Talk:Young Earth creationism/Archive 2

I'm not sure how to fix the link. Falphin 21:32, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Someone saved a blank page so I copied the last edition with text and saved it. Try the link now. MPLX/MH 05:03, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Biased Article

YEC is NOT a form of 7th day adventism. There are clear and distinct differences between 7th day adventists and many YEC'ers. " Its history can all be traced to one woman, Ellen G. White, the founder of the Cult of Seventh Day Adventism" -- this is wholly inaccurate. It is clear that yom implies a 24 hour period in Genesis, there is no reason previous generations of Genesis readers wouldnt believe similar things to a current YECist. It is also innacurate to say that no scientist in 150 years has considered YEC a valid line of reasoning. This is clearly an atheist viewpoint, and though the scientific community at large rejects the concept of a deity, it is wrong to consider YEC impossible or anymore unscientific than the theory of evolution. The article also lacks in its explanation of the growth of YEC in recent years as a backlash against the improbable, er, impossible myth of evolution. While the scientific community is entrenched in a myth, a lie of the geocentric universe scale, many intelligent critics are beginning to understand that faking things such as transition fossils merely causes evolutionists to lose any respect they may have had. Wattssw 04:52, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

You are correct. I will be looking forward to some good edits from you. It may be impossible to make a NPOV article though as both sides are biased. :-( RossNixon 11:55, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Wait as second. "... it is wrong to consider YEC impossible or anymore [sic] unscientific than the theory of evolution." Please tell me you're joking. Science does not take its answers from literal interpretation of a book, particularly one with such a disputed validity as the Bible. It takes them through repeated processes of experimentation, observation, and interpretation of results. YEC could not be MORE unscientific - I mean, unless someone imagined it. The article is biased, yes. But adding things about "the growth of YEC in recent years as a backlash against the improbable, er, impossible myth of evolution," are more biased and NPOV than the problems you're trying to fix. Please, if you can't remove your own bias on the issue, just don't edit the article. StellarFury 23:02, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Suggestion

"Young Earth creationists respond by pointing out that evolution is also unrepeatable, unfalsifiable and untestable, and is therefore, by its very nature, completely unscientific, since it offers no explanation for the origin of life without which it cannot occur, and because there are no known mutations which have resulted in an information increase in the genome (See Lee Spetner, Not By Chance [Judaica Press, 1996]), and because evolutionists excuse this lack of empirical evidence by appealing to the need for long periods of time."

I think a section devoted to the Creationist responses to criticism would be beneficial. The section above was pulled because it didn't belong in the criticism section, but it is good for the article. Falphin 18:59, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Although it is a completely fallacious argument.The Rev of Bru

Compromise

I've noticed Big Hurt and The Rev of Bru have been debating over the passage after the ark. The Rev of Bru " contrary to the biological, geological, radiological, astrological, historical and glaciological evidence." or "contrary to evidence" Big hurt- "Contrary to current, secular evidence when viewed through evolutionary assumptions." Neither is comletely neutral, reason why are Rev-1. The list is not reasonable. Perhaps a better wording would be sciences. But the point of a encyclopedia is to right a non-biased article on the subject not to attack a perticular group. Rev- 2. Contrary to evidence is claiming that modern science is fact. However it is through our current lense. Theories will always change. Big Hurt- Your point is POV because these current "evolutionary assumptions" are generally accepted and held by the majority of scientists. Two suggestions for a compromise "contrary to the mainstream science's theories" Or "contrary to the current mainstream sciences theories such as biological, geological, radiological among others." Falphin 23:30, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

First of all, radiology is not radiometrics. Astrology is not astronomy. The Rev of Bru would be wise to get his or her facts straight before entering blindly editting. The current conception of scientific evidence is just fine. Joshuaschroeder 15:05, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Page move

Moving the page to Young Earth Creation Science is absolutely ridiculous. Creation Science has its own article, the Young Earth end of it can encompass pure philosophy without any sort of scientific trappings, so the scientific label is completely inappropriate. This would be like moving an article on optimism to optimism science or communism to communist science. DreamGuy 11:24, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

Young Earth creationism simply isn't accurate. This is only a label applied by some. These organizations refer to themselves as Young Earth Creation Science organizations. Here is some proof:

Creation Science Evangelism

About ICR - Only "creation science" is used for this major, Young Earth organization. "Creationism" is never used.

