years old, then there would be no overwhelming consensus that the universe is billions of years old. The nature of science is that one incompatible observation can bring down mountainous theories - look at Perihelion precession of Mercury and what it did to Newton's theory of gravity.

Consequently, all you have to do to challenge the statement that there is no evidence contradicting the observation that the universe is (about) 15 billion years old is to present such evidence. GDallimore (Talk) 21:17, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

God, it's embarrassing when you misread a source. Apologies to those I've reverted on this, and thanks to Dr Marcus for quoting the source at me. GDallimore (Talk) 12:58, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

No problems - TBF, the earlier reverts were kind of justified as people's reasoning for those changes was based on truth rather than reliable sources. That's why I was careful to pick 13 (the middle of the range given in the source cited) rather than 13.7 (the currently accepted best estimate).Dr Marcus Hill (talk) 10:56, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I apologize for the extended period of time getting back to this, but real life has had many interruptions. Also, I plead guilty on the following being long. :-P

Response to Hrafn:

First, it is good scholarship and good workmanship to verify your source is reliable by examining its sources. Granted, it is common to not have to do so, but when a source is challenged, it may be worthwhile to verify the source itself. Simply finding a source for a statement will not always do.

Second, as I already stated, the claim "Scientific evidence has never contradicted these facts" is not verified to a reliable source. For that kind of a statement, a reliable source would have to be something like a paper written by a scientist or group of scientists, citing every piece of scientific data ever known, and showing logical proof that each piece of data doesn't contradict evolution. The IAP statement doesn't even begin to resemble such a paper.

As far as your analogy... I see nothing of value to respond to, however, you may wish see the box with the triangle on the right hand side of WP:Dispute_resolution#Discuss_with_the_other_party.

Response to GDallimore:

First, you assert that my logic contains "many errors and internal conflicts". This may be so, but you saying so does not make it so. In logical statements, claims, and arguments, one cannot simply be arbitrary. I will admit that in my previous commentary, the transitions between my arguments of "this is the logical outcome of your belief" and "this is what is logical" may not have been perfectly clear, and as such, I can understand it could be confusing to someone outside my own head.

Second, you make the following claim:

logic, science, and philosophy (of science) are distinct disciplines and define truth in different ways

I agree that gathering of data and interpretation of said data (science and philosophy of science, respectively) are not the same thing speaking strictly. However, adding the human equation to science means the data is never simply gathered, but always interpreted, and thus philosophies of science are always involved. Distinction between science and a philosophy of science is a good thing in theory (and I mean the common, not scientific, sense of "theory"), but near impossible -if not actually impossible- in practice. The creation-evolution debate is generally not over what is and isn't evidence-- it's over the proper philosophy to interpret same evidence.

The rest of the assertion, however, does not even begin to make sense. First, if science and logic were distinct, one would be left to wonder where math fits in the equation. (Yes, I did just make that pun.) Math is logic expressed numerically, and math is (arguably) a science. Even if you don't wish to accept math as a science, the various sciences require directly or indirectly the numerically expressed logic which is math. Second, if science and logic were distinct, how would scientific claims be evaluated? Well, if a scientist holds to a philosophy of science (and all do, though not all realize it), and he opens his mouth and makes a claim or assertion or the like, that statement is subject to logical scrutiny. One way it happens is called the peer review process.

You say I'm on the losing end of the NPOV argument. I reject your claim on the basis you never actually made any point or counter-point.

Forgive me if I'm clipping your sentence wrong here, but I'm trying to be concise. You claim "if there were evidence conflicting with ...billions of years... then there would be no overwhelming consensus". Normally, if a group of experts makes a claim, there is reason to accept their belief. But when a person or a group of people claim the impossible (as the IAP does when they implicitly claim they've examined every bit of scientific evidence), it is entirely logical and rational to challenge, no matter what their credentials. Also, you're overlooking one human aspect of the practice of science-- scientists tend to be very tenacious and skeptical, and it's hardly unheard-of for scientists to simply ignore data which contradicts a hypothesis or theory.

