Talk:Young Earth creationism/Archive 12

Christian Bias

This article seems to assume that the only YECs are Christians (and possibly Jews). There are plenty of other religious types - Muslims being the main ones - that are young earth creationists and I consider this needs fixing. However, because it's a controversial article I thought I would go to the talk page and discuss this first. So let's start at the very beginning... who's with my criticism in general? Egg Centric 20:43, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

This has been discussed plenty of times, the type of YEC the article is about is a very narrow definition that doesn't necessarily apply to Muslims. If you can find reliable sources that says otherwise, then the discussion could continue, or if we're willing to rework the article to include all faith's YEC interpretations then that might be a pretty monumental task and might be beyond the scope of just this one article. — raekyt 20:49, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the issue of muslim YEC in particular was raised before and the person raising it was able to find only one muslim trying to run an apparently failing campaign to promote his ideas, which on closer inspection possibly weren't YEC anyway. The typical view is actually that YEC is a non-issue in the muslim world because of the parts in the Koran which specify that, to Allah, a day is as a thousand years, or words to that effect. It's discussed in more detail in one of the articles about Islam. Can't remember which one, now, sorry. GDallimore (Talk) 21:44, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I thought muslims believed in Adam & Eve? Egg Centric 22:04, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Adam and Eve doesn't require YEC. GDallimore (Talk) 22:49, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Gallup poll results

The statement in the introduction: "The percentage of believers decreases 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." has been reverted as fallacious and then restored as properly sourced. By my reading, this sentence is a statement of fact and does not make any illogical inferences or false statements. I think it might be more suitable for a later section on the demographics of YEC belief but I don't think a Gallup poll can be legitimately challenged as fallacious. Jojalozzo 21:27, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with your analysis. I can't see any justification for removing it, I assume that it was removed because someone didn't like what they understood it to mean. Dougweller (talk) 21:32, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I think it's actually a little too detailed for the lead. Should go into the body. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 21:39, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)As the first remover explained: Removed text which was more polemic than informative and which included a logical fallacy (using correlation to imply causation). While there is nothing wrong with citing a Gallup poll in the article, it comes across as POV pushing to have it in the lead. Personally I would take the entire paragraph out of the lead. It does nothing to explain what YEC is. I'd !vote for moving it down to the end of the Revival section, where there is a similar poll. --Andrew (User:90) (talk) 21:40, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Level of support is very useful information for a lead. That at least should remain. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 21:45, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I think proponents of YEC would agree that level of support is useful in the lead since YEC currently has good support and they would also want to remove the education data because a reader might make negative inferences from it. I think non-proponents of YEC would want to include the level of education data to provide a better demographic picture of the support. This points to the POV-laden nature of this content. For balance, I think the level of support should be presented with demographics, whether it's in the lead or in another section. Jojalozzo 22:04, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

WP:LEDE says that the lede needs to summarize the body. Currently this paragraph seems closely related to the history section, but only the revival aspect of it. Rather than remove it I think we should expand it to include a brief overview of the whole history section (since it's a huge part of the article and not currently well documented in the lede) with the statistics at the end of the paragraph. N^oformation ^Talk 22:28, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Do we have data for other countries? We can have a "Level of support" section and include all of this data. But it should be more than just the USA. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 21:49, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

The statement in the introduction "When asked for their views on the origin and development of human beings, between 40% and 50% of adults in the United States say they share the beliefs of young Earth creationism, depending on the poll.", seems to imply that 40-50% of people agree with YEC supporters. Even though the statement indicates it concerns "their views on the origin and development of human beings" it concludes that 40-50% of respondents "share the beliefs of young YECs". Nothing in any of the referenced polls specifically ask respondents how old they thought the Earth was, which a large part of what this WP article is about. I'd posit a rewording of the statement to something like "Forty to fifty percent of respondents to various polls, indicated they believed that human life was directly created by God at one time within the past 10,000 years". Many may view this as a minor inconsistancy and that the point is still implied, but the fact remains that the polls were about human origins NOT planetary origins. --Ssp2979 (talk) 15:42, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

There is one poll that looks at the formation of the earth, but given that it's in the minority, I'd have no problems with your clarification. Also, there's no inconsistency since the sentence does make clear that it's referring to human origin specifically, but there's always room for improvement. GDallimore (Talk) 22:46, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I myself, personally question this particular Gallup poll. The telephone interview that constitutes the information of the poll might have been ill-conceived concerning the information of the interviewee's level of education. What if the question concerning the interviewee's level of education was not asked prior to the asking of the other questions (ex. how much he/she goes to church, or his/her beliefs on how current humans came to be)? Keep in mind that the interviewer does not know if the interviewee is lying or not. It is very probable, in my opinion, that an interviewee could have wrongly told the interviewer that he/she had a higher education than he/she actually did, if he/she was asked this after certain other questions were asked. In that case, the results of this particular poll would not be appropriate for Wikipedia, particularly in the opening paragraphs of an article concerning a religious belief. I would like to hear any objections for taking these results down. I would also like to hear any other type of feedback responding to my concern. Led8000 (Talk) 2:58, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Gallup is a well known body and its output assumed reliable unless you can provide actual evidence that it isn't. GDallimore (Talk) 08:53, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Putting aside the debate about the reliably of the poll for a moment, the results in our article could better reflect the actual purpose of the poll (which as Ssp2979 stated above never mentions nor completely represents YEC). The poll (and its 2012 update) asked for one of three responses (presented in a rotating order to different callers) to the question "Which of the following statements comes closest to your views on the origin and development of human beings". The responses (and the 2012 response rates, with a 4% margin of error and 7% of respondents indicating "other/no opinion") were:

1) (32%) Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process

2) (15%) Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process

3) (46%) God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so

Better wording might be:

According to a Gallup poll in 2012, 78% of the Americans polled believed that God was somehow involved in the creation of humans, with slightly more than half of those agreeing that God created humans "pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so".

I would leave the references to political preferences and education level out - they are potentially divisive, not necessary related to the topic at hand, and can be found by anyone clicking on the reference to the poll article.