Answers in Genesis - "Creation science" and "young earth creation science" is used 3921 times on their site. This is the other, major Young Earth organization.

Simply put, "creationism" is a negative word and doesn't describe what these organizations do or the issue at hand. It would only be fair if you used the word "evolutionism" instead of evolution or the theory of evolution. However, we generally don't because this indicates a bias; even though an argument could be made for its usage.

Since "isms" are inherently evil (communism, socialism, etc.), this is an inappropriate way to label a growing field of science.

So capitlism and patriotism are evil?--66.146.59.114 01:39, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

If there is any doubt that these organizations conduct science, then one should read Answers in Genesis' TJ (Technical Journal). It is written by scientists from their organization and it is peer-reviewed; which is the benchmark for science. -- Big Hurt, 9:58am PST, May 2, 2005

Welcome to another corner of the ongoing creationism controvery, Big Hurt. While there is a lot of history that goes into exactly what Hovind, Ham, Gish, etc. like to refer to themselves as creation science, the fact is we are trying to describe an idea that extends far beyond these three organizations you cited. We could write a paragraph on "Creation science" in this article and link to the article on creation science if you would like, but the "creation science" idealization is simply a way for a certain group of creationists to distinguish themselves from other creationists who hold similar ideas but aren't up for the "technical" challenge of defending their beliefs. You may be interested in looking at the creation science page if that's the area of creationism you are more interested in. Joshuaschroeder 19:52, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Since when were "isms" inherently evil? You chose two (allegedly) negative examples - is conservatism inherently evil? Libertarianism? Originalism (the Constitutional theory)? Liberalism? Internationalism? --FCYTravis 06:25, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The point is also to use accurate spelling. -H.L.Smyth

Evidence from physics

Rossnixon took out the mention of evidence from physics - "Criticisms of Young Earth creationism - no evidence from Physics". I've restored this. Creationists often use arguments from or against physics, e.g. quoting the second law of thermodynamics (incorrectly) or arguing that radiometric dating is unreliable because physical constants might somehow have been different in the past. See http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html#CF for examples of creationist claims regarding physics (all of which are disproved, naturally). -- ChrisO 10:30, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Also, YEC physics claims about varying speed of light and varying decay rates of radioactive substances are bogus, and Lord Kelvin's argument that the earth would be cooler if it were millions of years old, has turned out to be wrong when radioactivity was discovered. --Hob Gadling 15:30, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

Radiometric section removed

I removed a section which doesn't belong in this article. As I have said before, this article is about what the YECs believe, not whether it is scientifically viable or not. Wikipedia is not a debating ground. Here is what I removed: Samboy 01:48, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Criticism of Radiometric Dating and the "Old" Age of the Earth

Not everyone agrees with what is sometimes said about Radiometric Dating methods and their supposed accuracy. For example, there are many reasons to question Radiometric Dating methods and whether or not they have any validity at all. For example, many artifacts containing Organic material found buried in supposedly "millions of years old" strata (such as carbonized wood, unfossilized or unmineralized wood -- that can be sawed with a saw or burned in a fire --, unfossilize or unmineralized Dinosaur Bones, etc) have been dated with the Carbon 14 Dating method, and, time and time again, the dates obtained are between about 7,000 years to 40,000 years. However there are many other reasons for questioning this method. For example, all of those "millions of years old" dates are obtained from Volcanic materials; however, there is no way to KNOW for CERTAIN what the original amounts present were. Then there is the problem of Mixing both mother and daughter products together while they are in a molten state. Then there is the problem of Leaching, re-chrystalization, and a host of others. The Links below provide the interested reader with LOTS more information.