Look, I'll just boil this all down and make it simple. Please provide proof that the IAP is omniscient, because that's the only way they can possibly be a reliable source for the current claim. You can ignore everything preceding this paragraph if you want to. I won't hold you to answering any of it. Just please provide proof that the IAP is omniscient.

If you want to directly quote the IAP, that's fine. It's actually quite possible to pretty much leave the current wording in place-- just slap some quotation marks around the phrase in question, directly attribute it to the IAP, and you should be good. Let me propose a couple of re-wordings:

The IAP's statement further asserted that "scientific evidence has never contradicted"...

The IAP cited cosmology, geology, evolutionary biology, and paleontology as having produced "evidence [which] has never contradicted"...

Last, here are the examples you requested of scientific data which simply don't fit with the universe and/or the earth being even 1 billion years old:

Not a clincher argument, but a strong one nonetheless: These physics calculations show that the earth-moon system has a maximum age of 1.4 billion years. This a far cry from the 4.5 billion claimed by evolutionists. [1] Note that calculation is if you start with the moon and earth touching, which is a bit ridiculous, but putting the moon/earth system at a more reasonable distance only shortens the maximum potential age.

The earth's magnetic field has a maximum upper age of 100,000 years, with a reasonable maximum being more like 10,000: [2] [3]

Probably the biggest problem with YEC is that it is possible to see galaxies which are 13 billion light years away. However, this is no less a problem for evolutionists, because the very youngest galaxies we can see are the same "15 billion years old", same as the Milky Way and Andromeda galaxies. Theoretically, these galaxies should appear to be 2 billion years old (if the universe formed 15 billion years ago), but instead, they appear to be the same age as our own. Furthermore, the arms of a spiral galaxy wind up far too fast for those galaxies to be many billion years old. [4]

If the entire earth had been made of carbon-14, it would have broken down after 1 million years. Smaller quantities would break down even faster. Instead, we find C-14 in diamonds which are supposedly 1 billion years old. [5]

Kdulcimer (talk) 14:35, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true.

— WP:Verifiability

[Interjection] To address your 'scientific' claims, C14 dating is used to date objects believed to be less than 100,000 years old. The only references I can find for this "billion year" diamond C14 result are on creationist websites. C14 is generated in the upper atmosphere, so while creatures are alive and eating/breathing, the levels in relation to normal carbon are reasonably static. Once the creature stops eating (dies), the levels are allowed to fall as the C14 decays. The same goes for carbon in pottery and things like that. Once the material is closed to outside air, the C14 levels fall due to radioactive decay. THAT is what is measured.

The moon, as it moves towards the outside of Earth's gravitational pull, accelerates. (Also, the moon hasn't been "our moon" for earth's entire lifetime). The numbers you pulled for Earth's magnetic field are baseless. More creationism-specific information. 12 --King Öomie 19:53, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Interjection continued: I think the C14 in diamond is a variation on the C14 in coal argument (ie C14 "shouldn't" be found in coal). Old argument, new angle, both equally invalid. GDallimore (Talk) 00:55, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

IAP is a reliable source.

I would further point out that both Answers in Genesis, Creation Ministries International and the Institute for Creation Research are all notoriously unreliable sources (having "a poor reputation for checking the facts" and being "widely acknowledged as extremist"), with no scientific credibility whatsoever. They do not count as "scientific data". They have also been repeatedly eviscerated -- see An Index to Creationist Claims for details. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 14:47, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure the IAP is a reliable source for many things, but that's not the question. The question is "Are they a reliable source for this claim?" As I more succinctly pointed out in my response to GDallimore, the only way the IAP would be a reliable source for the claim in question is if they are omniscient. You never responded to my challenge, simply reasserted what I had already rebutted.

Second, whether or not something is scientific data is irrelevant to the person(s) making the claim. GDallimore asked for examples of scientific data contradicting billions of years, and that's exactly what I gave. I would further point out that there is little cause to accept your interpretation of the reliability of AiG, CMI, or ICR, as you seem to believe that the IAP is a reliable source for a claim which requires omniscience.