Finally, if you haven't read the article, you should, if only to see the interesting graph comparing response rates to this question over 11 polls since 1982. It shows that while there may be some minor trends, no major changes in opinion have been seen by the pollsters in the last 30 years. Jim Grisham (talk) 15:08, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

The sample of 1,019 people is not enough to represent the entire United States. Removed.88.207.61.62 (talk) 21:20, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure that Gallup, as a professional organization performing opinion polls, can determine if the results of a poll is reliable. A small sample can be representative for a very large group, provided the poll is done right.05:05, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Myth or Account

A minor concern: In order to demonstrate the subtle bias maintained by some editors, I changed the word creation "myth" to creation "account". It was promptly reverted with the assertion that "myth" is the correct academic term. In my edit, I indicated that such a revert was fine with me. However, the argument promoted in the "myth" context is whether the early Christians, such as Origen, viewed the days as literal. If the story is "myth", it doesn't matter if the days were viewed as literal, or not. The use of the term "myth" does not do justice to the argument, IMO. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 03:01, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

"Myth" here is used in the academic sense. It still falls under mythology regardless of what early Christians believed. The page for Genesis creation narrative had an extensive discussion on whether to use "myth" or "narrative". It is worth consulting:

• RfC: Should the lede define the narrative as a myth in the academic sense

--Harizotoh9 (talk) 03:12, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

• Harizotoh9, thanks for the link; interesting reading and I certainly don't want to repeat the discussion. The word myth, in its broadest usage, does not deny historical reality. Rather, a community or nation, have their myths; George Washington and the cherry tree, for example. I am okay with the use of the term although I am intrigued with the opposition to the word "account". Account is neutral. An account can be myth or otherwise. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 03:27, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Because 'account' imho isn't as academically honest as mythology, these stories are mythologies and studied as such academically. Irregardless if one believes them true or not, that doesn't negate that they're a mythology. — raekyt 03:43, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

• I don't understand your use of the phrase "academically honest". DonaldRichardSands (talk) 04:05, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

As in using the best available accurate terminology and not trying to use a more vague terminology that has more potential meanings just to appease a group of people. — raekyt 04:12, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

• Okay. However, I am not convinced that "myth" is less vague than "account". "Myth" focuses on society's use of the account. "Account" simply implies the existence of textual evidence for the story. It seems that the term "myth" also serves to appease a group of people. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 04:27, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

"Account" has a connotation of accuracy (e.g. in accountancy) and "myth" generally implies inaccuracy, so neither is particularly neutral with respect to a story's truth. Since there is no scientific basis to YEC, I think "myth" is significantly more appropriate and aversion to "account" is understandable on that basis. Jojalozzo 05:52, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Yep, that's correct. Any time I hear the word 'account' I expect it to be a reasonably accurate description of something that actually happened. Myth is the correct word. Dougweller (talk) 08:22, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

You proved right there that myth is not neutral to you, it is your personal belief about the accuracy or inaccuracy of the bible that causes you to use myth. Conversely, it is the personal belief of others about the accuracy or inaccuracy of the bible that causes them to use account. And the problem is that everyone either accepts the bible at accurate or inaccurate. There is no middle ground. I don't know of any neutral word that can be used here.

And the same thing goes for YEC. YEC is based on the belief that the Bible is accurate. Those that call YEC pseudoscience do so based on their belief that the Bible is inaccurate. It all comes down to which way you believe. So I think it is logically impossible for any article that deals with topics that depend upon belief in whether the bible is accurate or inaccurate to ever be NPOV. both sides always believes that they are correct. And often the appeal to numbers is called upon to settle the issue, which, of course, does nothing of the sort because the minority could care less about what a majority might think on this topic. Whether the bible is believed accurate or inaccurate has never ever been decided by what the majority thinks. It is entirely individualistic -- personal. Perhaps the only way to deal with this is to say, thus-and-so is the position of those who think the Bible is inaccurate, and thus-and-so is the position of those who think the Bible is accurate. And just leave it at that with out any editorializing over who is or is not correct. Which is probably the hardest thing in the world to do because we all know that we are correct. Sacramentosam (talk) 10:43, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

No, we don't need a personal belief in the inaccuracy of Genesis to determine "myth" to be the more appropriate term. Rather it is the lack of scientific evidence for YEC that makes this the proper choice. Our personal beliefs are irrelevant here, as should yours be. We base Wikipedia content on reliable sources, not personal beliefs. Jojalozzo 17:04, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

That is what the article already does. It explains the background and belief of YECists and describes alternative views and the overwhelming evidence that Genesis should not be interpreted literally (note "literally", not "accurately", huge difference).

As for what specific words are used, since the overwhelming view, both theological and scientific, is that Genesis should NOT be interpereted literally, it is described as a myth, not an account. The word account would give undue weight to the YEC view. GDallimore (Talk) 15:11, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree that it should be based on reliable sources, but the appeal to overwhelming view (i.e. personal belief or opinion) is an appeal to numbers which means nothing. No one is swayed to change their opinion according to overwhelming view. And the appeal to overwhelming scientific evidence has no weight in the argument because it does not cause anyone especially YEC's to change their minds. Here's why. YECs recognize the ultimate importance of Khun's observation that all evidence is theory-laden. I.e., All evidence is understood and interpreted within a worldview or paradigm. Scientific evidence only makes sense when understood within a worldview. YECs recognize two mutually exclusive worldviews that science is done and interpreted within--naturalism or creationism. They reject naturalistic interpretation of scientific evidence as completely irrelevant. So it doesn't matter how much overwhelming evidence secular scientists (and those that quote them) might offer. It means nothing. It all comes down to which interpretation of scientific evidence one chooses to believe in, not the overwhelming evidence from one view or another. They also reject attempts to combine competing, mutually exclusive worldviews as schizophrenic. Believe it or not, to YECs its all about belief. And it seems important that one recognize how vastly different the viewpoints are when editing. Sacramentosam (talk) 19:34, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I think you make some good points here. If you think the YEC worldview is insufficiently represented in the article, then let's work on that rather than watering down the representation of the mainstream, scientific view. Can you provide sources to support this analysis? Jojalozzo 18:04, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I think DRSands may be able to make suggestions that are acceptable. Sacramentosam (talk) 19:00, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

• I am not familiar with the needs of this article for sufficient representation from a YEC worldview. There are well-thought out YEC scientists. Kurt Wise, Leonard Brand, Andrew Snelling, Arthur Chadwick, The GRI scientists.
• Perhaps the specific views of bonafide YEC scientists could be described. Some articulate the obvious need to value tension when holding literal biblical views and treasuring scientific evidence whereever it should lead.
• GRI (Geoscience Research Institute) scientists have decided they will conduct their own research rather than argue with those holding a different world view. Brand's study of whales and salamandar tracks are examples of such research. GRI are YEC mostly. They may accept OEC for non-living matter, but not living. These views could be reported in the article.
• I think it is important not to vilify scientists; those who believe in a literal Genesis 1-11 and those who don't. I teach Religion in an Adventist high school. Our Grade 9 curriculum presents the world views regarding the origins of life. I attempt to lead my students to understand that scientists who believe in an ancient earth with a common origin of life are not "crazy". Some express this when they enter my class. Also, I present to my students some of the facts of science which create tension between YEC and others. It is satisfying to see these young minds try to grapple with some of the basis issues.
• Brand teaches his YEC community how to do bonafide science. Lockley, a critic of Brand, admits that Brand may be more successful in teaching the principles of science to YEC adherents that the critics or name-callers. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 00:58, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