• Is the Earth 4.5 Billion Years Old This article takes a closer look at how the 4.5 Billion Year age for the Earth was arrived at, and why it cannot be trusted.

• The Case of the KBS Tuff This modified Letter, examines the well-ducumented Case of the KBS Tuff, and all of the Various methods that were used to "date" it, and also why the final (1.9 m.y.o.) result cannot be trusted any more than the first (220 m.y.o.) One.

• Radiometric Dating This short paper examines the Uranium Lead Method, and provides Tables that show why Radiometric Dating cannot be trusted.

• The Radiometric Dating Game This web site take a much closer look at Radiometric Dating and also explains in much detail why it cannot be trusted.

• More Bad News for Radiometric Dating Just what the title says.

• Stumping Old Age Dogma Examines One of the many instances of Carbon Dating an organic piece of wood that was found in strata that was supposed to be many "millions of years old."

• What About Carbon 14

• Excess Argon... Takes a closer look at Potassium Argon Dating, and why it also cannot be trusted.

• Radiometric Dating: The Numbers Game Another close look at how the Numbers in this game are very often used to favor the Theory of Evolution over empirical science and objective reasoning.

--Truthteller 07:29, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The Deluge probably occurred earlier, such as in circa 3942 B.C., rather than in 2350 B.C. --Anglius 22:02, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Where did you get that? Ussher has 2348 B.C. - more recent scholarship has amended this to 2519 B.C. (I'll google for your date. Will you google for mine?) RossNixon 05:26, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but those dates are impossibly late, Mr. Nixon. I calcuated that it was in 3942 B.C. by placing the formation of Adam in approximately 5598 B.C.(the date of Creation according the pre-Christian Hellenes. --Anglius 02:08, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Are you both insane?

Alright, to completely disprove theories about Radiometric Dating either being "a scientific lie" or a "clever hoax" I offer you a dose of common sense with a reality chaser. Without Radiometric Dating nuclear power, chemotherapy, and atomic weapons could not exist because there would be no way to measure radiation,determine its half life, or even how to properly cause a nucler reaction. That means we would never know how strong (or weak) the radioactive material needs to be in order to properly facilitate the desired result in an efficient and safe manner. If we couldn't measure Radiometric Dating accurately every nuclear powerplant across america would have had a 50% chance of blowing up upon activation. Either the nuclear power plants wouldnt have had enough power to run, or they would reach critical mass very quickly. Following the thermonuclear detination the sky would be filled with radioactive particles that could spread for miles. The town and its inhabitants would either have been vaporized in the blast, or later died from overexposure to radiation. The surrounding areas where all that radiation settled would be highly contaminated for an undeterminable length of time. If it wasnt for scientists doing their research thoroughly and scrutinizing every hypothesis to the nth degree you could kiss all modern technology and scientific advances goodbye. There is nothing like a centuries worth of economic and sociological stagnation to give america that good old third world country charm. Who needs medicine,indoor plumbing, and a national budget when you can be horribly close minded, judgemental, and afraid. In short let the scientists be the experts about science, just as you are the experts in Exremist Christianity.BTW homeschool your kids its cheaper, easier, and honestly you can make it up as you go along.

