Talk:Creationism/Archive 20

Archive 15

←

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

→

Archive 25

Reference to Berlusconi

I have removed the text reporting Berlusconi's will to remove the theory of evolution from the curricula of public schools. It referenced an article (written in German!) which do not exist anymore: We put the clock back a 1000 years (German language). I live in Italy and do not remember such an incident.

My first thought was simply to use the "citation needed" template, but the Wikipedia page says it is better to removed unsupported references about living people.

Zio tom78 (talk) 07:39, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

The article is still available here on Wayback, so I've restored the material with updated citation. Next time, please tag broken citations with {{Citation broken}} rather than immediately deleting. The statement is only unverifiable, if the URL for the supporting citation cannot be updated in a timely manner. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 08:01, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

There are also many better sources available: Nature (limited access, though)[1], The Scientist (limited access) [2], Deutsche Welle (in English, free) [3], Science (short version free) [4], Embo [5]. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:46, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm more than happy to replace a Waybacked German-language cite with a solid English one. I'll put in the Deutsche Welle one (as it's directly available and as this issue isn't sufficiently controversial to require a bulletproof source). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 09:08, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Ooops, sorry for that mess. Zio tom78 (talk) 08:05, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Would distinguishing Disciplines & their Vocabularies clarify this Subject?

It was my impression that 'creationism' is being sold as a 'science' in some schools for children, which makes its definition very important. The fields of philosophy, mythology, religion, and science all have different vocabularies. It may be confusing to apply a term such as 'truth' from one to another (though scientists themselves commonly do just this). Truth in science is the acceptance of axioms (when cast as a deductive theory), but not especially a belief in them. What is true today is false tomorrow (with no existential 'Angst' attached to its passing). Creationism comes with a rigid belief in one's personal religious truth. This is characteristic of some sects of religions, but is never a characteristic of scientific truth. The four fields listed above are mutually compatible; and it my experience that belief, in addition to acceptance, and rigidity, rather than flexibility, are essential in distinguishing the current use of 'creationism' from 'science' (meanings always change). One need not be a creationist simply to reject Darwin's theory of natural selection, or any current theory of evolution. Geologist (talk) 00:55, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

"Additional references"

Why does this section exist? As far as I can see, all the references in that section are either a "regular" reference (in which case they can be deleted from "Additional references") or there is no sign in the article of them being used as a reference (in which case they can be moved to "Further reading"). Sjö (talk) 06:24, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I made the edit since no one objected.Sjö (talk) 17:35, 8 October 2008 (UTC)