• As a former Adventist myself, I have attended Southwestern and was one of Chadwick's students, even worked for him for a bit, so I'm at least quite familiar with his work, and we don't have a page her for him, so I unlinked it. Kurt Wise has never published as far as I can tell, Kurt Wise has never published, searched several databases and can't find anything published by him, and no books don't count. Leonard Brand has published, but it appears nothing hes published really promotes the idea of YEC and you wouldn't get the idea that he belived in YEC from reading his papers (the couple I read). Andrew Snelling also appears to have not published, and no page for him so I unlinked. And as far as I know Art has never published either... so your claim that these people are scientists is pretty slim, only one that has peer-reviewed research is Brand, but his research isn't really showing YEC... — raekyt 01:33, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

• Raeky, your experience with Chadwick, did you find him scientific in his thinking? Is Brand the only peer-reviewed published scientist among the YEC group? Are there others? Brand lectures and writes considerable material on the role of faith and religion. He describes himself as a YEC and that YEC worldview prompts him to ask certain questions; questions that other don't ask. For example, with the salamanders, he set up a water environment for them to run because he believed in the flood. In the article on YEC, should we include this mindset to look for bonafide science questions arising from a belief in the Bible? DonaldRichardSands (talk) 01:56, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

• Dr. Chadwick is certainly a wonderful guy, and teacher but he's never been published, and that's what it means to be a scientist, if your not contributing to the furtherment of mankind's knowledge in the field your degree is in, then you can't really call yourself a scientist, hes a professor and teacher and that's all. As for including the "mindset" of these "scientists" in the article, I believe we do that. But due to WP:FRINGE and WP:WEIGHT we have to weigh that against the ENORMOUS VOLUMES of evidence that contradicts it, and that VIRTUALLY EVERY SCIENTIST disagrees with, and ABSOLUTELY ZERO EVIDENCE for... so the article will reflect these inconvenient truths to your YEC belief. — raekyt 02:03, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

If you really believe that it is only numbers which put YEC into the minority viewpoint and that the evidence for an ancient universe, earth and life on earth is anything other than overwhelming, then I can't help you. The rest of your comment is pop-philosophy verging on garbage and I'm fed up with this discussion already. GDallimore (Talk) 00:21, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I was just informing you of the viewpoint of most creationists. Whether you believe that that is the way creationist think or not is entirely up to you. You don't have to agree with the way they think, but it is helpful to know how they think. To them science is a useful and important methodology to study nature, but it can only be done and understood within a philosophical viewpoint (as they understand Khun and Popper). They recognize two competing and mutually exclusive worldviews that the methodology of science is done within. They reject the interpretations on naturalism for the interpretations of creationism. You may not see things this way, but they do. Sacramentosam (talk) 19:00, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Sacramentosam, you may think you know the viewpoint of most creationists, but for that to appear here it has to be verifiable from reliable third party published sources – your original research doesn't count. Please cite such sources here for discussion. . dave souza, talk 20:09, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

As a start, I recommend the following articles. They are from the horse's mouth. This is what creationists themselves think, not what someone thinks they think. Sacramentosam (talk) 21:10, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

• [Philosophical Naturalism and the Age of the Earth]
• [Untangling Uniformitarianism Part 1]
• [God and Natural Law]
• [Principles of the Laws of Nature]
• [Galileo]
• [Nature of the Debate]

Those links explain why your previous comments were largely garbage. Glad to hear they weren't your viewpoints. And the reason I'm fed up with this discussion is because I see nothing in it that could help the article. Perhaps you could focus on something more specific for improving the article because I see nothing so far. GDallimore (Talk) 21:18, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Help -- in what way, and what direction? Wekn ^TAKN

Anyway, back on track:

@Raeky (way up there, concerning publications):

Kurt Wise

• The Estimation of True Taxonomic Durations from Fossil Occurrence Data, 1989 (Doctoral Dissertation)
• Canyon-length mass kill of orothocone nautiloids, Redwall Limestone (Mississippian) Grand Canyon, Arizona, 1999, with Andrew Snelling
• Gigantic megaclasts within the Kingston Peak Formation (Upper Precambrian, Pahrump Group), Southeastern California, 1999, also with Snelling
• I could go on with several others from other secular peer-reviewed journals, but don't have the time . . .

Andrew Snelling

• Those two above (published by the Geological Society of America)
• Dozens of papers published in various Creationist journals
• Again, I could go on and on and on, but don't have the time

I would have to disagree, however, that 'being published' makes you a scientist. Although it does for the most part convey the truth that it isn't enough to have a high degree from a prestigious university, there are plenty of people who have done lab work and never been recognized for it, as well as those who have done work -- and never published it, or died before it could be published. Wekn ^TAKN 11:48, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm referring to peer reviewed scientific journals, are any of those that? Creationist journals are not. And those are definitely not citations, just a title does not a citation make. You can disagree all you want, that's your prerogative, but imho if your not using your degree to advance science, and that means publishing in peer reviewed scientific journals, i.e. doing good repeatable and honest science, then your not a scientist. You can hold a PhD, you can tinker around in a lab, you can assist others, you can teach, you can try to advance crack-pot ideas (creationism) but if your not being published your not making a contribution to your field. I have up-most respect for teachers, and that's a fine profession to be in, don't get me wrong. But I don't see someone twiddling away their PhD without doing any research that can be considered a scientist. And doing pseudoscience, and trying to get all your data to match a preconceived infallible truth that God created the earth and never accepting that that hypothesis can be wrong IS NOT science. — raekyt 12:24, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't intending to cite. All I'm trying to do is point out that these guys have published in peer-reviewed, non-Creationist (If you read carefully) journals, by giving a very small sample of their work. I'm not even going to begin to explain to you that the Creationist journals are peer-reviewed because, as you have just demonstrated, your ears are closed to hearing that. They are there for people to whom it may concern. And on top of that, there are certain less-common cases where a scientist is not published in peer reviewed journals, and still makes great contributions to the realm of science. Ever heard of Henrietta Leavitt? But that doesn't really matter so much, since those cases are becoming exceedingly rare. Wekn ^TAKN 12:43, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

On that thought, earning a Ph.D. itself honestly cannot be considered twiddling either. Wise's Dissertation consists of over a thousand pages of careful research, and it seems he's just switched, for the most part, to Creationist journals. Let's put it this way: when over 70 science academies have signed a statement practically denies Creationism in any form, dismissing it as pseudoscience, it is a going to be a little hard to find a secular peer-reviewed journal that will publish anything at all, under the name of a proponent of what they deem to be 'pseudoscience'. Wekn ^TAKN 13:14, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Thirdly, although he explicitly states that even if all the evidence in the world seems to oppose the Bible, that he will still believe the Biblical account, he still says he would be the first to admit it. And he obviously doesn't believe that. He acknowledges that, just like his opponents, he has a particular worldview, but he believes his best fits the evidence, and has no intention of distorting it to fit his worldview, in word. Wekn ^TAKN 13:20, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I disagree that these people couldn't be published, the process looks little (none?) at the writers personal beliefs, and strictly looks at their science, if they're exposing the idea of young earth creationism, sure they probably won't get that paper published by mainstream science journals and have to stick to the fringe, but if they're doing reliable real science and following where the evidence leads then there's no reason why they can't be published. The reason they're not is because they don't want to follow where the evidence leads because they already know where it should lead and are trying to get the evidence to fit that model. That isn't science and that's why it's not published in any real scientific journal. Doesn't matter what you think about a creationist journal, it's not a scientific journal if it allows the idea of creationism as a hypothesis. I do believe up above I said that I just couldn't find any journal articles by those people, and all I did was search a couple databases, not a complete exhaustive search... If you state that no matter what evidence you discover, you see or witness, that you will never change your mind, then your NOT a scientist, plain and simple. Your opinions on that doesn't matter, my opinions on that doesn't matter, that's just plain unobjectionable facts there. A scientist absolutely has to allow their views, their long held ideas, to change as the evidence dictates. If you can't do that then your not doing science anymore. — raekyt 13:28, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Per your last sentence: not necessarily their views, but their methods. And, since you couldn't find any in a short search, I did (just trying to help). Sorry for starting off on the wrong terms with you. Forgive me? Wekn ^TAKN 14:10, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