What is 'nucler'? What is 'detination'? What is 'exremist'? Have you been edumacated real good? ;-)

Radiometric dating has NOTHING to do with measuring current decay rates. Your dribbling rant does not posit a single coherent argument. Go back to school! ^rossnixon 10:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi ^ross. This post (well, rant) was added in 2005. I doubt the anon who added it is even reading now, so it's probably not worth replying to them. I would just add, however, that measuring current decay rates has quite a bit to do with radiometric dating. If we don't know how fast a decay reaction takes, how can we estimate the age of rocks? I'm not aware that there are good theoretical models for calculating half-life from an isotope's nuclear structure (but it's not my field). Cheers, --Plumbago 10:41, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm lost

I haven't read the whole article yet, but where is the POV dispute. Aside from the comments (which sound like they have been deleted) made by the two who were arguing, it seems like everything is fine. I haven't seen anything on the talk page talking about the POV of the article. Mred64 22:31, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

• Dispute tag removed. If someone wants to put it back, start a new section on the talk page listing the POV problems. --brian0918™ 23:21, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Leading authors

I think it is important to understand a issue to know who the leading authors are. Does anyone have a problem with me giving the main YEC authors are.

7/23/05 kdbuffalo

See List of Young Earth Creationists for a list. Some such as Henry M. Morris, Kent Hovind are sporadically mentioned where appropriate in the article. Dunc|☺ 22:14, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

another entry

When young earth creationism is called "pseudoscience" in the article I think this makes Wikipedia look bad. You don't see Britannica and other encyclopedias using this tone which looks unprofessional and immature. I think it should be changed.

7/24/05 kdbuffalo

Again you are wrong. Wikipedia does not call YEC pseudoscience. This is the paragraph you probably don't like:

Young Earth creationism was abandoned as a mainstream scientific concept over 150 years ago. While many mainstream scientists respect it as a faith position, they regard attempts to prove it scientifically as being little more than religiously motivated pseudoscience.

Wikipedia says that "many mainstream scientists" call it pseudoscience. This is perfectly true. You are trying to remove information about standpoints other than yours. This makes no one look bad except you. --Hob Gadling 13:08, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

WHY SOME PEOPLE ARE SO INSISTENT ON BRANDING CREATIONISM PSEUDOSCIENCE AND CANNOT SHOW ME OTHER ENCYCLOPEDIAS THAT DO

Now I think the reason for this unencyclopedic tone (and so far nobody has shown me a encyclopedia that uses the word pseudoscience in regards to creationism) displayed by some and why some people are so rabid in their denunciations is they are unconfident about the evolutionary position and their atheism.

Sartre, the most famous professed atheist of the 20th century said he often had the thought that he was the result of a Creator. Sartre is reported saying in the February 1984 edition of Harper's magazine:

"As for me, I don’t see myself as so much dust that has appeared in the world but as a being that was expected, prefigured, called forth. In short, as a being that could, it seems, come only from a creator; and this idea of a creating hand that created me refers me back to God. Naturally this is not a clear, exact idea that I set in motion every time I think of myself. It contradicts many of my other ideas; but it is there, floating vaguely. And when I think of myself I often think rather in this way, for wont of being able to think otherwise." (quoted from: http://www.johnankerberg.org/Articles/apologetics/AP0702W4.htm ).

Francis Crick who is well known for being a advocate of materialism is perhaps another example.

I cite:

"Crick is also a fervent atheistic materialist, who propounds the particle story. In his autobiography, Crick says very candidly biologists must remind themselves daily that what they study was not created, it evolved; it was not designed, it evolved. Why do they have to remind themselves of that? Because otherwise, the facts which are staring them in the face and trying to get their attention might break through." (quoted from:Evolution and the Christian Faith by Phillip Johnson ).

(The citation above is referring to Francis Crick's book "What Mad Pursuit", p. 138 ).

Perhaps these are notable examples because if this is what goes on the most vocal proponents of atheism minds, it certainly raises questions in regards to the category of individuals who are less ardent advocates of atheism.

LIBERAL CHRISTIANITY IS NOT MEETING PEOPLES NEEDS OFTEN

Also, when one reads studies or reads books about liberal/conservative Christianity one quickly becomes aware that liberal churches are losing members and conservative churches are gaining members which will be shown subsequently. Perhaps, some people are upset about this matter and thus want to brand creationism as pseudoscience.