Kdulcimer (talk) 18:22, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Kdulcimer, your belief that the claim requires omniscience is irrelevant, it's verifiable from the cited reliable source. If you find another reliable source that presents the analysis you're putting forward, please present it here with proposals on how it should be used to improve the article. If you've no such source, you're pushing your own original research which is not accepted here. At the moment you're simply soapboxing, and unless you promptly present such a source this section should be archived. . dave souza, talk 18:34, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Furthermore, the sentence in question is a close paraphrase from the original ("scientific evidence has never contradicted these results"), and the source is extremely strong, being undersigned by 68 national academies with relevant remits. To have a moderating sentence (along the lines of "X claims the IAP overstates the case") would require a very robust source; to rephrase or remove the sentence altogether would require a source of similar strength to the IAP - i.e. showing international consensus from widely respected organisations with relevant remits.Dr Marcus Hill (talk) 12:25, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

This discussion is now moot as the claim in question has been removed. If there is no challenge to the removal, then this section can be archived. Kdulcimer (talk) 21:02, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Errr, wait, I take that back. The claim in question has been removed from the introduction, but it is still in the 'Revival' section. Kdulcimer (talk) 21:09, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I guess I should respond to the previous comments, then... :-P

With all due respect, Dave souza, I believe you have misunderstood the point of contention. As I read it, you are claiming that using deductive logic constitutes original research. You also seem to be saying that challenging the reliability of a source requires other sources. To my knowledge, these concepts are not stated in the Wikipedia rules. I have not argued that the IAP is generally or universally an unreliable source-- I have said it is specifically an unreliable source for this claim. Second, whether or not the IAP is omniscient is entirely relevant. If the IAP's assertion is true, it can only be so because the IAP knows every piece of scientific evidence and its surrounding context (AKA omniscience). If, on the other hand, the IAP's claim is not true, then they fail to be a reliable source for the claim. This is not simply a belief of mine, it is deductive logical fact. Third, I am challenging the reliability of a source for the claim given, and suggesting that the claim be shifted into a quote.

Dr. Marcus Hill, I can understand where you're coming from. Have you seen the last two suggestions I made for re-wording the sentence? Here they are again:

The IAP's statement further asserted that "scientific evidence has never contradicted"...

The IAP cited cosmology, geology, evolutionary biology, and paleontology as having produced "evidence [which] has never contradicted"...

Note that all I'm doing is shifting a claim into a quote. No new sources should be required. Kdulcimer (talk) 21:33, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

(following this page for the last few months) To Kdulcimer: I would suggest then, that you do so in a fashion that supports NPOV, such as rewording the sentence mentioning (quoting Dr Marcus Hill above) "being undersigned by 68 national academies with relevant remits". You seemingly are trying to portray this in a fashion where it seems there is only "this one group" who debunks YEC, when it's already been shown that there's far more. Of course, I'm assuming that's unintentional and you're not trying to insert your own POV or continue to soapbox... thus, I've brought up the POV you have created and hope you do the right thing in fixing it to prove my good faith is not misplaced (especially since this has been discussed numerous times, with only you seeming to object). Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 22:55, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't think there's any need to change it to a quote or to go into more depth about the source. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an essay. We write for clarity and acknowledge sources, and the clear guidelines for style are that statements should be plain and referenced with inline citations where the sources are strong and the statement is widely accepted in the relevant fields. The time to make stylistic changes to make it appear as a quote from a single source is when the claim is contested, controversial, not widely acknowledged or otherwise something where we need the reader to be pointed at the source more strongly than by an inline citation so they can consider the claim in light of its source. This is clearly in the former category, and the plain statement backed by the source (and the context which already makes it clear that this is from the IAP) reads far more clearly.Dr Marcus Hill (talk) 08:04, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Statement/Wording Change Proposal

I think we're getting somewhere! How does this slight modification look?