With copying my comments to your user page and commenting on them, makes it kinda hard to get on better terms. Not that I'm mad, but your assessment of it is quite wrong and by putting it there I can't really reply. — raekyt 13:12, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I believe Kurt Wise has been published, but nothing he has had published in a reliable source discusses creationism, so there's not much point finding the OTHER stuff he's had published. GDallimore (Talk) 16:28, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

How about this?

• Wise, K. 2003. THE EVOLUTION OF CREATIONIST PERSPECTIVE ON THE FOSSIL EQUID SERIES. Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, Vol. 35, No. 6, p. 610

• Thats just an abstract for a presentation, theres no indications it was peer reviewed, all it shows is that they allow these people floor space to talk, giving a presentation at a conference is a very low bar to meet, being published in a peer reviewed journal is very different. — raekyt 20:14, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Then look harder. I'm sure you'll find something. If you pay, there's more than just the abstract. It took me all of five seconds to find this, anyways. Wekn ^TAKN 10:35, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Not saying nothing else can be found, but that citation is nothing more than the abstract I linked too, The book "Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs" is just a collection of abstracts that are to be presented at the meeting, i.e. not peer reviewed journal. — raekyt 13:08, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Find what? There is no sign of any reliable sources relevant to this article. This is a wholly pointless discussion. GDallimore (Talk) 18:10, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Section "Animal behaviour"

An editor objects to my version of this section. My version reads:

According to Genesis 1:29-30 all animals as originally created were herbivorous by God's command. ("Then God said, 'I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds in the sky and all the creatures that move along the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food.' And it was so.") It is not until immediately after Noah's Flood that the ban is lifted and both man and carnivores are allowed to kill for meat. Young Earth creationists also interpret the first chapters of Genesis to mean that animals did not die before the Fall of Adam and Eve (i.e., their disobedience of God's command not to eat of the Tree of Knowledge, which resulted in their being expelled from the Garden of God and the presence of the Tree of Life).

The editor - GDallimore - says in an edit summary that this is "only an interpretation" and "shouldn't be presented as historical fact". Both criticisms are off track. The idea that the command in Genesis 1:29-30 orders all Creation to be herbivorous is universal among biblical scholars - I think I've looked up half a dozen mainline commentaries on Gensis, by people like Alter (please don't tell me you never heard of Rober ALter, I'll cry!) and Carr (you have read Carr, please tell me you've read Fractures in Genesis), and they all agree on it. And so they should - "to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds in the sky and all the creatures that move along the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food." That's pretty clear.

The author of Genesis 1, whoever he was, had good reason to show God creating a herbivorous world in which there was no killing or death: he was writing theology, not history or science (which incidentally is why GDallimore's second comment, the one about historical fact, is also off beam). God creates a world which is "very good" (that's a quote of God's own words, as written by the author of Genesis 1), and then that world is gradually corrupted, first by man's wish to share the qualities of immortality and omniscience (the two trees in the garden), then by murder (Cain and Abel), then finally by interbreeding between gods and men, until finally he sends the waters back to wipe out all life except Noah and the chosen animals. And then, after the flood, comes the first covenant, one between god and all animals, in which for the first time meat-eating is allowed, but under strict rules.

All up, there's nothing YEC-specific about this, it's a common-place of biblical studies. YECs just read it as history instead of as literature, that's all. The whole section probably should be deleted, but if it stays, it needs to get things right. PiCo (talk) 04:07, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I've discussed this section with Fifeloo over at RSN [[1]], and he concurs that the sourcing is garbage. Delete away. It's completely out of place here. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 06:12, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Have deleted. And it wasn't my reading that was wrong it was YOUR writing. You re-wrote the section as if all these things actually happened, hence presenting it as historical fact. GDallimore (Talk) 13:12, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Weight

WP:RS/N in an investigation that uncovered widespread potentially dubious use of sources, and widespread copyright violation, noted that Technical Journal may be unrepresentative of YEC views as a whole. Therefore, while resolving copyright violation links, I have noted that uses of Technical Journal in this article need to be investigated for undue weight being put on the claims of a limited section of the YEC community, and may not be representative of the YEC community as a whole. Thanks, Fifelfoo (talk) 02:11, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I think this actually matches nicely, for slightly different reason, with my feeling that a lot of this article needs merging with Creation Science, this being one particular modern take on the young earth creationism idea which is being given undue weight due to recentism. So, I wouldn't support wholesale removal of material, but moving it to the relevant article could be a major improvement. GDallimore (Talk) 22:38, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Creation ex nihilo, a glossy magazine from the 1990s is being used to support FRINGE science and FRINGE theology claims, without having the capacity to bear the weight of these. Moreover, Creation ex nihilo appears to represent on minor Australian fragment of the broader YEC community, and is often being used to portray the community as a whole. Secondary sources are really required for weighting the importance of fringe claims. Fifelfoo (talk) 06:00, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Ex nihilio along with Answers technical journal, {CRSQ} Creation Research Society Quarterly, and the others all represent the YEC viewpoint. While there are separate YEC groups in Australia and the USA, they all talk the same talk. And they all tend to cooperate with each other. There are almost no differences in beliefs from one group to another but for their missions. So it isn't accurate to says that the CexN represent just one small group of the YECs. Nearly all YECs accept what is published in all these publications. That you don't know this gives me pause if you are qualified to edit this topic. There are two major creationary groups in the world, OECs (Old Earth Creationists (AKA Theistic Evolutionists) who are totally embarrassed by the YECs) and the YECs (Young Earth Creationists who are totally dismayed at the compromise of the OECs). Perhaps you are thinking that they are all YECs. Sacramentosam (talk) 07:47, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the brief historical account, but all it does is identify you as an insider. You are not citing a published history of the movement, and you are not helping to keep the various YEC publications as references. I agree with Fifelfoo that Technical Journal, Journal of Creation, and all the related journals come up short; they do not meet our requirements for reliable sources. Binksternet (talk) 01:16, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Are we using them to state something as fact or true based on them as a source or just using it to represent a viewpoint or their side with proper WP:WEIGHT given to the amount of coverage? Is this a case of "if it ain't broke don't fix it?" If we're using these sources in a way to protray what they say is true then YES I agree, huge issue, but if we're not then whats the issue? These articles might as well not exist if we can't represent their viewpoint? What sources would you suggest we use to represent YEC's beliefs if we can't use any of their publications? Let's be constructive here, if we can't use YEC journals and publications to represent YEC points of view, then what can we use? — raekyt 04:28, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I think it is broken. Answers In Genesis is an apologist ministry and should not be used to say things such as "some Creationists have stated" or similar, and it especially should not be used to support supposed facts. We should stick with academic sources—scholars who have weighed the various beliefs for their significance and have categorized them properly. Binksternet (talk) 17:06, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Answers in Genesis is one of the major creationist organizations and references to their web site can be used to describe their opinions, which I believe are representative for a large part of the YEC community. Anyway, I think your wholesale removal of all links to their web site should have been discussed here first.Sjö (talk) 17:31, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I fundamentally disagree that AiG should be removed as a source from this article across the board since it is one of the major creationist organisations and is therefore a reliable source on the view of a significant number of creationists. However, I happen to think that most of the material that has been removed shouldn't have been in this article in the first place so it has overall been improved.