A LOOK AT HOW ATHEISM IS LOSING GROUND ON THE WORLD STAGE

Christianity is growing in former atheistic strongholds like the former Soviet Union and China.

Currently Christianity is growing very quickly in China. According to Christianity Today conservatively there are currently about 70 million Christians in China out of 1.3 billion Chinese (see: http://www.christiantoday.com/news/asip/96.htm ).

What the hell do liberal vs. conservative christianity and atheism have to do with the Creationism vs. evolution debate? Are you implying that an "atheist" is anyone who doesn't worship your own specifically chosen deity?207.157.121.50 07:29, 13 October 2005 (UTC)mightyafrowhitey

According to David Aikman, former Time magazine Beijing Bureau chief, President Jiang Zemen has identified Christianity as the secret of the West’s success, and he wants to bring such success to the Chinese people (see: http://www.christiantoday.com/news/asip/96.htm )

Mr. Aikman predicts as much as a 1/3 of the Chinese will convert to Christianity within the next generation ( http://www.christiantoday.com/news/asip/96.htm See The Future Christianity Growth In China . And course, the transformation of China into being a more Christian country may effect other nations in Asia and thus convert more professed atheist.

The world is obviously a far smaller place now and it seems as if the areas of the world that atheism has its greatest strength are in decline. For example, economics and political commentator Robert J. Samuelson wrote a very compelling article called "The End of Europe" where he argues that European influence in the world will decline (see: The End of Europe by Robert J. Samuelson at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/14/AR2005061401340.html ). In a increasingly global community of course, this is not good news for European atheism having a greater affect on the rest of the world. In fact, one could argue that this means atheism will have a lesser role to play in the world. In addition, conservative Christianity which is certainly evangelistic and asserting itself in the world public intellectual arena is growing in the USA and in the world especially in the non-West like in Asia and in Africa (For the growth of conservative Christianity in the US see the book "Exodus: Why Americans are Fleeing Liberal Churches for Conservative Christianity" by Dave Shiflett). Why is this important in relation to atheism? Generally speaking liberal theologians are more likely to embrace ideas which materialist embrace like macroevolutionary ideas. If Christians become more conservative theologically, this of course means that less Christians are likely to support ideas which materialist embrace in the public square if current trends continue. This could portend atheism having a lesser influence but such things are difficult to predict.

The growth of conservatism in religion perhaps means that atheism will likely have lesser influence in these areas and on the world stage. In fact, Penn State professor Philip Jenkins author of the Next Christendom: The Coming of Global Christianity has pointed out that Christians living in Africa, Latin America, and parts of Asia are far more conservative theologically than Christians who live in the West so one would expect they would likely be less likely to adopt or embrace ideas that materialist/atheist embrace like macroevolutionary ideas ( see: http://www.cbn.com/spirituallife/BibleStudyAndTheology/Perspectives/colson020722.asp ). Of course, in a world community this is important especially since areas like Asia are having more and more influence.

Of course, it is hard to predict how all of the above will play out in regards to atheism on the world stage. However, it would be very difficult to say that atheism of a materialist bent's future looks bright in regards to having a greater influence. In fact, it seems to be on the decline. What will likely replace it in our lifetime time will tell.

CREATIONISM IS GROWING IN THE WORLD

I cite the following from PBS:

c. 1980-1990: Global Spread of Creationism (Evolution Challenged)

Creationism spreads worldwide. A movement born in the U.S. -- and for many years exclusively American -- now has converts around the globe. Australia is a particular stronghold; one of the three largest centers for creation research lies in Queensland. And leaders of the creationist movement claim that five percent of the Australian population now believe that Earth is thousands, rather than billions, of years old. The movement also gains ground in New Zealand, Korea, Russia, and even among Muslims in Turkey and the Middle East.

TAKEN FROM: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/religion/revolution/1980.html

One can see that creationism is growing in Australia:

More than a quarter of Australians believe the Bible offers a more likely explanation of the origins of life than evolution, an opinion poll says.