A joint statement of InterAcademy Panel on International Issues (IAP) by 68 national and international science academies lists as scientific facts that: (a) the universe is between 11 and 15 billion years old while the Earth is approximately 4.5 billion years old and has undergone continual change; (b) life appeared on Earth at least 2.5 billion years ago and has subsequently taken many forms, all of which continue to evolve. The statement, signed by 68 national and international science academies, further attests that these facts have never been contradicted by scientific evidence and have been independently established by many different scientific disciplines including paleontology, and the modern biological and biochemical sciences which continue to confirm the evolution of life from a common primordial origin with increasing precision. Kdulcimer (talk) 13:24, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

• I like it! Nicely done (IMHO). Also, hope you don't mind, but I sub-sectioned this, since it was getting rather vast, and we're now at a point where it seems we've switched gears into refining (instead of debating words and meanings and such). Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 16:31, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. GDallimore (Talk) 16:53, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Awesome, and thanks. Can you please explain your rationale? Or do you have suggestions for improvement? Best, Rob ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 18:45, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is clear. What's you're rationale for supporting? GDallimore (Talk) 19:14, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

• Yes, yes it is (discussed above)... the portion above (I thought) addressed your (and my) concerns: "further attests that these facts have never been contradicted by scientific evidence and...". Perhaps there was some other factor that was objected to that I missed? Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 19:19, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

We seem to be at odds. I thought we were now talking about proposed changes to the fourth from last paragraph of Young_Earth_creationism#Revival which already has the "not contradicted" bit. My reading of the discussion above is that there is no need to change anything in this section. It is already clear that this statement is attributed to the IAP. If something were to change, it would only be a couple of words added to the beginning of the third sentence saying "The statement further says...". Certainly there's no need for these changes KDulcimer is proposing. GDallimore (Talk) 19:26, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

It is quite possible I missed something. I thought Kdulcimer's proposed change was for this (quoting him from above): "First heading, second paragraph contains: "...the universe has existed for around 13.72 billion years, that the Earth was formed about 4.5 billion years ago with life appearing at least 2.5 billion years ago. Scientific evidence has never contradicted these facts which have been established by observations..."" - which simply seems to make this an expansion on it that I have no objection to. I will finish my second cup of coffee and re-read the entire conversation above again and see if there's something I missed. Not the best before my 2nd or 3rd cup... ;-) Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 19:32, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I think the confusion is that the conversation originally started about the lead, which had more stuff in it a few weeks back, but some of it was removed by an anon editor apparently without anyone noticing or caring much. I added back some stuff which I thought was important but left out the key phrase that is under contention. However, the content that was removed from the lead is still in the body of the article, so the discussion is now about the stuff in the body of the article instead in the section I linked to above. GDallimore (Talk) 00:44, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I think GDallimore has it right on the source of confusion. I also think that both the lead and the section of the main page are fine as they stand. The lead needs to state what the consensus is, but not to go into detail about its strength or source. The paragraph in the main body is all about establishing the strength of the consensus, so having explanation of the number and nature of the statement's signatories is best done at the beginning of the paragraph, and that's a sufficient signpost, along with the position of the inline reference at the end of the paragraph, that the whole thing is sourced from that statement.Dr Marcus Hill (talk) 08:02, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

GDallimore is correct on the source of confusion. Second, I think GDallimore's suggestion of "The statement further says..." is fine overall and deals with the point of contention. The only objection I would have to it would be minor: the word "says" is a bit bland. How about using "attests" instead? Kdulcimer (talk) 12:14, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Works for me then. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 15:54, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Totally opposed to "attests" or any oher word which might imply there is some reason to doubt the statement. GDallimore (Talk) 16:35, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

How about "attests" "says" "states", as in: "The statement, signed by 68 national and international science academies, further states that these facts..." - any takers on that one? Simple, and I think the same meaning with no POV implied or intended. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 19:17, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, if anything, "attests" strengthens the statement. I spent a fair bit of time searching for a word which would be more "colorful" and lean if anything toward the POV opposite mine. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/attest says:

1. to bear witness to; certify; declare to be correct, true, or genuine; declare the truth of, in words or writing, especially affirm in an official capacity: to attest the truth of a statement.