I am also dismayed by the personal attacks being levies against Sacramentosam when he has done nothing here except make valid comments. GDallimore (Talk) 01:06, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Defining YEC (first sentence)

The very first sentence of the article says this: "Young Earth creationism (YEC) is the religious belief[1]..." It cites a source to prove, apparently, that YECism is indeed a religious belief - but does anyone doubt it? If creation is by God, then creationism is a religious belief, no further proof needed. In any case, the source doesn't support this idea - it's not talking about YECism, but about creation science. That creation science is a religious belief disguised as a scientific one is true, and possibly in need of sourcing, but this article isn't about that, and neither is the book.

The second footnote, at the end of the full sentence, is to a book by Ronald Numbers. It (presumably) supports the definition of YEC made in the sentence, and as Numbers looks pretty authoritative I'd be prepared to leave that fn there. But, unfortunately, it points to page 11 of the book, and I can't read it - it's behind a googlebookwall. Can anyone quote for us the relevant sentence or para from Numbers where he defines YEC? PiCo (talk) 04:06, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

(A little later): Here's a definition I found:

"Young Earth Creationism (YEC) is the theologically fundamentalist view based on inferences from the Book of Genesis and supporting texts elsewhere in the Bible, that a theistic God created the universe, Earth, life, and major kinds of plants by instantaneous fiat less than 10,000 years ago." The source is this book by Matthew Scott Cooper (page 1). It has the advantage of being sourced, and it looks pretty comprehensive. PiCo (talk) 04:31, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Sacramentosam blocked as sockpuppet

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Allenroyboy/Archive. Dougweller (talk) 17:24, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Criticism: Lack of Scientific Acceptance

Most scientists see it as a non-scientific position, and regard attempts to prove it scientifically as being little more than religiously motivated pseudoscience. Can a citation for this statement be placed? (I personally don't know of any in particular, although this is a true statement. A open letter or something?)

LimpSpider (talk) 09:06, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Does this really need sourced, it seems self-evident given the nature of the material... heh. — raekyt 11:36, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

True enough :D LimpSpider (talk) 22:22, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

We always need sources, regardless of how obvious something seems. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 20:06, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Not necessarily, WP:V says stuff that is likely to be challenged does, but plainly obvious stuff that is unlikely to be challenged doesn't. Finding sources to state that YEC is non-scientific would be trivial, and there's PLENTY of such sources already in the article, just maybe not attached to this specific phrase... if someone really wants to challenge it it wouldn't be an issue to attribute sources, of course, but as it is now EVERY SENTENCE doesn't need a source, obviously. — raekyt 05:27, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Book reference: [2] "Winning with Words: The Origins and Impact of Political Framing" by Brian Schaffner pg. 21 (ISBN 0415997933) referring too Edwards v. Aguillard

Journal reference: "Piercing the Veil of Intelligent Design: Why Courts should Beware Creationism's Secular Disguise" by Colin McRoberts and Timothy Sandefur in "The Kansas Journal of Law & Public Policy" or "15 Kan. J.L. & Pub. Pol'y" Fall, 2005, volume 15 [3] specificlly states "To follow the development of the movement, and propose an effective methodology for courts to weed out religiously motivated pseudoscience, it is necessary to first parse the logic of the cases that provoked the transformative schism between creationism and intelligent design."

I'm sure plenty more exist... — raekyt 05:44, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Pleiosaurs or sharks?

There is a {{weight}} tag in the section on paleontology and dinosaurs, claiming that it is "universalising the opinion of one particular YEC group, perhaps unduely". I'm not sure if that opinion is that pleiosaurs still exist or that they're really just sharks. Does this tag raise an issue that needs addressing, or should it be removed? RockMagnetist (talk) 03:16, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Or is this the same Technical Journal issue that was discussed above? The original citation mentioned Technical Journal, but provided inadequate details, and the true source was Journal of Creation. RockMagnetist (talk) 03:38, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Move criticism heading

The criticism heading should be moved to just after the first paragraph. Reading through the article, it is hilarious come upon that heading so far down into the text. Have the advocates of this point of view contributed anything to this article? 72.234.110.47 (talk) 07:13, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Despite appearances, the goal of this article is not to attack YEC. The goal is to discuss the history and attitudes to the belief both past and present. Placing a huge criticism section at the beginning would deny the chance to place this belief in its historical context. Personally, I believe it would also give weight to the conspiracy-theory YEC nuts who say that they must be right because everyone's against them (or something like that). GDallimore (Talk) 09:32, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Calling anybody a nut is very POV. It shows some unprofessional attitude in my opinion. Stick to academic arguments if you are to be taken seriously. 72.234.110.47 (talk) 08:49, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I would say delusional, but that term has been misappropriated by Dawkins to mean anyone who believes in God. GDallimore (Talk) 10:05, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Sound reasoning would not be so silly as relying on ad-hominems.

72.234.110.47 (talk) 17:09, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Allan edits (rusty wiki-writer ... rarely used "Talk" ... my bad?)

• Baffled why correction of sentence fragment was undone. Seemed like a "painting with too broad brush" to undo all four edits. Or not?

• Unclear why substitution of "account" for "myth" was undone. To me, the use of "myth" assumes the reader has the POV of a "Cultural Evolutionist". Otherwise, the ordinary wiki reader would be more inclined to interpret "myth" as "old fictional story with little or no basis in actual history" a'la the "myth" of Camelot, or the "myth" of Hercules.