More people - 43 per cent compared with 28 per cent - preferred science to religion, another 12 per cent were inclined towards a combination of both, while 17 per cent were undecided whether the earth was made in six days or billions of years.

The poll, by UMR research for Hawker Britton, found that women, older people, Liberal voters and Queenslanders were less inclined to believe in evolution. People from NSW, people living in the inner cities and those earning over $80,000 preferred evolution as an explanation of how we got here …

taken from: http://badanalysis.com/catallaxy/?p=352

That's really funny. Of COURSE liberal voters are going to be more prone to believing in creationism. In Australia, the Libs are the right wing, conservative party. They take the term "liberal" in the sense of "economic liberalism", you see. And QLD is "strine" for "red state".

But I DO wish you had a stronger argument for creationism than "a lot of other ppl believe in it". Vince In Milan 11:28, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

IN THE NON-WESTERN WORLD CREATIONISM/EVANGELICISM/FUNDAMENTALISM/THEOLOGICALLY CONSERVATIVE CHURCHES ARE OFTEN EXPLODING

As Penn State professor Philip Jenkins writes in The Next Christendom: The Coming of Global Christianity, predictions like Huntington’s betray an ignorance of the explosive growth of Christianity outside of the West.

For instance, in 1900, there were approximately 10 million Christians in Africa. By 2000, there were 360 million. By 2025, conservative estimates see that number rising to 633 million. Those same estimates put the number of Christians in Latin America in 2025 at 640 million and in Asia at 460 million.....

And these changes will be more than demographic. Jenkins points out that who he calls "Southern Christians" -- those living in Africa, Latin America, and parts of Asia -- are far more conservative, theologically and morally, than their counterparts in the West.

taken from: http://www.cbn.com/spirituallife/BibleStudyAndTheology/Perspectives/colson020722.asp

Thus creationism is growing around the world.

EXTERNAL LINKS

Decline of atheism links:

• The Twilight of Atheism, by Alister McGrath, Christianity Today, March 2005
• The rise and fall of atheism by Fred Hutchison
• Twilight of the godless by Alister McGrath
• The Unraveling of Scientific Materialism by Phillip E. Johnson
• The Godlessness that Failed by Michael Novak

FINAL NOTE

Now certainly popularity does not equal truthfulness. But perhaps athiests seeing atheism crumble around the world (and the apparent tenuousness of atheism in some of its adherents) and in the public square makes them want to brand creationism pseudosceince. Also, perhaps some liberal theological types are getting nervous due to their declining memberships and thus want to brand creationism pseudoscience

128.205.191.60 23:48, 26 July 2005 (UTC)kdbuffalo

90% of Christian college professors reject young earth creationism.[1] There is hardly a dichotomy between religion and atheism here. The truth is, there is overwhelming evidence to support old earth belief systems. That is why the more informed believe in it.[2]. Most of those who do not belive that the earth is 4.5 billion years old, have not even graduated from high school.[3] It is a fact that young earth "science" is psudoscience, because it does not practice the scientific method, nor is it respected by the scientific community. please stop trying to change the word science with newspeak. Your little essay is nothing more than a long winded fillabuster without substance. I think it's time for you to grow up.--130.191.17.38 20:49, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

In 1990 86% of Americans regarded themselves as adherents of Christianity. In 2001 76% of Americans regarded themselves as adherents of Christianity.[4]--146.244.137.147 23:28, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

The cut and paste entry above from 26 July 2005, which is over 1500 words long, is inappropriate in this discussion section. This is the place for analysis and debate over the form and content of the article, not for polemics about the subject in general. Do Wiki guidelines allow deletion of overlong tracts?Edison 18:19, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Characteristics of YEC

'If they do, or learn of, research which contradicts their belief, they swear to conclude that the research is erroneous' is removed for POV and because it is an unsubstantiated assertion (not to mention false; they do not swear conclusions). --agapetos_angel 06:57, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Exeptionally Hostile Article

This Article appears to me, as a YEC, to be an exceptionally hostile article for something that claims to have a neutral point of view. From start to finish, EVERY idea, ideal and assertion of YEC thought is criticized, even outside of the section on criticisms. YEC's best arguments are either unlisted, such as Dr. Russel Humphrey's work on starlight travel times, or are overly summarized so that they can be followed by an immediate critique, such as the mention of the Flood depositing the fossils. Additionally, every position of YECs is followed by a critique, and the critique section itself comprises over 25% of the articles space!