2. to give proof or evidence of; manifest: His works attest his industry.

3. to put on oath.

As for "states", it's in the same boat as "says". It's over-used and kind of bland. Like I said, though, it's minor, and if a bland, overused word is put in, the world shall continue to turn. GDallimore, do you have a suggestion? Or do you just want to go with "says" or "states"? Kdulcimer (talk) 19:29, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

*"Like I said, though, it's minor, and if a bland, overused word is put in, the world shall continue to turn." ^{(citation needed)} ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 19:39, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I have made the changes we have discussed, using the word "says" as nobody offered any hard objections to it. If there is no more discussion, this section can be archived. Kdulcimer (talk) 12:46, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I reverted. The change you made to the article is not the same as the one proposed here, and I see little support (as well as some opposition) to the proposal in discussion. The one you've introduced is an even larger change than your proposal, as it does nothing but weaken the statement. For a change like that, we'd need sources to indicate that the position of "scientific evidence supports YEC" is not a negligible fringe minority view. As it stands with current sourcing, it is. Please see WP:ASSERT: "Avoid presenting uncontested assertions as mere opinion". You're going to have to furnish sources to make similar changes.   — Jess· Δ♥ 16:03, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Support revert; Jess is correct. You cannot state this as though it were a mere opinion; your change not only did so but phrased it as though it were a very limited opinion. Puppy (talk) 14:07, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I have reverted your reversion for these two reasons:

You have not dealt with the logical fallacy/fallacies committed by the IAP, but have simply repeated their fallacious claim on Wikipedia.

You have not shown any evidence that the IAP is a reliable source for the claim in question.

If you want to make a direct or indirect quote, that is fine, but the claim was, is, and always shall be unsupportable, unverifiable, logically fallacious, and scientifically without basis.

At an initial reading of your comments, my first impression is that neither of you have fully read the preceding debate. Please do so before responding. I know it's long, but the arguments you presented have already been rebutted. I do wish to clarify a few misconceptions you had:

You mention "The change... is not the same as the one proposed..." I made at least two suggestions, neither of which met with complete consensus. GDallimore made something of a suggestion, and after some discussion, I implemented his suggestion. I was the only one to offer any objection to it, and obviously, if I implemented it, I must be content enough with it. That's called WP:consensus. Are you sure you have read the preceding discussion?

"...it does nothing but weaken the statement." Where does this concept of "weakening" come from? The statement in question is not strong/weak, it is true/false. Do you mean to say the change casts doubt? If so, how is that problematic? I remind you that "the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is not truth, it is verifiability". The claim, as you want it, fails to be properly verified-- for that discussion, see above.

"For a change like that... (snip on through to the end)" Yet another indicator you have not read the preceding discussion. To reiterate, the change I made requires no new sources. The IAP did in fact make a claim and it's fine for Wikipedia say "the IAP made a claim, here's what it is". What is not fine is for Wikipedia to simply repeat the IAP, because the IAP's claim is based on powers they do not have.

Kdulcimer (talk) 17:28, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I have reverted you. Not because I'm particularly bothered, but because you clearly haven't obtained consensus for your edits and primarily because the "fallacies" you highlight are only fallacies in your mind and not in reality or under wikipedia guidelines. ie you have persuaded NOBODY that these are actually fallacies. GDallimore (Talk) 17:34, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

"Failure to gain consensus" as a reason to revert is covered at WP:DRNC. Your argument that I have failed to convince anybody else is entirely irrelevant to the issue at hand. Logic and persuasion are two different things.

Please tell me how the following is fallacious and/or imaginary.

No human or group of humans can truthfully claim to know all scientific evidence.

No human or group of humans can be a reliable source for a claim which requires knowledge of all scientific evidence.