• The article correctly describes the position of the Creation Research Institute, but it is hardly the case that all YEC's are in full agreement with the CRI. It is simply incorrect to imply that the 46% of Americans who believe a very key part of YEC ... humans created by God in the past 10,000 years ... also agree with the CRI on the following points. There is huge variance. To me, this is a very misleading inference from how the article currently reads.

Perhaps the use of "Strict/purist YEC's believe ...." ???

Or "The CRI and those who agree with the CRI believe ..." ???

• I remain unconvinced that the gross generation of "YEC's believe ..." is appropriate, but I was not all that confident my revisions were that much better.

Lynn (talk) 01:51, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

1. was a mistake that was quickly corrected.

2. "Account" suggests it is true, which certainly cannot be implied under any circumstances since that would be promoting the Christian/Jewish faith over other points of view. And the most widely held view (and I'm talking about theologians here, not atheists) is that Genesis IS an "old fictional story with little or no basis in actual history", sometimes also called an allegory so you definition of myth seems totally accurate. Maybe you would like to argue about what the best wording is here. King Arthur is a legend, by the way, not a myth.

3. This is a long-standing problem not with the content of the article so much as using CRI as a source for ANYTHING. I have been tempted many times to just wipe out everything in this article that uses CRI as a source, since they are totally unreliable. Unfortunately, I don't have easy access (except via google books, I guess) to the reliable books on the subject that could be used as replacement sources throughout. But there are sources OTHER than CRI which are used which does make your edits inappropriate. GDallimore (Talk) 08:57, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Replacing "account" with "myth" is nothing short of injecting your agenda into the article. "Account" does not advocate its truthfulness nor falsehood, it is merely a detailed description of the issue. "Myth" denotes an intentional desire to influence the reader into aligning their thoughts with the author's stance on the subject. You may use it for a Creation vs. Evolution article, but not here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xeleros (talk • contribs) 16:16, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Actually, Wikipedia teaches evolution as true. It favors that point of view over all the others. -- Billybob2002 (talk) 16:41, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

WP:NPOVFAQ TomS TDotO (talk) 17:11, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Islam

YEC is very common is Islam as well, and it should be mentioned in the article as well as the lede.Greengrounds (talk) 09:09, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I took a look at Islamic views on evolution, and it doesn´t seem to support this (which proves nothing, of course). What WP:RS would you suggest to support your statement? I´m fairly certain there ARE muslim YEC-people/organisations that perhaps could be mentioned. Perhaps this article should have an "Outside US" section. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:23, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Speculations

Regarding this edit by User:TomS TDotO which I reverted, how about: "ad hoc explanations"? In essence that is exactly what such speculations are. N^oformation ^Talk 20:56, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Variable speed of light is one of the most popular ways of getting around the observations of distances greater than a few thousand light years. But if we're going to say that this, or any other creationist response, is an ad hoc explanation, then I think that it needs some backing. It isn't "controversial" to note that creationists say that, but it is to say that they have no basis for that. TomS TDotO (talk) 11:42, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Source needed, showing mainstream scientific views. CE411: Speed of Light Slowing?, CE411.1: Physicists Say Light was Faster and CE412: Fast old light cover it. . dave souza, talk 12:18, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I think describing it as ad hoc is within editorial discretion but I may be wrong. If you and other editors think it's good phraseology I'll dig up a source, I know I've read it described as such. Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if one of the sources we're already using states as much. I recognize that a VSL is possible (as anything in science is subject to revision) but YECs aren't physicists doing research on LS, they're using ideas like VSL to explain away obvious flaws with a young universe with no evidence to support the assertion. N^oformation ^Talk 22:32, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Statistical Gaps

"As of 2012, the percentage of believers decreases as the level of education increases. Only 25% of respondents with postgraduate degrees believed compared with 52% of those with a high school education or less.[9]" from http://www.gallup.com/poll/155003/Hold-Creationist-View-Human-Origins.aspx No mention is made to 46% of college graduates and 47% of individuals with some college believing from the article. The choice of only the two percentages from the graph potentially exaggerates correlation between low education level and belief in YEC compared to the four percentages together. The statement "percentage of believers decreases as the level of education increases" could purely be conjecture. 52% compared to 46% and 47% is not a significant decrease among high school, some college, and college graduates respectively considering the 95% confidence margin is claimed at "± 4 percentage points." Furthermore, the results for the postgraduate percentage are based on the small fraction of the 1012 polled individuals holding postgraduate degrees. I suggest this section be rewritten or its relevance and value be reconsidered for neutrality and statistical fidelity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.116.44.168 (talk) 04:39, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Agreed that this was original research. Don't think it should have been in the lead anyway. Have represented source more accurately. If you have a problem with the sample size, you need to take it up with Gallup. GDallimore (Talk) 13:02, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Flat Earth and Geocentric model

My addition that Young Earth creationism does not ordinarily encompass other conflicts with science, such as Flat Earth and Geocentric model was reverted for lack of a reference. I think that I can dig up somewhere where a standard YEC site tells us this, but I don't know that it's worth the effort if the comment is going to be subject to other complaints. Can I rest assured that there are no other objections before I go through the effort? TomS TDotO (talk) 10:07, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Why not find a reliable secondary source discussing this? . . dave souza, talk 10:21, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

You can not rest assured, but a good source will help your case. Maybe I misunderstand you, but why do we need to point out that YEC don´t encompass flat earth etc? Who think it does? Is it insinuated in this article? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:26, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

That is the sort of issue which I was afraid would make it idle to dig up a reference. Would I need to find a source which substantiates both that YEC is accused of supporting a flat Earth or geocentrism and that YEC does not support that? TomS TDotO (talk) 14:32, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

That would be ideal, sure (if, for instance, the catholic church have declared that YEC includes flat earth belief, that would be worth mentioning), but I´m trying to understand why it should be added. Christianity or Intelligent Design don´t ordinarily (as far as I know) encompass Flat Earth either, should it be mentioned in those articles as well? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:46, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

The article as it now stands says that YEC "opposes many claims and theories in the fields of physics[71] and chemistry (including absolute dating methods), geology,[71] astronomy,[72] cosmology,[72] paleontology,[73] molecular biology, genomics, linguistics, anthropology, archaeology, climatology and dendrochronology among others. Young Earth creationists are fundamentally opposed to any explanation for the origins of anything which deviates from their literal reading of the Bible, whether it be the origins of biological diversity, the origins of life or the origins of the universe itself." It might be appropriate to indicate that, although there is a long list of scientific findings which are in conflict with YEC, there are scientific findings, even some which could be thought in conflict with a literal reading of the Bible, which are not in conflict with YEC. TomS TDotO (talk) 15:53, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

So why not have a look? For example, pp. 59–60 covers literal Biblical flat earth / geocentricism, and notes that few YECs take these passages of the Bible literally. Not none, just few. . . dave souza, talk 16:21, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

"Myth" replaced with "Account"

The word "Myth" in the first paragraph should be replaced with "account". Myth implies that it is a false story, but account implies neither. If you claim to be neutral, then change the word. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.116.145.130 (talk) 22:34, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

The response to this is always the same: Look up the words myth and account in a dictionary rather than thinking you know what these words mean.