 Tom S.

134.152.161.35 17:49, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

This is only natural, given the extremely controversial and fringe nature of creation (pseudo)science, and especially YEC groups. Giving air to criticisms within the article is part of Wikipedia's policy regarding NPOV; their inclusion doesn't make the article hostile to YECs any more than the existence of the First Amendment makes the United States hostile to Christianity. Neocapitalist 22:16, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Cleaning up the Article

Specifically, the criticisms section. Seriously, folks, it reads like a bad high school writing exercise, where somebody writes a sentence, then passes it to the next person. In fact, let me demonstrate:

The methodology of Young Earth creationists has often been questioned. Critics assert that creation advocates do not critique their own ideas or follow the process of peer review. As a result, they say, creationists often perpetrate significant errors of fact but do not correct themselves when proven wrong. Creationists point to articles such as "Arguments we think creationists should NOT use" by Answers in Genesis as evidence of self-correction within creationist circles, as well as pointing out cases of strong discrimination against high-profile creationist scientists. Despite the serious disadvantage their institutional connections give them, most creationist scientists counter that they publish non-creationist scientific articles frequently. Moreover, many of them have published data with important creationist implications—but without explicit creationist conclusions, which would point out the significance of the data to the average non-creationist scientist. Critics argue that the fundamental precept itself, that of an inerrant Biblical account of Earth history, is deemed to be infallible and non-correctable. (As the article cited above says, "The primary authority for Answers in Genesis is the infallible Word of God, the Bible.")

Do you see how the two voices clash? I'm going to start editing the YEC sentences out of the criticism section, and the critics' sentences out of the YEC section. Neocapitalist 21:54, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

I've read through the YEC portion, and there doesn't seem to be much in the way of critical insertions to edit out. Neocapitalist 22:23, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Removed misleading and false statements from critics section. RossNixon 00:17, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Rossnixon: justify this.

Many historians, representing a wide range of religious convictions ranging from Christianity to atheism, point out that the historical basis of modern science depended on the assumption that the universe was made by a rational Creator.

I don't see any factual basis for this, and, given the fact the scientific method of rational inquiry depends on the assumption mankind can describe the universe without invoking supernatural deities, I'm not sure this should be in the article. Neocapitalist 15:21, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

The intellectual climate that gave rise to modern science was decisively shaped by Christianity. Not only were most of the founding fathers of science themselves devout Christians (including Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Newton, Boyle, and Pascal), but the Christian worldview provided a basis for modern science both to emerge and to flourish. Science was "stillborn" in other great civilizations outside Europe because of prevailing ideas that stifled scientific development, e.g., a cyclical approach to time, an astrological approach to the heavens, metaphysical views that either deified nature (animism) or denied it (idealism). Excerpted from http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/christianscience.shtml RossNixon 02:26, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, the rise of modern science coincided with the Renaissance, which marked the decline of the Church's influence over society -- if the Christian worldview was so important to scientific advancement, then why did scientific advancement lag throughout the aptly-termed Dark Ages? The more I consider it, the more I come to realize the only justification for that paragraph is a post-hoc argument. I'm deleting it. Neocapitalist 18:42, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

The Renaissance was a period of decline (Wikipedia article). Protestant religion (and Calvinism in particular), helped to stimulate the rise of both capitalism and modern science, not to mention nationalism -- the three greatest social movements of the 16th, 17th, and 18th centuries. It can be argued that progress in the sciences has actually slowed in the past 100 years (coinciding with the Christian decline), only lots of minor advances, no major new breakthroughs. Reverting. RossNixon 23:52, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Renaissance: The Renaissance was an influential cultural movement which brought about a period of scientific revolution and artistic transformation, at the dawn of modern European history. It marks the transitional period between the end of the Middle Ages and the start of the Modern Age. The Renaissance is usually considered to have begun in the 14th century in Italy and the 16th century in northern Europe. It is also known as "Rinascimento" (in Italian).