The claim "Scientific evidence has never contradicted" requires knowledge of all scientific evidence.

Therefore, no human or group of humans can be a reliable source for "Scientific evidence has never contradicted."

Kdulcimer (talk) 20:37, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

(e/c)WP policies are not modled after formal logic and wikipedia does not seek to present logic as a component of the encyclopedia. WP is based on verifiability, see WP:V, WP:RS, etc. Also see WP:TRUTH to understand why truth is irrelvenant, WP:CONSENSUS to understand why consensus is so important. N^oformation ^Talk 22:47, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I thought about writing a reply, then decided I couldn't be bothered debating this because it is pointless.

These are some indisputable facts: (a) You have not got consensus for your edits. (b) The universe IS ancient. (c) If you cannot see that from the mountains of evidence that is freely available, then I am not going to be able change your mind. Concluion from these facts: (a) You are not going to be able to change the article in the way you want. (b) I'm not arguing with you any more. GDallimore (Talk) 23:09, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with your statement (a) - it's not that he hasn't got consensus for the edit, it's that anyone reading this discussion will see that the consensus is firmly against that edit, so WP:DRNC doesn't apply. As I said (it seems like so long ago), the bracketing of the claim between the in-text mention of the source in the previous sentence and the inline reference at the end of the paragraph is enough to clarify what the source for the clearly true statement is, and the edit which we seem to agree is unnecessary would only serve to hinder the flow of the paragraph. Dr Marcus Hill (talk) 08:24, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Additionally, WP:DRNC is an essay, not a policy. Kdulcimer, you gathered consensus for one edit, and then made a different one instead. More than a few editors would see that as a backhanded betrayal of trust, particularly after the extended discussion that led to it. I'm surprised the response was as civil as it was. "Justifying" it by turning it around and claiming the other editors have no standing, because they don't agree with The Truth, isn't helpful. In the least. --King Öomie 14:04, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

The earliest post-exilic Jewish chronicle...

On what exile (Babylonian exile, Greatrevolt) this sentence refers to? -- Bojan  Talk  09:28, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Cleanup

I've gone through and (I think!) parsed the YEC acronym in every case where it appears in a paragraph which doesn't previously contain either "Young Earth Creationism" or "Young Earth Creationist". Given that one of these is the title of the page, I'd say that's probably enough parsing to overcome the "overuse of YEC acronym" portion of the cleanup. Any objections to removing that?Dr Marcus Hill (talk) 14:36, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm trying to work out how the article as it stands is "more like a list than a discussion" - the user who put the tag on originally, Ludwigs2, only described it as "listish" in the talk page, which wasn't much help. I just see a sequence of properly nested sections and subsections, and I don't see any sequence of subsections with minimal content (which is what I'd class as "listish"), but the article structure doesn't seem to have significantly changed since the tag was applied, so I wouldn't really want to remove it entirely without a proper discussion. I've invited Ludwigs2 to come over and comment if he still cares, but in the meantime I'd appreciate any further comments if anyone else can see what is list-like here. Dr Marcus Hill (talk) 12:23, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I see no particular reason to keep the tag. I see what it's getting at in that the material is generally pretty poorly organised and would be better with the through-prose style rather than all the rather poorly defined section headings. But it's not so serious as to warrant the tag. GDallimore (Talk) 23:03, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Well,Ludwigs2 doesn't have the time to get involved again, so I'd suggest we remove the tag if nobody objects in the next week or so. Dr Marcus Hill (talk) 22:10, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Neutrality

From the opening blurb:

"The percentage falls quickly as the level of education increases—only 22% of respondents with postgraduate degrees believed compared with 47% of those with a high school education or less."