Here's one definition of myth: "a traditional story, especially one concerning the early history of a people or explaining a natural or social phenomenon, and typically involving supernatural beings or events". Sounds perfect to me.

Here's one definition of account: "a report or description of an event or experience". Sounds POV to me.

If you still think account is a more neutral word, then you're using a different dictionary from everyone else - perhaps Browns? GDallimore (Talk) 23:54, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Merriam-Webster Dictionary definition of myth: "1) an idea or story that is believed by many people but that is not true 2)a story that was told in an ancient culture to explain a practice, belief, or natural occurrence 3) such stories as a group"

It is clear to me that "Myth" implies that the idea is not to be believed.

The argument is not that "account" implies the original text to be neutral, but that the word "account" does not bear a connotation that the event either must be believed or must not be believed, while the word "Myth" does hold such a connotation, and therefore biases the article.

I would agree with using the word "account" in the place of "Myth". Or we could even think of an even more neutral word such as "Narrative" which is defined as: "a story that is told or written". Again it has no connotation on if the account should be believed or not. We shouldn't be putting prejudicing words in the article. YK102 (talk) 14:54, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Myth is the right word. The Christian view that the Book of Genesis recounts various myths with theological relevance started in the UK in the early 19th century. Scientific discoveries had made it clear that Genesis could not be literally correct. The Genesis-as-myth idea became mainstream among Christians and non-Christians later in the 19th century after much debate, and after a flood (sorry) of additional scientific revelation (sorry again). By the 20th century very few believed that Genesis was a literal account. See Anglican priest Michael B. Roberts' "Genesis Chapter 1 and geological time" in the book Myth and Geology, ISBN 1862392161. Wikipedia is not going to go retrograde in science to settle in pre-1800 thought. Binksternet (talk) 15:34, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

What does that have to do with using a non-biased term as opposed to an inherently biased term? The suggested edit has to do with the neutrality of the piece, not of the factual basis of the piece. The second pillar of Wikipedia is neutrality. Using non-judgemental language is an important part of that. (Refer to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view ) I would therefore say that any judgemental terms need to be stripped from the article. 'myth' is a judgemental term that says the position is untrue. While 'narrative' is a non-judgemental and disinterested term that brings no bias for or against the position. YK102 (talk) 00:19, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I disagree that it's judgmental to say that Genesis is untrue. It's a factual statement based on scientific knowledge of how the universe works. Myths are powerful, respectable stories that can guide understanding of consciousness and our relationship to the world. Though the meaning of the term "myth" includes accounts that are not factual, it does not imply a judgment as to the personal utility or interpretation of the story. Jojalozzo 01:39, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Well said. Binksternet (talk) 03:16, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

(i) A myth is a type of narrative and so narrative is a less specific term. (ii) The same word can have two different meanings. Myth is not used here to imply falsehood (though as an encyclopedia we don't turn a blind eye to logic and pretend that talking snakes are real), it's used here because it is the proper, academic use of the term (keep in mind we are an encyclopedia, a type of academic publication) and the one used in the majority of high quality sources. The fact that some readers are not educated on this distinction is not a valid reason to avoid it per WP:RNPOV. In fact, the point of this encyclopedia is that people will click unfamiliar topics and actually learn about them (go figure). (iii) You've pointed to WP:NPOV but have obviously not read it because if you had scrolled down to the section on religion you would see that it specifically uses mythology as an example of a word not to avoid. To quote:

Several words that have very specific meanings in studies of religion have different meanings in less formal contexts, e.g., fundamentalism, mythology, and (as in the prior paragraph) critical. Wikipedia articles about religious topics should take care to use these words only in their formal senses to avoid causing unnecessary offence or misleading the reader. Conversely, editors should not avoid using terminology that has been established by the majority of the current reliable and notable sources on a topic out of sympathy for a particular point of view, or concern that readers may confuse the formal and informal meanings. [...]

N^oformation ^Talk 03:41, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

As Christian theologians use the word myth (eg writing about Genesis mythology) maybe people who oppose the word need to start with them. Dougweller (talk) 09:11, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps the word saga would be more fitting to describe the events recorded in the book of Genesis? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chacier (talk • contribs) 01:43, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

No, saga would be even more incorrect. (By the way, I removed the spaces at the beginning of your edit and replaced them with some colons for formatting reasons.) Sjö (talk) 09:26, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Detailed description of history of the universe in the lead

While I agree this article needs to directly spell out how wp:fringe creationism is and not violate wp:weight, does so much of the lede need to be devoted to it? It reads as political rather than encyclopaedic imho. I think it should be more within the article as the lede already makes it clear that YEC is a religious belief of a subpopulation. The comment on the reversion referred to WP:Weight insisting this went into the lead, but I can't find that within wp:weight, any suggestions? SPACKlick (talk) 23:18, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Additionally wp:lede would suggest that the lede be a fairly simple summary of the page, to devote nearly half of the leade to the attempt to say what could be summarised with "in spite of overwhelming scientific consensus" is, I think, what makes it seem politically motivated.

Young Earth creationism (YEC) is the religious belief[1] that the Universe, Earth and all life on Earth were created by direct 
acts of the Abrahamic God during a relatively short period, usually sometime between 5,700 and 10,000 years ago.[2] Its primary
adherents are those Christians and Jews[3] who, using a literal interpretation of the Genesis creation narrative as a basis,
believe that God created the Earth in six 24-hour days.[4][5] This belief goes against the scientific consensus, detailed in a
2006 statement by 68 national and international science academies, that the universe has existed for approximately 13.8 billion
years with life first appearing at least 2.5 billion years ago.[6] Although many young Earth creationists (YECs) are active in
the development of creation science, an endeavour that holds that the events associated with supernatural creation can be
evidenced and modelled through an interpretation of the scientific method, the consensus among scientists is that creation science
is unscientific in both conception and methodology.[7]

Is the above amenable to people, it just reads slightly better in my head, although it's still a little long winded. SPACKlick (talk) 23:32, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Right I've made that change. I would also like to suggest the following improvements.

1) Removal of the words;

, detailed in a 2006 statement by 68 national and international science academies, 

as they are just filler, the scientific consensus is what it is and there is already a link to the IAP statement.

2) Some of the linkwords look like easter eggs;

Universe has existed links to Chronology of the Universe
13.8 Billion years links to Age of the Universe

I'm not sure either of these are what you would expect on clicking the links although I don't have suggested improvements as yet. SPACKlick (talk) 10:51, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

The only difference between your proposed version and the current version, AFAICT, is the removal of information about evolution. Given that this article is about creationism, commenting about evolution is important. That section is wordy, but if we're going to shorten it, we need to do so while keeping the same amount of information in it. I'll see if I can draft something up a little later.   — Jess· Δ♥ 14:51, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure your summary of the difference is accurate. The differences are

• Made it part of first paragraph via "this belief goes against" (should probably be conrtradicts)
• "Supported by" is replaced with "Detailed in"
• Extended link for IAP from "science academies" to "68 national and international science academies"
• Removed section "is that it is evidence-based fact derived from observations and experiments in multiple scientific disciplines" as it is unnecessarily wordy
• Replaced Around with Approximately
• Removed "and that the Earth was formed about 4.5 billion years ago, " because even without this the point is well made so it comes across as hammering it home.