Scientific revolution? Doesn't look very much like a period of decline to me. Also, I'd love to see you address my point about science and the Dark Ages. Neocapitalist 22:08, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

In the Middle Ages, they accepted Aristotle as the ultimate authority. The Roman Church accepted this, and this was a time of little challenge of the authorities. Science was considered an aspect of philosophy, not observation. Some Oxford scholars in the 13th century pointed out some of Aristotle's mistakes. This encouraged scientists to make observations; e.g. Copernicus, Galileo and Brahe. RossNixon 10:51, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

A Return to the Problem

"Talk pages are also not strictly a forum to argue different points of view about controversial issues. They are a forum to discuss how different points of view should be included in the article so that the end result is neutral. Partisan debates do not align with the mission of Wikipedia, and get in the way of the job of writing an encyclopedia. (For an alternative forum, see the m:Wikibate proposal.) Arguing as a means of improving an article is considerably less effective than an equal amount of time engaged in research." - from Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines

On that note, there are multiple issues with this "Theology" section, and I'm not really sure how to fix them:

"There are also theologians who oppose the proposition that God can be a legitimate or viable subject for scientific experimentation, and reject a plain interpretation of the Bible. They propose there are statements in the creation week itself which render the historical interpretation of Genesis incompatible with known science.

One example is that God created the Earth and heavens, and light, on Day 1, plant life on Day 3, and the sun and moon on Day 4. One must ask where the light in Day 1 came from, and why there were plants in Day 3, if the sun, which provides all light to the Earth, did not even exist until Day 4. Young earth Creationists such as Basil the Great and John Calvin long ago answered this by suggesting that the light God created on Day 1 was the light source, and Answers in Genesis refined this by suggesting that the earth was already rotating with respect to this light.[5]

Another problem is the fact that distant galaxies can be seen. If the universe didn't exist until 10,000 years ago, then light from anything farther than 10,000 light-years would not have time to reach us. Creationists have answered that big bang proponents have a light-travel-time problem of their own,[6] and have proposed models to explain why we see distant starlight.[7] See creationist cosmologies for more information."

The second paragraph sounds like an essay, not an encyclopedia entry. I recommend simply removing it. The third paragraph doesn't really have anything to do with theological arguments. Do we need anything beyond the first paragraph of this section? Or is there more information regarding theological debate which can be added - with a NPOV - that would benefit the article?

Normally, I'd just remove the sections, but since there's this remarkable controversy on the issue, I thought I'd ask for opinions. StellarFury 21:15, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

The paragraph regarding the creation of light seems like just one persons poor interpretation of Genesis. Light was created on the first day, not "the light." The sun is one light out of millions in the universe; so how is this considered a "problem"? Also, if I strike a match, I have light, but I don't need the sun to get it. Creating plants before the Sun isn't a problem if you're working with 24 hour days. I don't know many plants that can't handle 24 hours of darkness for one brief moment.

But anyway, I definitely agree that it is a poorly written paragraph. Sounds like loose conjecture written by a Wikipedian without much to back it up. There are also other places in the article that take a statement by one Christian or one group of Christians as being the truth in general about Christianity. (For example: "While many mainstream scientists respect it as a faith position (misunderstanding the biblical meaning of faith as trust/loyalty based on evidence[8])")

Peyna 06:55, 15 October 2005 (UTC)