Is, I believe, unencyclopaedic. This bit of information is irrelevant to the polls concerning how many Americans believe in Young Earth Creationism and is quite a blatant attempt to suggest YEC is stupid or that its adherents are less educated; it provides no useful information on Young Earth Creationism. I suggest the line is removed. You may thing YEC is stupid and indeed it may be, but the role of Wikipedia is to provide information that its readers can make judgements from and not for the authors to make judgements for the readers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.198.13 (talk) 11:43, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

(i) Gallup certainly felt it relevant -- otherwise they wouldn't have reported this detail. In fact they seem to think that it's quite important -- and include it as part of their second table. (ii) The article is reporting a fact ("information") -- if you think that this fact indicates that "YEC is stupid or that its adherents are less educated", then that is your interpretation ("judgement") not Wikipedia's. (iii) In any case you're wrong, Wikipedia does very frequently report expert opinion/interpretation/judgement -- we just are expected to have a WP:SECONDARY source for such material. We don't have such a source here, so we simply reported the facts. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 13:11, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

It's good that this has been brought up as it's a section I've been thinking about for some time. It's quite a specific thing to be mentioning in the lead and highlights not a lack of neutrality per se (although arguably there could be an undue weight issue in giving this one survey such prominence), but a lack of information in the article as a whole about worldwide belief in YEC. What I would really like is for there to be more surveys from more countries, particularly the UK and Europe more generally, so that the summary in the lead can be more broad brush. Anyone know where we can find that data? I've drawn a blank. GDallimore (Talk) 14:08, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

My suspicion is (i) that Creationism isn't nearly as hot a political potato in Europe as it is in the US, so there's considerably less polling on it. (ii) YEC, which is closely tied to Evangelicalism (which is strongest in the US), isn't nearly as big in Europe. (iii) Outside Europe, I think you'd have problems finding many countries that (a) care too much about the issue, (b) have sufficient freedom to allow public polling, & (c) can afford polling on non-critical issues. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 14:18, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

You might want to see if the data underlying the graph in this report offers any drill-down to YEC, or if anybody's done any similar studies. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 14:22, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Not quite enough, but could give useful in giving some flow and focus to this article, something it desperately needs. I've been struggling and making only piecemeal edits for ages trying to find a structre that could work. I can definitely confirm that creationism is a total non-issue here in the UK. But there are polls on all sorts of things, it's just that those polls don't necessarily get reported unless there is an issue. GDallimore (Talk) 14:34, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but even if polls have been conducted on this particular "non-issue", they still need to be published somewhere with sufficient fanfare for us to be made aware of their existence. Two places to start might be (i) the main polling firms in the UK & (ii) any science&religion thinktanks there (there's one, Ek-something or other that takes a fairly liberal Christian science-friendly line, that might be helpful). But regardless, that the results have actually, officially, been published remains a bedrock requirement. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 15:48, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

You misunderstand me: by "being reported" I'm talking about the results being discussed by a newspaper or other source which is freely accessible. If they're not reported by the mainstream press, because it's a non-issue, you probably have to pay to obtain the results from the poll-maker if the poll-maker is a reliable one. And I'm not about to do that, or to take out a subscription to Science. GDallimore (Talk) 15:51, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Polling firms may release some results for publicity purposes (Gallup did after all). Also thinktanks may release such information if they think it either serves their purpose or perhaps even if it simply serves to inform debate on matters they're interested in. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 15:55, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Bingo. I've asked for a copy of the survey, but the UK results are here and suggest that 16% of UK adults believe in YEC, or at least an unchanging world created by God. GDallimore (Talk) 16:31, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

So 16% (but with "another" & "don't know" totalling 22% -- which does add a bit of uncertainty). Are any of the subtotals worth including (by sex/age/region/social class)? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:50, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

@Hrafn: Don't worry, your suspicion that Creationism isn't nearly as hot a political potato in Europe as it is in the US is only a suspicion. Russia? Turkey? Vatican? Britain - although not a part of continental Europe - is still as much a part of Europe as Mexico is North America. There has been a significant amount of polling in these countries esp. in the past 10 to 15 years. I live in Europe and have done some research on the topic and can point out a few sources if you want. Wekn reven i susej eht ^{Talk• Follow} 16:29, 1 October 2011 (UTC)