Nothing about Evolution, per se, was removed. The only fact removed was the age of the earth, because given the age of the universe and the age of life it seemed redundant for the lead. SPACKlick (talk) 14:58, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Yep, I was incorrect. I meant the "evidence based fact" bit, and the age of the Earth. My brain meshed that together to form evolution somehow, I imagine because I would have expected it to be in the lead. I tried reformulating it another way. Does that work for you? Is there something else we could try?   — Jess· Δ♥ 15:06, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Changed a couple of words but I'm happier with that section, it reads better. Cheers SPACKlick (talk) 15:29, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Scientific Community AND Evidence

Young Earth Creationism is contradicted by the scientific consensus and scientific evidence ....

This seems a bit overboard. Granite's viscosity at STP, dinosaur bones being used in soup, a find of dinosaur skin, usable ink from a jurassic squid, measured cretaceous bone protein, and the probable rates of granite pluton emplacement are a few scientific facts that do not clearly contradict YEC. Dan Watts (talk) 22:17, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

You're very unclear, and as I've just had some dinosaur soup your assertions don't seem to prove much. Your proposition doesn't seem to be supported by the sources, for example a "fossil remained intact for around 70-million years". Clarification needed, without SYN. . . dave souza, talk 22:37, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Clarification - If 'fossil' dinosaur bones can be made into soup, and dino-skin has been preserved, and (supposedly VERY old) squid ink can be used to write, and cretaceous fossils still contain protein, and granite can be emplaced very quickly, then EVIDENCE is not uniformly unsupportive concerning YEC. Dan Watts (talk) 02:02, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Why not? It's merely your assumption that these could support YEC. Minerals can be used in soup, for example salt... . dave souza, talk 08:47, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

This is a violation of WP:NOR or perhaps just WP:SYNTH. If a notable author can be found saying that "granite pluton emplacement" or whatever is evidence of YEC then this can be put into the article. Without an author to quote, we have nothing but conjecture. This talk page is WP:Not a forum for discussing the general aspects of the topic, it is solely for suggesting improvements to the article. Binksternet (talk) 03:54, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

The "scientific evidence" was added recently, and since it has been questioned it needs a supporting source that says that the evidence itself contradicts YEC. According to my experience, creationist accept much of the evidence, if we take "evidence" to mean something close to Popperian observations. It's the interpretations of that evidence that contradicts creationism, and the YEC interpretation uses at least some of the available evidence. This discussion is a bit muddied by the fact that there is no clear-cut definition of scientific evidence, but the bottom line is that since the phrase is disputed it needs a source. Sjö (talk) 06:26, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

The cited source says "We agree that the following evidence-based facts about the origins and evolution of the Earth and of life on this planet have been established by numerous observations and independently derived experimental results from a multitude of scientific disciplines. Even if there are still many open questions about the precise details of evolutionary change, scientific evidence has never contradicted these results:
• In a universe that has evolved towards its present configuration for some 11 to 15 billion years, our Earth formed approximately 4.5 billion years ago.....
• Life appeared on Earth at least 2.5 billion years ago...."
Seems a reasonable summary. . dave souza, talk 08:47, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

The problem with all of these edits is they've now crossed a line for me: I want this article to be about YEC as a religious belief. I don't want this article to be about the argument (stemming from unreliable YEC sources) that science should support this belief and evolution is in crisis. There are better articles for that argument. The edits I have just made to the article do, in my opinion, fairly support the sources, but I'm not happy with where the article now is because I think the emphasis has been pushed in the wrong direction.

Maybe it's just a simple case of merging the two sides of the creation science "debate" into one paragraph in the lead to keep it briefer, and to avoid this tangent to the main subject of the article, but I feel it runs deeper than that. Something is wrong with this article as a whole which I don't know how best to fix. GDallimore (Talk) 17:03, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm happier now I've amended the lead to keep the focus on YEC and its supporters, then adding that science disagrees with them, rather than pushing the scientific side too much. GDallimore (Talk) 17:27, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Re the continuing edit war, it's a shame there aren't more people discussing the one valid point that has been raised in the edit summary arguments for changing the article from its current state: "evidence is neutral". I think that is potentially an excellent argument for changing the article. However, it doesn't quite persuade me as a mere mantra since I believe the sources suggest the evidence is so clear cut that it isn't down to interpretation at all. The line from "evidence which is open to interpretation" to "evidence which all confirms the same undeniable conclusion" has been crossed a long time ago. But, I'm certainly open to debate on the best way to express the facts concerning the age of the universe.

Instead, all we have is the above weird list of irrelevant links. One thing's for sure: nothing is going to change with a proper discussion. GDallimore (Talk) 09:32, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm quite enjoying talking to myself :) GDallimore (Talk) 09:32, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Helps me to cement my own thought processes. So, actually, I take back the suggestion that other people join in the discussion. I'm quite happy here... GDallimore (Talk) 09:33, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Added to Category: Cults

I added this to Category: Cults since this falls into the Wikipedia definition of a cult: "A cult is a religious group or other organization with deviant and novel beliefs and practices". There seems to be consensus about this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.34.93.114 (talk) 13:05, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Hardly "deviant", and looks to me like a deliberate attempt to be controversial rather than constructive. GDallimore (Talk) 14:46, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

You're certainly entitled to have your own opinion and I will kindly remind you that it is wikipedia policy to assume good faith. However, 100% of the people I consulted about this say cult is accurate and no more controversial than "pseudo-science" and "denialism" which have been categories for this article for quite some time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.34.93.114 (talk) 02:07, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

There are several reliable sources for the labels of 'pseudoscience' and 'denialism'. I think you'd need to demonstrate a significant subset of reliable sources to tag YEC as a cult - the Wikipedia definition won't do. "100% of the people I have consulted" is not a reliable source. Besides, YEC does not fit even the Wikipedia definition. YEC is a particular belief, held my many individuals and groups, and is not a single group or organization. The category should be removed. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 03:42, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

We can discuss it if you find a reliable source saying YEC is a cult. Otherwise I agree with ArglebargleIV: YEC isn't a group but a belief. Sjö (talk) 06:24, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

YEC claims being incorrect

We started a poll earlier this week at the discussion page of young-Earth creationist Ken Ham with regard to whether or not the lede of his BLP should factually state that his YEC claims are "incorrect". So far, the participants have been more or less evenly split on the issue. Comments from new editors with perspective on this would be appreciated. You can find a direct link to the poll here. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 01:46, 4 April 2014 (UTC)